Comments about ‘There is no point to football's extra point’

How would you be able to go for two points?

I too like the dynamic the extra point adds to the game. Perhaps if it weren't such a guarantee though then more teams would be inclined to go for two. It would definitely make things more interesting.

Easy said, but a lot of games at the high school and college level are determined by the PAT. Look at last night's Troy-Florida International game for example. Overtime and a missed Field Goal because an earlier PAT hit the upright. Leave it alone; it adds suspense to the game!

Dumb article. One extra point can be the differenct between a win and OT orbetween OT and a loss. They aren't automatic, we see misses every week. I would like to see a bunch of the other things changed but this one is legit.

One of your more ridiculous articles. It's almost as if you pay no attention to college and high school football. I have lain on the field after losing an overtime playoff game by one missed extra point, knowing that your hopes of a state championship are crushed. How many college games are decided by a missed extra point? And you think there is no significance to it?

With all due respect to the writer. Who care?

@ pressalvin | 7:43 a.m. Oct. 26, 2011

Your comment proves the point that everyone has an opinion.

This is one of Rock's BEST articles ever written.

How's that for an opinion?

ALL Rock's examples of ridiculous rules in sports are spot-on.

P.S. They ought to make the dunk shot count for just one point. It serves no purpose other than to showcase a player's gifted athleticism.

The dunk is no more interesting than watching someone in baggy shorts throwing a sack of garbage into a trash barrel.

And if it didn't exist, Shaq would have gotten in the game; rather, he would have become an offensive lineman.

The problem is not the PAT in and of itself, it's the fact that it has become so automatic. The PAT is very relevant and no sure thing at the high school level, why not make it so at the pro level? Move it back to the 20, or maybe you narrow the goal posts, make them just half as wide for PAT's and the standard width for field goals. You'd see a lot more going for the 2 pt conversion which overall makes the game more exciting.

Here are a couple other changes I'd like to see:

1. Limit the number of times a pitcher can throw over to first. Related to this, give the pitcher a clock on when he has to deliver the pitch. Speed up the game! Ever notice how long it takes Papelbon to deliver a pitch? I timed it and with runners on, it was over 45 seconds! League average with runners on is about 22-25 seconds.

2. Get rid of offsides in soccer. I would not condone cherry picking so once the team with the ball crosses midfield into the offensive half, no offsides. It would force defenses to cover more of the field, would open up more space and create more scoring chances which soccer badly needs.

3. Sticking to soccer, if you are injured and have to be helped off the field, you cannot come back for 10 or more minutes. That would force teams to either use up a valuable substitute or play with 10 men until the injured person can come back on. Enough with the fake injuries already!

I agree that at the professional level the PAT is not a relevant factor, and that may even go for the college level too. At the high school level it has a little more relevance. But rules at each level are not always the same. Take for instance overtime. In high school and college both teams have an opportunity for a posession. In the pros its the first team to score wins the game (although I think that rule should change too). So why can't the rules on extra points change at the pro level where the PAT has no relevance and remain the same for college and high school. Who knows eventually it may change across the board. I liked the article personally.

Totally agree Doug. It actually feels like the extra point was invented by the TV networks as an added reasons to stick around and watch ads. Totally useless. I feel the same about the off-side rule in Soccer. It slows down the game, is the source of tons of contention and missed calls and removes some dynamics from the game that could make it more exciting - higher scoring, "slam-dunk" style goals and a highlight for more athletic players - defenders and goal scorers.

re:Giantfan You can't limit the number of throws to first base. If you do, then once the pitcher has used up his allotment, the runner would be able to take a huge leadoff and steal second knowing he can't be picked off. There actually is a 20 second rule in-between pitches, its just not enforced.

only in American sports would we suggest that because a few have so mastered their particular skill that we then fire them---they are just too good?---since the hike from center is completed without mishap 99.9 percent of the time maybe we should just remove the center from the game also---

get real---games are won by a single point quite often and it is usually because of other combinations than a missed pat---

why don't we change the entire scoring of football---any touchdown from the red zone gets 6 but if out of the red zone then 7 or if from beyond 50 worth 8 unless it was a run play then worth 9---field goals should start at 2 from anywhere inside 25 yards but then add a point for each additional 5 yards; a fifty-yarder would be 8 points---and touchdowns on consecutive plays should make the first touchdown no good like horseshoes---

obviously rock will be around for a long time in this scenario because he certainly has not come close to the 99% firing button and from this example isn't likely to---

No extra point? BYU just lost to Washington in 2008. I am also thinking of a few short blocked/missed field goals, but that is the only significant extra point that I recall. BYU also failed to convert multiple 2 point conversions against SMU in 1980. I do think more teams should try for 2 points. It seems reasonable that an excellent team could be 70% successful on a 2 yard play.

alternate - clearly you care, or you would not have read the article and taken the time to comment on it.

I happen to like the point after in high school and college. It is not automatic at that level.

Making a dunk worth 1 point is a good idea. Can we make a missed dunk minus 1 point? (Sorry Jimmer)

Now for the most pointless thing I know of: Why is gasoline $3.59 and 9/10?
That 1/10 of a cent made a difference when gas was 14 cents a gallon or even 9 cents like is was when my 89 year old father was a kid. Buy 15 gallons at $3.59 & 9/10 and you save 1.5 cents over a $3.60 price. With the round off you only save 1 stinking penny.

I feel a bit dubious about sports writers taking the lead in making changes to a game. If something is really irrelevant, or in need of a change, it seems to me the drive to make that change will come from the coaches and players, or perhaps frustrated fans. This is the first time I have even heard of this being an issue. Perhaps if defenses schemed better to block more extra points, that would bring about a higher failure rate, and thus more two point attempts. I have heard the phrase, "I wonder if that missed extra point will become a factor later in the game", to believe that the extra point is irrelevant. It does give the defense one more opportunity to make a crucial difference in the outcome. This article sounds like a misfire to me.