NFL PAT Discussion

The NFL's seemingly continuous mission to take Special Teams out of the game of professional football continues this offseason with discussion about modifying or eliminating entirely the extra point. I am not a traditionalist in that if something doesn't make sense or there is a sensible change to make, that it shouldn't be made because of "tradition". This, however, is not one of those items. Roger Goodell essentially asserts that the point after kick is boring and almost an automatic. I've seen numerous ideas floated, both from the league and from fans, on what changes should be made to the kicking game.

1. Eliminate the PAT and make touchdowns worth seven points, but a point is lost if a two point conversion is failed.
2. Move back the PAT spot of the kick
3. If the kicking game is to be made more exciting, make longer field goals worth more points.

So what are my thoughts on this? Well, I think the argument that eliminating the extra point because it is nearly automatic, and that the NFL is always looking for ways to make the game "more exciting", is ridiculous. First of all, nearly automatic is not automatic; the fact of the matter is that a handful of PATs are missed every year. Is it enough to matter? Well, it depends on what "matter" means. Statistically speaking, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of a successful attempt, so the majority of the time the result might be wholly unexciting. But what happens in that one in a hundred attempt where it is missed? To me, the excitement of a blocked PAT or a muffed snap that results in a failed attempt is tremendously exciting. So you mean to tell me that making a touchdown worth seven points and removing the roughly one percent chance of an exciting play adds excitement to the game? Let's see a 99% chance of being boring or a 100% chance of being boring, which one is worse? Just imagine a game being decided on a PAT. Imagine a holder pulls a Tony Romo and flubs the snap in a big moment. Can you picture the excitement/furor in a stadium were that to happen? Oh wait, you don't have to use your imagination:

No, this wasn't a PAT, it was a field goal, but it was attempted from the same spot as a PAT, and it had the same impact. Now, tell me Mr. Goodell, how is eliminating the PAT making the game more exciting?

As for several of the other ideas, I will first dismiss the fantasy football driven "longer field goals worth more points" idea as asinine. It works in fantasy football because a kicker's merits are a kicker's merits. In an actual game, it is a team sport and a long field goal, while impressive from a kicker's perspective, rewards an offense for being unable to move the football. One offense moves the ball from their own 20 to the opposing one yard line, then gets stopped and kicks a field goal for three points. They moved the ball 79 yards. Another offense moves the ball from their own 20 to the opponent's 36 yard line and kick a 53 yard field goal for five points. They moved the ball 44 yards, 35 fewer than the other team, and they get two more points? Absurd. As for moving back the PAT, does that mean you also move back the two point conversion attempt? If so, all you are doing is further discouraging the two point conversion, a play I am sure the NFL deems more "exciting". So how is making this play less frequent making the game more exciting? It isn't. It also makes a point after attempt more difficult than a short field goal. If that seems counterintuitive, it's because it is. It really leads to one thing, which is addressed next.

The guy I come out liking the most in all this is Justin Tucker, the kicker for the Baltimore Ravens. He calls it like it is; the NFL is phasing out kickers. He points out the double standards in their reasoning. The NFL wants the game to be more exciting, yet they move the kickoff up five yards. Kick returns are one of the most exciting plays in the NFL, and by increasing the number of touchbacks, they just reduced the number of exciting plays. The rationale behind it is player safety, which may hold some merit. What if longer kicks are more likely to result in injuries because there is more effort made to block it? Is the comparison valid? Well, I'd say the reduced risk of injury on kickoffs is quite a bit greater than the reduced risk of injury on kicks from these two examples, but it does highlight that the NFL does have its own agenda here. Perhaps Tucker's best quote is, “I don’t think it’s necessary to change the game every couple of years to make it more exciting. It’s plenty exciting. If you want it to be more exciting, TV timeouts could be a little shorter and we could actually play some football.” So NFL, how do you like them apples? 

What do you all think: should the NFL phase out the PAT?