Proposed 2015 NFL Rule Changes

[dalemurphy]

yeah ok dude... works in fantasy land maybe

coaches aren't looking at season long maybes, they want to win today

So, if the coach was told, do you want your team to score 420 points this year or 415 points, which would he choose?

Again, here is the point. Now that the risk reward table has been shifted from a 4-5% bias towards the extra point kick to a 2-4% bias towards the 2 point attempt, coaches will be forced to consider going for two much more frequently. If they do not, it will shrink their margins of victory, widen their margins of defeat, and likely negatively impact their winning percentage... Arbitrary coaching decisions that shrink a team's points scored per game without impacting time of posession or any other moving element of the game is a recipe for failure. Coaches will be forced away from that... Until then, the good coaches will take advantage of those unable to adapt.

I am not suggesting that a team should always go for 2 either... Instead, teams will need to thoughtfully analyze a number of variables and act on those variables in the 1st half, while also being nimble enough to adjust to the score as the game unfolds. For instance, a team expecting a high scoring contest against a team with a suspect defensive front may go for two after an opening drive TD... However, in the 3rd quarter, after sucessfully making all 3 two point conversions, they may lead the game 24-19... When scoring a TD to make it 30-19, the team might shift and decide to go for the higher percentage kick, knowing the importance of a 12 point lead vs. 11 point lead late in the game and relative unimportance of a 13 point lead vs. 12 point lead.

 

[infantrycak]

The perfection by some kickers in kicks between 30-39yards is a statistical anomaly due to small sample size. Sure a number of guys will be perfect in 10-15 attempts. However, mark my words, NOBODY will be perfect from 32 yards over the course of 40-60 attempts, which is one reason why i think the rate of success will drop from92% down to the upper 80%'s.

You don't get small sample size issues. They don't apply here. It isn't an individual kicker deal. Your reduction down is an inaccurate self-serving prediction. Yes an error rate of 8% will hit more people for a single instance with 5 times the attempts. That doesn't mean the 8% shifts. Who is irrelevant to the %.

 

[dalemurphy]

You don't get small sample size issues. They don't apply here. It isn't an individual kicker deal. Your reduction down is an inaccurate self-serving prediction. Yes an error rate of 8% will hit more people for a single instance with 5 times the attempts. That doesn't mean the 8% shifts. Who is irrelevant to the %.

I predicted that last years 90% accuracy rate for field goals between 30-39 yards, after adjusting the rate up to 92% to account for exclusively 32 yard attempts, would drop from 92% to 88-89%... I said the small sample size from those distances was a statistical anomaly that was one factor (of many) that will contribute to the 3-4% downward estimate. I am not sure where your 8% number came from... I am also not sure how you can know that my conclusions are wrong. Furthermore, what power do you posess that gave you insight into my motivations for my supposed miscalculation... It couldn't have been a honest mistake? No, you are confident it was self-serving. Interesting. I was not attempting deceit. Though i do admit that when I write a persuasive "paper", i do attempt to present a collection of evidence to support my thesis. Was that wrong? Should I not do that? I guess my middle school English teacher sent me down a dark path.

I entered this conversation titled, "proposed NFL rules changes" to read the thoughts of others regarding this rule change and to share my excitement for it and communicate the reasons for my excitement.

Why, however, do you so frequently jump into a thread pretending to be the moral authority and keeper of all truth and wisdom... Couldn't you simply assert you believed my analysis was flawed without assigning ill-motives? It grows tiring.

 

[Marshall]

I agree with this; a converted TD (automatic PAT) should be worth more than 2 FGs. I don't like a blocked PAT returned for 2 points. Say a team is losing by 2 FGs 6-0, ties it up with a TD; but the PAT is blocked & run back. The team that scored the TD should be ahead IMO.

Or...you can consider the run back a 2 point touchdown and feel better about it. It would be worth 6 on any regular play and just as likely.

 

[Playoffs]

During the past two seasons, according to Pro Football Focus, NFL place-kickers converted 97.6 percent of all kicks between 30-35 yards when lined up in the middle of the field. In 2014 season at 97.6 percent accuracy, we would have seen 1,200 of 1,230 extra points converted. Instead of eight misses, there would have been 30.

 

[infantrycak]

I predicted that last years 90% accuracy rate for field goals between 30-39 yards, after adjusting the rate up to 92% to account for exclusively 32 yard attempts, would drop from 92% to 88-89%... I said the small sample size from those distances was a statistical anomaly that was one factor (of many) that will contribute to the 3-4% downward estimate.

There is no statistical anomaly to the hundreds of 30-34 yd field goals that have been attempted over the past few seasons. You trying to take it down to 1 kicker in 1 season as 10-15 attempts is attempting to create a falsely small sample size. Might as well say only 1 per year while 1 of the 2 teams is wearing blue.

I am not sure where your 8% number came from...

100-92=8 last I checked.

I am also not sure how you can know that my conclusions are wrong.

I'm saying your claim of a small sample size is false and any estimated adjustment to compensate is false. Pretty simple.

Furthermore, what power do you posess that gave you insight into my motivations for my supposed miscalculation... It couldn't have been a honest mistake? No, you are confident it was self-serving. Interesting. I was not attempting deceit.

Your guess is not a miscalculation and I said nothing about deceit. But you are guessing on an artificial small sample size argument made up to support your overall point. It's kind of obvious - no special powers needed to perceive.

Why, however, do you so frequently jump into a thread pretending to be the moral authority and keeper of all truth and wisdom... Couldn't you simply assert you believed my analysis was flawed without assigning ill-motives? It grows tiring.

Lighten up Francis. You conveniently guessed to assist your argument. Folks do it all the time. It isn't an ill-motive but it is self-serving. No moral comment.

 

[dalemurphy]

During the past two seasons, according to Pro Football Focus, NFL place-kickers converted 97.6 percent of all kicks between 30-35 yards when lined up in the middle of the field. In 2014 season at 97.6 percent accuracy, we would have seen 1,200 of 1,230 extra points converted. Instead of eight misses, there would have been 30.

That is an interesting point- The ball will not be on a hashmark but will be in the middle of the field. Something that had not occurred to me.

 

[Speedy]

The PAT should be a dead play reward for a team scoring a TD. I don't give a crap how boring the play is. And why reward the defense for giving up a TD with an opportunity to score? Why don't we just quit keeping score and give everyone participation ribbons?

 

[Double Barrel]

The PAT should be a dead play reward for a team scoring a TD. I don't give a crap how boring the play is. And why reward the defense for giving up a TD with an opportunity to score? Why don't we just quit keeping score and give everyone participation ribbons?

Interesting point. I'd never thought of it that way.

 

[ObsiWan]

Yes, statistically a 47% chance at two points is a better value than an 89% chance at 1 point. How is that not clear? Over the course of 100 attempts at those rates

100 2pt tries = 94 points
100 1 pt tries= 89 points

Or looking at in possible game scenarios, if a team scored 4 TDs, it is statistically more likely that they would convert 2 out of 4 2 point conversions than converting 4 out of four one point kicks.

Let us imagine that scenario-
Team one scores 4 tds and religiously goes for 2 every time ( perhaps they even designate more practice time to this situation in order to increase efficiency)... However, they make 2 and dont convert on 2- total score is 28.

Team 2 scores 4 Tds and religiously goes for one every time... There is a greater statistical likelihood that one of those 4 kicks will be missed than the likelihood that team one will fail to convert 3 of their 4 attempts for 2. Assuming one of the four kicks is missed- total score is 27.

You assume that teams will devote extra practice snaps to "perfecting" their two-pt conversion offense. Why wouldn't they devote the same extra snaps to perfecting the longer XP considering statistics say the higher success rate is with the kick??

Another thing, if 40% success rate is right, and a team goes for it on all 50 of these theoretical TDs, that's 4 made for every ten attempts which, season long, equals 20 successes out of the 50 tries yielding 40 pts. If team B kicks for all 50 PATs at a 90% success rate (and I think it will be higher as this becomes routine) that is 45 pts over the course of the season with a reduced probability of the defense running a fumble or INT back for their own score. As I said before, the risk/reward payoff just isn't there.

 

[infantrycak]

The PAT should be a dead play reward for a team scoring a TD. I don't give a crap how boring the play is. And why reward the defense for giving up a TD with an opportunity to score?

Why reward a defense that allows a team within FG range with an opportunity to score? - a missed FG can be returned for a TD.

Why don't we just quit keeping score and give everyone participation ribbons?

How the hell do you connect those? The D has to pull off an exceptional play, as in entire seasons will go by without this happening a single time, in order to get points.

 

[ObsiWan]

During the past two seasons, according to Pro Football Focus, NFL place-kickers converted 97.6 percent of all kicks between 30-35 yards when lined up in the middle of the field. In 2014 season at 97.6 percent accuracy, we would have seen 1,200 of 1,230 extra points converted. Instead of eight misses, there would have been 30.

So, league-wide, that's a tad less than one miss per team for the whole 2014 season...?

 

[dalemurphy]

During the past two seasons, according to Pro Football Focus, NFL place-kickers converted 97.6 percent of all kicks between 30-35 yards when lined up in the middle of the field. In 2014 season at 97.6 percent accuracy, we would have seen 1,200 of 1,230 extra points converted. Instead of eight misses, there would have been 30.

The ball being placed in the middle of the filed is a variable I had not considered and it will certainly make a positive impact on the conversion rate. I do not believe it will translate to a 97.6% accuracy rate, however. That percentage is based on a very small sample as well- of approximately 90 attempts from that range between the hashmarks... This year, assuming the same ration of 1pt/2pt attempts, each NFL kicker will attempt 40 from that spot on the field. If the pro football focus numbers are representative, the average NFL kicker will make 39 of 40. (I simply can not imagine that will happen, but I don't have the statistical evidence to defend this belief)

I am just excited that the NFL has done something to make more plays more competitive and also add a strategic element to the game without disrupting the way football is played. I really don't understand the criticism that I most often hear- that this will lead to more injuries. I heard Jay Feely complain about it and say that offensive linemen will suffer more injuries because of increased effort at the snap on extra points. He is acknowledging that the extra point kick is regularly approached by teams with a lack of effort. As a fan, that is not what I want to watch. I am not willing to trade competitiveness and effort as a means to limit injuries. If I did, I would watch the Probowl!

Looking at 2 point attempts the past 4 years, here are some interesting observations:

1. The success rate for individual teams, and for the entire NFL, seems to go up in years where the attempts are up. It's a small sample, but here are the NFL numbers 2011-14:
* 23/50 in 2011 = 46%
* 28/59 in 2012 = 47.5%
* 27/59 in 2013 = 46%
* 33/69 in 2014 = 47.9%

More interesting is that the best offensive teams tend to convert at a much, much higher percentage than the worst offensive teams. In 2011, for example, the top 10 NFL offenses converted 16/22 (over 70%)... The rest of the NFL was 7/28 (25%)- The worst offenders were Tampa Bay, Oakland, Arizona (combined 2/11)

Last season, the Jets, Chiefs, Titans, Redskins, Browns (combined 0/10). The rest of the NFL was 27/49 (55% success rate).

The other trend of significance is illustrated by the following anomalies:
Chicago has converted 12 out of 13 2pt tries the past 4 years (92%)
St. Louis converted 9/11 attempts between 2012-14 (81%)

*Do they practice and game plan more for these situations? They lead in attempts and in conversation rate during the period. Can we extrapolate that offenses will convert a higher percentage of 2 pt conversions because they do it more often... and/or spend more time during the week in preparation for it? If that is true, then teams who begin utilizing the 2pt attempt as part of their weekly game plan will have a distinct advantage over the rest of the NFL until teams begin to contribute more practice time defensively to account for it. Over the course of 1 season, a top 10 scoring team (60 TDs), who traditional only attempted 1 2pt try per year could hypothetically attempt 30 2pt/ 30 1pt... Let's assume that their focus creates a proficiency that is one standard deviation from the norm (about 65%). Second, assume an NFL average of 95% success on extra points.

Team A (new philosophy) would total 67 extra points on 60 TDs, vs. 57 points on 60TDs that would represent an average kicker on a team that always kicked the 1 pt. That is 10 extra points, which is quite significant, particularly since Team A is not randomly selecting to go for 2 instead of 1, but it is making those decisions based on matchups, game situation, weather, score differential, and other factors.

I believe the rule change will force teams to look at these numbers and begin to change their models based on the risk /reward. Some teams will proactively do this over the summer. Others will be reactive after learning the hard way. I doubt these changes will alter how the 4th quarter decisions are made, but it should impact extra point decisions earlier in the game.

 

[Speedy]

Why reward a defense that allows a team within FG range with an opportunity to score? - a missed FG can be returned for a TD.

Because a FG is not a TD. The defense makes a stop. The kick is a change of possession. If the offense does get close enough to try for 3 then so be it. That's the reward for getting close enough. It's still not a guarantee, and it's still a change of possession which is why the defense can return it if it stays in play.

The PAT is the reward for putting the ball in the end zone. Good job, send your best free throw shooter out there to get the point chance that awaits. You want to take a risk and go for 2, fine, but that's going to be a little harder. Either way, the defense should have zero opportunity to score off of the offenses success.

 

[Playoffs]

Dear NFL: Kickers Will Not Be Stopped

Did you hear about the NFL’s incredible new rule? On a point-after try, a defense will be able to score a 1-point safety by stopping the attempting team in its own end zone. Oh, and the new rule also moved the line of scrimmage for an extra point to the 15-yard line, making it the equivalent of a 33-yard field goal attempt.

But indulge me for two seconds and let’s talk about this 1-point safety, a totally new thing in the NFL. Sure, it’s something that probably won’t come up very often – or, you know, ever. This new safety would occur if the offensive team fumbled the ball backwards, then the players kept knocking it backwards because of their gigantic butter-fingers until an offensive player finally recovered it in his own end zone (yes, on the other end of the field), where they were immediately tackled. (The offense can also score a 1-point safety, but that’s boring.) This opens up the tantalizing possibility of game scores traditionally reserved for baseball, soccer, or curling, like 6-1 (if the only points scored are a touchdown and a defensive point after safety) or 10-1 (if the only points scored are a touchdown, a defensive point-after safety, and two regular safeties).

OK, thanks. Back to the longer extra point: The theory is that the league wants to make the play more exciting by making it less “automatic,” and perhaps by encouraging teams to go for two points more often. They’re unlikely to be very successful on either count.

Kickers now convert extra points more than 99 percent of the time. That will almost certainly drop, but not by very much. It has been bandied about that kickers have made “only” 91.6 percent of attempts from this distance in the last 10 years. But 10 years is an eternity for kickers – they’re a whole lot better now than they were in 2005. As noted by Kevin Seifert, kickers have made 94.4 percent of field goals from this new distance over the last three years, and 96.7 percent last year. And that doesn’t account for the point-after kicks being slightly easier than their field goal counterparts: They’re never rushed for time, and they’re always taken from the center of the field (technically from wherever the kicker prefers). According to Pro Football Focus, kickers have made 97.6 percent of attempts taken from 30-35 yards from the dead-center of the field over the past three years.

When I wrote about kickers in January I developed an era-sensitive model for kickers that at least partially accounts for hash marks (and, if I may, is scary accurate). It’s slightly more conservative than that Pro Football Focus mark, but predicts that kickers would make 96.4 percent of 33-yard kicks next year, rising to about 98 percent over the next 10 years.

This isn’t the first time the NFL has been uncomfortable with how good kickers have gotten at their jobs. In 1974, the league moved the goal posts to the back of the end zone, effectively making XPs and other kicks 10 yards harder. Extra point success dropped from 98 percent the year before to 92.1 percent the year after. But it didn’t take long for kickers to recover:

From an excitement standpoint, it’s tough to see a significant difference between teams making their extra points 96-98 percent of the time rather than 99. Even if misses happen slightly more often, they’re still going to be infrequent enough that I’d guess they’re more likely to annoy fans after the fact than keep them in suspense beforehand.

And while this should marginally improve the math in favor of 2-point attempts, it’s not nearly dramatic enough to make going for two points the obviously better option. (It would have been if the NFL had also moved the line of scrimmage on 2-point attempts up to the 1-yard line, per the Eagles proposal.) Defenses will also be able to score two points on the play by returning a fumble, interception or blocked kick for a “touchdown,” as is the rule in college.

And coaches are already pretty irrational about going for two. They have been converted about 47.4 percent of the time over the past 10 years, which would be enough to make them roughly the equivalent of kicking extra points (from an expected-value perspective; though that number may be low because teams that make 2-point attempts tend to be slightly worse than average). At the very least, the expected value of going for it versus kicking is so close that the decision should be dominated by the tactical situation (such as how far ahead or behind they are, and whether they should be playing it safe or trying to gamble) and how good the teams are in short yardage situations. But coaches still basically only make the 2-point attempt when they’re required to.

If there is a big shift in favor of going for two, I think it’s more likely to be a result of coaches deciding the new rule gives them cover for it, rather than a large and fundamental shift in the math. And there’s precedent for this: The all-time high for successful 2-point attempts made was 59, set in 1994 – the year the play was first introduced.​

 

[Playoffs]

Field Yates ‏@FieldYates

49ers K Phil Dawson is the leader among active kickers with 100% accuracy on 32 or 33 yard FG since 2001: he's 28 of 28, per @ESPNStatsInfo.

Nathan Jahnke ‏@PFF_NateJahnke

4 of the 5 best seasons in NFL history in terms of FG accuracy have occurred the last 4 years, and that is despite more 50+ yard attempts

I wouldn't look at anything before 2011 in using historical data to predict extra point accuracy. Kickers have gotten a lot better recently

 

[dalemurphy]

You assume that teams will devote extra practice snaps to "perfecting" their two-pt conversion offense. Why wouldn't they devote the same extra snaps to perfecting the longer XP considering statistics say the higher success rate is with the kick??

Another thing, if 40% success rate is right, and a team goes for it on all 50 of these theoretical TDs, that's 4 made for every ten attempts which, season long, equals 20 successes out of the 50 tries yielding 40 pts. If team B kicks for all 50 PATs at a 90% success rate (and I think it will be higher as this becomes routine) that is 45 pts over the course of the season with a reduced probability of the defense running a fumble or INT back for their own score. As I said before, the risk/reward payoff just isn't there.

The success rate for 2pt conversions is 47%, not 40%. Also, consider that good offenses will succeed at a higher rate than bad offenses.

Teams can not expect to improve a kicker's accuracy by practicing it more. all the kicker does is work on kicking... Perhaps less practice time will be devoted to long distance FGs, but I doubt that will meaningfully improve the 32 yarders.

 

[ObsiWan]

The success rate for 2pt conversions is 47%, not 40%. Also, consider that good offenses will succeed at a higher rate than bad offenses.

Teams can not expect to improve a kicker's accuracy by practicing it more. all the kicker does is work on kicking... Perhaps less practice time will be devoted to long distance FGs, but I doubt that will meaningfully improve the 32 yarders.

Okay, I'll give you 47%.
IF you give me the 97.6% success rate Playoffs showed us for kicks between the 30-35 yd line, in the middle of the field. There is still no definitive advantage to going for two. In fact, I still think kicking puts you ahead of the game. And without taking the increase risk of a turnover.
Also, take into account that the more you go for two, the more opposing defenses understand your tendencies and can better prepare to stop you. On the other hand,teams have been kicking extra points and field goals FOREVER, yet the success rate remains very high.

But if it makes you feel better, Chip Kelly will probably do it.

 

[Marshall]

The ball being placed in the middle of the filed is a variable I had not considered and it will certainly make a positive impact on the conversion rate. I do not believe it will translate to a 97.6% accuracy rate, however. That percentage is based on a very small sample as well- of approximately 90 attempts from that range between the hashmarks... This year, assuming the same ration of 1pt/2pt attempts, each NFL kicker will attempt 40 from that spot on the field. If the pro football focus numbers are representative, the average NFL kicker will make 39 of 40. (I simply can not imagine that will happen, but I don't have the statistical evidence to defend this belief)

I am just excited that the NFL has done something to make more plays more competitive and also add a strategic element to the game without disrupting the way football is played. I really don't understand the criticism that I most often hear- that this will lead to more injuries. I heard Jay Feely complain about it and say that offensive linemen will suffer more injuries because of increased effort at the snap on extra points. He is acknowledging that the extra point kick is regularly approached by teams with a lack of effort. As a fan, that is not what I want to watch. I am not willing to trade competitiveness and effort as a means to limit injuries. If I did, I would watch the Probowl!

Looking at 2 point attempts the past 4 years, here are some interesting observations:

1. The success rate for individual teams, and for the entire NFL, seems to go up in years where the attempts are up. It's a small sample, but here are the NFL numbers 2011-14:
* 23/50 in 2011 = 46%
* 28/59 in 2012 = 47.5%
* 27/59 in 2013 = 46%
* 33/69 in 2014 = 47.9%

More interesting is that the best offensive teams tend to convert at a much, much higher percentage than the worst offensive teams. In 2011, for example, the top 10 NFL offenses converted 16/22 (over 70%)... The rest of the NFL was 7/28 (25%)- The worst offenders were Tampa Bay, Oakland, Arizona (combined 2/11)

Last season, the Jets, Chiefs, Titans, Redskins, Browns (combined 0/10). The rest of the NFL was 27/49 (55% success rate).

The other trend of significance is illustrated by the following anomalies:
Chicago has converted 12 out of 13 2pt tries the past 4 years (92%)
St. Louis converted 9/11 attempts between 2012-14 (81%)

*Do they practice and game plan more for these situations? They lead in attempts and in conversation rate during the period. Can we extrapolate that offenses will convert a higher percentage of 2 pt conversions because they do it more often... and/or spend more time during the week in preparation for it? If that is true, then teams who begin utilizing the 2pt attempt as part of their weekly game plan will have a distinct advantage over the rest of the NFL until teams begin to contribute more practice time defensively to account for it. Over the course of 1 season, a top 10 scoring team (60 TDs), who traditional only attempted 1 2pt try per year could hypothetically attempt 30 2pt/ 30 1pt... Let's assume that their focus creates a proficiency that is one standard deviation from the norm (about 65%). Second, assume an NFL average of 95% success on extra points.

Team A (new philosophy) would total 67 extra points on 60 TDs, vs. 57 points on 60TDs that would represent an average kicker on a team that always kicked the 1 pt. That is 10 extra points, which is quite significant, particularly since Team A is not randomly selecting to go for 2 instead of 1, but it is making those decisions based on matchups, game situation, weather, score differential, and other factors.

I believe the rule change will force teams to look at these numbers and begin to change their models based on the risk /reward. Some teams will proactively do this over the summer. Others will be reactive after learning the hard way. I doubt these changes will alter how the 4th quarter decisions are made, but it should impact extra point decisions earlier in the game.

 

[Marshall]

The game strategy will change with the situation as it always has. The difference is negligible enough that I expect different strategies by different coaches.

As far as FG centered being more makeable than those on the hash mark. I have a suspicion that the hash mark on the plant leg side is preferable. The Left side for right footed kickers and Right side for left footed kickers may be optimal since they relocated the hashes to the edges of the goal posts, eliminating the more acute angles. Like golf, sometimes the straight shot is more difficult than the slight draw or fade.

 

[dalemurphy]

Okay, I'll give you 47%.
IF you give me the 97.6% success rate Playoffs showed us for kicks between the 30-35 yd line, in the middle of the field. There is still no definitive advantage to going for two. In fact, I still think kicking puts you ahead of the game. And without taking the increase risk of a turnover.
Also, take into account that the more you go for two, the more opposing defenses understand your tendencies and can better prepare to stop you. On the other hand,teams have been kicking extra points and field goals FOREVER, yet the success rate remains very high.

But if it makes you feel better, Chip Kelly will probably do it.

The league-wide conversion rate is 47%. That includes the worst offenses in the league. An efficient offense could/should expect to convert > than 50% of the time. A kicker will never make 105% of his kicks. We will see how things play out, but I will be astounded if NFL kickers make 976 out of 1000 32 yard kicks this season... or any season. We shall see, though.

 

[Marshall]

Dear NFL: Kickers Will Not Be Stopped

Did you hear about the NFL’s incredible new rule? On a point-after try, a defense will be able to score a 1-point safety by stopping the attempting team in its own end zone. Oh, and the new rule also moved the line of scrimmage for an extra point to the 15-yard line, making it the equivalent of a 33-yard field goal attempt.

But indulge me for two seconds and let’s talk about this 1-point safety, a totally new thing in the NFL. Sure, it’s something that probably won’t come up very often – or, you know, ever. This new safety would occur if the offensive team fumbled the ball backwards, then the players kept knocking it backwards because of their gigantic butter-fingers until an offensive player finally recovered it in his own end zone (yes, on the other end of the field), where they were immediately tackled. (The offense can also score a 1-point safety, but that’s boring.) This opens up the tantalizing possibility of game scores traditionally reserved for baseball, soccer, or curling, like 6-1 (if the only points scored are a touchdown and a defensive point after safety) or 10-1 (if the only points scored are a touchdown, a defensive point-after safety, and two regular safeties).

OK, thanks. Back to the longer extra point: The theory is that the league wants to make the play more exciting by making it less “automatic,” and perhaps by encouraging teams to go for two points more often. They’re unlikely to be very successful on either count.

Kickers now convert extra points more than 99 percent of the time. That will almost certainly drop, but not by very much. It has been bandied about that kickers have made “only” 91.6 percent of attempts from this distance in the last 10 years. But 10 years is an eternity for kickers – they’re a whole lot better now than they were in 2005. As noted by Kevin Seifert, kickers have made 94.4 percent of field goals from this new distance over the last three years, and 96.7 percent last year. And that doesn’t account for the point-after kicks being slightly easier than their field goal counterparts: They’re never rushed for time, and they’re always taken from the center of the field (technically from wherever the kicker prefers). According to Pro Football Focus, kickers have made 97.6 percent of attempts taken from 30-35 yards from the dead-center of the field over the past three years.

When I wrote about kickers in January I developed an era-sensitive model for kickers that at least partially accounts for hash marks (and, if I may, is scary accurate). It’s slightly more conservative than that Pro Football Focus mark, but predicts that kickers would make 96.4 percent of 33-yard kicks next year, rising to about 98 percent over the next 10 years.

This isn’t the first time the NFL has been uncomfortable with how good kickers have gotten at their jobs. In 1974, the league moved the goal posts to the back of the end zone, effectively making XPs and other kicks 10 yards harder. Extra point success dropped from 98 percent the year before to 92.1 percent the year after. But it didn’t take long for kickers to recover:

From an excitement standpoint, it’s tough to see a significant difference between teams making their extra points 96-98 percent of the time rather than 99. Even if misses happen slightly more often, they’re still going to be infrequent enough that I’d guess they’re more likely to annoy fans after the fact than keep them in suspense beforehand.

And while this should marginally improve the math in favor of 2-point attempts, it’s not nearly dramatic enough to make going for two points the obviously better option. (It would have been if the NFL had also moved the line of scrimmage on 2-point attempts up to the 1-yard line, per the Eagles proposal.) Defenses will also be able to score two points on the play by returning a fumble, interception or blocked kick for a “touchdown,” as is the rule in college.

And coaches are already pretty irrational about going for two. They have been converted about 47.4 percent of the time over the past 10 years, which would be enough to make them roughly the equivalent of kicking extra points (from an expected-value perspective; though that number may be low because teams that make 2-point attempts tend to be slightly worse than average). At the very least, the expected value of going for it versus kicking is so close that the decision should be dominated by the tactical situation (such as how far ahead or behind they are, and whether they should be playing it safe or trying to gamble) and how good the teams are in short yardage situations. But coaches still basically only make the 2-point attempt when they’re required to.

If there is a big shift in favor of going for two, I think it’s more likely to be a result of coaches deciding the new rule gives them cover for it, rather than a large and fundamental shift in the math. And there’s precedent for this: The all-time high for successful 2-point attempts made was 59, set in 1994 – the year the play was first introduced.​

I would have expected a bigger spike in PATS made in 1972 and 1973 after they narrowed the hashes, but before they moved the "goal" post to the end zone in 1974. Perhaps the new angles, though easier, were a distraction or perhaps they were over confident.

 

[infantrycak]

The league-wide conversion rate is 47%. That includes the worst offenses in the league. An efficient offense could/should expect to convert > than 50% of the time. A kicker will never make 105% of his kicks.

And a team is never going to go for 2 100% of the time.

Here is where you need to get small and go down from on the season to in an individual game. 2 pts is still going to be a when needed play. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. Even for a team that makes them 80% of the time, in say a 2 TD game that only gives them a 2/3rds chance of making both such that there is an advantage in that game. For a team hovering near 50% it's a meager 1/4 chance.

 

[ChampionTexan]

The PAT should be a dead play reward for a team scoring a TD. I don't give a crap how boring the play is. And why reward the defense for giving up a TD with an opportunity to score? Why don't we just quit keeping score and give everyone participation ribbons?

Isn't the (almost) automatic awarding of a point more akin to not keeping score and giving participation ribbons than making them do a little more to earn that point?

 

[dalemurphy]

And a team is never going to go for 2 100% of the time.

Here is where you need to get small and go down from on the season to in an individual game. 2 pts is still going to be a when needed play. It just doesn't make sense otherwise. Even for a team that makes them 80% of the time, in say a 2 TD game that only gives them a 2/3rds chance of making both such that there is an advantage in that game. For a team hovering near 50% it's a meager 1/4 chance.

1/3 of the teams in the league each year average at least 3 TDs per game (48). As I illustrated earlier, the 2pt conversion rate of the top 10 offenses is much higher than 47% and the conversion rate of the bottom ten offenses is much lower than 47%. Taking that into account, if a team expects to score 3-4 TDs per game and expects to convert a 2-pt try at 60%, then there is a high probability they will convert 2 out of 3 2pt conversions. If my assumption is correct and the success rate on the kicks ends up in around 92% (and not the 96% suggested by Profootball Focus), then a top 10 scoring TD scoring team can expect to miss one extra point in 5 or 6 games...

It is going to be interesting to see how this develops.

 

[infantrycak]

1/3 of the teams in the league each year average at least 3 TDs per game (48). As I illustrated earlier, the 2pt conversion rate of the top 10 offenses is much higher than 47% and the conversion rate of the bottom ten offenses is much lower than 47%. Taking that into account, if a team expects to score 3-4 TDs per game and expects to convert a 2-pt try at 60%, then there is a high probability they will convert 2 out of 3 2pt conversions.

Funny how none of the very best teams in the league go for it all the time.

If my assumption is correct and the success rate on the kicks ends up in around 92% (and not the 96% suggested by Profootball Focus), then a top 10 scoring TD scoring team can expect to miss one extra point in 5 or 6 games...

It is going to be interesting to see how this develops.

So 1 missed point (on your assumptions) every 5 or 6 games is going to all the sudden turn the lights on to these stupid coaches who can't see the benefits of going for 2 all the time now.

 

[Malloy]

What bothers me the most about this rule change is that it kills the trick play.

Line up at the 2... you know what is coming, but before... anything could happen.

 

[Marshall]

What bothers me the most about this rule change is that it kills the trick play.

Line up at the 2... you know what is coming, but before... anything could happen.

What happens if a player drop kicks during an attempt at a 2 point conversion (from the 2)? It should still be worth 2 in my book.

Let's put the FOOT back in Football!

 

[dalemurphy]

Funny how none of the very best teams in the league go for it all the time.



So 1 missed point (on your assumptions) every 5 or 6 games is going to all the sudden turn the lights on to these stupid coaches who can't see the benefits of going for 2 all the time now.

1 missed point every 3 games. I said a missed kick in 5 or 6 games, not every 5th or 6th game.
When the 2pt play was introduced in 1994, there were approximately 130 attempts. The league averaged 100 attempts per season over the first 5 years. Now, the league averages just over 50. I believe the reason is that statistical analysis proved the 1pt kick to be the better option based on years of data... With this change, the NFL will explore it again. If the kick percentage drops 5%, it is going to justify an uptick in 2pt attempts. MFL teams look for the smallest sliver of competitive advantages. 5-6 missed extra point kicks each season will be enough to shift the tide for many teams.

 

[dalemurphy]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[infantrycak]

1 missed point every 3 games. I said a missed kick in 5 or 6 games, not every 5th or 6th game.
When the 2pt play was introduced in 1994, there were approximately 130 attempts. The league averaged 100 attempts per season over the first 5 years. Now, the league averages just over 50. I believe the reason is that statistical analysis proved the 1pt kick to be the better option based on years of data... With this change, the NFL will explore it again. If the kick percentage drops 5%, it is going to justify an uptick in 2pt attempts. MFL teams look for the smallest sliver of competitive advantages. 5-6 missed extra point kicks each season will be enough to shift the tide for many teams.

The average team gets around 36 TDs in a season. The high last year was 55. Link Either way there will be nowhere close to 5-6 missed extra points. For an average team you're looking at 1-2 and at the high end 2-3. That's if your pulled out of nowhere 5% extra misses is true.

You are making way more out of this kicking change than exists.

You are also failing to consider that the 2 pt attempt now has more jeopardy than it did.

 

[dalemurphy]

The average team gets around 36 TDs in a season. The high last year was 55. Link Either way there will be nowhere close to 5-6 missed extra points. For an average team you're looking at 1-2 and at the high end 2-3. That's if your pulled out of nowhere 5% extra misses is true.

You are making way more out of this kicking change than exists.

You are also failing to consider that the 2 pt attempt now has more jeopardy than it did.

Your numbers are way off! Last year there were two teams with 58 TDs. 18 teams had at least 40 TDs.

The top 10 scoring teams in 2014 averaged 52 TDs... The bottom 10 scoring teams averaged 30 TDs... I doubt that the teams who struggle to score TDs will be eager to go for two since they will likely struggle to convert. However, the teams that find the endzone often tend to have good offenses and are also effective in the red zone... Those teams, given enough opportunities, should convert 2pt attempts at a higher rate than the league average (47%). The philosophical change I am predicting will come primarily from these teams.

Let's look at the top 10 TD scoring teams. They scored a total of 519 TDs. Therefore, they attempted over 500 extra points (about 505). Factoring in the average extra point kicking conversion rate of 99.6%, 2 of those 10 teams had one missed kick the entire season (503/505). If moving the kick back 13 yards drops that rate from 99.6% to somewhere between 90-95% (which is what I believe will happen), then instead of 2 misses, there would be between 25-51 misses. On a per team basis, that would equate to 2.5 - 5 misses. Those misses won't be spread evenly. Two teams in that group scored 58 Tds and two teams scored 45. Also, some kickers will prove to be more consistent than others from that range. So, I believe there will be a couple high scoring teams who may miss 7 or 8 extra points next year (or be on pace before adjusting and going for 2 more frequently).

As a few of the teams angling for any competitive advantage they can find begin to deviate from standard operating procedure the rest of the NFL will also take notice and make adjustments based on the new information.

 

[infantrycak]

Cool you said it. I provided a link. Get back to me with the same and we can talk.

And OK 58 tds still has you screwed on your numbers. That's 2-3 not 5-6. You're whack.

It's cool. We'll see opening day when everyone goes for two because they are as smart as you.

And it's kind of cute watching you crab from nfl wide changes to 1 or 2 teams.

 

[ObsiWan]

Your numbers are way off! Last year there were two teams with 58 TDs. 18 teams had at least 40 TDs.

The top 10 scoring teams in 2014 averaged 52 TDs... The bottom 10 scoring teams averaged 30 TDs... I doubt that the teams who struggle to score TDs will be eager to go for two since they will likely struggle to convert. However, the teams that find the endzone often tend to have good offenses and are also effective in the red zone... Those teams, given enough opportunities, should convert 2pt attempts at a higher rate than the league average (47%). The philosophical change I am predicting will come primarily from these teams.

Let's look at the top 10 TD scoring teams. They scored a total of 519 TDs. Therefore, they attempted over 500 extra points (about 505). Factoring in the average extra point kicking conversion rate of 99.6%, 2 of those 10 teams had one missed kick the entire season (503/505). If moving the kick back 13 yards drops that rate from 99.6% to somewhere between 90-95% (which is what I believe will happen), then instead of 2 misses, there would be between 25-51 misses. On a per team basis, that would equate to 2.5 - 5 misses. Those misses won't be spread evenly. Two teams in that group scored 58 Tds and two teams scored 45. Also, some kickers will prove to be more consistent than others from that range. So, I believe there will be a couple high scoring teams who may miss 7 or 8 extra points next year (or be on pace before adjusting and going for 2 more frequently).

As a few of the teams angling for any competitive advantage they can find begin to deviate from standard operating procedure the rest of the NFL will also take notice and make adjustments based on the new information.

That kind of flies in the face of existing data. Playoffs (I think) already showed that success rate for kicks from 30-35 is 97+%. Why would it get statistically worse? Increase reps due to all those additional XP tries should result in better performance, not worse.

 

[dalemurphy]

That kind of flies in the face of existing data. Playoffs (I think) already showed that success rate for kicks from 30-35 is 97+%. Why would it get statistically worse? Increase reps due to all those additional XP tries should result in better performance, not worse.

He quoted Pro Football Focus, who looked at two years of kicks from that range, centered in the middle of the field. It isn't that I think kickers will get worse from that range, I just believe that is too small of a sample. The article made a great point and convinced me that my forecasts were off. After reading it, I altered my expectations of 88-92% to 91-95%.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

The PAT should be a dead play reward for a team scoring a TD. I don't give a crap how boring the play is. And why reward the defense for giving up a TD with an opportunity to score? Why don't we just quit keeping score and give everyone participation ribbons?

Maybe because there has been so much skewing of the rules towards the offense's favor.

 

[infantrycak]

He quoted Pro Football Focus, who looked at two years of kicks from that range, centered in the middle of the field. It isn't that I think kickers will get worse from that range, I just believe that is too small of a sample. The article made a great point and convinced me that my forecasts were off. After reading it, I altered my expectations of 88-92% to 91-95%.

When did a couple hundred kicks become "too small?" Take it back a few years more if you want.

 

[dalemurphy]

When did a couple hundred kicks become "too small?" Take it back a few years more if you want.

It isn't a couple hundred. It is a subset of a couple hundred. The 97% is based on a group of kicks from 30-35 yards, between the hashmarks.

 

[infantrycak]

It isn't a couple hundred. It is a subset of a couple hundred. The 97% is based on a group of kicks from 30-35 yards, between the hashmarks.

It's a subset of the 600ish kicks made from 30-39 yds in a two year time period. Knock it in half for 30-35 and you're at 300. Call it a third of that for between the hashmarks and you're at 100. The sample size is not too small. And as Obsi has pointed out, if anything kickers should get better at it, not worse.

 

[CloakNNNdagger]

Interesting.......and not unexpected.

CFL changes extra points, with an immediate impact

Posted by Michael David Smith on June 26, 2015, 1:03 PM EDT


Much like the NFL, the Canadian Football League changed its extra point rules this year. But the CFL made more radical changes, with an immediate impact when the league opened its season on Thursday night.


The first touchdown of the 2015 CFL season was scored by the Montreal Alouettes, and after that touchdown the Alouettes missed their extra point kick. A missed extra point was rare in the past in the CFL — 99.4 percent of extra points were successful last season — but this year the CFL has moved the line of scrimmage on extra point kicks back 20 yards, from the 12-yard line to the 32-yard line. Extra points are a lot harder now, and it showed right off the bat.


When the Ottawa Redblacks scored their first touchdown of the season against the Alouettes, they decided to go for two. The run was successful, which hadn’t been a common occurrence in the past: Last year, there were only seven successful two-point conversion attempts in the entire CFL season. But this year two-point conversions have been moved up two yards, from the 5-yard line to the 3-yard line.


The CFL decided to change extra points for the same reason the NFL did: Concerns that the play had become so easy as to be boring. But while the NFL only tweaked the rule, the CFL made a much more radical change, making extra point kicks significantly harder and two-point conversions significantly easier.


The NFL is surely keeping an eye on the way extra point changes in the CFL are being received. Through one game of the CFL season, those changes have made a big difference.

 

[Speedy]

Interesting.......and not unexpected.

I just don't understand. It's hard enough to score a freaking TD. Why is everyone so hell bent on making the PAT more difficult? It's really just getting stupid. Change for the sake of change.

 

[infantrycak]

I just don't understand. It's hard enough to score a freaking TD. Why is everyone so hell bent on making the PAT more difficult?

It's been stated a million times and the concept isn't hard at all - to make the extra point play interesting rather than a bathroom break.

 

[ObsiWan]

It's been stated a million times and the concept isn't hard at all - to make the extra point play interesting rather than a bathroom break.

Well, they will fail.
It's still gonna be a bathroom/frig-raid/see-what-else-is-on-the-other-station type break for me.

 

[infantrycak]

Well, they will fail.
It's still gonna be a bathroom/frig-raid/see-what-else-is-on-the-other-station type break for me.

It's immediately followed by a commercial break, kickoff, commercial break. I can wait 30 seconds to see what happens on a meaningful play.

 

[Double Barrel]

Well, they will fail.
It's still gonna be a bathroom/frig-raid/see-what-else-is-on-the-other-station type break for me.

Fail in making it more interesting? I think anything other than the seemingly automatic 1 point is going to make it more interesting. Now if you'll watch or not is a different subject, but when wins and losses of a given game comes down to missed extra point(s), I think they are headed in the right direction with regards to entertainment.

Besides, at the game halftime is piss break. Otherwise, pause the dern DVR any time you want when you need that break.

 

[Speedy]

It's been stated a million times and the concept isn't hard at all - to make the extra point play interesting rather than a bathroom break.

It's a non-timed play. It doesn't need to be interesting. But thanks for the million and 1st update though.

 

[infantrycak]

It's a non-timed play.

And that makes it better how? A boring play that can drag on is better than a speedy boring event?

It doesn't need to be interesting.

Not according to the NFL, CFL based on their impression of the wishes of their viewers, which I would say they judged accurately.

But bottom line you said there was no reason. There is.

 

[ObsiWan]

...and if anything of significance actually happens, it'll be replayed ad nauseum.
As I said before, proficiency in making the PAT from the 15 will rise and by mid-season PATs will go back to being a snoozer.

 

[Playoffs]

=

+

+

 

[welsh texan]

In Rugby they kick the conversion from any distance the kicker chooses in line with where the ball was touched down.

Obviously the wider the touchdown the further back they tend to go to narrow the angle.

I'd like to see a similar rule in place in the NFL, would add an extra skill-set to the place kicker position, and if you said the 2 pointer still goes from the centre no matter what, you'd see plenty more situations where teams choose the 2 point play.