| 0 |
Subject: NFL Changes you would like to see
Posted by: C.SuperFreak
- [55881120] Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 00:45
Watching the evening game got me thinking of the changes I'd
like to see. Maybe not on a permanent basis but on a trial basis.
These are a few of the thing off the top of my head:
1) Clean up the sidelines.
- Meaning eliminate the photographers, reporters, vips, players
not dressed, and owners from the sidelines. It's out of control.
Put them in areas similar to bball, hockey. Keep the arena clear
for the sideline refs, tv cameras, bench, cheerleaders.
2) Keep the long pants on the refs.
3) Reduce the distance for an onside kick recovery.
|
| 1 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 01:49
|
What's a Canadian doing watching American football during a workday, a perfectly good Thursday in Canada? Aren't you supposed to be adding to the Canadian Gross Domestic Product? I see what you are aiming for, you want boards, don't you? Boards topped with glass. Nice and clean and Canadian.
Happy American Thanksgiving to ya, you hoser :)
|
| 2 | WiddleAvi
ID: 895017
Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 07:58
|
I don't think you can make the distance shorter for onside kicks. The kicking team instead of kicking up into the air would just give the ball a really short squib kick and recover it too often.
My only complaint about yesterdays game was during the Dallas halftime show I wanted to see less of Daughtery and more cheerleaders.
|
| 3 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 10:15
|
Overtime: If a teams kicks a field goal before the other team get the ball, then the other team gets a possession.
This would provide some incentive for teams to try to score a TD on the opening OT drive, rather than simply position for a FG attempt.
|
| 4 | barilko6
ID: 291032279
Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 10:32
|
For sure...the CFL and NCAA have great overtime rules. The NFL not so much.
And I think that I speak for all Canadians when I say Superfreak is crazy for wanting to move the cheerleaders away from the cameras/action.
|
| 5 | PuNk42AE
Donor
ID: 036635522
Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 10:59
|
The NCAA's gets a little out of hand and can't imagine watching NFL teams go into 6OT. Now if it was a "each team gets a shot" thing without the 25 yard start it might be something, if you score then kick to the other like normal.
|
| 6 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 11:58
|
I would make it so if the team that gets the ball first in OT scores, the other team still gets the ball and has a chance to match it. If both teams are still tied after one possession, then it becomes a true sudden death.
|
| 7 | money4later
ID: 2111213116
Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 14:05
|
OT is definitely the top one. Other one I've thought about is timeouts. Maybe having 5 per game period, rather than 3 per half.
|
| 8 | Texas Flood
ID: 7101698
Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 18:09
|
This is coming from a frustrated Lions fan. The league should take
steps to remove any Ford from ownership.
We have the worst franchise in the history of all sports.
|
| 9 | sarge33rd
ID: 181058296
Sun, Nov 29, 2009, 07:58
|
OT: I f a team scores on its first possession, the opponent gets a possession to try and tie or win. Still tied after 1 possession ea, the game goes into OT for a period of 2 quarters; total time 15 min ea. Ea team gets 2 time-outs for the entire OT session; no challenges. Still tied after 30 mins; its a tie game. (Unless its a playoff game obviously)
Roughing the Passer: THESE calls have gotten ridiculous this year. Cant go into a QB high, cant go in low. This is TACKLE football, not touch. This rule, as implemented this year; needs to be relaxed in a HUGE way.
|
| 10 | Electroman
ID: 565182111
Sun, Nov 29, 2009, 08:51
|
I think I would like to see the 5 yrd facemask penalty come back. If the guys hand comes across the facemask, and he lets go, without turning the head, shouldn't be 15 yds. And the horsecollar has gotten out of control too. They have to review what a horse collar is, and isn't.
As far as OT, leave it the way it is. Defensive players get payed too, and ST players also.
|
| 11 | wolfer
ID: 141045299
Sun, Nov 29, 2009, 10:45
|
Re 6.
That is what the arena league used to have for overtime. I would go for that or what the USFL used to have. A team had to win by at least 6 in OT.
|
| 12 | Pancho Villa
ID: 3010441310
Sun, Nov 29, 2009, 10:56
|
Uniforms. A home(colored) and away(white or light)is fine. No retro uniforms and helmets. The Broncos really had uniforms that ugly in their early years? Why would anyone want to relive such a fashion disaster?
The Jets weren't green and white originally? Who knew? Who cares? The only decent looking retro uniform is the Chargers.
I can understand when a team like the Atlanta Falcons changed their color scheme a few years ago, because they really had no legacy prior.
But the Bears? Dark blue jerseys with orange trim please. No orange jerseys. Same with the Giants. Your home jerseys are royal blue, not red.
I liked the old Patriot helmets with the guy hiking the ball. But they changed it, so wear the new helmet or go back to the old one.
The best uniforms and helmets are the ones that haven't changed much over the years. Packers, Rams, Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, Colts.
|
| 13 | Nerfherders
ID: 347242717
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 13:45
|
#12 - They are celebrating the 50th Ann. of the AFL this year so that is why all the throwbacks this season. I kinda like it actually. Alternate jerseys are fine too. I think the Eagles black and Dolphins orange are pretty spiffy. Just don't over-do it - once or twice a year is sufficient.
OT - I think OT needs to be changed but not as drastically as others. If the team who receives the opening kickoff in OT (Team A) scores on that possession, that team must kickoff to the other team (Team B). Team B then has that possession to tie or win the game or it's over. (Once the kickoff is in the air, it is considered Team B's possession, in case of a muffed kick or onside kick) If Team B ties the game, then it is sudden death from that point forward. If Team A fails to score on its opening possession, then it goes to sudden death. It essentially eliminates the idea that a game can be won in OT without both teams getting possession. You would probably also have the team who wins the coinflip choosing to kick rather than receive.
I agree about horse collars too. That rule needs to be nailed down. I've seen several plays where there is no other way to tackle a player other than to grab the back of his jersey. Should you just let him run away from you? Ridiculous.
|
| 14 | Great One
ID: 331035308
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 13:47
|
But why do they wear the throwbacks so many times? I feel like the Jets wore those stupid things for like a month!
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 13:57
|
I'd do away with the rule to have no coaches challenge in the last 2 minutes of each half. That's when it is most important to get it right (it is also when timeouts have the most value).
|
| 16 | J
Leader
ID: 049346417
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 15:09
|
coaches challenges need to go away. Any play that is in question should be automatically reviewed upstairs without a referee having to go stick his head in a box.
|
| 17 | fugazi
ID: 4810103016
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 17:13
|
I would like to see no field goals in OT.
|
| 18 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 18:06
|
I like that idea they just eliminate FGs in OT.
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 154552311
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 18:16
|
Let's eliminate punting in OT, too. That would be pretty interesting.
|
| 20 | C1-NRB
ID: 5115723
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 19:58
|
PV: Uniforms. A home(colored) and away(white or light)is fine.
Not a Cowboy (or NFC East, for that matter) fan are you?
My rule for this option would be pick a home color and stick with it. Visiting teams adjust accordingly. You are allowed one Home date with an "alternative" uniform, but its base color must be the same as your regular "home" uniform.
|
| 21 | mjd
Leader
ID: 501381415
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 22:42
|
Full time officials.
Every year the officiating causes some controversy and it's only
getting worse. The NFL makes a boatload of cash. Pay these guys
so they don't need to be school teachers or businessmen during
the week. By requiring the officials to devote their full
professional time and attention to perfecting their craft, the
league could devise weekly film study and simulations in which
officials are forced to apply the rules during times of chaos, such
as the final seconds of a game where the clock is ticking and
one team is trying to get off a final play.
With increased repetitions, the officials' ability to think clearly in
such circumstances would improve.
Last night was a perfect example. With under 25 seconds to go
in a 17-17 game, Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco was sacked and
fumbled the ball at the Steelers 42-yard line. Ravens guard Ben
Grubbs recovered the ball at the 37-yard line, where Billy
Cundiff lined up to attempt a game winning 56-yard field goal.
The kick came up just short, but it shouldn't have been that
close. As pointed out by Al Michaels, NFL rules state that
"only the fumbling player is permitted to recover and/or advance
the ball. If recovered by any other offensive player, the ball is
dead at the spot of the fumble unless it is recovered behind the
spot of the fumble." The ball should have been spotted at the
42 yard line. Just get it right, guys.
While your at it, ditch the 2 sticks and a chain to measure a first
down. The NFL is already using modern technology with instant
replay and advances in the player's equipment. Certainly GPS
tech could be used to determine where to spot the ball or if it
crossed the goal line.
They're not wearing leather helmets without facemasks with the
throwback uni's. Can the chain gang.
|
| 23 | Donkey Hunter
ID: 568242321
Mon, Nov 30, 2009, 23:22
|
That reminds me...bring back the leather helmets so there won't be as many concussions.
|
| 24 | judy
Leader
ID: 7771722
Tue, Dec 01, 2009, 00:44
|
1) win by 6 in OT (ie by a TD not a FG, unless you kick two)
2) for the refs : yea to the black uni's (no to the tightie whities --some are way too tight)
3) here's a biggie -- use the college pass interference. Not at the spot, but just 15 yards. Too many
INT calls (ahem INDY this week) are too iffy to gain all that yardage. Make the offense EARN the
yardage -- the game is already way in favor of the offense -- give the defense a little slack here.
4) penalties for (open field) helmet to helmet "jacks" by the defense -- count 'em up -- you are outta
the game the 2/3rd time you do it to an opponent (green card, yellow card, red card and ejection!).
5) add one more coach's challenge -- the refs are now (thanks to Holchili) trained to let the play
continue so they don't stop a potentially legal play. This means that some (obviously erroneous)
plays get to continue and the team should not be penalized because the refs let it continue to be
sure they don't stop a legal play -- esp a turnover (ahem NYG shoulda had an INT TD on the ball off
shockey's foot, but they only got the INT and only got that when it was reviewed.)
6) no to full time refs -- 5 months off is way too long -- gotta have another job, especially for the
mental aspect of life. However some need to push back from the training table a bit more often --
there should be NO sticky outty guts!
that's all I can think of for now...
|
| 25 | Vee
ID: 8750149
Wed, Dec 02, 2009, 21:05
|
College pass interference wont work.
ANYtime a CB gets burned, he'll immediately go for the pass
interference. 15 yards (or half the distance) is WAY easier to
swallow than an easy TD. ESPECIALLY at the end of a game.
Maybe make two different types of Pass Interference, a blatant (at
the spot of the foul) and a minor (15 yards, auto 1st down).
???
|
| 26 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 07:55
|
Is Pass Interference ever not blatant? The whole point of the penalty is that the defender did something to try to break up a pass that they aren't allowed to do by rule. It's not like, "Oops, I just happened to have my body/hands in the way by accident." The defender was specifically trying to be there. That, by definition, is blatant.
By comparison, there is a difference in Facemasking. I've seen many defenders simply go for a tackle and their fingers simply touch a facemask without ever doing anything more, whereas there are those who grab the facemask, interlocking their fingers with it, and pull so that it practically snaps the player's head off. 5 and 15-yard penalties made more sense than the current rule.
Personally, I like judy's #4 for all Personal Fouls. Your third one in a season (or two in one game), like soccer, is an automatic game off. Personal Fouls have no place in the game.
That said, some of this QB over-protection has to get more in line with what the game is all about. I've seen personal fouls called for hits against QBs that don't even get a second look if it was against a WR, RB, etc. Sorry, but part of the game is getting hit. If the QB doesn't like it, he should start blaming his offensive line. The only thing the current rule does is benefit teams with weak offensive lines because there's a good likelihood there will be a personal foul when their QB gets sacked.
As for OT, I think it should simply be that each team is guaranteed one possession. Plain and simple. If you've already had the ball and didn't score and the other team does, too bad. You had your shot. However, if you haven't had the ball, you at least get a chance to respond.
And as a designer, I love the retro jerseys. It reminds us how bad design can be... and also how bad it'll be again soon enough. Fashion is one giant circle and despite how ugly you think it is, it'll be back in fashion before you know it.
|
| 27 | mjd
Leader
ID: 501381415
Thu, Dec 03, 2009, 15:57
|
Amen to the over protection of the sacred QB.
Buddy Ryan, one of my favorite coaches of all time said it best.
"Football is not a contact sport, dancing is a contact sport.
Football is a collision sport"
I still think that full time refs are needed. Professional sports has
become year round for the players. Give the officials a
reasonable time off after the season then have them in an
offseason workout regime and continue with film study and
practicing situational game time simulations. Set it up like teams
do with OTA's. Increased reps in various chaotic situations will
only help them to think clearer and respond to these situatons
better when they happen in real games.
Get the calls correct. Know all the rules inside out and stop with
the ticky-tack calls and not knowing where to properly spot the
ball. How about a bit more consistancy from crew to crew.
It's pretty sad when a TV announcer who never even played the
game knows the rules better than the guys who draw a
paycheck to enforce them.
|
| 28 | Electroman
ID: 565182111
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 16:40
|
Something has to be done about the officials. I think that the game has gotten too fast for them. I have seen 3 blown calls, 2 were obvious, in about 20 minutes of 2 games. I guess that full time officials would be a good start.
|
| 29 | Astade
ID: 38542218
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 17:02
|
I'm not sure who is to blame (NFL, broadcasters, etc), but
they need to stop switching games that have extended past
their allotted time. There is a reason they are still playing....
It's an exciting game!!!
Happened again today as they switched from the New
Orleans comeback late in the 4th to the begining of the 49ers
game. Ugh!
|
| 30 | Electroman
ID: 565182111
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 17:13
|
It is because you must be in the local market of one of the games, and I guess that the local team has rights on the tv time. But, yeah, it is frustrating.
|
| 31 | Great One
ID: 510371919
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 17:14
|
Thank god for NFL Red Zone. Its amazing.
|
| 32 | Astade
ID: 38542218
Sun, Dec 06, 2009, 17:23
|
Electroman, good word choice. It is very frustrating. Especially
after you invest 3 hours of your time and want to see the
game to its conclusion!
|
| 33 | Nerfherders
ID: 347242717
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 15:27
|
Waaaay too many ticky-tack fouls lately. It's getting ridiculous.
In the Eagles-Falcons game, twice the Eagles were called for leading with the helmet fouls, one of which was really bad because Sean Jones hit the receiver when the ball was coming to him, but the ball was deflected away at the very last moment. If the ball had actually gotten there and knocked out by Jones, they would not have made that call.
They are getting desperate to try to stop concussions, but those kinds of plays don't cause them as much hitting your head on the ground, or from getting knee'd in the head while on the ground causes them. Let the players TACKLE is all I am saying.
|
| 34 | Uptown Bombers
Donor
ID: 035616416
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 16:31
|
Why isn't the "spike the ball to stop the clock" play ruled intentional grounding? The QB is not outside the pocket, the OL men are not eligible receivers, and the ball often fails to reach the line of scrimmage. I've wondered about this for a year or two, but always chalked it up to missing some part of the rule's interpretation. It would be interesting to see the QB have to at least spike the ball at a TE or slot receiver.
|
| 35 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 18:53
|
RE: #34
The NFL Rule Book states that intentional grounding is called (highlight by me) "when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion."
There is no "imminent loss of yardage" in the situation of a spiked ball.
|
| 36 | Uptown Bombers
Donor
ID: 035616416
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 20:03
|
Thanks for looking that up. I guess the rule book explains it. I'd like to see some DT jump over center in an obvious spike situation and then have the coach argue for a ruling of "imminent loss of yardage." It's probably too difficult to time exactly, but it could force the point.
|
| 37 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 20:50
|
"I'd like to see some DT jump over center in an obvious spike situation and then have the coach argue for a ruling of 'imminent loss of yardage.'"
In the situation of the offense spiking the ball, they're clearly trying to make up points (thus, yardage) in a time-critical point in the game. Because of that, I think the potential for an offsides penalty that gives the offense a free 5 yards is too great a risk for any potential argument of an intentional grounding penalty.
I think most teams are simply content to let the offense waste a down just to stop the clock. That's a pretty good trade-off for the defense.
|
| 38 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Mon, Dec 07, 2009, 20:56
|
By the way, I have seen something like that when the offense was trying to kneel the ball (Victory Formation). A couple of the defensive linemen timed the snap VERY well and leapt over the center and bowled over the QB. The QB held onto the ball and was simply tackled for the same loss he would have otherwise had. A minor shoving match broke out since the offense was none too happy about it and that was the end of that. Still, interesting.
|
| 39 | money4later
ID: 2111213116
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 10:01
|
34 - would be cool to have it like the Longest Yard with the QB throwing the ball directly at a ref's mid-section to stop the clock.
|
| 40 | Uptown Bombers
Donor
ID: 035616416
Tue, Dec 08, 2009, 21:00
|
I'm pretty sure a linebacker from a small southern school timed that jump routinely. It was all over the ESPN. I think his name was Bobby Boucher...
|
| 42 | Electroman
ID: 565182111
Fri, Jan 01, 2010, 19:27
|
Competition commitee to look at teams that have clinched, and rest players.
What are they going to do about that? Have a sniper take out Manning with stun darts when they are ahead, so they lose some games early in the season?
|
| 43 | judy
ID: 48642817
Sat, Jan 02, 2010, 18:47
|
They could schedule the second round of conference games
for the last three weeks. That might help.
For some of the weaker divisions it might not matter, but
there is not much you can do about perenially crappy
teams/divisions. Usually the NFC east is strong, but not this
year.
|
| 44 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 15:19
|
In my news reader, these two stories showed up in order:
First: NFL to look at resting starters
Second: Patriots WR Welker injured, won't return
The NFL just needs to leave this one alone. I assure you that whatever outrage some Colts fans are feeling after last week's game, it's nothing compared to the outrage they'd feel if the team was 15-0 and Manning went down with a season-ending injury against the lowly Bills this week and the Colts were left with a dishrag for their QB through their (very short-lived) playoff run.
The problem with this whole situation is that fans (short for "fanatics") want everything. They want the best QB, the best RB, the best WR, the best defense, an undefeated record, all the glory, EVERYTHING.
Of course, they can't have that. Real teams are not fantasy teams and injuries can happen against ANY opponent. Just ask Tom Brady how he feels about the Chiefs. AND, most importantly, key position players aren't filled by a waiver wire request.
|
| 45 | sarge33rd
ID: 1403337
Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 20:34
|
re 43: That, is actually IMO, a VERY good idea. With the 2nd rd of games undecided and the outcomes 'up[ in the air' re your division position; I doubt many starters would be sitting.
I can understand a coaches desire to preserve a starter for the playoffs. The 'upside' is obvious. But athletes get paid what they do (astronomical sums), BECAUSE their presence sells tickets. IOW, team "A" can get what they do for tickets because of who the fans expect to see playing.To sit that 'draw', is to cheat the paying customers. Without whom....you wont be able to afford a championship caliber team.
The probability of being injured in game 15, or game 16; is virtually identical to the probability of being injured in game 2 or game 3 or game 4. SO what will they do next year?Play Manning for only the 1st half of all the games, in order to reduce his injury risk?
|
| 46 | KrazyKoalaBears
ID: 12353217
Sun, Jan 03, 2010, 22:24
|
sarge, surely you understand the difference between a Week 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. game and a Week 16 or 17 game, particularly in this situation. If not, it's really pretty simple:
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.: NOTHING is determined
Weeks 16 and 17 (for Colts): EVERYTHING is determined
The Colts already had home-field advantage throughout. They're done. There's nothing else to be gained except a perfect season, which didn't work out so well for New England a couple of years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if that very thing weighed on the minds of the Colts and Saints.
As for probability of injury, this has absolutely nothing to do with that other than the fact that there IS a probability of being injured. Just ask Wes Welker. And when there is absolutely NOTHING on the line, why risk it at all?
As for the fans wanting to see the starters, just don't buy Week 16 or 17 tickets. Anybody who knows anything about football knows it's a possibility the starters will be rested those weeks for highly successful teams. If your sole goal is to see the starters play, go to an earlier game. As for season ticket holders, those who have tickets for teams that don't need to play in Week 16 or 17 have already gotten their money's worth. As a bit of a Washington Redskins fan, I'd MUCH rather watch them rest their starters as they head to the playoffs with home-field advantage throughout compared to what has been the reality of late.
Lastly, players get paid to win. If players have done enough for their team such that the team is going to the playoffs with home-field advantage throughout, regardless of what happens in the games of Week 16 and 17, then the players have more than earned their paycheck.
To me, this whole "issue" is just ridiculous. I can't imagine Peyton Manning getting injured playing the Jets or Bills and the Colts fans being happy about it because, hey, at least he played the entire game like they wanted him to. Who cares about the playoffs or a championship? There's no glory in that. The glory comes in Week 17. It's all about the Regular Season, baby!
|
| 47 | Electroman
ID: 565182111
Sun, Jan 31, 2010, 18:49
|
Time article about head injuries, and changes that could help curb them.
|
| 48 | Doug
ID: 49151269
Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 11:12
|
Is Pass Interference ever not blatant? The whole point of the penalty is that the defender did something to try to break up a pass that they aren't allowed to do by rule. It's not like, "Oops, I just happened to have my body/hands in the way by accident." The defender was specifically trying to be there. That, by definition, is blatant.
No, it's nowhere near that simple. The most obvious case will be a deep pass where the defender is running step-for-step or even a half step behind the receiver. Ball is underthrown, receiver slows down, CB "runs into him", penalty is called on the CB. Total BS. It's not blatant, it's not intentional, and it's reasonable to expect CBs to have the 0.00001 second reaction time it would take to avoid running into someone. The unreasonableness of that expectation is why we have laws for minimum trailing distances for cars on the highway. (And of course, if all this happens while his head is turned the other way, then it's magically ok.)
There are plenty of blatant PIs, but there are plenty where the PI is arguably initiated by the WR (or QB depending how you look at it) but it still gets called on the CB on what I'd consider a technicality. I think it has less to do with "blatant" as it does with intentional.
Not sure what the right answer is here... but to throw out an idea, what if intentional PI is 15 yards or the spot of the foul, whichever is greater... unintentional PI is 15 yards or the spot of the foul, whichever is less?
|
| 49 | Doug
ID: 49151269
Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 11:15
|
Should read "it's unreasonable to expect CBs to have the 0.00001 second reaction time it would take to avoid running into someone"
|
| 50 | barilko6
ID: 121172610
Fri, Feb 26, 2010, 11:17
|
The NFL needs to implement a rookie salary cap immediately. The draft was put into place to induce parity, but has since turned into a process in which the weak teams are forced to shell out millions of dollars for unproven rookies as opposed to being able to pay their veterans.
This becomes painfully evident when there is no desire whatsoever by other teams to move up in the draft, solely for financial reasons.
|
| 51 | Seattle Zen
Leader
ID: 055343019
Tue, Jun 01, 2010, 22:44
|
I'd like to see less spam...
and the Vikings win the Super Bowl.
They are not mutually exclusive.
|
| 52 | JeffG
Dude
ID: 01584348
Fri, Jun 18, 2010, 09:53
|
The NFL and Union are again discussing going to an 18 game regular season and cutting the pre-season from 4 to 2 games. Don't know any of the logistics but I would imagine that if they still kept the one bye week per team, that would mean the football season would just start 2 weeks earlier, to the week before Labor Day Weekend.
How about just eliminating 2 pre season games but keeping the season at 16 (I know the answer is money).
Wouldn't 18 regular season games mean a greater possibility for meaningless football where key players are sitting out at the end of the season?
|
| 53 | Great One
ID: 455141711
Fri, Jun 18, 2010, 15:44
|
I hate the way it would alter the value of players stats... 1000 yard season? 100 catches? 4000 passing yards or whatever it si... career totals... all these benchmarks would be screwed up.
|
| 54 | Slowhand
ID: 22032313
Sat, Jun 19, 2010, 14:53
|
Re:53 I'm old enough to remember when they went from 14 to 16 games and was concerned about the same thing. I know the NBA has increased the # of games over the years as well as MLB and NHL.I guess you just have to look at averages to compare players of differnt eras; although I've also thought rules changes (DH,3 point line and such) have made as big a difference as # of games played.
Re: 52 I heard on ESPN radio (although I can't recall the source) that the season would be pushed back further, perhaps even to having the Superbowl on President's Day weekend thus giving us the 3 day weekend to recover from the festivities.
|
| 55 | Judy
ID: 54203110
Sun, Jul 18, 2010, 19:11
|
Or put the super bowl on a Saturday night... So all those
workers who stayed up to watch it/party through it get a day
to recover. Also the younger kids could watch the whole thing
not having to go to bed early to be ready for school --
teaching boys the monday morning after was not fun...
Don't get me started about the late starts for the MLB
playoffs!
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|