Some interesting talk going on with the competition committee this year - one of the stranger ones is apparently the support for changing the extra point is gaining momentum. Ideas include moving it back to the 15 yard line, moving it to the 1 yard line (to encourage teams to go for 2 more often) and even a really wacky one where if you go for 2 you get a free kick from the 50 yard line (a chance to kick a 60-yard field goal with no defense for one more point - making a 9-point play). This is all to alleviate the "most boring play in football" which, maybe I'm just old school, but I think is stupid. I was even unhappy when they introduced the 2-point conversion back in 1994.

The other thing they won't let die is the overtime rules. So it's unfair if the team that wins the toss is able to drive down the field and score a touchdown? The big argument you hear a lot about leaving it as it is is that the defense is on your team too! But, let's say you give up a touchdown on the opening drive in OT and get the ball back and score a touchdown. Guess what? The other team gets the ball again and what if they score a touchdown again? And please, NFL, don't bring in the college overtime rules. Personally, I liked it better when it was sudden death, first team to score wins.

What do you all think about these and the other rule proposals?

The 9 point conversion is a bit much for me. An 18 pt game should not be a two possession game. The game is interesting and dynamic enough with just a 2 pt conversion. I didn't know that was implemented in 1994 though!

The OT rules are always pretty interesting, but I don't think it matters too much. I disliked it when a FG could win the game straight away, but now it's ok and I consider any tweak to be ticky tacky. I wouldn't care either way if both teams get a chance even after a TD.

Not just these ideas, but Roger Goodell for me has to be the worst commissioner that I can remember. He won't be happy until all players are bubble wrapped and have no contact.

I also hate with a passion the International series as well and feel for the season ticket holders, and as for wanting a franchise in London? Go on Roger, do it it will be your death knell.

The 9 point play was ridiculous and I don't think anyone except Jim "Batshit Crazy" Irsay actually thought it was a good idea.

I would love to see the college overtime rules implemented though. I just find the pro overtime so ridiculous, I hate that a coin toss can decide it. I'd also like to see ties done away with.

Another rule change that I'd like to see is the "down by contact" rule. If a guy trips up then he should be down, whether someone hit him or not.

I greatly prefer the college overtime rule to the NFL overtime rule.

I also do not like having a coin flip have that great a role in deciding the winner of a game.
I remember a couple of seasons ago the Cowboys and Broncos played a game that was something like 51-48. I think it's safe to say neither defense could stop the other offense that day. If this game had gone to overtime, the coin flip would have decided the winnner.

I also don't like that in college you basically start in FG range. But at least the game is decided on the field with each team given an equal chance.

I think the college rules should be implemented, but you get the ball at the 50 instead of the 25.

Definitely agree with you on this one. That and the drive to put a team in LA. I think it was 1994 when both the Rams and the Raiders moved out of LA, and while I know that's been 20 years, I seem to recall that the reason they moved is because no one in LA cared that they had a football team. And now it sounds likely that two teams will move back to the LA market. They seem to want to move there because it is such a huge TV market, but if no one there cares you aren't going to have any better viewership than you do in a smaller market like San Diego, Oakland, or St. Louis. I don't know, I do fear like you, Gus, that Godell will be the death of the NFL with the things he's doing.

Another rule change that was voted down (or at least for "further consideration") is to require cameras on the bound lines and end zone for replay to guarantee you have proper angles. Apparently that's too expensive. Not sure what the real reason is.

They also outlawed the trick play the Patriots used in the playoffs (where they lined up an ineligible player in the slot). Another one I disagree with, that formation should be legal and defenses should be knowledgeable enough to know that. What about the play the Browns did where Johnny Manzel was standing on the sideline talking to his coach but was on the field in an eligible position? Should that be illegal too? Why ban trickery? What next, make the flea flicker illegal? Why not just give each eligible receiver a ribbon they have to stick to their helmet color coded to the progression? (Just to be clear I don't like the Patriots so this rant is not in defense of them, it's in defense of the game.)

You see this a lot for rule changes when Patriots find ways to use the rule book. Brady said it best when he told Harbaugh to learn the rule book because we knew what we were doing. And just to clarify things. The tuck rule was already in effect for a few seasons before they called it in the Oakland game and was actually called one time previously in a seasonal game. Next Spy-gate rule was implemented that season so all the people complaining that the Patriots had used it for an advantage for prior Super Bowl wins need to learn when rules are implemented and really all it was where the camera was positioned, a lot of teams did the same thing but they didnt have an ex coach rat them out...lol.

It is a huge TV market and I also seem to remember the black-outs pretty much killed off what interest there was.

Goodell thinks he can turn the west coast into the football mad east coast and we all know what happened the last time, as you've pointed out.

I also don't like the way he seems to be swayed by certain 'influential' owners as well. I can't wait for him to go, maybe someone needs to buy a billboard ;)

Apparently it is illegal: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11566812/cleveland-browns-qb-johnny-manziel-trick-play-reception-deemed-illegal-not-penalized

I think (but have no actual clue) it was the fact he was interacting with the sideline / bench area. If, perhaps, he'd been interacting with Hoyer somehow (maybe going towards him as a possible substitution, but setting right before the snap), it might've been legal and still a little bit of trickeration, but I don't know for sure.

I hate messing with the game period. The owners really are only motivated by trying to grow at any cost and eventually, they will kill the game once growth tops out. See what NASCAR did to itself as a prime example.