HometownBoy
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2013
- Messages
- 3,527
- Name
- Aaron
Seems like a move to just make a move, which is what happens when a bunch of stuffy, old white men in suits get bored together.
I don't understand why % of time a play is executed successfully = not working.
If someone discovered that the same percentage of tackles were executed properly as PATs, would you be in favor of not having players tackle each other anymore?
If you could show that 99.6% of all tackles lead wide were made successfully, I would argue that you would be watching a FAR less exciting sport. The NFL is in the entertainment industry, and the average viewer is watching for "exciting" plays. This may not hold true for the die hard fan, but the die hard fans comprise the vast minority of viewership. In the entertainment industry, I would argue that the goal is to increase notoriety and viewership and thus increase revenue. If this is in fact the goal, then wasting TV time or a play on something that is virtually automatic and provides little to no chance of being an "exciting" play = not working. Especially when there is the POTENTIAL for something that may draw in more interest from the casual fan. In no way am I saying that you are wrong, I am simply attempting to look at it from the view of the NFL, which is just a business competing against other business' for viewership and popularity.
I understand completely why one would not want to change the rule, but I also see no negative in at least seeing the potential in a meaningless exhibition game. It's not as if you can argue kickers need real game situations to work on there FG's from the 2.
I can't disagree with that.
Coming from a more theoretical perspective, I guess at what point do you lose entertainment value by having less routine moments? In other words doesn't the routine extra point, as opposed to one that's more difficult or two point conversions at less critical junctures of the game highten the excitement of a two point conversion late with more drama attached?
The NFL is already the most popular program on TV. There's not a whole lot more headroom. I'd worry that if you start losing some integral aspects of the game, the only place to go is down.
I can't remember the last time I've seen it (probably because it hardly ever works or makes sense). But this would eliminate the fake PAT kick attempt.
They need to set up several rings in various place throughout the end zone. Get the ball through the bronze, you get 1 point. Silver = 2 points. Gold = 45 points, but Tim Tebow gets subbed in as your teams QB for the rest of the game, so maybe think that one through..
because--perhaps counterintuitively--it can be said that it is not working. when you have a play in which one team--the defensive unit, in this case--is facing a handicap of such immense proportions that probability of their having success in that play is microscopically low, what is the point? it's a borderline charade. you have a much better chance of someone being injured on these plays than you do in changing the near-certain outcome. that reality alone almost cries out for a change. even when an extra point play does not succeed, it's much more likely to result from something like a bad snap than from actual competition. hell, you might as well just award the point and be done with it. let us get another beer and they can run some more commercials while we do it. and just because something has always--or for a very long time--been done a certain way, that does not in itself mean it is right or best, and that something else may not be better.I think the center to quarterback exchange is too automatic. Every play should have to be run from the shotgun to make it more exciting. Also, and team that run a dive between the tackles should be penalized 15 yards, and instead of a coin toss they should go back to the XFL way of deciding first possession.
I mean, where does it end guys? Why mess with something that is already working?
i always thought that stuffy old white guys were the very antithesis of change.Seems like a move to just make a move, which is what happens when a bunch of stuffy, old white men in suits get bored together.
thank you, well-said.If you could show that 99.6% of all tackles lead wide were made successfully, I would argue that you would be watching a FAR less exciting sport. The NFL is in the entertainment industry, and the average viewer is watching for "exciting" plays. This may not hold true for the die hard fan, but the die hard fans comprise the vast minority of viewership. In the entertainment industry, I would argue that the goal is to increase notoriety and viewership and thus increase revenue. If this is in fact the goal, then wasting TV time or a play on something that is virtually automatic and provides little to no chance of being an "exciting" play = not working. Especially when there is the POTENTIAL for something that may draw in more interest from the casual fan. In no way am I saying that you are wrong, I am simply attempting to look at it from the view of the NFL, which is just a business competing against other business' for viewership and popularity.
I understand completely why one would not want to change the rule, but I also see no negative in at least seeing the potential in a meaningless exhibition game. It's not as if you can argue kickers need real game situations to work on there FG's from the 2.
because--perhaps counterintuitively--it can be said that it is not working. when you have a play in which one team--the defensive unit, in this case--is facing a handicap of such immense proportions that probability of their having success in that play is microscopically low, what is the point?