http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8898684/bayless-let-get-rid-field-goal...
Seems intriguing, don't think it will happen however
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8898684/bayless-let-get-rid-field-goal...
Seems intriguing, don't think it will happen however
Comments
Well
David Akers and Billy Cundiff probably wouldn't mind.
It was written by Skip Bayless, and is therefore nonsense and written with the sole purpose of stirring up controversy.
I would really like to see what Skip has to say if he wasn't trying to 1) draw attention to himself 2) trying to create controversy and TV ratings
Trick Question
(Likely by design from the WWL) He is always trying to do both.
You know what I would enjoy watching? "Bayless2Bayless", a show where Skip's celebrity chef brother Rick cooks a meal a la Emeril (or any other Food Network star), then watch Skip taste the meal and then critique the shit out of it like he does on First Take (or whatever they're calling that show today). I'd watch that. Especially when you consider it is criticism, siblings, potentially hot items, and sharp objects.
didnt he come up with this a couple years ago? did he just rewrite it?
either way both he and stephen a. can stay the hell off my tv.
Why?
Without kicking how can you keep the name "foot"ball?
This is the same guy that thinks LeBron isn't a good basketball player. I've never taken him seriously.
His name
Should be Skip-Baseless
If you look past Bayless's smug douchery...
It's hard to argue that it wouldn't make the games more exciting. I'd like to see kickoffs stay, but I'd be perfectly fine with field goals going away.
see, I'd almost rather it be the other way around
The way it is, the field goal is still a consolation prize for if you get stuffed, or a way to get those 3 points you need in a pinch. It adds complexity to the game.
On the other hand, the kickoff is more extraneous than anything, especially with them making all these changes to increase the percentage of touchbacks. When I first heard Schiano's idea of replacing the on-side kick with a 4th and 15 attempt from the 30, that appealed to me a bit more, because right now the on-side kick is quite the anomaly. Success has more to do with how the egg-shaped ball bounces upon hitting the ground than anything else.
My idea is, why not simply replace the kickoff by giving the offense the ball, essentially 4th and 15 on their own 30 across the board? That way, the vast majority of the time teams are going to punt it anyway, and punts seem to be gallons safer than kickoffs. A 50 yard punt means the returner catches it at his own 20, which should result in similar starting field position anyway since you get more air under the punt allowing you to get downfield more quickly to make the tackle.
I doubt we'd see any large-scale changes like this anytime soon, but Schiano just got me thinking is all.
Punts vs. Kickoffs
Is there data out there saying punt returns are much more safe than kick returns? Some of the biggest hits I've ever seen occurred on punt returns...
I haven't ever seen any data
but I know that the NFL is always trying to reduce the number of kickoff returns, since they claim they are the "most dangerous play in football". I would imagine that it has something to do with the fact that both teams are running full speed at each other, whereas on a punt both teams pretty much start at the LOS and run together and set up the blocks, but there could be other reasons.
Meh
Honestly, I think ever since Eric LeGrand got hurt, everybody think that special teams need to go the way of Groh.
I think there has been far too much emphasis on safety, it has led to excessive amount of penalties (usually against the defensive players), and it has sucked some of the fun out of the game.
There got to be a balance somewhere, and that's a whole 'nother thread.
How about this?
Diferent values for the kick distance. Long field goals worth fewer points than short ones.
Downvoted for giving my opinion
You stay classy TKP.
I See
I can see where Bayless' coming from, especially from a statistical point of view. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but statistically speaking, teams who go for it on fourth down are more likely to have higher successful conversion rating than those who settle for a field goal.
For example, anybody remember during the Labor Day's game, Paulie Johnson of the Bumble Bees elected to go for it on fourth and 9(?), and Washington was having happy feet to keep looking for an open receiver and found one. Then they converted that fourth down into a new set of downs, which eventually led to a touchdown.
On that merit, Bayless is probably correct in the theory of eliminating field goal attempts, but on a level of excitement, nail-biting and cliffhanging moments, a game can be decided by a field goal.
Another example, the abomination of the Rutgers-Tech bowl game was decided by Journell connecting on the field goal attempt, and Rutgers whiffing badly (WIDE RIGHT! see what I did there?), thusly preserving the win for Tech, and making us float above 0.500.
I think Bayless should be arguing more that teams should go for it more on fourth downs instead of settling for threes. This is not the Canadian Football League with only 3 downs.
Then again, it is Bayless and nobody likes him. Yeti is more likable than Skip Bayless. Heck, even Skip to My Lou is more likable than that buffoon named Bayless. He needs to quit baying at the moon, and get a real paying job like us poor common, Hokies loving fans.
Here are your numbers. If you consider all FBS teams in 2012, the 4th down conversion rate was 51.4%. The field goal conversion rate was 72.1%.
I think he was looking more for "expected point yield" or something. Obviously teams are going to make more field goals than 4th down conversions, but overall making it on 4th could mean 7 points. But then that is harder to quantify. 72% chance of getting 3 points is 2.16 points per field goal attempt. By those stats, that gives you a 51% chance of giving yourself a chance to get 7 points, so as long as you're confident that you have more than a 60% chance of scoring a touchdown, which would then give you at least as high of an "expected point yield" (.51 x .6 x 7 = 2.14).
Without situational information, it would be impossible to calculate. Considering the situation most 4th down conversions come in, I don't think not realistic to guess 60% will end up in a touchdown. 4th down conversion attempts typically come in 3 varieties:
1. Past mid-field, not yet in field goal range
2. Short yardage (less than 2 yards), typically in field goal range
3. At the end of the game, when out of field goal range or need more than 3 points to tie
Only #2 yields a good chance of scoring a TD, since the team is likely near to the redzone. #1 yields as good of a chance for a FG attempt as a TD attempt. #3 may not yield in any points scored. Furthermore, all 4th down conversions yield the chance to turn the ball over, which is very unlikely on FG attempts.
Also, if FGs were removed, more long yardage 4th down attempts would be attempted, likely decreasing the 51% conversion rate significantly.
This is all theoretical, so it's like debating whether mermaids or pixies are hotter (definitely mermaids). Nevertheless, I would hypothesize removing FGs would yield overall less points scored.
#4
You are Chip Kelly and go for it just about anywhere because the stats favor you scoring more points in a game.
I think the only way to encourge more going for it is to make field goals over 40 yards only 2 points.
His argument is asinine. Why remove an option teams have? Why FORCE everyone to go for it on 4th down? If a team wants to do that and be aggressive, fine, but that's their choice. Why remove a chance for fans to debate something, for coaches to make a tough call, and for people to second guess them? Isn't that part of the fun? Saying "Ok, it's fourth quarter and we're down by 6... Do you go for it here?" and then look around at your friends and debate.
Also, what does he have against kickers? Yeah, they're specialists, but so what? Having a reliable one is essential to your team, and a clutch one is a valuable weapon. Why hate on stressful field-goal attempts? They are dramatic, quick, and immediately rewarding. The guy is an idiot looking for page hits.
I think Skip has been playing to much madden
While I don't fell like laying out points why we should keep the current field goal system. At least we won't have to worry about our kickers pepper spraying entire restuarants if they went away... http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/21262/cody-journell-involved-in-p....
christ almighty cody, tighten up son!