After the touchdown, do you go for one, or two...or NONE?

I'm excerpting this section of Peter King's Monday Morning Quarterback article verbatim (the whole thing is its usual exceptional self - definitely take the time to read it!) because it brings up a brilliant thought that had never occurred to me, and frankly, I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it first!

Imagine this scenario, painted for me by Indianapolis coach Chuck Pagano:

The Colts score a touchdown to go up nine points with 45 seconds left in the game. Now Pagano has to decide whether to go for the point-after touchdown, basically a 33-yard field goal, or to go for two, from the 2-yard line.

Or, as Pagano suggested, neither.

“Because the defense can score on the PAT or two-point conversion now, why would I go for either one?” Pagano told me. “Why wouldn’t I just take a knee and not go for anything?”

Suppose, Pagano went on, he tried to kick the PAT to go up 10, and it’s blocked and returned for a defensive point. Or the Colts went for two, it was fumbled or picked, and returned for a two-point play by the defense. Then the Colts would be up by either eight or seven—and have to kick off to a team that now would have a chance to tie the game and force overtime.

              So imagine a team, late in a game, up by four or nine, lining up to go for two and  then the quarterback simply takes a knee to kill the play. I’m not saying it positively will happen. But I am saying it makes zero sense for a team up four or nine in the last minute or so to attempt either the one- or the two-point conversion. There’s nothing to gain. That’s Pagano’s opinion. Chip Kelly’s too.

            “We felt that way at Oregon, because the defense could score points,” the Eagles coach said.

“I think you’ll see a change in the mentality, with more thought being put into the fact that the defense can return it now, and what impact that has,” Mike Pettine of the Browns said. “We already have a chart made.”

On our training camp trip, The MMQB asked head coaches if they planned to treat the PAT any differently this year with the line of scrimmage moved from the 2 to the 15-yard line—and with defenses now being able to score either one or two points on a failed conversion try returned to the far end zone. We got no sense that there would be a mass change from the one- to two-point tries, and only a few echoed what Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy told me: In some games, depending on the defensive matchup, he could see the Packers going for two after every touchdown.

            But most coaches were like Kelly. “The percentage in kicking from the 2 versus kicking from the 15, I think, goes from about 99.6 percent to 95.5 percent,” said Kelly, referring to the percentage of extra-point success in 2014, versus the percentage of field goals made from the low 30-yard-yard area. “The league wanted to encourage coaches to think about going for two, and I said you needed to change where you went from two from. [Kelly proposed moving the two-point line of scrimmage from the 2 to the 1-yard line.] I said, ‘It’s been on the 2-yard line and people haven’t gone for two, so why moving it back and changing four percentage points do you think that’s going to make a coach go for two?’ I don’t see the system really moving people much to go for two.”

            Two other factors: Tom Coughlin of the Giants said part of the hesitancy in going for two is the risk of injury, and that would have been exacerbated if the league put the two-point line at the 1. “Do we need four, five extra full-speed plays every game by putting the ball at the 1 and enticing people to go?” Coughlin said. “I don’t think so. Who is going to play in December if these things are allowed to accumulate? You keep a pitch count. Well, you keep a snap count, too.”

            But there will be more two-point tries, particularly if the defense jumps offside on the one-point tries. That means teams will have a choice whether to take a five-yard penalty and put the PAT line of scrimmage at the 10-yard line, or go half the distance, from the 2 to the 1, and try a one-yard two-point play. “I can choose to say, I’m going for two now,” said Houston’s Bill O’Brien. Several coaches echoed that.

            The opposite of that scenario actually played out in Week 1. The Chargers scored a touchdown in the fourth quarter to go up five points on the Lions, 26-21. San Diego lined up to go for two but committed a delay of game and had to move back five yards. Coach Mike McCoy opted to try the 38-yard PAT (rather than a 7-yard two-point try), and Josh Lambo's kick was no good. It's a good example of the little strategic decisions that the longer PAT now forces coaches to make.

It's the US and Japan again for the Women's World Cup title

Just repeating the news, as I can't say I follow futbol like I follow football...

The United States defeated Germany 2-0 on Tuesday, and last night the Japanese were able to get past England thanks to an English player kicking the ball into her own goal (accidentally, of course) just before the end of regulation time.

How heartbreaking must THAT be? In most sports, you can't even SCORE for the other team. Baseball, cricket, golf, and so forth - it's impossible. In American, Canadian, and Australian football (the sports of choice 'round these here parts), it's possible to score one or two point scores for the other team, and most of the time it's done intentionally, as a strategy to either get the ball back or prevent a larger score by the opponent. In basketball, it's entirely a bad thing, but it's one basket out of 40 or 50, and very rarely has any part in deciding the game.

But in soccer, where only a couple of goals are scored in the entire match in most cases, an own-goal can and usually does decide the entire game when it occurs. It seems unnecessarily cruel, but then much of soccer is cruelty - the tension that builds in a scoreless game, the thought that a World Cup championship can and often does come down to penalty kicks, and the outside pressure that major club and national teams feel from their fans, who often place an inappropriate amount of importance on the outcome of a fickle game. 

Every time something like this happens, I think back to the 1994 Men's World Cup, when a player from Colombia cost his team the chance to advance with an own goal and found himself dead within a month or two of returning home  We'd all like to think England's more civilized than that - because as Americans we come from that stock originally - but I sure don't want to see their tabloid sports sections today...

On the other hand, if you think OUR football versions are violent...

...consider "calcio storico", a 16th century form of violence...er, football, using 27 men on a team and...

Well, take a look:



 

 

 

....holy catfish...

 
 

The CFL kicks off TONIGHT!

The pointy football's back in play starting tonight! Ottawa visits Montreal in game one of 81, and you can watch this one and many others on ESPN2 this year! You can also get involved in the pick'em game at cfl.ca - it's fun, free, and you can compete against us here at Following Football if you wish! (We're listed under "hesrdc", and our avatar is a sloth with sunglasses, smiling as only a sloth in sunglasses can!). 

There are a bevy of great articles there on www.cfl.ca that you can choose from to preview the 2015 season - we're picking Calgary to repeat, starting with a reprise of their Grey Cup victory over likely eastern-division winners (maybe) Hamilton tomorrow night. There are previews of each division, where Landry and Nye agree with us (with reservations), highlights on each team, and more. 

Remember the basic differences, Yankees - all of which make the Canadian version arguably more fun to watch...

1) The FIELD is 11o yards long (there are TWO 50-yard lines, with a C (center) line in between on 55). It's also about ten yards wider.
2) End zones are twice as deep, and the goal posts are UP FRONT, which makes for some VERY interesting pick maneuvers around it!
3) You only get THREE downs to make ten yards, so you cannot waste any plays!
4) But you can have danged near EVERYBODY in motion at the snap, even going towards the line of scrimmage. (And did I mention you have TWELVE guys on the field per team?)
5) Scoring has a twist: the rouge. Whenever you can stick the ball in the end zone (after a field goal attempt or punt, for example) without the other team being able to get it out, that's one point. So yes, in the CFL you can have those odd scores like 3-1, 7-4, and so forth!
6) Because the defensive line has to be a full yard off the ball (unlike in the US, where you have to stay just the length of the football away), QB sneaks are more successful, pass rushing is different, and all sorts of subtle line-related differences come up. (The biggest one, combined with previous rules, is the dominance of the passing game, even in cold weather.)

Personally, we here at Following Football started following the CFL when they very temporarily (over)expanded into the US, and there were teams all over BOTH countries about twenty years ago or so. (Sacramento was our team of choice.) That experiment was a financial disaster, but the CFL survived and recreated its original purpose.

As the pre-season ends up north...

...and the end of a few CFL careers come with the final cutdown tomorrow, we take a look at the final exhibition games and the starting Following Football ratings for the CFL:

- Troubled Toronto handles rival Montreal 30-10, to my surprise (the Argonauts don't play in their Rogers Centre home until August, including having to play a "home game" in Ft. McMurray next weekend. Their ownership is changing and the current owner's not likely to spend another dime on the Argos this year...)
-Hamilton over Winnipeg 26-15, posting a 2-0 preseason after two easy games against the two weakest teams after playing Grey Cup last November.
-Edmonton traveled to Vancouver and beat the BC Lions 18-13. They also went 2-0, but defeated two good teams in Saskatchewan and the Lions.
-Speaking of Saskatchewan, their broadcast went live on line tonight, so we watched them compete marvelously against the defenders from Calgary, who showed their class by coming back from being down all game to score the last two TDs and win 37-29.

Calgary certainly deserves the highest rating going into the 2015 season, which starts on Thursday night. Here's our picks for week one, with the FF Elo-style ratings in parentheses...

Thursday, Montreal (29.6) at Ottawa (10.1) - M should win 33-7.
Friday, Hamilton (29.9) at Calgary (48.9) - C should win, 34-21.
Saturday, Edmonton (38.1) "at" Toronto (29.9) - E in a close one, 31-28.
Saturday, Winnipeg (20.1) at Saskatchewan (30.0) - we see S big, 35-17.
(And in an odd-team league, it's the BC Lions (32.9) with the bye to start the season.)

If you're interested in joining me in the CFL Pick'em contest, go to cfl.ca and register before Thursday night! It's free, it's quick (only four games to pick each week), and it'll give you some insight into the Canadian game! Twelve men flying in all directions, three downs, big field - it's a blast!

Here's a possible solution for the NFL's extra point dilemma!

While watching the Penn Mutual Rugby championships on NBC (the finals are tomorrow afternoon, btw), and explaining to my children how the try and conversion (extra point equivalent) work, and it dawned on my seventeen year old and I that it might be the solution the NFL is looking for...

Wherever the touchdown is scored in the end zone, the extra point must be attempted from a place perpendicular from the physical point where the touchdown is scored. 

I think you'll need to restrict it to between the numbers, because kicking from the physical sideline has inherent issues. Also, you can debate about the concept of how far back from the 2 you can go (I think not at all, but I'm open to that conversation), and to what constitutes the "point where the touchdown is scored" - certainly where a runner crosses the goal line, but when a receiver catches the ball on the back or side line, are we counting the spot where his feet first touched down? But the NFL Rules folks are good at those sorts of details; that shouldn't be a deterrent. 

But that would not only make the extra point interesting again, it would make the preceding touchdown more intriguing! Do you stick with the fade route to your 6'6" wide out, knowing where you're going to have to kick the point from? Does it increase the importance of the running game - especially the goal-line fullback? It leaves open the possibility of the faked two-point conversion, or simply the choice to go for two when you're on the numbers. It goes against the NFL's moving everything inwards, shrinking the hashmarks to the point where they're probably going to replace the two current hashes with one right down the middle of the field! But the more I think about this, the more reasonable it seems to me! It increases the reliance on good kickers, unlike most of the trendy thoughts on simply eliminating the kick altogether. And it's just as do-able at the college or high school level - What's not to like?

A little bit o' American Rugby for you this weekend!

Here's the link to the collegiate Rugby Sevens tournament this weekend being held in Philadelphia, and broadcast on NBC (and NBCSN, if anyone actually has that cable station).

It includes a nice "rugby sevens for dummies" section that I'll reproduce here for you:

Rugby sevens for dummies    
- Where usual rugby matches are made up of 15 players a side and 80 minutes of total playing time, sevens is a much different variation of the sport. 
- While sevens matches are played on a field that is the same size as a normal rugby pitch, teams send only seven players onto the field at a time. The matches are considerably shorter than their conventional counterpart as well, with only two seven-minute halves and a two-minute break for halftime, instead of the usual 10.
- Because of more space and a wide-open pitch, rugby sevens are usually considered to be more exciting, fast-paced and high-scoring than the usual 15 vs. 15 matches. Starting in 2016, the sport will be a part of the Olympics.

The Penn State women and (of course) the Cal-Berkeley men are each two time defending champs and are looking to "three-peat" this weekend.

I'm always fascinated by the format of rugby tournaments - there's a round-robin, four teams in a group preliminary round, just like soccer and most sports of a similar structure, with the first place teams and some wild cards moving on to the championship "knockout" phase (for the men, twenty teams in five groups produce five firsts and three wild cards for the finals; the women have twelve teams and similarly put four in the finals).  

But the key difference in the rugby culture (and a cool difference, I think!) is that everyone moves on to a "knockout" round - while the top eight men's teams play for the cup, the next four compete for the "plate", the next four for the "bowl", and the bottom four for the "shield". Every team that comes is guaranteed a couple more games, so they'll play five or six games in all for their trouble of coming - and that's the joy of the trip, isn't it? To get to play the sport you love? As a bonus, those last couple of games are the most likely to be against teams of your approximate talent and accomplishment level! So if you're only the 18th best team, and Cal wipes you out in the round-robin, don't worry! You'll get a couple of games against the 19th and 17th best teams, teams that are also struggling as you are! For any tournament, this is good, but for a school tournament? This is ideal learning for everyone!

Get rid of the extra point?

Andy Benoit of the SI.com product Monday Morning Quarterback has a great argument regarding the currently-bubbling extra point debate - get rid of it altogether. Make the touchdown worth seven points, with the option of running a play that essentially "gambles" one point either way: fail, go back to six; succeed, move up to eight. (It would be the same as it is now, in that sense - a six point TD, with an option to go for two, or take the "free" single point to make it seven.)

What do you think?

Well, they've done it. Now, we'll see...

The NFL has decided to change the extra point rule in order to add some excitement to the play following a touchdown.

In the last five years, the success rate for an XP kicked from the 2 (essentially a 19-yard FG) has been literally 99% - one out of one hundred missed or blocked. It's hard to argue for the two point conversion when you're risking a sure point - and the success rate last season on the few attempts (it was tried on less than once every twenty opportunities) was just 47.5% last season. Unless you needed two to tie at the end, why bother?

So the thinking is three-fold: 
1) Make the one-point harder, thereby more interesting to watch.
2) Increase the interest in the two-pointer without skewing the balance too much the other way.
3) Give the defense a reason to give a bleep about defending it.

Here's how they did that - 
1) The line of scrimmage for a kick for one point will be moved back to the 15. This makes it a 32-33 yard kick, which last year kickers in the NFL converted 92.5% of the time. Still relatively straightforward, but not a given any more.
2) The two-pointer is still going to be from the 2 yard line. (So the Eagles will have to decide ahead of time if they want to go for two! No more of Chip Kelly's bizarre line formations!) Do the math: if you have a 92% chance of one point, or a 47% chance of two, the multiplication slightly favors going for two now. Slightly. Don't go nuts; this isn't the XFL!
3) Extra points are now "live", which I don't believe means that the clock moves, but it definitely means that the defense can return a blocked kick or a fumble or interception for a two-point score!

For me, it looks like a win-win situation. Add interest, keep the kickers involved (and in fact feature them more), make it a more important strategical part of the game, yet don't change the fundamental nature of the game (for example, changing the goal-post width)...and just in case they've missed something terrible, the rule will be reviewed next off-season for reform or removal if it doesn't work.

I'm all for it!

The NFC's mathematics problem...

Take a look at the NFC rankings in particular this week, and their records...

week 14	Team	Div	OvRecord
A1	Green Bay Packers	N-N	9-3
A2	New England Patriots	A-E	10-3
A3	Denver Broncos	A-W	10-3
A4	Seattle Seahawks	N-W	9-4
B5	Indianapolis Colts	A-S	9-4
B6	Philadelphia Eagles	N-E	9-4
B7	Dallas Cowboys	N-E	9-4
B8	Arizona Cardinals	N-W	10-3
C09	Detroit Lions	N-N	9-4
C10	Baltimore Ravens	A-N	8-5
C11	Pittsburgh Steelers	A-N	8-5
C12	Cincinnati Bengals	A-N	8-4-1
D13	San Diego Chargers	A-W	8-5
D14	Miami Dolphins	A-E	7-6
D15	Houston Texans	A-S	7-6
D16	Kansas City Chiefs	A-W	7-6
E17	Buffalo Bills	A-E	7-6
E18	Cleveland Browns	A-N	7-6
E19	St. Louis Rams	N-W	6-7
E20	San Francisco 49ers	N-W	7-6
F21	Minnesota Vikings	N-N	6-7
F22	Atlanta Falcons	N-S	5-7
F23	Carolina Panthers	N-S	4-8-1
F24	New Orleans Saints	N-S	5-8
G25	Chicago Bears	N-N	5-8
G26	New York Giants	N-E	4-9
G27	Washington Redskins	N-E	3-10
G28	New York Jets	A-E	2-11
H29	Oakland Raiders	A-W	2-11
H30	Tampa Buccaneers	N-S	2-11
H31	Jacksonville Jaguars	A-S	2-11
H32	Tennessee Titans	A-S	2-11

As we see it, there are SIX teams in the NFC who are head and shoulders above the rest - six teams in slots #1-9 in the FF rankings (and basically everyone else's, too), six teams with at least nine wins already, and the next team in the conference doesn't show up until Tier E, #19! With six playoff spots and six good teams, this should be easy...

EXCEPT for the GOSH-DARNED SOUTH Division!

Take another look at where the teams in each division are (we'll just show you the NFC this time...), highlighting the six leaders and the NFC South:

week 14	Team	Div	OvRecord
A1	Green Bay Packers	N-N	9-3
A4	Seattle Seahawks	N-W	9-4
B6	Philadelphia Eagles	N-E	9-4
B7	Dallas Cowboys	N-E	9-4
B8	Arizona Cardinals	N-W	10-3
C09	Detroit Lions	N-N	9-4
E19	St. Louis Rams	N-W	6-7
E20	San Francisco 49ers	N-W	7-6
F21	Minnesota Vikings	N-N	6-7
F22	Atlanta Falcons	N-S	5-7
F23	Carolina Panthers	N-S	4-8-1
F24	New Orleans Saints	N-S	5-8
G25	Chicago Bears	N-N	5-8
G26	New York Giants	N-E	4-9
G27	Washington Redskins	N-E	3-10
H30	Tampa Buccaneers	N-S	2-11

So, there are TWO teams from each of THREE divisions (meaning there will be THREE non-division winners among the six), while the best of the NFC South teams comes in at #22, with #23, #24, and #30 close behind. In fact, if Atlanta loses to the Packers tonight (as expected - they're two TD underdogs), it will be mathematically impossible for ANY team in the division to have a winning record this year.

Therefore, we're already guaranteed that a nine-win team will stay home in the NFC (more likely a 10 or 11 win team), while the NFC South winner not only goes to the playoffs, but HOSTS a game! 

We are NOT the Big 12 - we will NOT change the rules in midstream. However, we would like to recommend a rule change starting next year...

"No team may participate in the playoffs if their record is under .500."

You can't say at .500, as much as you'd like to, because it's possible you won't have six teams out of sixteen over .500. (In fact, it's theoretically possible for the entire league to be 8-8, so under that version of the rule NO ONE goes to the playoffs. But that's not very likely.)

But under .500? Easy. "If a division champion is under .500, then its spot goes to the first wild card team; the second team moves up to the #5 slot, and a third wild card team is entered into the #6 slot."

"Furthermore, if the entire conference is putrid and there are not six teams in a particular conference with .500 records or above, then all empty slots in that conference will be filled with the next available teams from the opposite conference." (That's the way the CFL does it already! That's how British Columbia got into the playoffs instead of 8-10 Toronto!) "Hence, the #7 team in the opposing conference takes the #6 slot in the putrid conference, assuming one open slot."

And, just in case..."If somehow, there are NOT six teams with records of .500 or above available at all," (and it IS theoretically possible: what if there are five teams who go 14-2? There'll be a lot of losses to spread around in the league!), "then ALL empty slots are treated as BYES, and the opposing team gets a walkover into the next round." Wouldn't THAT be a fascinating turn of events! How serious are you about not allowing 7-9 teams into your postseason? 

("Alternatively, if you want to wuss out and take the money and run instead, then on a 3/4 vote of the league owners, the previous paragraph may be waived on a one-year basis IF there are not twelve eligible teams to fill the twelve available spots. Wusses.")

Why is Aussie Rules so amazing to watch?

Take a look at these "top ten" lists from the just-concluded season in the Australian Football League, and see why we find the sport of footy so incredible to watch! Real athletes, no pads, getting to be athletic in all facets of the game... Enjoy!

The Best MARKS of the 2014 season!
(A "mark" means a catch of a kicked ball [of more than fifteen meters], and the best ones come when several players are contesting for the ball, and it becomes a leaping competition!)

Best PLAYS of the first half of the 2014 season!

Best PLAYS of the second half of the 2014 season!

The best TACKLES of the 2014 season!
(Tackles are very similar to North American football or rugby, although in Aussie Rules the tackling team immediately gets the ball following the tackle. Because a player with the ball can punch or kick the ball to a teammate in any direction at will, actually tackling a player who still possesses the ball is much rarer than in gridiron football.)

The best GOALS of the 2014 season!
(In footy, the "goal", so to speak, is to score goals, which means kicking the ball between the two tall posts in the center of the target - doesn't matter how high or low, flying or bouncing or rolling, but it does have to be kicked. The art of goal scoring is as wide and varied as... well, take a look!)

Canadian rule differences FOR THE WIN!

http://youtu.be/d5BFaykcxGg

If you've never heard of an "open field kick", you poor Yankees, let us share a classic example of the wide-open nature of the north of the border version of the game! This is from a late season 2010 game between Toronto and Montreal, tie game, last play, attempted field goal...but because of the open-field kick rule, the placement of the goal posts on the goal line, and the 20-yard deep end zone, there's a much wilder option on a missed kick...