I know it will never happen, but I think that kicking a field goal is way too easy these days, especially under 45 yards. Teams will just take the easy points inside the 10, especially in the first half or a close game. I would propose:

 

19 or under yards - 1 pt

20-35 yards - 2 pts

36-49 yards - 3 pts

50+ - 4 pts.

 

Think about overtime. Let's say team one kicks a 40 yarder for 3 points, Would the 2nd team stop at the 35 and kick the 50 yarder? If not, let's say they have a 20 yard gain and are now at the 15. The field goal would then be a 32 yarder for 2 points, they can't kick it, they'll lose. If they try and take a penalty the other team declines probably, and they have a 4th and 10 at the the 15. It would be fun IMO.

 

I think this would make coaching decisions much more challenging and would add even more excitement and 2nd guessing.

 

Thoughts?

Too goofy.

 

Next we'll be weighting the touchdowns.

Too goofy.

 

Next we'll be weighting the touchdowns.

 

Agree. Teams would be losing yards on purpose if they didn't think they could get a 1st down

Agree. Teams would be losing yards on purpose if they didn't think they could get a 1st down

 

Exactly.

 

Or hiking the ball back 9 yards instead of 7 to get another point.

Agree on all counts, way too goofy and no way!

Maybe that's why I have few original ideas.

What if in basketball they took a jump shot from say 20 feet or so and we gave them 3 points instead of two? Or would players just quit driving and give up space to back up into the 3point range...nah too goofy.

What if in basketball they took a jump shot from say 20 feet or so and we gave them 3 points instead of two? Or would players just quit driving and give up space to back up into the 3point range...nah too goofy.

 

Not quite the same thing. There is an inherent risk/reward factor in basketball. Even good shooters only hit about 1 out of every 3 three pointers, and three point misses often result in long rebounds and points for the other team in transition. And not every player/team can shoot 3 pointers well. Almost all NFL kickers are very good. Even bad NFL kickers make 75% of their attempts under 50 yards, and about 50% of those over 50. There's no real inherent risk between taking a 20 or 30 or 40 yard field goal. Football is a game about acquiring territory and advancing the football. By weighting field goals it does bring the thought of purposely losing yardage to score extra points. If you have a third and 15 (which means you probably won't make a first down), why not lose yardage, to pick up another point or two?? That dynamic definitely goes against the nature of the game. Also, why reward a team for not being able to advance the football deep into the other teams territory?? Should a team that can only pick up a few yards be able to score more points than the team that can??

Not quite the same thing. There is an inherent risk/reward factor in basketball. Even good shooters only hit about 1 out of every 3 three pointers, and three point misses often result in long rebounds and points for the other team in transition. And not every player/team can shoot 3 pointers well. Almost all NFL kickers are very good. Even bad NFL kickers make 75% of their attempts under 50 yards, and about 50% of those over 50. There's no real inherent risk between taking a 20 or 30 or 40 yard field goal. Football is a game about acquiring territory and advancing the football. By weighting field goals it does bring the thought of purposely losing yardage to score extra points. If you have a third and 15 (which means you probably won't make a first down), why not lose yardage, to pick up another point or two?? That dynamic definitely goes against the nature of the game. Also, why reward a team for not being able to advance the football deep into the other teams territory?? Should a team that can only pick up a few yards be able to score more points than the team that can??

 

Good points, but the concept could work if it was thought through. Although there might be added rules that would begin to make it goofy. There have been scoring changes such as the 2 point conversion in the last 20 years, maybe something needs to done to make it equal risk to try and score a TD than get an almost certain 3 points. The change that makes it a little risky is where the opposing team gets the ball after a missed FG.

I'm in favor of abolishing FG kicking all together, but I sort of like the strategy which could possibly become if FGs were weighted.

Agreed that it's too goofy. I say get rid of extra points and go for two every time.

Might lead to some unintended consequences- like actually seeing more field goals kicked on certain situations.

 

For instance, let's say we are 3rd and long from the 20. Coaches might just kick the field goal right then rather than risk gaining four yards on a play and not getting the first down, but losing a point on a field goal make.

 

I like thinking outside the box, just not sure this system will ever catch on.

I would be ok with 50 yard or more field goals being with 4 points.

Not quite the same thing. There is an inherent risk/reward factor in basketball. Even good shooters only hit about 1 out of every 3 three pointers, and three point misses often result in long rebounds and points for the other team in transition. And not every player/team can shoot 3 pointers well. Almost all NFL kickers are very good. Even bad NFL kickers make 75% of their attempts under 50 yards, and about 50% of those over 50. There's no real inherent risk between taking a 20 or 30 or 40 yard field goal. Football is a game about acquiring territory and advancing the football. By weighting field goals it does bring the thought of purposely losing yardage to score extra points. If you have a third and 15 (which means you probably won't make a first down), why not lose yardage, to pick up another point or two?? That dynamic definitely goes against the nature of the game. Also, why reward a team for not being able to advance the football deep into the other teams territory?? Should a team that can only pick up a few yards be able to score more points than the team that can??

 

Especially when you consider wind doesn't play havoc with three-point attempts in hoops.

To fix some of the issues with teams running backwards, etc., maybe you could say that the most points that it would be given would be the point closest to the opponent's goal line where the ball was snapped from on that possession is the maximum number of weighted points your field goal attempt would be given regardless.