Finally talking some sense down south ...

The NFL is looking at ways to improve the game and make it more exciting and getting rid of the boring stuff. I don't know if they changed the rules to improve the passing game in the last few years but the passing stats reflect it and the stats by Manning this year are incredible.
As one of the sportscasters said, "after a TD is scored you leave the room to get a beer or go to the bathroom. Who watches a convert?" If you no one watches it, get rid of it.
NFL ratings in Canada are higher than ever and the playoff ratings are the highest ever, the CFL needs to keep changing and improving and if it means copying the NFL then so be it.

[rhetorical] Please explain the change to kickoffs, which virtually eliminated an exciting part of the game, the kickoff return. [/rhetorical]

[rhetorical] Please explain the fair catch and the downed ball, which turn many punting plays into the most boring plays in football. [/rhetorical]

I don't think copying the NFL is a good idea. Not because I think all things NFL are bad, I don't believe that. But I do think that if the CFL copies it too much then that would only serve to accentuate the view that the CFL is a weak and inferior imitation of the NFL. If anything, the CFL needs to be more distinctive, in order to attract customers who find the game compelling.

The current rules are quite distinctive. Making them moreso would be a good thing, if done in moderation.

If there are ways of getting rid of boring things, and I agree that the convert is not exciting at all, then I'd be agreeable. But I would not do so by eliminating it. Instead, I'd just make success less certain. Moving the scrimmage line back to the 20 or 25 yard line might help.

If the NFL is looking for ways to get rid of boring things, maybe they should consider scrapping the touch back and the fair catch. To me, nothing is more boring than watching a bunch of players standing around the ball waiting for it to stop so they can touch it and end the play. But hey, it's their game, what they do with it is their business.

My personal opinion..... leave the game alone.... it's perfectly fine the way it is.

You want me to explain to you the changes in kick offs? And the punting plays and dead ball in the NFL? Why?

Yes they are boring, but we are NOT talking about them. We are talking about eliminating the convert!
Are you saying because they already have two other boring plays they shouldn't get rid of another boring play?

Actually, it was a poke at your statement that the NFL is trying to get rid of "the boring stuff". My first point was that they did exactly the opposite this year by moving the kickoff point. And my second was that there is a more boring play than the PAT - at least here are points at stake there - that they could get rid of.

But I agree that the PAT / convert are usually pretty boring, and both leagues could look at changes to make them more interesting. I'm just not sure that eliminating them, like they've almost done with kickoffs, is the right way to go.

And yes, I do know the reason for the change to the kickoff. Again, not sure that almost eliminating them was the best way to reduce injuries. Maybe they could have made other changes to reduce the chance of injury on each return rather than just reducing the number of returns.

Ugh. I'd prefer to just leave it be, but if we must, the only option is giving an automatic 7, plus option for 6+2.

Once you get into anything else you mess up the scoring system. Someone mentioned that field goals become more important because now 2 field goals = one TD w/o convert. I don't want field goals to become more important. I want a touchdown to be far more important than a field goal. I want the excitement of scoring a big one!
Plus if you increase a field goal's worth compared to a touchdown, now you have less reason to gamble, and now by taking out one boring play you've made the whole game more boring.
We've settled on the dynamics of how the scoring system balances in football, I doubt they're changing.

I don't like moving it back beyond the 5 (in either league) because then the two point convert becomes a ridiculous task.

I especially don't like the idea of starting from a different place to take a one-pointer vs a two. You're creating a new rule set just for this one play.
Are you allowed to fake/botch the kick and run it in for two?
Are you allowed to score one point from a drop kick taken from the two-point line?
What if the offense gets a penalty after the touchdown or during the convert? Now you're given the choice of a two pointer on the 20 or a 1 pointer from the 50? The penalty causes them to take their chances on a 2, they get it and the offense ended up with an extra point due to their own penalty.
Bleh!!! It'd be a huge mess and its not worth creating a second rule book over it.

Agreed. Football of all sorts needs to keep it simple. Rule changes that cause a plethora of other special cases unnecessarily complicate the game. Streamline the rules. The only alternative to the the status quo is an automatic 7 with the option of 6+2.

I just think making the two point convert mandatory would add excitement. Plus let's face it - the PAT has occasionally been tweaked. The CFL did not add the two point convert until sometime in the 70's and I think it was sometime after that they added the two points for returning a missed or blocked (or intercepted or fumbled) convert play all the way to the other end zone by the defending team.

And even the league itself tacitly admits it is an automatic - almost meaningless play - since they don't allow you to kick converts after overtime touchdowns - you must go for two. Why not just apply that rule to the rest of the game.

Want to make the convert more interesting? Go back to the original rugby rules from many years ago - the scoring team gets the points for the touchdown only if they make the convert. While it doesn't make the convert any more difficult, it sure does raise interest in the result. And it makes going for the extra point REALLY exciting.

Too much?

The reason PATs are normally routine is that the Defence does not attempt to block. Watch the reaction of the defence on just about any PAT and most guys just stand there. Sure a few jump with their arms up but it's basically window dressing.

Leave the game the way it is and leave the option open for some up and coming special teams coach to capitalize on a scenario where most of the players on the field have given up. The logical next step is for the players to actually remember that a PAT is a real football play and that the kick can be blocked or disrupted, thereby ensuring that it must be vigorously protected by the kicking team players. This just doesn't happen in modern football. A few good schemers out there to come up with nice kick blocking plays and the dynamic of the PAT does a 180.

Statistics are great for your argument but a 99.99% completion rate is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the state of the game. Successful PATs are easy when no-one is trying to stop you.

this makes no sense at all, what about the excitement of a possible fake and doing a 2 point conversion instead, leave it alone. :roll:

I totally agree with Rene and Rob on this one...Thanks Guys for stepping up for one of my Causes!

Great Quips with Mr. Mavis here...

They’re saying it’s an automatic play,? said Maver. “So if they start eliminating extra points, what’s next? Kneeldowns at the end of the game? The exchange between centre and quarterback?

Hits the nail right on the head there*****

&

"Maver’s checklist also includes the following points:

  • The extra point is a microcosm of the importance of execution in football

  • Eliminating the extra point means the disappearance of the strategy of going for the two-point convert late in the game

  • Faking a one-point convert and going for two will no longer be possible

  • The loss of the extra points at the grassroots would cost young kickers opportunities to develop and hone their technique and would ultimately lead to a decline in the quality of kickers at higher levels. “It would be a trickle-up effect,? said Maver

  • At the pro level, not having the opportunity to kick extra points would negatively affect field-goal accuracy. “Extra points are a lower-pressure live reps within the game. It’s a chance for the kicker to get his rhythm,? explains Maver.Supporters of the extra point suggest talk about eliminating the play is a dangerous precedent of unnecessary tinkering.

“If it starts here,? said Maver, “where does it end??

http://cfl.ca/article/paredes-maver-defend-the-convert

So it does n't sound like it is imminent - but ditching the PAT is something the CFL has looked at before and is continuing to review.

[url=http://www.thestar.com/sports/football/2014/01/22/cfl_also_looking_at_eliminating_the_convert.html]http://www.thestar.com/sports/football/ ... nvert.html[/url]
Maver’s checklist also includes the following points:
  • The extra point is a microcosm of the importance of execution in football

  • Eliminating the extra point means the disappearance of the strategy of going for the two-point convert late in the game


While they bemoan the disappearance of the two point play ... they completely ignore the increased tension of the new mandatory 2pt play - after every TD. A missed 2 pt convert by an offense puts even more pressure on the defense to stop the other teams 2 pt try. Each miss or success adding importance to the next 2 pt convert, and so on. The two point strategy becomes an entirely new layer to the game. A game inside a game. A battle which gets renewed after every major score. A way for a dominant team to choke the life out of its' opponent, or a strategic lifeline offered the scored on team to limit the damage.

Oh, and the two point convert requires "execution" as well. It is anther offensive play that requires great execution to succeed.

So while they choose to focus on how sad it would be to lose a play that is successful 99% of the time, they fail to even remotely consider the strategic, and competitive impact of the mandatory 2. Having a meaningful. important play -with huge scoring implications hanging in the balance after every TD makes the single PAT look exactly what it is - meaningless, menial, boring ... dumb.

* Faking a one-point convert and going for two will no longer be possible
Again, who cares about losing the fake ... that happens(if ever) only 1 or 2 times a game ... when it is replaced by a 2pt convert play - of major significance - for every TD that is scored. I mean, the guy gave about 3 examples of how a missed PAT factored into a game being won or lost - out of how many THOUSANDS ??!!
* The loss of the extra points at the grassroots would cost young kickers opportunities to develop and hone their technique and would ultimately lead to a decline in the quality of kickers at higher levels. “It would be a trickle-up effect,? said Maver
Pure speculation ... I fail to follow the logic. The kick is ridiculously easy - all the way down to the high school level. I am not buying how eliminating a ridiculously easy kick prevents them from improving their long range abilities.
* At the pro level, not having the opportunity to kick extra points would negatively affect field-goal accuracy. “Extra points are a lower-pressure live reps within the game. It’s a chance for the kicker to get his rhythm,? explains Maver.Supporters of the extra point suggest talk about eliminating the play is a dangerous precedent of unnecessary tinkering.
Even more speculation. Not only that , but I think it a bit of a stretch to say that the ridiculously easy PAT kick has any significant effect on the ability to make longer FG's ... that's what practice is for. There are times a team doesn't even make a PAT before the kicker has already attempted a FG or 2 or 3 !!
“If it starts here,? said Maver, “where does it end??
It ends at eliminating a completely perfunctory, boring, useless play.
“They’re saying it’s an automatic play,? said Maver. “So if they start eliminating extra points, what’s next? Kneeldowns at the end of the game? The exchange between centre and quarterback?

Hits the nail right on the head there*****


This hits nothing but a thumbnail with a ball peen hammer ... first of all, who would miss the game ending kneel down ?
But the facetious add in of the center/QB exchange actually undermines his earlier point about 'execution', and by lumping in the very skill that begins every single play of the game with the insignificant single PAT - is sheer stupidity.

The truth of the matter is, the guy is a kicker, and he takes it personal. The fact of the matter is though ... by eliminating the single PAT, and replacing it with a mandatory 2pt ... the kicker becomes increasingly important. The 3 point FG's importance becomes magnified as it becomes an important scoring play when trying to make up the deficit of a missed 2 pt conversion.

I can not stress it enough - the strategic implications, and the increased tension created by mandatory 2 points after every TD are immense !! The extra drama added after every TD would far out weigh any of the weak, speculative arguments offered by this Maver guy.

I am in COMPLETE agreement with you Flying_A. Very well explained - much better than I ever could. In fact I would say 'You hit the nail on the head' multiple times! :stuck_out_tongue:

You guys obviously have been there, and you know what it takes mentally and physically to execute any sequence of plays in a game of football 100% of the time!

Thats Cool! Congratulations, I didnt think that was possible in football! 8)

Who do you guys know that Rob and Rene don't know about the game (even just special teams), I would love for you to share some of this information with me! :smiley:

Don't know why you are making this personal K/P ... I'm just stating a case for the elimination of a play that I, personally, have no use for.

I have tried, in numerous ways, to illustrate just how great of an impact a mandatory 2 point convert would have on the game of football. I have tried to make a case for a play that I believe would add an immeasurable amount of excitement, and add another dimension of strategy, and tactics.

I have simply tried to show the benefits - from the perspective of a fan - of the elimination of a play that has a success rate of over 99%.

Not taking anything away from "Rob and Rene" ... but football is hardly rocket science. Between playing it to a university level, and watching it for decades - I am fairly confident in my knowledge of the game.

If you want to attempt to refute my arguments - go ahead ... but passive aggressive attempts at insult do nothing to advance the debate.

Well K/P - I didn’t know I had to be Involved with special teams to be able to have an opinion on ways to improve and make the game more interesting and exciting. So no I’ve not been where those guys have been.

I can tell you where I have been though - hundreds of times each football season as a matter of fact - dating back to the early 70’s when I first became a huge football fan. I’ve been in the kitchen, the washroom. flipping through magazines or newspapers on the coffee table in front of me or heading down to the concession stand for a beer - and admittedly every once in a while still paying attention to what is happening on TV because I’m waiting for a replay.

Oh - I guess I should clarify. That was a description of what you would find me doing the hundreds of times a PAT was happening - and the replay I was waiting for was for that of the touchdown just scored. Now if they made the two point convert mandatory you would not find me in the washroom, in the kitchen, flipping through a newspaper - you would find me glued to the TV screen or still in my stadium seat in anticipation of a critical two point attempt. And I don’t think I’m alone in that sentiment.