RIP PAT?

By making there be little downside to going for two. Maybe if they keep the minus-1 thing, but that just makes the game needlessly confusing.
Is it too much to ask that Roger Goodell gets hit by a bus?

 

Which was accumulated on every single snap Duerson and others played.

And that's helped by making sure that, once a player has a concussion, get him out of there and don't let him return for any game until a doctor clears him, no matter how valuable the guy might be.

And that's what wasn't done in the past when there is strong evidence the NFL knew it should have been. And that's the real safety issue Goodell wants to go away, so let's just make a PR move that says "just one less snap a player has been on field means we've done something."

 

Yeah, I think if you get rid of the PAT and include the two-point conversion, you have to do the minus-1 thing.

And, yes, needlessly confusing, without a doubt.

 

Actually, as much as I do NOT want to lose the PAT, that's the one part that intrigues me about the idea ... the decisions needed at that point would become a little more complex, wouldn't they?

Maybe I'm not looking at it right. I don't know.

 

How so?

 

The "rhythm" of football falls way, way, way below the importance of TV ads in the NFL hierarchy.

If requiring teams to go for 2 after every TD means an additional 30 second timeout allowing a commercial teams to draw up the play, we'll see it next season.

TV timeouts immediately after turnovers affect the rhythm of the game quite a bit, but you often see them ... especially in prime time or playoff games.

 

If a team scores to get within 7-6, a two-point conversion gives you an 8-7 win or a 7-6 loss.

If a team scores to get within 7-6, an 8-point TD gives you an 8-7 win. A 6-point TD gives you a 7-6 loss.

Sorry. Just had to figure that out in my feeble mind.

 

There wouldn't be any decision to make, though. You'd either get six points or eight, right?

I took the proposal to mean it was going to be seven points or eight. I don't think it's ever going to be only six.

 

It would be six if you missed the two-point conversion, right?

 

Thank you. I knew something still wasn't sinking in with that.

I guess what I'm asking is: What about that is NOT just a paper move, playing with the same numbers in a different way?

 

Oh, so you could either just take the seven or go for eight, but if you go for eight you could get left with only six. I get it now, but I don't see that as being any different than the current setup, a side from the 0.4 percent chance you'll miss the kick. There's no new strategic decision being introduced.

 

We're talking about a group of people (football coaches and players), collectively, who need a chart to figure out when to go for two on normal occasions; routinely screw up clock management; don't know half the time what's reviewable by replay and what isn't; and who don't know there's only one overtime period in a regular-season game.
Now you're asking Andy Reid to do math on the spur of the moment? Can you imagine Tom Coughlin's level of ape-shittedness when he screws up the math, misses on a two-point try, and costs himself a win? Or the stupid, vacuous look on Jim Caldwell's face when he does the same thing?
While there is potential for high comedy here, it's needless meddling for the sake of meddling.