yes, all the parents of kids playing football don't want their son to live a long and happy life and don't care if they end up as disposable trash. Yeah, that's it.
The Future of Football: NYTimes Links Big Tobacco with NFL Concussion Study
- Thread starter soxfan121
- Start date
I think the point is that most parents don't realize the risk is as great as it actually is right now. As time goes on, more and more parents are going to become aware of the potential dangers of football, and as a result they'll end up pulling their kids out.
You may be right. I know there are parents today that are giving extra thought. I probably read a little much into that sentence. Sounded very condescending when I first read it but re-reading it, I don't think it was meant that way.
There is certainly some evidence out there. I didn't meant to suggest there wasn't a legit reason and I'm not sure what I would do when/if the time comes.
Sorry if my point came across as condesdcending, wasn't my intent.
ZP1 said it better than I did.
After watching that piece, it's pretty alarming what happens to the human brain as a result of the contact in football, specifically THE pre season, mid season and post season scans.
The NFL, high schools and pop warner programs are doing things to limit that with contact practices only once or twice a week, it's the NCAA that has their head up their ass.
The ironic thing is the NCAA was formed to protect the players.
Seeing the ex Harvard player who was a lawyer and is now bedridden is an image that will stay with me for a long time.
I guess Reed doesnt realize how lucky he is to have his suspension overturned, because this quote makes it seems like he is just daring the NFL to try to give him one. His football smarts and instincts dont apply to real life situations whatsoever.
If you asked the average person 5 years ago what the worst case scenario was for their children playing football, the #1 response would almost certainly be paralysis. Paralysis as terrible as it is, has never been a factor that stops people from putting their kids in football because not only is it an exceedingly rare injury, but its a classic injury that's easy to understand (you don't wake up paralyzed 3 years after playing because of a bad hit you took). Looking forward 5 years into the future, I'd guess that the overwhelming #1 response is going to be pointing to brain injury as the worst case scenario. And the scary thing is that there's no way of knowing how much damage your child is taking, and what effects that damage might inevitably have. Moreover, it's not even something that it statistically rare at this point, it hits everyone and its simply a matter of degree.
The scary part for the NFL is how the incident that starts to crush footballs public image could be an incident that doesn't even occur in the NFL. All it's going to take is for a relatively photogenic kid (with rich parents) to get crippled for life via a brain injury. Because then you'll have a story in where there's dramatic before/after pictures, and you'll have parents who try to make up for their parental mistake by pouring a shitload of money into awareness efforts.
The scary part for the NFL is how the incident that starts to crush footballs public image could be an incident that doesn't even occur in the NFL. All it's going to take is for a relatively photogenic kid (with rich parents) to get crippled for life via a brain injury. Because then you'll have a story in where there's dramatic before/after pictures, and you'll have parents who try to make up for their parental mistake by pouring a shitload of money into awareness efforts.
There have been a few stories in baseball of pitchers getting permanent damage from being hit in the head with a line drive, even at the early levels like little league but it hasnt had a horrible effect on MLB.
I have been an assistant coach for the past four years and I can say in that time frame I've had several parents talk to me about concussions. It is now law here in Pennsylvania that every coach in every sport has to take a short class on concussion awareness. When I played high school ball (98-00) concussions were never really talked about and unless you were really concussed you went back in. Today if a kid even talks about their head they are coming out until they can be evaluated by the trainer.
When parents talk about long term brain damage, depression, etc from concussions they are usually looking at the NFL players who have died or been profiled in the news. I always tell them this, yes there is a risk of getting a concussion in football or any sport for that matter and they are very serious. However, if you look at these NFL players you have to realize many have been playing football from about the age of 12 until their late 20's or early 30's. Thats twenty years of blows to the head in practice and games. I tell parents your kid is going to be playing six years most likely and with a lot less contact then in years past. Again there is always a risk out there though and I would never send a kid back in if I believed they had a potential head injury.
It is going to be interesting to see where football goes in the next few years though because of head injuries.
When parents talk about long term brain damage, depression, etc from concussions they are usually looking at the NFL players who have died or been profiled in the news. I always tell them this, yes there is a risk of getting a concussion in football or any sport for that matter and they are very serious. However, if you look at these NFL players you have to realize many have been playing football from about the age of 12 until their late 20's or early 30's. Thats twenty years of blows to the head in practice and games. I tell parents your kid is going to be playing six years most likely and with a lot less contact then in years past. Again there is always a risk out there though and I would never send a kid back in if I believed they had a potential head injury.
It is going to be interesting to see where football goes in the next few years though because of head injuries.
RT @SI_PeterKing: Just reported on @NBCSN that NFL's Competition Committee will consider abolition of ALL blocks below the waist in 2013.
Blah..
Blah..
Yes, but being hit in the head by a baseball is seen as rare (rather like the risk of paralysis in football cited above). Whereas getting hit in the head seems to be part of practices and games.
Things change.
Eg hockey players in their generation don't change, players who never wore helmets as kids never wanted to, the next generation were forced to by parents or leagues and got used to it from a young age and it was never an issue. Next was visors or grills and so on.
I still am shocked that I see the stars like cam Newton and rgIII wearing a tiny mouthpiece or cam doesn't even have one.
The new generation will be pushed to double mouthpieces and money spent on better helmet. Again it's shocking to see how often they come off on a hit etc today. If not now then soon, parents are neurotic and schools and leagues terrified of lawsuits.
Eg hockey players in their generation don't change, players who never wore helmets as kids never wanted to, the next generation were forced to by parents or leagues and got used to it from a young age and it was never an issue. Next was visors or grills and so on.
I still am shocked that I see the stars like cam Newton and rgIII wearing a tiny mouthpiece or cam doesn't even have one.
The new generation will be pushed to double mouthpieces and money spent on better helmet. Again it's shocking to see how often they come off on a hit etc today. If not now then soon, parents are neurotic and schools and leagues terrified of lawsuits.
Ridiculous. Defensive players have got helmet to helmet, spearing anywhere on the body with the helmet, head slaps, clothes-lines, facemasks, horsecollars, tackling a QB at the knees or below, body slams, what else? Then, they'd take away the old cross body block from offensive guys (half kidding here)? Offensive linemen have a lot more freedom today using their hands. They used to have to have hands fisted and up against the uniform jersey or get called for holding. No blocking below the waist wouldn't be a huge thing, but it would still take away another traditional part of the game that's fun to watch. I'm all for looking out for players' health and safety, but it may be getting too complicated wrt what players are allowed to do.
Meh. Mouthpieces are mandatory for high school I believe anyway. QBs have a hard time communicating with a big piece of rubber in their mouth. I understand that it has its benefits for concussions, but I don't think we'll be seeing a change at the NFL level anytime soon.
On soccer and sub-concussive damage:
http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/13/study-soccer-players-without-concussions-still-have-brain-changes/
http://healthland.time.com/2012/11/13/study-soccer-players-without-concussions-still-have-brain-changes/
Albert Breer ‏
Goodell just said at his press conference that the league will look at expanding the playoffs to 14 or 16 teams.
Do we need more teams?
I hate that idea because the NFL playoffs are set up as a do or die, and there only so many games. I watch every single playoff game every year, because it's the end of the season and there are only 11 games left in the entire season. That doesn't even take into the fact that a 7-9 team already made the playoffs once with the current format. What happens when a 6-10 team or two 7-9 teams make the playoffs? It's just stupid.
16 teams? Wow, that is the worst idea ever. I guess instead of the 18 game season, the NFL is going find a way to expand the schedule via the playoffs. Horrendous, it will make the regular season all the more worthless.
I remember a joke from years ago, pre-expansion, about how the NBA played an 82 game season to find out which 6 teams would not make the playoffs.
Darnell raises a good point but as much as he hates it, he hasn't looked at the logical extension, which is what happened in the NBA: it devalues the regular season.
Darnell raises a good point but as much as he hates it, he hasn't looked at the logical extension, which is what happened in the NBA: it devalues the regular season.
No, but the NFL owners need more money.
The problem is that their long-term and short-term incentives are not necessarily in line. Owners like the Rooneys and Green Bay's care about the sport 10-15 years from now. But any owner that's thinking about selling in less doesn't care. If you're going to sell the team, you only care about the TV contracts in the next few years, and don't worry about whether expanded playoffs kill interest in the regular season reducing the overall TV pot in 10 years. That's a market inefficiency.
And a better variation of that joke from long ago is that the NHL played the regular season for the purpose of eliminating Winnipeg.
How can we get rid of Roger Goodell?
Every week it's another bad idea coming from this league.
The NFL playoff structure is one of the best ingredients to the secret sauce that makes the NFL so good. There's enough teams in the playoffs that there's some degree of volatility (and a decent amount of games to televise), but not so many teams in the playoffs that it encourages sandbagging in the regular season. The NFL is fantastic because every game matters for every team right up until the last 2-3 weeks. Changing the playoff structure would be nothing short of horrific for both the league and its fans.
Moneygrubbing pricks.
The last few years have seen 7-9 and 8-8 teams make the playoffs, and we want to add more teams? From my perspective, I only see negatives when teams like that make the playoffs. Either the volatility of an average NFL game shines through (2011 Broncos over Steelers, 2010 Seattle over New Orleans, etc.) or the team flames out and makes the NFL look bad (2008 Chargers). It's a lose-lose.
Hopefully this falls off the board like the 18 game schedule, but it wouldn't surprise me to see this idea get legs. These guys are going to try and find a way to keep milking this cash cow.
I think they should leave it the way it is. But if they're going to expand here are three things I'd like to see. They won't happen but hey.
First, the top seeds get to "draft" who they want to play. The #1 seed picks whoever, then #2, and then #3 (and #4 is left with the last pick). That can even out some of the issues with seeding and make the last week more interesting.
Second, the top two seeds should get extra rest. Not a whole week (because that would mean some crappy teams get a whole week too) but if they're going to get rid of the bye you have to make the top seeds more valuable than just home-field. Plus with four extra games they're going to have struggles scheduling unless they have overlapping games. So maybe they could have games stretch from Friday through Tuesday or something (two games Friday, two Sat, two Sun, one each Mon and Tues) and give the top seeds the latest games. They could even "draft" when they wanted to play, too like in my previous point (this could also help cold-weather teams if they saw a snowstorm was on the way or something).
Third, they should create a "President's Trophy" for the best team in the regular season. I know no one will care about it but it's at least something to make the regular season more worthwhile. Maybe it could have a money bonus or some other incentive. In European soccer leagues there is a league trophy, which is most teams' main goal, and then alternate "playoff" trophies played throughout the year. US sports are weird that they put all their weight on a small-sample-size tournament (baseball being the weirdest since the "best" team wins that tournament so less often than other sports).
First, the top seeds get to "draft" who they want to play. The #1 seed picks whoever, then #2, and then #3 (and #4 is left with the last pick). That can even out some of the issues with seeding and make the last week more interesting.
Second, the top two seeds should get extra rest. Not a whole week (because that would mean some crappy teams get a whole week too) but if they're going to get rid of the bye you have to make the top seeds more valuable than just home-field. Plus with four extra games they're going to have struggles scheduling unless they have overlapping games. So maybe they could have games stretch from Friday through Tuesday or something (two games Friday, two Sat, two Sun, one each Mon and Tues) and give the top seeds the latest games. They could even "draft" when they wanted to play, too like in my previous point (this could also help cold-weather teams if they saw a snowstorm was on the way or something).
Third, they should create a "President's Trophy" for the best team in the regular season. I know no one will care about it but it's at least something to make the regular season more worthwhile. Maybe it could have a money bonus or some other incentive. In European soccer leagues there is a league trophy, which is most teams' main goal, and then alternate "playoff" trophies played throughout the year. US sports are weird that they put all their weight on a small-sample-size tournament (baseball being the weirdest since the "best" team wins that tournament so less often than other sports).
[quote name='Kenny F'ing Powers' timestamp='1355396985' post='4460448']
Moneygrubbing pricks.
The last few years have seen 7-9 and 8-8 teams make the playoffs, and we want to add more teams? From my perspective, I only see negatives when teams like that make the playoffs. Either the volatility of an average NFL game shines through (2011 Broncos over Steelers, 2010 Seattle over New Orleans, etc.) or the team flames out and makes the NFL look bad (2008 Chargers). It's a lose-lose.
Hopefully this falls off the board like the 18 game schedule, but it wouldn't surprise me to see this idea get legs. These guys are going to try and find a way to keep milking this cash cow.
[/quote]
Even John Gotti said, to Sammy Gravano, "slow it down". The more you have of something, the less valuable it often becomes.
Notwithstanding the pristine balance sheets, record breaking network deals and burgeoning franchise values, a lot of the recent stuff paints a picture to me of instability and distress. Not short term to be sure, but long term.
So many of these trial balloons are such obvious non-starters. Putting a franchise in London. Expanding to 18 games while fronting for player safety. Now this.
And, this, of course, has to be viewed against the backdrop of the very recent and unprecedented concern the NFL has about even filling its stadia, owing to the view-at-home experience and hassle and expense of getting out to see a game.
They are getting gimmicky and greedy. If I owned a franchise and entertained thoughts of ever selling it, I'd sell it in the next few years. And I certainly would not be buying one.
Moneygrubbing pricks.
The last few years have seen 7-9 and 8-8 teams make the playoffs, and we want to add more teams? From my perspective, I only see negatives when teams like that make the playoffs. Either the volatility of an average NFL game shines through (2011 Broncos over Steelers, 2010 Seattle over New Orleans, etc.) or the team flames out and makes the NFL look bad (2008 Chargers). It's a lose-lose.
Hopefully this falls off the board like the 18 game schedule, but it wouldn't surprise me to see this idea get legs. These guys are going to try and find a way to keep milking this cash cow.
[/quote]
Even John Gotti said, to Sammy Gravano, "slow it down". The more you have of something, the less valuable it often becomes.
Notwithstanding the pristine balance sheets, record breaking network deals and burgeoning franchise values, a lot of the recent stuff paints a picture to me of instability and distress. Not short term to be sure, but long term.
So many of these trial balloons are such obvious non-starters. Putting a franchise in London. Expanding to 18 games while fronting for player safety. Now this.
And, this, of course, has to be viewed against the backdrop of the very recent and unprecedented concern the NFL has about even filling its stadia, owing to the view-at-home experience and hassle and expense of getting out to see a game.
They are getting gimmicky and greedy. If I owned a franchise and entertained thoughts of ever selling it, I'd sell it in the next few years. And I certainly would not be buying one.
If they expand to 16 teams, it will almost guarantee that at least one .500 team will make the playoffs each year (in 2007, three of them would have qualified).
The TV schedule will be a mess, too. The beauty of the current format is the way each game is its own showcase on those first two weekends. Two games on Saturday and two on Sunday is perfect. It's hard to see how they'd avoid scheduling conflicts if five or six games must be played on wild card weekend (knowing the owners, they'd probably schedule one game on Thursday night and one on Monday, short weeks be damned).
The TV schedule will be a mess, too. The beauty of the current format is the way each game is its own showcase on those first two weekends. Two games on Saturday and two on Sunday is perfect. It's hard to see how they'd avoid scheduling conflicts if five or six games must be played on wild card weekend (knowing the owners, they'd probably schedule one game on Thursday night and one on Monday, short weeks be damned).
Bill Polian was on ESPN radio this morning. He's for it. Of course.
According to Polian, they researched adding one team to each conference playoff and eliminating one of the BYEs. He and the Competition Committee (including, IIRC, Jeff Fisher...the guy who hired Gregg Williams, etc.) were all for it but, according to Polian, the TV networks weren't interested and Tagliabue tabled it. Also said playoff format was established with 28 teams - now there are 32, so expanding makes sense, etc.
I hate Bill Polian. But eliminating one BYE, making the best record in the regular season really count for something, and adding another wildcard round game? That's not a terrible idea.
According to Polian, they researched adding one team to each conference playoff and eliminating one of the BYEs. He and the Competition Committee (including, IIRC, Jeff Fisher...the guy who hired Gregg Williams, etc.) were all for it but, according to Polian, the TV networks weren't interested and Tagliabue tabled it. Also said playoff format was established with 28 teams - now there are 32, so expanding makes sense, etc.
I hate Bill Polian. But eliminating one BYE, making the best record in the regular season really count for something, and adding another wildcard round game? That's not a terrible idea.
If they expand it they gain 1 more weekend of games, and make the regular season less meaningful. The question becomes how much of an increase in revenue for the extra week of playoff games will be offset by an assumed decrease in revenue because the regular season games have less meaning? I really dont know how to estimate that, but thats answer is very important.
I can understand their revenue motivation but I think there is an alternative although this idea is probably somewhat flawed and I am not sure if it would increase revenue as much as a full extra week but it wouldnt increase the teams in the playoffs.
I can understand their revenue motivation but I think there is an alternative although this idea is probably somewhat flawed and I am not sure if it would increase revenue as much as a full extra week but it wouldnt increase the teams in the playoffs.
- The 4 division winners and 2 wild card teams get in.
- Week 1 of the playoffs remains the same
- Week 2 of the playoffs is dictated by the #1 seeds in each conference and 2 games would be played [one in the AFC and one in the NFC]. Monday night after Week1 of the playoffs becomes 'Decision Night', where the #1 seed can decide to play that coming weekend and get 1 week off, or play the next weekend and get 2 full weeks off. This could be a huge advantage and decision based on the injury situation of the #1, #2 seeds and their opponent. There is also a huge strategy advantage as well, does the #1 seed want 2 full bye weeks for prep and gameplan, or do they not want to wait that long because they think they will be rusty so they force the #2 seed to have the long layoff.
- To add in another layer of complexity, the #1 seed could also 'defer' the week decision but be allowed to choose their opponent. For example, the #1 seed could defer the decision on which week to play but is then allowed to chose to play the #3 seed, another huge strategy advantage.
- Week 3 of the playoffs would have the 2 remaining games from the divisional round
- Week 4 is unchanged, conference championship games and sets up the Superbowl
This playoff talk is making me anxious to get the playoffs started already, it's only week 15, and we have a huge game this Sunday. I cannot imagine living with an 18 game schedule. More teams in the playoffs is good I suppose if your team is marginal, tedious if you're a fan of an elite team.
The only thing I wouldn't enjoy about having there just be 1 team getting a BYE is the possibility of ancillary tiebreakers making the determination - which happens all too often. If they made this change, I'd like a scheduling change that makes the last 2 games of the year flexibly scheduled to ensure teams always have a chance to play against the top teams and win their way into that BYE. It could work something like this.
Right now, the 16 games are determined by...
6 against division rivals
4 against another AFC division
4 against another NFC division
2 against teams in the other divisions in your conference that ended in the same spot in the standings that you did last year
The games I would change would be the last 2.
You could make the first 14 games the first 15 weeks (bye included) of the regular season. After that, you've got 2 weeks left and you've played all the teams in your division twice and all of one other division once. The last two weeks would be flexibly scheduled. Before the season, each division is determined to either go Home-Away or Away-Home with the last two weeks. Each team gets matched against the equal seed from a division each week, re-seeding after week 16. Then you play the last game against the top seed from the other division you haven't played.
This would ensure any team vying for the #1 seed would have a reasonable chance to meet against every other top team vying for that spot. It would create all sorts of interesting and exciting games in the last two weeks of the season leading into the playoffs. For example, this season the Pats would have their games against the Broncos and Ravens during the first 15 weeks scrapped. The games against Jacksonville and Miami would be moved somewhere into the schedule of the first 15 weeks. Then in the last two weeks they'd play the leader of the AFC North and then the leader of the AFC West- one at home and one on the road. They would have already played the leader of the AFC South (Texans) because they're playing all of the AFC South. This year it doesn't make a huge difference in the netting out because the same teams are going to win each division as they did last year. But the year prior, the Pats never had a chance to face the AFC South champion Texans, or the AFC North champion Ravens during the regular season - because they did not win their divisions the year prior. They could have lost out on a first round bye to either of those teams without ever having the opportunity to play them.
Your flex schedule for the last week idea sounds like it could be genius, but maybe it just has to be the last week that is flexed? Say teams played 15 games and we had the standings 1-6 that were in the playoffs, and 7,8,9 and maybe 10 are in the hunt. Have 1 play 2, 3 play 4, 5 play 7 and 6 play 8. Its very unlikely that the teams meeting week 17 would then meet the next week in the playoffs, I think anyway. It would eliminate a lot of 'rest' scenarios for teams with the top seeds. It would also eliminate the "the Jets need to win and then have .....", as most of the in or out decisions would be determined by the week 17 games.
The only real tiebreaker complexity would be how to handle a scenario where a team would meet for a 2nd time in week 17. Say this was implemented for this year and the Pats and Texans were 1 and 2 with the Pats having 1 more win than the Texans. The Texans then win wk17 and that brings up a tiebreaker, so that would stink. But for all the awesomeness created in week 17 it would probably be worth it.
The only real tiebreaker complexity would be how to handle a scenario where a team would meet for a 2nd time in week 17. Say this was implemented for this year and the Pats and Texans were 1 and 2 with the Pats having 1 more win than the Texans. The Texans then win wk17 and that brings up a tiebreaker, so that would stink. But for all the awesomeness created in week 17 it would probably be worth it.
I'm not following. Adding 1 or 2 playoff teams in each conference would add an extra 2 or 4 games that first playoff weekend due to the elimination of byes. I haven't heard of another week of games. I am missing something? How would that work? I can see adding Monday night games.
Also, I'm not sure they are thinking there would be a decrease in revenue for the regular season. Just the opposite. More teams would be in the playoff hunt longer which in theory could lead to more ticket sales and higher ratings for those late season games.
I do not envy our children or grandchildren. The Super Bowl, when they are all grown up, will have a representative of each team play in the 'fairness game of the year' where the players on defense chase the offensive player in an effort to hug them. A tackle, instead of a hug, is a fine of 5 'you should not have done that's'. Each play will start on the 4 yard line and the QB will be covered in bubble wrap. The team that scores the most points shares the championship with everybody else in the league. And, yes, Rodger Goodell's head in a pickle jar wil enforce the 18 games a year rule.
Sorry, I was vague, I was reading between the lines a bit, and making some assumptions. One thing Goodell mentioned was increasing the playoffs participants from 12 to 14 or 16. Under the 16 scenario, there would be 4 division winners and 4 wildcards per conference. In that scenario, I was assuming the setup would be a bye for all 4 division winners, and the first week the 4 wildcards That would be the added week, because after that they still have the 4 division winners and 2 winners from the 4 wildcard games, and then I am assuming the 1 and 2 seeds play the wildcard and the 3 and 4 seeds play each other. Otherwise, if all 8 teams play week 1, they dont gain a week and all they would gain would be 2 extra games that first week of the playoffs and that seems somewhat foolish.
I see your point, there would be the added benefit of additional interest for fans of teams on the fringe of the playoffs. The downside to that is now NFL games are appointment TV because each game is so critical because there are so few and only ~37% of the teams make the playoffs. In the 16 team scenario, if 50% of the teams make the playoffs it really minimizes the significance of the regular season games, and I would think it would decrease the demand for those national tv deals where the NFL really makes their money.
Umm, check your math. That would make 3 games on second weekend.
#1 seed versus lowest WC winner
#2 seed versus highest WC winner
#3 vs #4
Polian was wrong, there is no extra week. just extra games. There would be no byes with 16 teams in playoffs.
We are saying the same thing, I just had a typo. I meant to write "I am assuming the 1 and 2 seeds play the wildcards and the 3 and 4 seeds play each other"
We're not saying the same things.
You said 4 division winners get byes. Explain how 4 teams get byes, the 4 WC teams play the first weekend and how many games are on the second weekend. Four byes and 2 WC winners leave 6 teams.
Just throwing teams out:
Byes: #1 NE, #2 Houston, #3 Denver, #4 Baltimore
WC: #5 Pitt, #6 Cincy, #7 Indy, #8 NYJ
Pitt beats Jets, Cincy beats Indy.
So, week 2 you have:
#1 NE vs #6 Cincy
#2 Houston vs #5 Pitt
#3 Denver vs #4 Baltimore
So, week 3 you have....what?
Yup, you are right I didnt think it through, I didnt realize after week 2 there would be 3 teams left per conference and that wont work.
So if they go from 12 to 14 teams they eliminate the bye for the #2 seed and add 1 game, if they go to 16 teams all byes are gone and they gain 2 games. IMO the real value add to the NFL would be having an additional weekend of games and selling that package, that would be big money. Selling an extra 1 or 2 games on a weekend where they already have games doesnt seem worthwhile considering how awesome the current format is.
So if they go from 12 to 14 teams they eliminate the bye for the #2 seed and add 1 game, if they go to 16 teams all byes are gone and they gain 2 games. IMO the real value add to the NFL would be having an additional weekend of games and selling that package, that would be big money. Selling an extra 1 or 2 games on a weekend where they already have games doesnt seem worthwhile considering how awesome the current format is.
For us hardcore fans, yes thats awesome. But obviously the NFLs desire around these changes should be to increase revenue. How much does adding a 1pm game that starts at 11am on the West coast really increase revenue? Thats the lens I am looking at this stuff through.
It increases revenue through two more home playoff games. Ask Aaron Rodgers about the value of home playoff games for the franchise and community. TV networks will have to pay XX for the extra games - split 32 ways, it's still gonna be some benefit to all the owners. Hardcore fans want more games and then buy more product - sponsored product and NFL swag. All of that increases revenue.
Adding a team per conference and eliminating one BYE makes a ton of sense and it's gonna happen. Mostly because the NFLPA won't argue player safety when the players are being offered playoff game(s) and national spotlight. Playoff football is a juicy carrot to players.
I dont disagree with anything that you said, I just think that the difference in revenue gains for the NFL between adding 1-2 playoff games per conference on a weekend they already have games is so much less than adding another whole extra week of playoff games if they could find a way to do that. The change is coming, just going the next step and add the extra week somehow and really reap the benefits.
I could live with 14 teams in the playoffs. I looked on pro-football-reference.com at the standings since 2002 (the year the NFL went to 4 divisions in each conference) to see what the records of the 7th playoff team would have been if it was a 14 team field each of those years. In that time, 4 teams would have gotten in with 8-8 records versus 6 teams that were 10-6 or better. All the rest would have been 9-7.
Adding a 7th team in each conference would actually mitigate the problem created by 4 divisions where you occasionally have a very weak division sending a team to the playoffs.
Here's the list - I didn't try to figure out tie-breakers since I was focusing on the record as opposed to the specific teams. I also included the teams that would have had to play in the 1st round since the #2 seed wouldn't have had a bye.
2002: Dolphins, Pats, or Broncos (all 9-7) and Saints (9-7). #2 seeds: Titans and Buccaneers.
2003: Dolphins (10-6) and Vikings (9-7). #2 seeds: Rams and Chiefs.
2004: Ravens or Jaguars (both 9-7) and Saints (8-8). #2 seeds: Pats and Falcons.
2005: Chiefs (10-6) and either Cowboys or Vikings (both 9-7). #2 seeds: Broncos and Bears
2006: Broncos (9-7) and either Packers, Panthers or Rams (all 8-8). #2 seeds: Ravens and Saints
2007: Browns (10-6) and either Eagles, Vikings or Cardinals (all 8-8). #2 seeds: Colts and Packers
2008: Pats (11-5) and either Cowboys, Bears or Buccaneers (all 9-7). #2 seeds: Steelers and Panthers
2009: Texans or Steelers (9-7) and Falcons (9-7). #2 seeds: Chargers and Vikings.
2010: Chargers (9-7) and Buccaneers or Giants (10-6). #2 seeds: Steelers and Bears.
2011: Titans (9-7) and either Eagles, Cowboys or Cardinals (all 8-8). #2 seeds: Ravens and 49ers.
Adding a 7th team in each conference would actually mitigate the problem created by 4 divisions where you occasionally have a very weak division sending a team to the playoffs.
Here's the list - I didn't try to figure out tie-breakers since I was focusing on the record as opposed to the specific teams. I also included the teams that would have had to play in the 1st round since the #2 seed wouldn't have had a bye.
2002: Dolphins, Pats, or Broncos (all 9-7) and Saints (9-7). #2 seeds: Titans and Buccaneers.
2003: Dolphins (10-6) and Vikings (9-7). #2 seeds: Rams and Chiefs.
2004: Ravens or Jaguars (both 9-7) and Saints (8-8). #2 seeds: Pats and Falcons.
2005: Chiefs (10-6) and either Cowboys or Vikings (both 9-7). #2 seeds: Broncos and Bears
2006: Broncos (9-7) and either Packers, Panthers or Rams (all 8-8). #2 seeds: Ravens and Saints
2007: Browns (10-6) and either Eagles, Vikings or Cardinals (all 8-8). #2 seeds: Colts and Packers
2008: Pats (11-5) and either Cowboys, Bears or Buccaneers (all 9-7). #2 seeds: Steelers and Panthers
2009: Texans or Steelers (9-7) and Falcons (9-7). #2 seeds: Chargers and Vikings.
2010: Chargers (9-7) and Buccaneers or Giants (10-6). #2 seeds: Steelers and Bears.
2011: Titans (9-7) and either Eagles, Cowboys or Cardinals (all 8-8). #2 seeds: Ravens and 49ers.
Ed Reed planted his shoulder and helmet directly into Victor Cruz's head and receives yet another $50k fine.
And somehow avoids a suspension...again.
This guy has lost a step and he's substituting hard hits with good safety play. Unfortunately, the hits are targeted at helpless wide receivers heads. What the fuck does he have on Goodell?
Its ridiculous when it was just a month ago they had suspended him for virtually the same thing.
It seems the league and Goodell are reluctant to hand out harsh penalties for the time being. They have had a brutal few months, all the Bountygate stuff was overturned, Sherman just won his appeal, and recently when they tried to suspend Reed that got overturned as well. I really wonder if they are now trying to dial back some of the punishments just so they can get them to stick and re-establish the perception of their authority again.
It seems the league and Goodell are reluctant to hand out harsh penalties for the time being. They have had a brutal few months, all the Bountygate stuff was overturned, Sherman just won his appeal, and recently when they tried to suspend Reed that got overturned as well. I really wonder if they are now trying to dial back some of the punishments just so they can get them to stick and re-establish the perception of their authority again.