"+1 for an excellent description of hockey."
#1 sport on the planet, lol.

It will not ever happen. The cities that host it pretty much all have always had a franchise, and all of the cities have a serious football (American, aka real football) fan base already. The NATIONAL Football League would also never let all of the revenue leave the US. The games that they have held in London before werent really all that important too.

And about that article
Jim Ersay has said and unsaid a lot of stuff. And if the author of that article knew much about the Super Bowl in Indy (side note, if you live in the central Indiana area you should go check it all out, it is pretty cool) they would realize that we imploded the Hoosier dome years ago and the game will be played at Lucas oil stadium which is an indoor facility, but not a dome.

@faces
Learn how to use the different forms of to (I.e. to, too, two, 2...)
"fuck you to." should be "fuck you too."

And football is anything but boring, soccer, on the other hand, puts me to sleep.

And correction on My last post: Irsay not Ersay.

Thanks 2ndwhiteline for calling faces out on that error.

Suck for (andrew) Luck 2012! Go colts (next year)!

@ Fasces

"it could be said about any sport"

No, it really couldn't. In rugby the difficulty of the kick varies hugely on where the try is scored. An easy kick has to be earned, and the difficult ones are touch and go affairs which are rather exciting. In NO other sport I can think of is there anything as pointless and frequently occuring as the kick for the extra point in American Football. The two point alternative I can understand. That's rather exciting and fun to watch. The rest of the game (when stuff is actually happening) can also be highly entertaining. The kick for the extra point, on the other hand, is about as exciting and tense as watching someone eat a sandwich. I'm sure way back in the mists of time there was some purpose behind it, but that purpose has been lost. Just give them the point if they don't want to try for two, and get on with the real action!

"#1 sport on the planet, lol. "

Hockey is the number one sport on the planet? Which planet are you talking about?

Octavious, you seriously wonder why a part of a sport invented by Americans doesn't make sense?

"No, it really couldn't. In rugby the difficulty of the kick varies hugely on where the try is scored. An easy kick has to be earned, and the difficult ones are touch and go affairs which are rather exciting."
Rugby is a superior sport, I normally watch/follow the 6 nations more then football, this is the first year I have done otherwise.

"Hockey is the number one sport on the planet? Which planet are you talking about? "
The planet Canada is on :P

+1 Uly, lol
All I am saying is you claimed to not see the point of kicking the ball between to sticks, same thing can be said about rugby.

sentances got out of order:
"No, it really couldn't. In rugby the difficulty of the kick varies hugely on where the try is scored. An easy kick has to be earned, and the difficult ones are touch and go affairs which are rather exciting."
Rugby is a superior sport, I normally watch/follow the 6 nations more then football, this is the first year I have done otherwise.

All I am saying is you claimed to not see the point of kicking the ball between to sticks, same thing can be said about rugby.

"Hockey is the number one sport on the planet? Which planet are you talking about? "
The planet Canada is on :P

+1 Uly, lol

This will happen the minute there's more money to be made by holding it there. Bet on it.

In my 10 years of playing and many more of spectating, I have seen countless misses or blocks when it comes to the extra point. Americans* don't really care that the rest of the world follows a simpler sport like soccer, we just like real football better.
*when I say Americans I don't mean all Americans, obviously not all of us follow or like football.

@Octavious:

"After the touchdown some other chap walks on to the field and kicks the ball between two sticks a few yards away, scoring an extra point. Why? This is the most pointless things I have ever seen in sport. It's so easy it's only ever missed once in a blue moon. What's it for?"

Short answer:

Because the Extra Point (or Point After Touchdown, or PAT, if I wanted to be REALLY anal about it) is worth 1 point...

Which you can go for as a near-sure thing, OR take the chance of going for a 2-Point Conversion, which is accomplished by a pass or run into the endzone from the same spot...

THAT is naturally harder, and only completed about 1/3 of the time, or so--1/2 of the time for a very good team--so it's a bigger risk, BUT can mean the difference between losing a game by one or tying, or else tying the game or winning.

Longer, History-oriented answer:

The reason?

A Field Goal was originally worth 6 , and a Touchdown 3.
THEN some guy figured out "Hey, it's actually HARDER to a TD than a FG, so the point values should be switched, as it's proportional."
And they are.

A TD is worth 6, a FG is considered "half" as hard, or so--since you're not going the whole length of the field anymore to score points, you're stopping and kicking--so half of 6 is 3.

The PAT was THEN added as a method to further encourage TDS...THAT WAY, a TD would be worth EVEN MORE than a FG; as it stood, 6 was 2x > 3, so a PAT made a TD worth slightly more than 2 FGs, thus encouraging the TDs that have so fueled the game's success...

As while a last-second FG can be exciting, just watching a team drive only 3/4 of the way and kick is less exciting than going all the way (and if you doubt that logic, ask any girlfriend which they'd prefer, 3/4ths the effort, or "going all the way."

;)

THEN, in the 1960s, the NFL, then at 12-14 teams or so, got competition from the AFL, a rival league, where many of the most prestigious teams in the NFL today started:

New England's Patriots (obviously in the SB this year...at that time, they were the "Boston" Patriots...)

Oakland/Los Angeles' Raiders (who were good until Al Davis effectively went senile...)

Miami's Dolphins and Denver's Broncos (5 SB trips and 2 wins apiece...)

And others.

WHY did this league survive?

One answer was, a VERY wide offensive game...THEY were the first to implement the idea of the 2-Point conversion.

So, the two leagues merged, the NFL adn AFL, and 30 years later, in the good old 1990s, someone at the league office said "Hey, ratings are good, but what would make this offense-driven league even MORE exciting? More points, so let's bring back the 2-point conversion!)

And so it has been:

1 point for a PAT
2 for a 2-Point Conversion OR Safety by the defensive (Tackling a player in his OWN endzone)
3 for a FG
6 for a TD

"But wait!" those logically-inclined might be asking, "why not just make a TD 7 and assure the 7 UNLESS they go for a 2-Point Conversion, and if they miss it, THEN they only earn 6? THEN you save the trouble of making us watch the kicker for all of two minutes!"

To which the obvious answers, are, of course:

1. Well, sometimes...well, they DO miss, sometimes, and their embarrassment's fun...
2. I thought Europeans was into kickers and kicking balls around?
3. Tevye's answer works best here--

"TRADITION!"

And there you have it!

The history of the NFL scoring system, why everything is what it's worth...

And waaaaaay more than you needed to know on the matter! ;)

Wow, this was the first obi post I read all the way through and I don't even like football. I guess it really makes a difference when you don't start rambling about Shakespeare and Star Trek and stay to the point.

Well...it's harder to insert Shakespeare and Star Trek into football...

I could shout "Once more unto the breach, Frank Gore!" but:

1. That'd be incredibly silly
2. That'd be incredibly embarrassing
3. I did that, at Buffalo Wild Wings, when watching the NFC Championship Game...

It didn't inspire Gore on...and none of the guys around me knew what the hell I was talking about (my English major friends did, though, but that just allowed them to laugh even longer and harder at my making a fool of myself in front of the big screen TV, switching between high fives and Henry V quotes.)

;)

To reply to early posts ITT:

1) Rugby is a far superior sport
2) We don't want the Super Bowl in Canada because the Grey Cup is far superior.

Isn't time zones going to be a huge issue here?

Won't advertisers flip their shit if the Super Bowl isn't played Prime Time EST? That would put the game at like midnight local time.

@obi - Nice post (on the history of NFL scoring). I actually plussed one a post of yours.

"Americans don't really care that the rest of the world..."

Probably the truest words usable regardless of context that were ever posted on this site.

D'awwwwwwww...

*I* care, ulytau...

Those of us who read, who are capable of reading, *we* care...

So all, what, about all 200, or so? (I might be being a bit generous with that number...)

Why not hold it in London? The *time zone*. Do you *really* think the 30 second spots will sell for millions each if the game is on 10AM Eastern and even earlier on the west coast? Hell no. It has to be in this hemisphere so it can be watched by the *real* fan base *live*. The amount of money spent on super bowl ads is outrageous and having it at such a fuck-awful time would mean companies wouldn't buy the ad time. That alone would cost the NFL, the teams, andthe network who go tit that year hundreds of millions of dollars.

Damn it, Draug! Don't steal my time zone thunder!

I liked the old Rugby's system better:
4 for a 'touchdown' (I know its called a try, just want to use the American terminology so the Americans no what I mean by each number, Rugby fans should be aware of how points are calculated)
3 for the 'PAT'
3 for a 'Fieldgoal'

This mean that the 'PAT' and the 'FG' were worth the same, but the advantage of the PAT was the touchdown beforehand worth 4 .

Now its 5 and 2.

The other thing I like more about Rugby is that the kick is harder, rather then always being dead on 15 or so yards away, the length and position you kick is based on where you scored.

If you scored in the corner, you have to kick from the corner, which is extremely hard and a lot of the time they miss. In other words when scoring your goal is to be as close to the center of the field as possible, and its a lot harder to score near the center. Meanwhile in football, a td is a td.

Well, they seemed to be ignoring it, and actually, London is 5? hours ahead of us, so either Londomn would have to play it at midnight or we'd get the game at like 1 or 2 PM Eastern.

"1) Rugby is a far superior sport
2) We don't want the Super Bowl in Canada because the Grey Cup is far superior."
Rugby is better
I want the superbowl here, think of the revenue. I haven't watched a CFL game in 3 years, since none of my friends watch it either and its not as fun to watch alone.

Its also the reason why I now watch football more then Rugby, peer pressure again.

@Draug: If the game starts at 8, it starts at 3 eastern time, not in the morning...

@Draug

Honestly, I'd rather watch the game at 1 so I can travel, drink, sober up, travel, and go to work the next day. But, I'm sure the advertisers would be pissed as all shit.

I can understand finding another sport superior, but the Grey Cup really??? The CFL is where the college drop outs and NFL or Arena Football go to die. Chadian football is a perversion of the real thing. That is why all of the good players stay here.

@Fasces - I corrected my timing, but the game would never start at 8. It would start at more like 6.

@abge - The advertisers are the problem. And imagine the ministers coming out against the super bowl because people would be leaving/skipping their church services to set up for their SB party at home.

And there is something wrong with playing poker and watching the superbowl when the sun is up. SB parties should *always* involve lots of gambling and booze.

I live in Indianapolis and am seeing this stuff firsthand. (I'm going downtown friday for a free LMFAO concert and to do the NFL exprience)

As far as how Indy is doing, everyone who is visiting from out of state are super impressed. So I really do think smaller cities like us can host well, especially since the party spans the entire city.

I would be against such an event being held outside of the United states for one reason. Money. The superbowl is bringing in the cash for all of Indy, including the suburbs where I am.

But that would be the onyl reason I would be against London. Personally I think it would be super tight if London got the superbowl. But i think I would want a trade.... Indianapolis to host the FA cup final? I'd buy tickets for that over any superbowl. But thats me, I like real football instead of throwball