Wait, I heard somewhere that the idea was to go ahead and just award 7 for the TD, and if you want to go for two, you have to gamble a point? (i.e., if you miss the try, you get 6, if you make it you get 8, otherwise you get 7).
That sounds even dumber. No one would ever risk going for two in that scenario unless they absolutely needed the point at the end of the game. Make it 6 for the TD and 2 more for the try, eliminate the ability to get 7 or move the kick further back.
Would certainly mess up the scenario books, since you'd never see games in multiples of 7/14/21/28 etc anymore.
Why? That's exactly how it works NOW. Only difference is that they waste everyone's time with a 20 yard FG "try" first before awarding the 7th point. You get 6 automatically, and then can take the gimme point, or gamble the automatic one by trying for 2 instead. This proposal just saves everyone the effort on the kick, as the success rate is over 99%.
Wouldn't change anything for scoring, or scenario books, or anything, as it's exactly the way it is now. Just saves time by not forcing the automatic kick first. Your decision to go for 2 or not would be exactly the same, and for the same reasons.
Only thing that could possibly change is scenarios where your kicker or holder just got hurt, and you don't think it's automatic. Even then, though, usually someone that trains as the backup and could still get the gimme kick through.
It would be a few minutes faster this way, and you also avoid the occasional injury on these nonsense extra points. Gronkowski's broken arm (forget if it was the first one or the re-break) came on blocking for an extra point in a meaningless blowout game. Freak injury, sure, but you DO have starters playing in the extra point try on both sides of the ball, and losing a marquee player on that nonsense is just silly.