What would football look like without field goals?
 

I don't know if this fits here or the "other football" forum but i'll put it here for more exposure.

Since we're still a ways away from the SB I thought i'd post this idea that a radio host here has bandied about and see what you think. He contends that field goals are pretty boring for the most part unless it's at/near the end of the game or a game winning FG. Any other time even if the guy misses you can just run out and get a beverage or a snack and not miss anything really.

So here's his proposal that he thinks would open up the game and make it maybe not more high scoring but at least a lot more interesting.

ELIMINATE field goals altogether!

The basic premise is this, Let's say the offensive team has the ball on the opponents 35 yard line and it's 4th and 4-5. Normally you'd have the PK go out and attempt a FG since that's at the outer reaches of most kickers. Now if you eliminate the FG do you go for it on 4th? His co-host then mentioned that a lot of coaches would just pooch punt it and pin the other team deep in their territory. So another rule change idea was adopted:

"Punts will be like missed field goals in that if the ball goes in the end zone it's no longer only going out to the 20 but rather to the spot where the kicking team kicked"

This idea would be applied on punts anywhere on the field as well. This would put a ton of pressure on kickers in the pooch kick scenario to the point that coaches would likely try to convert 4th downs. It would also make punts in general more than just a ho hum thing as i'm sure a lot of people would watch to see if the ball goes in the end zone or if there'll be returns.

So what do you guys think of these ideas?

Re: What would football look like without field goals?
 

It's an interesting idea but, I like things the way they are now; where special teams actually matter in the game.

Re: What would football look like without field goals?
 

I think most teams would just go for it in that situation and a lot of them do nowadays anyways. 4th and 5 on the 35 is sort of that grey area where you can go for it and have a chance at a TD or a better FG. If you fail to convert then the opposing team still has a decent ways to go to score.

I don't like it. I've heard the eliminating FG's idea tossed around before, but it's one of those things to me that it's a part of the game. I don't see any reason to change it. I like having FG's and having a chance to score without actually getting a TD. I've seen a lot of games where FG's are the only points that are scored in a game.

Re: What would football look like without field goals?
 

It'd make things interesting. I think I like the way stuff is now though.

Re: What would football look like without field goals?
 

Yeah it's an interesting idea but one that I don't know if i'd like myself but I thought "what the heck, let's see what the OS community thinks".

Re: What would football look like without field goals?
 

If the field goals are eliminated, what do you do after touchdowns, go for the 2 point conversion?

I'm not much of a fan of the if you kick into the endzone the ball goes where the kicker kicked. I don't think the NFL intended the kicking game to be that exciting besides gaming winning FG's.

For example, Soccer IMO is boring when they're kicking and passing and turning over the ball around midfield. So we should put a goal in the middle of the field. Maybe not the best example, but maybe you can catch my drift. Just like everyone else said, I think it's an interesting idea, but I don't like it.

Re: What would football look like without field goals?
 

Good question, and one that didn't get addressed. I'm assuming you'd still get the PAT.

Re: What would football look like without field goals?
 

2 pointers only would be more interesting, more chances to lose games by failing there. On that note, so would a sliding scale for long field goals would too. Like say 4 points for a FG longer than 50 yards.

Then again, the game is great the way it is so disregard everything I just said. haha :splat: