NFL moves PAT to 15y line

[stillwright]

The miss rate was 1/200. If by "fine" you mean "meaningless and boring", I agree with you.

So what do they think the new miss rate will be? 5/200...10/200....20/200? guess what? Still meaningless and boring. They should of moved it to the one and did what Tomlin suggested if they wanted more action. Other wise I would of left it alone.

 

[Stryker]

No, the problem is having 2 sets of rules for one play after a TD. Complicating the game has never made the game better. Remember when the referees used to judge whether or not a receiver would have come down in bounds if he wasn't pushed? Utter horseshit. Simplify the rules, and now defenders have an advantage on the sidelines. Tuck rule is gone, rules simplified.

Penalties will **** this rule. Mark my words. No one wants to see a longer field goal. It's not more exciting, it doesn't lend itself to trickery. Move the XP to the 1 yd line. Now that would be simplifying the rules.

 

[Troglodyte]

So what do they think the new miss rate will be? 5/200...10/200....20/200? guess what? Still meaningless and boring. They should of moved it to the one and did what Tomlin suggested if they wanted more action. Other wise I would of left it alone.

No, a virtual certainty is not the same as a high probability. That's what you are arguing.

The extra point will always be boring for much of the game, but it won't take fans long before they're not taking them for granted in critical situations.

Fans don't walk away from a 1st and goal at the one assuming a certain TD. Soon they won't walk away from an extra point from the 10.

I don't think moving it to the one would have changed much as I don't think it improves the 2 point success rate much.

 

[deljzc]

The game would be stupid if we started counting touchdowns in 6's and 8's.

That's NOT the way the game was designed. There is a very important mathematical relationship between 7 points for a TD and 3 points for a FG. That extra point that makes a TD worth more than 2 FG's is a VITAL part of the strategy of football and has been for 50+ years.

The 2-point conversion was not meant to be added to the game to replace the XP. The 2-point conversion was a very late added piece to make end-of-game situations a little more exciting for the fans. It's meant to be a statistically worse attempt only used when you HAVE to try and catch up and when time is against you.

I think it would be terrible for the NFL to get rid of the point relationship between a TD and FG of 7:3.

Part of the major problem in the NBA right now is their point relationship between a 3-pointer a 2-pointer and a free throw is off. Mathematically there is too much of an incentive to attempt 3-pointers and that's why the analysts finally convinced all the old-school coaches that an offense gears to CREATE 3-pointers is actually more beneficial than an offense trying to create the highest percentage shot.

I don't want the NFL to fall into that trap. I don't want XP's to be a 75% conversion rate. Then FG's become more valuable. I don't want 2-point conversions to be 75% success. Then FG's become too weak when the average TD is yielding 7.5 points.

I mean, I'm a traditionalist with the game. Kicking is important. The randomness of made/missed XP's and FG's (in the right proportion) adds to the strategy of the game and coaching decisions.

I think the game would be worse without FG's and XP's. And if you start making TD's worth more, if you start making XP's worth less and FG's worth less, the math geeks will quickly prove to the coaches to NEVER kick FG's and NEVER kick XP's and instead just go for it in all circumstances (because once it gets to 90+%, teams will not carry a kicker on the roster).

I think that would be a really bad evolution to the sport.

 

[Wingman]

The game would be stupid if we started counting touchdowns in 6's and 8's.

That's NOT the way the game was designed. There is a very important mathematical relationship between 7 points for a TD and 3 points for a FG. That extra point that makes a TD worth more than 2 FG's is a VITAL part of the strategy of football and has been for 50+ years.

The 2-point conversion was not meant to be added to the game to replace the XP. The 2-point conversion was a very late added piece to make end-of-game situations a little more exciting for the fans. It's meant to be a statistically worse attempt only used when you HAVE to try and catch up and when time is against you.

I think it would be terrible for the NFL to get rid of the point relationship between a TD and FG of 7:3.

Part of the major problem in the NBA right now is their point relationship between a 3-pointer a 2-pointer and a free throw is off. Mathematically there is too much of an incentive to attempt 3-pointers and that's why the analysts finally convinced all the old-school coaches that an offense gears to CREATE 3-pointers is actually more beneficial than an offense trying to create the highest percentage shot.

I don't want the NFL to fall into that trap. I don't want XP's to be a 75% conversion rate. Then FG's become more valuable. I don't want 2-point conversions to be 75% success. Then FG's become too weak when the average TD is yielding 7.5 points.

I mean, I'm a traditionalist with the game. Kicking is important. The randomness of made/missed XP's and FG's (in the right proportion) adds to the strategy of the game and coaching decisions.

I think the game would be worse without FG's and XP's. And if you start making TD's worth more, if you start making XP's worth less and FG's worth less, the math geeks will quickly prove to the coaches to NEVER kick FG's and NEVER kick XP's and instead just go for it in all circumstances (because once it gets to 90+%, teams will not carry a kicker on the roster).

I think that would be a really bad evolution to the sport.

The game evolves, there was a time when the forward pass was not allowed.

 

[Stryker]

If the rules didn't change, then apples would indeed be apples. Now we have a rule change that is not consistent in its design. In this situation, If I were a coach, I'd go for it every time. FGs should be treated the same way, as well as most punting situations. Kicking is overrated and is only around because the game evolved that way. Want to increase points per possession (which is what is your QB metrics hold in high regard) then the teams that don't punt and don't kick FGs will have a higher point per possession rate. I'm not faulting the metric, I think it's well thought out, however the league wants more points, and 2 is greater than 1. In the short term that's a way to bolster points over the 1pt gimmies.

The game has already changed, and once changes are made, the norm we were used to dies.

 

[deljzc]

The game evolves, there was a time when the forward pass was not allowed.

Sure... but you have to be damn sure you know what you're headed to is better. I have yet to hear a good argument to change the basic premise of the 3 points for a FG, 6 points for a TD and a 97% chance to get 1 point or a 48% chance to get 2 points other than just for change sake and to make the game more exciting (which I don't think it would be).

I have no problem tweaking things, which this rule change is. It's not drastic. It's not changing the core scoring of the game. Kind of like moving the goal posts together (which they probably will do down the line).

Again, I hate people that say "I don't like it" and not put the math behind WHY they don't like it. What MATH do you want? What percentage of FG's do you want? What % of 4th downs do you really want coaches to go for it? What % of XP's do you want? What % of TD's do you want coaches going for 2 points instead of 1?

A minor rule change to one thing might affect a LOT of other decisions. And that's why some people just can't see the forest from the trees on what appears to be a "minor" part of the game but is actually related to a lot of other parts of the game and coaching decisions.

 

[fogdoctor]

In the history of the sport the XP has been 95%+. So the whole history of the sport is stupid? They've been doing it wrong forever?

The first number your proved is not true and it is clear your "history" of the game probably begins with 1990. In the 1930s the XP % was in the 60% and range - to the point were the league move the posts from the back of the end zone to the front. Which one of those was better? History? Guess that they did in the mid-70s? Yup, move the posts back 10yds to the back of the end zone. Why? Cause the XP got boring as hell when the specialist kicker era started. I was not around in the 30s but I do remember when they move the posts back and IT WAS BETTER. So if they make the XP more challenging again - IT WILL BE BETTER.

As far as the the 2-pt conversion....how old are you???? It was in use in the AFL throughout the 60s but they did not carry that rule after merger. Guess was? The AFL was more fun. The NFL may have started after the merger but professional football was around long before that.

As it stands, the XP is the most worthless and boring play in professional sports. If they were to put it back to where the success rate actually required some actual skill by the specialist standards then it would be better (and more exciting). Please do not use any more historical arguments - history represents evens that happened already. You can use them to inform your course for the future or keep doing the same stuff over and over.

 

[Wingman]

Sure... but you have to be damn sure you know what you're headed to is better. I have yet to hear a good argument to change the basic premise of the 3 points for a FG, 6 points for a TD and a 97% chance to get 1 point or a 48% chance to get 2 points other than just for change sake and to make the game more exciting (which I don't think it would be).

I have no problem tweaking things, which this rule change is. It's not drastic. It's not changing the core scoring of the game. Kind of like moving the goal posts together (which they probably will do down the line).

Again, I hate people that say "I don't like it" and not put the math behind WHY they don't like it. What MATH do you want? What percentage of FG's do you want? What % of 4th downs do you really want coaches to go for it? What % of XP's do you want? What % of TD's do you want coaches going for 2 points instead of 1?

A minor rule change to one thing might affect a LOT of other decisions. And that's why some people just can't see the forest from the trees on what appears to be a "minor" part of the game but is actually related to a lot of other parts of the game and coaching decisions.

Some times there is no math involved in the reason they do not like it. If it stays the same there is no telling the other team what you are going to do. There is the botched snap that becomes two points that many of us saw last season. So if that is the reason the percentages really do not enter in to the game.

Now I agree entirely with your math behind the game planning aspect of it. It really becomes an issue if your kicker gets hurt and say your punter is now going to be filling in to kick extra points. So for some people just the elimination of the uncertainty is the big deal.

 

[deljzc]

The first number your proved is not true and it is clear your "history" of the game probably begins with 1990. In the 1930s the XP % was in the 60% and range - to the point were the league move the posts from the back of the end zone to the front. Which one of those was better? History? Guess that they did in the mid-70s? Yup, move the posts back 10yds to the back of the end zone. Why? Cause the XP got boring as hell when the specialist kicker era started. I was not around in the 30s but I do remember when they move the posts back and IT WAS BETTER. So if they make the XP more challenging again - IT WILL BE BETTER.

As far as the the 2-pt conversion....how old are you???? It was in use in the AFL throughout the 60s but they did not carry that rule after merger. Guess was? The AFL was more fun. The NFL may have started after the merger but professional football was around long before that.

As it stands, the XP is the most worthless and boring play in professional sports. If they were to put it back to where the success rate actually required some actual skill by the specialist standards then it would be better (and more exciting). Please do not use any more historical arguments - history represents evens that happened already. You can use them to inform your course for the future or keep doing the same stuff over and over.

In 1940, the XP percentage was 85%.

In 1955-1957 the XP percentage was 93-94%

In 1965-1967 it was over 95%.


Shut the **** up and do your research before you talk out your ***.

 

[fogdoctor]

In 1940, the XP percentage was 85%.

In 1955-1957 the XP percentage was 93-94%

In 1965-1967 it was over 95%.


Shut the **** up and do your research before you talk out your ***.

Oh no! You are going to hurt my feelings. Oh wait, no you did not.

I posted "The first number your proved is not true and it is clear your "history" of the game probably begins with 1990. In the 1930s the XP % was in the 60% and range -"

So you are saying that the % did not drop to the 60% range in the 1930s? And the football gods did not move the goals posts? I want to make sure about what exactly I am talking out my ***.

Since you appear to like to use google, what was the % in 1932? What did the football gods do right after that?

So the claim I made that the football gods moved the goals posts back in the 70s (74?) is also wrong? You know why they moved it back? Because in the late 60s as you found using google kickers were hitting 95%. At that point it was too late because the specialist era had begin.

The point was that football has ****** with the XP plenty of times and they should again because it would make it more interesting. And seriously, don't get all butt hurt cause its bad for your blood pressure.

 

[Shane Falco]

In a related story, upon Brady's return from his suspension, opposing defenses are to count to 10 Mississippi before rushing him. Upon reaching him, defenders are then only allowed to touch him with 2 hands.

 

[Steelerfan81]

Can't wait till its snowing and blowing at Heinz and we just came to within 1 point with a TD. NOW Suisham has to line up and kick a 33 year field goal into the open end.

 

[Drink IRON City]

Myself, I think they went the WRONG direction, with the spot of the ball for the XP conversion. They add difficulty to the kick, but certainty to which attemp it will be. (kick or run) By moving the ball to the ONE yard line, I think it would have expanded the attemps for the two point conversion. Beefing up the excitement and the scoring. As is newly, I doubt it has much effect on weather to go for 1 or 2 point conversion. 1point will still be the normal and not much change from the past. By moving to the ONE yard line, increasing the 2point % rate, would add the "excitement" needed by what the new rule is trying to acheive. FAIL by the rule commitee


Salute the nation

 

[fogdoctor]

Myself, I think they went the WRONG direction, with the spot of the ball for the XP conversion. They add difficulty to the kick, but certainty to which attemp it will be. (kick or run) By moving the ball to the ONE yard line, I think it would have expanded the attemps for the two point conversion. Beefing up the excitement and the scoring. As is newly, I doubt it has much effect on weather to go for 1 or 2 point conversion. 1point will still be the normal and not much change from the past. By moving to the ONE yard line, increasing the 2point % rate, would add the "excitement" needed by what the new rule is trying to acheive. FAIL by the rule commitee


Salute the nation

I would be fine with this too. Anything to get rid of the XP or make it a minor part of the game.

 

[deljzc]

Myself, I think they went the WRONG direction, with the spot of the ball for the XP conversion. They add difficulty to the kick, but certainty to which attemp it will be. (kick or run) By moving the ball to the ONE yard line, I think it would have expanded the attemps for the two point conversion. Beefing up the excitement and the scoring. As is newly, I doubt it has much effect on weather to go for 1 or 2 point conversion. 1point will still be the normal and not much change from the past. By moving to the ONE yard line, increasing the 2point % rate, would add the "excitement" needed by what the new rule is trying to acheive. FAIL by the rule commitee


Salute the nation

The NFL has never said they needed to add "excitement" and this rule change never once used that term.

That's the fans putting their own false interpretation of the rule.

The point was to not make the XP try "meaningless" because when it was 99.5%+ success rate, that's what it was becoming. At that percentage you might as well not have XP's part of the game.

This rule clearly (and correctly) still wants XP to be the staple of what happens after a touchdown. It just doesn't want the success rate to be 99.5%.

You guys are all talking about stuff that has NOTHING to do with this rule change. No one ever said they want more 2-point conversion attempts. No one ever said they want higher 2-point conversion percentages or teams to always go for 2 pointers.

I love how people here complain about too much scoring and the decline of defenses to play on equal footings (and the offensive numbers collaborate this) yet you want rules to make TD's average 7.1 or 7.2 points (and increase scoring) rather than 6.95 (which is where this rule is headed).

 

[Drink IRON City]

The NFL has never said they needed to add "excitement" and this rule change never once used that term.

That's the fans putting their own false interpretation of the rule.

The point was to not make the XP try "meaningless" because when it was 99.5%+ success rate, that's what it was becoming. At that percentage you might as well not have XP's part of the game.

This rule clearly (and correctly) still wants XP to be the staple of what happens after a touchdown. It just doesn't want the success rate to be 99.5%.

You guys are all talking about stuff that has NOTHING to do with this rule change. No one ever said they want more 2-point conversion attempts. No one ever said they want higher 2-point conversion percentages or teams to always go for 2 pointers.

I love how people here complain about too much scoring and the decline of defenses to play on equal footings (and the offensive numbers collaborate this) yet you want rules to make TD's average 7.1 or 7.2 points (and increase scoring) rather than 6.95 (which is where this rule is headed).

LOOK deljzk, I appreciate your interpretation of the "new"rule. I love being catagorized as people not knowing what the "new" rule involved. I wasn't giving an interpritation of the new rule. CLEARLY, "myself" should have read " In my personal opinion and NOT a interpritation,of the new rule". then my opinion. Thank you for all your great post(s), but this one seems to be a fail.

PS the word excitement was the quick reference to the staeted direction and explaination of the ball move.



Salute the nation

 

[deljzc]

Oh no! You are going to hurt my feelings. Oh wait, no you did not.

I posted "The first number your proved is not true and it is clear your "history" of the game probably begins with 1990. In the 1930s the XP % was in the 60% and range -"

So you are saying that the % did not drop to the 60% range in the 1930s? And the football gods did not move the goals posts? I want to make sure about what exactly I am talking out my ***.

Since you appear to like to use google, what was the % in 1932? What did the football gods do right after that?

So the claim I made that the football gods moved the goals posts back in the 70s (74?) is also wrong? You know why they moved it back? Because in the late 60s as you found using google kickers were hitting 95%. At that point it was too late because the specialist era had begin.

The point was that football has ****** with the XP plenty of times and they should again because it would make it more interesting. And seriously, don't get all butt hurt cause its bad for your blood pressure.

This is extremely incoherent rambling. What the **** is your point?

So the NFL made rule changes in the past to keep the XP at around 95% in the past? Doesn't that prove my point?

That if the NFL rules makers didn't like the 76 our of 113 (67.3%) conversion rate of XP's in 1932 and only SIX made field goals all season (back then they didn't kick FG's they just went for it on 4th down all the time) they made it EASIER on kickers? What a ******* surprise... that's my point!!!

The goalposts did move in 1974. And wouldn't you know it, XP% in 1973 was at an all-time high - 98% and most importantly, teams were trying WAY too many FG's - there were 861 attempts in 182 games played that year (5 per game) in an era that scoring was 19.5 points per game (which was steadily falling since the mid-60's).

The league wanted to match up with college (which had the goal posts in the back since 1927 or something) AND thought teams would attempt less FG's and go for TD's more (and increase TD's) and there were safety concerns with the posts in the field of play.

What actually happened is less FG attempts AND TD's stayed the same - scoring dropped to 18.2 in 1974. That all led to the offensive rule changes in 1978 and since to increase scoring to compensate.

Still doesn't change the fact that for most of the modern history of football (since 1945), XP's have been at or above 90% and averaged around 95% throughout most of the game's history.

The rules changes to the goal posts, location and width have had a lot more to do with FG% and safety than thoughts on XP percentage.

And the 2-point conversion discussion is really only a "modern" discussion anyhow since that rule was first implemented in the NFL in 1994 and has settled into a fairly consistent pattern of around 28 made out of 60 attempts per season.

40 made in 1995
35 made in 2000
27 made in 2005
26 made in 2010
28 made in 2014

 

[fogdoctor]

This is extremely incoherent rambling. What the **** is your point?

So the NFL made rule changes in the past to keep the XP at around 95% in the past? Doesn't that prove my point?

That if the NFL rules makers didn't like the 76 our of 113 (67.3%) conversion rate of XP's in 1932 and only SIX made field goals all season (back then they didn't kick FG's they just went for it on 4th down all the time) they made it EASIER on kickers? What a ******* surprise... that's my point!!!

The goalposts did move in 1974. And wouldn't you know it, XP% in 1973 was at an all-time high - 98% and most importantly, teams were trying WAY too many FG's - there were 861 attempts in 182 games played that year (5 per game) in an era that scoring was 19.5 points per game (which was steadily falling since the mid-60's).

The league wanted to match up with college (which had the goal posts in the back since 1927 or something) AND thought teams would attempt less FG's and go for TD's more (and increase TD's) and there were safety concerns with the posts in the field of play.

What actually happened is less FG attempts AND TD's stayed the same - scoring dropped to 18.2 in 1974. That all led to the offensive rule changes in 1978 and since to increase scoring to compensate.

Still doesn't change the fact that for most of the modern history of football (since 1945), XP's have been at or above 90% and averaged around 95% throughout most of the game's history.

The rules changes to the goal posts, location and width have had a lot more to do with FG% and safety than thoughts on XP percentage.

And the 2-point conversion discussion is really only a "modern" discussion anyhow since that rule was first implemented in the NFL in 1994 and has settled into a fairly consistent pattern of around 28 made out of 60 attempts per season.

40 made in 1995
35 made in 2000
27 made in 2005
26 made in 2010
28 made in 2014

Simple. I think any play that has a >95-98% success rate is to ******* easy. WAY too ******* easy. Currently, the 2014 numbers put it at 99.5%. How can that even be considered a competitive situation? The NFL has been ******* around tinkering around to keep a useless play around for the last 50-75 years and I want a dramatic change or I want it gone. I am seriously done with the XP. Can you seriously tell me that something that has a miss rate of 1 out of 200 (or less) is a real play? I'm trying to remember when the last time we even missed an extra point........2008?

I hate it so much that I think that it is a stretch to even call it a football play. The 2-pt conversion, on the other hand, is awesome. I love the fact that there could be a run or pass and that you have to line up and actually run a real football play without a kicker. Not to mention that the defense actually has a chance to change the direction of the game at least 50% of the time instead of 0.5%.

A analogy that a friend of mine made was the free throw in the NBA that hovers around 75%. If the XP success rate was 75% it would suggest it was minimally difficult and worth keeping. At 99.5%?

Oh yea, I should probably mention that I am not anti-FG in any way. That is completely different IMO.

Make the posts more narrow, move it back so it is difficult, move it in to make the 2-pt conversion more attractive, get rid of it, whatever. It is a silly vestige of a bygone era and it needs to go away (in it's current form).

 

[Wingman]

Simple. I think any play that has a >95-98% success rate is to ******* easy. WAY too ******* easy. Currently, the 2014 numbers put it at 99.5%. How can that even be considered a competitive situation? The NFL has been ******* around tinkering around to keep a useless play around for the last 50-75 years and I want a dramatic change or I want it gone. I am seriously done with the XP. Can you seriously tell me that something that has a miss rate of 1 out of 200 (or less) is a real play? I'm trying to remember when the last time we even missed an extra point........2008?

I hate it so much that I think that it is a stretch to even call it a football play. The 2-pt conversion, on the other hand, is awesome. I love the fact that there could be a run or pass and that you have to line up and actually run a real football play without a kicker. Not to mention that the defense actually has a chance to change the direction of the game at least 50% of the time instead of 0.5%.

A analogy that a friend of mine made was the free throw in the NBA that hovers around 75%. If the XP success rate was 75% it would suggest it was minimally difficult and worth keeping. At 99.5%?

Oh yea, I should probably mention that I am not anti-FG in any way. That is completely different IMO.

Make the posts more narrow, move it back so it is difficult, move it in to make the 2-pt conversion more attractive, get rid of it, whatever. It is a silly vestige of a bygone era and it needs to go away (in it's current form).

I believe last year a botched hold resulted in a missed extra point attempt but the ensuing impromptu pass to Spaeth from Wing resulted in a two point conversion.

 

[fogdoctor]

You guys are all talking about stuff that has NOTHING to do with this rule change. No one ever said they want more 2-point conversion attempts. No one ever said they want higher 2-point conversion percentages or teams to always go for 2 pointers.

I love how people here complain about too much scoring and the decline of defenses to play on equal footings (and the offensive numbers collaborate this) yet you want rules to make TD's average 7.1 or 7.2 points (and increase scoring) rather than 6.95 (which is where this rule is headed).

I want more 2-pt conversion ATTEMPTS and I want teams to go for 2 most of the time because it is more exciting (that is what I want). Don't care what the success % is because when the defense is given a reasonable to stop that play - it is what it is.

Scoring? Who cares about what happens to scoring?

 

[fogdoctor]

I believe last year a botched hold resulted in a missed extra point attempt but the ensuing impromptu pass to Spaeth from Wing resulted in a two point conversion.

I stand corrected. I did not remember that.

 

[deljzc]

I want more 2-pt conversion ATTEMPTS and I want teams to go for 2 most of the time because it is more exciting (that is what I want). Don't care what the success % is because when the defense is given a reasonable to stop that play - it is what it is.

Scoring? Who cares about what happens to scoring?

And that's fine. You are in the minority on this and the owners do not agree. I doubt they will ever agree.

And you're point that a play that only fails 1/200 times is correct. That's why they changed the rule to more like 1/25. You might still consider that too successful and boring, but the owners do not. And I suspect, over the course of this season, most fans will not either.

I do not think at the college or pro level the game will ever evolve into most TD's having 2-point conversions attempted. I do not think the powers that be believe that type of randomness (6 or 8 point jumps) will be what is best for the game.

 

[Stryker]

I know it's not the intent to have 2pt conversions increase over the XP tries, but moving this back makes it mathematically equal to do the 2pt, and if you have a better offense, then the 2pt is a better calculated risk for points vs the kick. If kicking is now at 96% for 1 pt and you have a team that can hit 2-pts at 48%, then the math is equal to risk gaining points. If your team has a better O-line and converts 2yd plays at a 50-54% rate, then mathematically it becomes a better risk to go for 2 every time.

I know coaches don't play the numbers as well normally, but inherently, by changing this rule, I believe the 2pt attempts will increase this year.

 

[deljzc]

I know it's not the intent to have 2pt conversions increase over the XP tries, but moving this back makes it mathematically equal to do the 2pt, and if you have a better offense, then the 2pt is a better calculated risk for points vs the kick. If kicking is now at 96% for 1 pt and you have a team that can hit 2-pts at 48%, then the math is equal to risk gaining points. If your team has a better O-line and converts 2yd plays at a 50-54% rate, then mathematically it becomes a better risk to go for 2 every time.

I know coaches don't play the numbers as well normally, but inherently, by changing this rule, I believe the 2pt attempts will increase this year.

I agree with this.

We're not talking about a big number. There are only around 60 2-point tries a season currently (as compared to 1230 XP attempts). If that number creeps up to 100 tries, I don't think that will effect the game much. It won't change the importance of kickers or eliminate kickers.

And while I think the basic 2:1 success rates for the 2:1 points is equal, coaches will still likely attempt the XP over the coin flip. Remember, we're talking about a very small sample size during a game: maybe 3-4 TD's in a game. Even if you know your percentage is 55% success rate on 2-pointers, that is too small a sample size to guarantee you're going to hit at that percentage in that game. It is very easy to flip 3 heads/tails in a row with a penny. Are coaches willing to take that chance?

I think the greatest change will be in inclement weather. John Harbaugh was correct. In outdoor stadiums in December teams will start by kicking XP's but misses will dictate different decisions later on in games. Teams will attempt more 2-pointers because they missed an XP earlier in a game.

If we are talking about any "excitement" difference it's the effect of a missed XP on remaining game decisions that could be the most interesting thing to watch during the course of this season.