D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 On another tag, we have been talking about the Extra Point proposal from Goodell. It was suggested we have a new topic on the width of the goal posts-currently 18-6 , and the relationship to the overall place kicking in the NFL. Currently, Field Goal% is at an all time high with over 85% of all field goals made. We all know Extra Points are all but automatic at over 99.5%. I proposed reducing the goal posts first before eliminating it. Others also supported this view as well. I did a little research before starting this topic. The goal is to find how much change might be needed. A scatter plot of all field goals would be ideal. You could then, a la Homeruns Data of ballparks in baseball on ESPN, determine how much to reduce the width of the posts and the desired %made. This data was not available as far as I could tell, it has to exist somewhere. So...The current width in college and the NFL is the same 18-6. This was not always the case, the college width was 24-3 until 1990. Some extrapolation will be required later, but when the NCAA made this change FG% dropped from 67% to 60%. However, comparing the 5 years before to 5 years after tells a little different story. The drop was from 67% to 63%, only 4% points. OBVIOUSLY-doug. Therefore a reduction in the width of about 20% only gave about a 4% drop in FG%. I should also point out an omission, the NCAA also eliminated the use of a 1" tee at the time. Not sure how much impact this had, my guess is that it was slight because the kicking surfaces have improved so much. Extrapolation part: Changes to the goal post below: Reducing the goalposts 4.5' to 14' a reduction of 24%, or 5.5' to 13'a reduction of 30%, or 6.5' to 12'a reduction of 35%,and 7.5 to 11' a reduction of 41%. We are at 85% success rate in the current NFL, I would think something like a 70-75% rate would be better, made even 67%. When they were reduced in the 1990 NCAA, a 20% reduction brought about a change of 4%. Does this mean that if we reduced them 7.5' to 11' the drop would be something like 8-10% to somewhere in the 75-77% for the NFL. And, probably double that the first year to perhaps 65-69%? My gut tells me it will be more. Amd, a cut to 12' feet may be enough. An interesting point, the college data showed most of the drop in under 50 yard field goals! Longer field goals stayed practically the same. I would not have guessed this. Your thoughts? Bring it on! I would also add, that to obtain a larger reduction in FG%, you could place a hortizontal bar at a height of something like 10-12'. Pretty drastic - I know.
Max997 Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) You are missing a big part regarding field goal attempts which I'm assuming dropped as well after the change was made. Harder FGs would make teams go for it or punt more often rather then just kicking long FGs Kicks in general are just too automatic so something needs to be done. I suggested reducing the width by 2 ft which would be more of a change then it seems I also think the XP attempt needs to be pushed back as well at least 10 yards to make it a little harder but not too difficult. Keep the mark where it is now for 2 PT attempts I believe there is another thread on this as well Edited January 21, 2014 by Max997
Dean Cain Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 Here's an great idea, eliminate the holder, and mandate that all kicks be drop kicked in. I theorize Doug Flutie would come out of retirement & play another 30 years.
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted January 21, 2014 Author Posted January 21, 2014 You are missing a big part regarding field goal attempts which I'm assuming dropped as well after the change was made. Harder FGs would make teams go for it or punt more often rather then just kicking long FGs Kicks in general are just too automatic so something needs to be done. I suggested reducing the width by 2 ft which would be more of a change then it seems I also think the XP attempt needs to be pushed back as well at least 10 yards to make it a little harder but not too difficult. Keep the mark where it is now for 2 PT attempts I believe there is another thread on this as well Right, the coaches would be more inclined to go for it in the oppositions territory. Right now it is a crutch. Let's take the three.
Just Jack Posted January 21, 2014 Posted January 21, 2014 [This is an automated response] This subject matter is being currently being discussed or has already been discussed in a previous thread. Please consider using the "search" function before starting new topics. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/165221-is-it-time-to-narrow-the-goal-posts/ Thank you.
Recommended Posts