NFL Commish Roger Goodell is concerned that extra points (five misses out of 1,200 kicks this past season) are just too damn predictable. He is floating a trial balloon to eliminate the PAT.


He is also considering allowing players to have access to “medicinal” marijuana.

How about providing cannabis brownies to the snapper, holder and kicker before any and all PATs?

Wouldn’t that help solve the problem of point-after-touchdown 99-percent-plus predictability?

Just a thought.

Yep, I am mature enough to remember Zenon Andrusyshyn.

The name conjures up someone wanted in the former Yugoslavia? The reality is worse that that. He actually was the place kicker for UCLA.

He was a low-trajectory, soccer-style kicker, who missed the critical extra point in one of the most celebrated USC vs. UCLA games of all time, won by the Trojans 21-20 in 1967 (Troy made all three of its extra points. Alas, UCLA only two of three. Ball game).


Let’s not lose sight of the fact that a successful conversion requires the teamwork of solid protection, an accurate snap, good hold with the laces pointed away and an accurate kick. These may be 99 percent automatic in the sterile world of professional football, but oftentimes they are an adventure in college football.

What’s the best thing about freshmen? When they become sophomores. This law applies to college kickers too.

Before we go into further analysis of the NFL’s proposed dropping of extra points, let’s remember The Law of Unintended Consequences. This rule very much may apply if the NFL follows through on its no PAT proposal (and player medicinal marijuana use as well).

When I first watched the professional game, the goal posts were at the front of the end zone. Seems goofy now, but that’s where they were placed. The colleges always positioned their goal posts in the back of the end zone.

There were no two-point conversions. That was left to the college game.

The NFL eventually moved the hash marks closer to the center of the field to encourage more … (yawn) … field goals.

Later the NFL came up with the notion of the coin flip to decide a tied game. If your team won the coin toss, your team elected to receive, moved the ball down the field and then kicked a field goal to win the game.  If the other team won the coin toss, it would elect to receive, move the ball and kick the field goal to win the game. That’s un-American. Both teams should have equal opportunity in overtime.

Almost DailyBrett is happy to report that goal posts are now in the back of the end zones in professional games. The NFL has, after much kicking and screaming, adopted the two-point conversion. The hash marks are still about six-inches apart from each other in the middle of the field.

Most of all, a field goal will not automatically decide a tied game without the other team having an opportunity to kick a field goal too…or maybe (gasp) even scoring a touchdown.

Where does The Law of Unintended Consequences come into play?

Goodell suggested that instead of PATs, a team scoring a touchdown would be awarded seven points. If a team wished to try for eight points, it could run what is now a two-point conversion play from the two-yard line…except it would now be a one-point conversion try. If it succeeded, the TD-scoring team would get eight points (same as now with the two-point try) and if it failed it would lose one point and end up with six points. Got it?


Why would teams risk two points (8-2=6) to score one point (7+1=8)? That only makes sense if a team is desperately behind.

Or is this just a Machiavellian plot by the No Fun League (NFL) to quietly abolish the two-point conversion?

Here are some suggestions to keep the extra point and to ensure that a two-point conversion (a very exciting play BTW) remains indeed a two-point conversion.

● Consider requiring teams to attempt extra points from the 25-yard line, making the PAT a 42-yard kick. In domes or sunny climes with little wind, this should be no problem for a pro kicker. In windy, cold Green Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh in January, the PAT would be anything but automatic. In these cases, would it be better to go for two points from the two-yard line? This would bring more strategy into the PAT vs. two-point conversion decision.

● In college overtime games, teams can kick extra points only in the first two overtime sessions (when each team has an opportunity to play offense). After that, each team must attempt two-point conversions. The point is to break deadlocks relatively quickly, and add the excitement of whether a team will score or fail on the two-point conversion and thus win or lose the game all on one play.

Could professional football restrict the number of times that teams can kick extra points to the first two-or-three touchdowns, requiring two-point conversions attempts for the remainder of the game? That would solve the 99 percent PAT success-rate “problem.”

● The net result in restricting the number of extra points to the first two-or-three touchdowns, and then mandating two-point conversions most likely would be fewer NFL overtime games. And if that was the case, the league should allow the team that lost the coin flip one chance at the ball even if the other team scored a touchdown. We are talking equal opportunity and fairness here.

● Another possibility is simply requiring two-point conversion attempts after all touchdowns. These would turn out to be the toughest 72 inches in all of sport. Something tells me the NFLPA would not be real keen to this idea. Maybe the PAT is not all that bad.

Is the no PAT trial balloon a diabolical NFL attempt to do away with the two-point conversion? Almost DailyBrett certainly hopes not. Maybe medicinal marijuana brownies for the snapper, holder and kicker is not such a bad idea.

Heck, why not serve them to the entire offensive line?