Banning PATs

[Leroy Lizard]

I mentioned this in another thread, and no one acknowledged my greatness.

What do you think of the idea of banning PATs and making teams go for two?

1. Ties would become almost unheard of
2. Every play would be exciting.

Should the play count for one point or two?

Any negatives?

[DallasSooner87]

I don't think making them go for two is the best idea. That turns one of the easiest acts in football into one of the hardest. However, I do agree they are too easy. I have heard people say move the line of scrimmage from the 2 to the 10 or 15 yard line. Then it doesn't become as automatic for all kickers. Just my 2 cents.

[KingBarry]

You gave two points in favor of banning PATs --

First, you said ties would become almost unheard of. This was important 15 years ago. In today's college football, ties are already almost unheard of. In fact, I think they may be unheard of.

Second, you said "every play would be exciting." The point of the PAT is not to be exciting, it is to be almost automatic, right? Getting the kick the PAT is supposed to be a reward for scoring the touchdown, or that's how I understand it.

If getting the PAT is not automatic, then it is not a reward, and therefor there doesn't seem to be a point to the 2PAT you are arguing for.

If you think PATs are so boring, why not just as well get rid of the PAT altogether, and just give 6 pts for a TD (like in the old days), or just give 7 pts for a TD, or whatever.

I know this sounds more negative than I really feel about your idea, but I just don't see much reason to mess with the PAT.

[DallasSooner87]

You gave two points in favor of banning PATs --

First, you said ties would become almost unheard of. This was important 15 years ago. In today's college football, ties are already almost unheard of. In fact, I think they may be unheard of.

Second, you said "every play would be exciting." The point of the PAT is not to be exciting, it is to be almost automatic, right? Getting the kick the PAT is supposed to be a reward for scoring the touchdown, or that's how I understand it.

If getting the PAT is not automatic, then it is not a reward, and therefor there doesn't seem to be a point to the 2PAT you are arguing for.

If you think PATs are so boring, why not just as well get rid of the PAT altogether, and just give 6 pts for a TD (like in the old days), or just give 7 pts for a TD, or whatever.

I know this sounds more negative than I really feel about your idea, but I just don't see much reason to mess with the PAT.

I agree with this more than anything. If it aint broke don't fix it. On the other hand I was watching a game (can't remember if it was pro or college) where the announcer said kickers made 98% of PATs. If anything I think we should push them back make kickers actually work for them.

[sooner2b09]

I wouldn't want to get rid of them, because after you score a touchdown your pumped then you go for 2 and don't get it. I feel like it takes away some of the momentum

[fadada1]

if we banned scoring osu might have a chance at winning a championship.

[snp]

I'm sure a rough season of PAT kicking has been a contributing factor for my dislike but I've had enough. Let's go for 2 after every TD or make a TD count as 7 points.

Here's a great article on place kicking at the NFL level:

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1148271/index.htm



The average NFL kicker today goes 6 feet, 204...While four of the 37 kickers currently on active rosters were born abroad, one of them is Canadian, which doesn't count, and the other three went to high school in the U.S. With an average salary of about $1.2 million, placekickers aren't even the lowest-paid NFL players anymore.


The conversion rate has increased in each of the last six years, to a record 82.8% in 2007. This season, kickers have made an astounding 85.4% of field goals through (11/10/2008)


There's so little risk in the PAT—kickers are 588 for 590 this season (11/10/2008)

[SicEmBaylor]

This idea -- it's horrible.

[Curly Bill]

This idea -- it's horrible.

Yes it is, messing with PATs seems to me like an idea to mess with the game for nothing more then the sake of...well, messing with the game.

[Boomer38Sooner]

I think that if that really happened than there would be a greater chance of injury. But i do agree with moving it back to like the 10 yard line or something

[CrimsonJim]

I think Jimmy Stevens proved that there is still plenty of 'excitement' in kicking PATs. I don't think my heart could stand much more than that.

[Breadburner]

Yup...It's stupid...

[fadada1]

This idea -- it's horrible.

says the guy whose team needs all the points they can get.
;)

[Josh Eisenteith]

I mentioned this in another thread, and no one acknowledged my greatness.

What do you think of the idea of banning PATs and making teams go for two?

1. Ties would become almost unheard of
2. Every play would be exciting.

Should the play count for one point or two?

Any negatives?

Keep the PAT, it's tradition and shouldn't be messed with. HOWEVER, I'm all for a 70 yard field goal = instant 15 points. :P

[Crucifax Autumn]

This idea is stupid. The rule already applies that way late in OT and that's as far as it needs to go.

[tigepilot]

I mentioned this in another thread, and no one acknowledged my greatness.

What do you think of the idea of banning PATs and making teams go for two?

1. Ties would become almost unheard of
2. Every play would be exciting.

Should the play count for one point or two?

Any negatives?

You really ought to go and read about the history of the PAT so you know why it's there before you go and say we should get rid of it. You may come appreciate it for it's historical significance.

Here's a start:

http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/football/try.txt

[Leroy Lizard]

The writer in the linked column is not arguing against substituting two-point conversions for PATs; he is arguing against omitting both. In fact, he is no fan of the PAT, calling it unaesthetic to the play of the game and contributing to fluke results. Did you read the entire article?

We all know the PAT has been around forever, and I'm all for tradition. So far, that is probably the only reasonable response so far. But are you in favor of allowing the defensive team to score? If so, that isn't very traditional.


Getting the kick the PAT is supposed to be a reward for scoring the touchdown, or that's how I understand it.

I guess the PAT is like a bowl game. A team gets an invitation to walk out and kick a PAT as a reward for scoring. "Never mind the six points. We want to kick the PAT!"

[Leroy Lizard]

This idea is stupid. The rule already applies that way late in OT and that's as far as it needs to go.

And has it hurt the game any?

Other than the fact that I suggested it, what worries you if we get rid of the PAT. What bad things would happen to college football?


I have heard people say move the line of scrimmage from the 2 to the 10 or 15 yard line.

That would remove the 2-point conversion and fake PAT from almost never being attempted. No more surprises or suspense.


I think that if that really happened than there would be a greater chance of injury.

And OT doesn't?

[DallasSooner87]

That would remove the 2-point conversion and fake PAT from almost never being attempted. No more surprises or suspense.


I meant move it back on pat attempts only. You want to go for two give them the two hardest yards in football. And be honest with your self when was the last time you ever saw a fake PAT.

[SicEmBaylor]

I meant move it back on pat attempts only. You want to go for two give them the two hardest yards in football. And be honest with your self when was the last time you ever saw a fake PAT.

I may be wrong but it seems as if we may have gone for a fake PAT once since I've been at Baylor. Although I may have just been drunk and playing Xbox.

[badger]

I'm Republican, but this idea makes as much sense as Bush saying when he took office "The country has too much money and prosperity. Let's cut taxes to eliminate the surpluses!"

Football is so wonderful. Why are we trying to mess with football? :(

You make baby Teebus cry.

[tigepilot]

The writer in the linked column is not arguing against substituting two-point conversions for PATs; he is arguing against omitting both. In fact, he is no fan of the PAT, calling it unaesthetic to the play of the game and contributing to fluke results. Did you read the entire article?

We all know the PAT has been around forever, and I'm all for tradition. So far, that is probably the only reasonable response so far. But are you in favor of allowing the defensive team to score? If so, that isn't very traditional.



I guess the PAT is like a bowl game. A team gets an invitation to walk out and kick a PAT as a reward for scoring. "Never mind the six points. We want to kick the PAT!"

He does ackknowledge that the getting rid of it wouldn't happen though and suggests someother options if you think the PAT is just too insignificant.

Count me as one you don't think anything needs to change. And if it did, I'd rather it be rolled back to something like it used to be rather than taking it away from the game entirely.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

I am for getting rid of the kicking game entirely. Oh course you'd have to change the name of the sport... manball?










I already play that.
















Sorry.

[birddog]

even more exciting than banning pat's is moving the ball back 10 yards on pat's.

right now they are almost an afterthought, but if you moved it back 10 yards, they'd be harder to make and more fun to watch.

[Leroy Lizard]

I think the decision on whether to go for two is one of the great strategies of football.

So maybe we should keep the PAT after all. Not for any of the reasons you knuckleheads offered, of course.

[Bradford's Pinky]

How about changing PATs and introducing a wrinkle into TDs at the same time? How about like in the game of Rugby, the extra point is kicked from any distance but the ball is placed parallel to the point where the touchdown was scored. that would creat the incentive for a team to score in the middle of the end zone rather than in the corner, as scoring in the corner would mean a more difficult and lenghty PAT attempt.... just sayin'

[Leroy Lizard]

How about: The PAT is kicked from the spot of the previous play.

So if you throw a long bomb for 60 yards, you're kicking the PAT from your own 40.

Wait, that would suck.

[Crucifax Autumn]

How about they leave it alone and concentrate on important stuff like re-naming the game teb0w-ball?

[tigepilot]

Or how 'bout just concentrate on NOT making any rules that reduce the amount of football we get to see!!!