There's been a lot of talk of late about the possibility of doing away with the extra point, as critics have pointed to the fact that it's become too automatic.
The make-rate in the NFL was 99.6 percent last season and has been above 99 percent over past decade. You could probably go at least another two decades back and find similar numbers.
"Are they going to take that away, too?" Folk said, via NJ.com.
Fair enough. But go ahead.
"That's a pretty boring part, and [it sometimes happens] with two minutes left in a game," Folk continued. "Teams can play to win especially if you're down three or up three or up four. Make them run a couple of plays.
"If you want to make the game more exciting, then take away the kneeling of the football. So now the quarterback has to run backwards and take that five-yard sack, but, hey, the quarterback's still got to run."
Folk made a lot of good points in the story, and you can check them out here.
He didn't stop there. NJ.com had another story with Folk's proposed idea, assuming the league is dead set on changing what's currently in place.
The first step, in his mind, would be adding two additional uprights -- nine feet apart -- in the middle of the standard uprights, which are currently 18 feet, 6 inches apart: For extra points, Folk said, kicks would have to sail between the two middle uprights. For field goals, everything would stay the same—the outer uprights would still be the target, and it wouldn't matter if a field goal try clanged off one of the middle uprights, since the ball would be between the outer uprights anyway. This way, Folk said, everything about the extra point would remain the same, including the line of scrimmage being the 2-yard line.
. . . Folk then kicked the logic a step further: Field goals through the middle uprights could be worth four points, he said, while anything through the outer uprights would still be three. And for field goals beyond 50 yards, kicks through the middle uprights could be five-pointers.
"You could kick a 50-yarder if you're down by five at the end of the game and tie it, if you're accurate enough with it," Folk said. "You're rewarding accuracy."
Folk's idea is pretty good, but it's also a lot to absorb. Maybe too much. Which begs the question: Why not just keep things the way they are? You know, much less complicated.
He'd like that just fine