Originally Posted by Mr teX
But what real need is there to eliminate the actual play for period? it doesn't happen often, but there are instances where PAT's aren't converted routinely. It effectively eliminates an opportunity (albeit a small one) for the opposition to effect the game in the long run. It just Doesn't make sense to me b/c the play itself doesn't take that long to complete & you're not gonna be saving a ton of time/breaks by eliminating it anyway.
You're assuming the bolded....& you're probably right for the most part. But obviously with some of the other options they & others have suggested in this thread, there seems to be an interest in eliminating a fairly routine play like a PAT & there's no real valid explanation for it.
My assumption on the first part is due in part to the fact that most teams kick pats vs attempting the two point conversion. The fact that the failure rate for kicking pats is higher than 0 but would then the +1 would go to zero suggest that the use of just taking a point would be higher if this change was made.
Getting rid of kicking pats would remove spots for commercial breaks and would save time if teams took the free extra point and moved on