A few ways to improve the NFL.....

[Wes Mantooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One other format that I think is okay. Just extend the fourth quarter until someone scores. So if the last play of regulation is 2nd and 8 on the teams own 40, and the team gains 5 yards, the first play of overtime would be 3rd and 3 on their own 45.

[/ QUOTE ]Wow, another idea I like a lot....you guys are full of insight.

[/ QUOTE ]
This idea sucks. Think of all the exiting last second plays and drives that wouldn't happen under this format.

[/ QUOTE ]Those drives and exciting plays would just happen in OT instead of regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are just plain wrong. They'd be completely different drives.
Example:
Tom Brady's signature a drive in the hurry up leading to Vinatieri kicking a 48 yard FG as time expires to win their first SuperBowl doesn't happen. Instead they drive without any pressure from the clock, huddle after every play and get a much closer FG try. It is much less exciting football.

[/ QUOTE ]

TheNoodleMan is right, A rule chance this would make football less exciting.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One other format that I think is okay. Just extend the fourth quarter until someone scores. So if the last play of regulation is 2nd and 8 on the teams own 40, and the team gains 5 yards, the first play of overtime would be 3rd and 3 on their own 45.

[/ QUOTE ]Wow, another idea I like a lot....you guys are full of insight.

[/ QUOTE ]
This idea sucks. Think of all the exiting last second plays and drives that wouldn't happen under this format.

[/ QUOTE ]Those drives and exciting plays would just happen in OT instead of regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are just plain wrong. They'd be completely different drives.
Example:
Tom Brady's signature a drive in the hurry up leading to Vinatieri kicking a 48 yard FG as time expires to win their first SuperBowl doesn't happen. Instead they drive without any pressure from the clock, huddle after every play and get a much closer FG try. It is much less exciting football.

[/ QUOTE ]You would still have those drives when the score isn't tied.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as it stands right now kickers are way too important in the NFL, I'm not pretending to know a good solution to this though without changing the game dramatically so ill leave it at that

[/ QUOTE ]

Solution, make FGs worth 2 points. Teams "settle" for FGs because they're worth 3 points. Being only worth a safety might make them change their mind. (P.S. I don't think they're too important, but if you do, reducing the value is the obvious solution.)

[/ QUOTE ]Another solution would be to put restrictive substitution rules in place that would require that the kicker also be a regular player.

For example you could make the rule that there are 22 "active" palyers. In order to put a "bench" player into the game, one of the "active" players would be required to leave the game and not return. This would elimintate specialization except for offence/defence.

However, I don't think kickers are too important, so I actually think this idea is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]So the QB would have to be in on punts and kickoffs and FGs? I think you'd see that idea end as soon as a star QB got injured doing this.

[legend42]

[ QUOTE ]
A slight modification on the best 2 of 3 superbowl idea. I think it would be cool to have best of 2 (no overtime) with a third game (with overtime) if the first two game were split (either win-loss, or tie-tie).

[/ QUOTE ]


I know all these proposed changes are pipe dreams with no chance of being implemented, but this best 2-out-of-3 thing is so impossible, it should just cease being mentioned.

The Super Bowl is more than just the championship game, it's a HUGE EVENT. It's almost as big as the league and the entire sport itself. People plan to attend it months in adavance, the host city spends the whole year preparing for it, corporations spends millions of dollars sponsoring it, etc. And now you want to say it might NOT EVEN TAKE PLACE? That just ain't gonna happen. Not to mention the extra weeks in the season, greater risk of injury, and other problems with that plan.

As far as the excitement generated by the prospect of a home Super Bowl game, that's what the conference championship games are supposed to be about. You can only build up so much energy before it starts to dissipate. Some of the other suggestions have merit- turning the Super Bowl into a "maybe" event is just silly. Football will always be a one-game deal.

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Pro Bowl- By far the least competitive of any of the major sports' all star games. I understand the injury risks in football, but people get hurt just as much when going 1/2 speed imo. I'm not really sure of a solution here, but its obviously an area that can be improved. Anyone have any suggestions here?


[/ QUOTE ]

No suggestion -- but who cares. Pro Bowl is an afterthought and an honor. No need to make it competitive. Baseball was wrong to make theirs more meaningful.

[/ QUOTE ]


grunching here because it's a really long thread.

I dislike all all-star games in general anyway.

i really disagree with the part about people getting injured half as much when going half-speed though.

I haven't paid much attention to the pro-bowl hardly EVER...but I don't think there have been hardly any 6-month type knee-injuries or anything else very drastic take place in the pro-bowl.
Wanted to say 'season-ending' type injuries, but since the pro-bowl is already at the end of the season that would be kind of a silly phrase to use there.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A slight modification on the best 2 of 3 superbowl idea. I think it would be cool to have best of 2 (no overtime) with a third game (with overtime) if the first two game were split (either win-loss, or tie-tie).

[/ QUOTE ]


I know all these proposed changes are pipe dreams with no chance of being implemented, but this best 2-out-of-3 thing is so impossible, it should just cease being mentioned.

The Super Bowl is more than just the championship game, it's a HUGE EVENT. It's almost as big as the league and the entire sport itself. People plan to attend it months in adavance, the host city spends the whole year preparing for it, corporations spends millions of dollars sponsoring it, etc. And now you want to say it might NOT EVEN TAKE PLACE? That just ain't gonna happen. Not to mention the extra weeks in the season, greater risk of injury, and other problems with that plan.

As far as the excitement generated by the prospect of a home Super Bowl game, that's what the conference championship games are supposed to be about. You can only build up so much energy before it starts to dissipate. Some of the other suggestions have merit- turning the Super Bowl into a "maybe" event is just silly. Football will always be a one-game deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think everyone realizes this.

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One other format that I think is okay. Just extend the fourth quarter until someone scores. So if the last play of regulation is 2nd and 8 on the teams own 40, and the team gains 5 yards, the first play of overtime would be 3rd and 3 on their own 45.

[/ QUOTE ]Wow, another idea I like a lot....you guys are full of insight.

[/ QUOTE ]
This idea sucks. Think of all the exiting last second plays and drives that wouldn't happen under this format.

[/ QUOTE ]Those drives and exciting plays would just happen in OT instead of regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are just plain wrong. They'd be completely different drives.
Example:
Tom Brady's signature a drive in the hurry up leading to Vinatieri kicking a 48 yard FG as time expires to win their first SuperBowl doesn't happen. Instead they drive without any pressure from the clock, huddle after every play and get a much closer FG try. It is much less exciting football.

[/ QUOTE ]You would still have those drives when the score isn't tied. I just can't admit that I was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One other format that I think is okay. Just extend the fourth quarter until someone scores. So if the last play of regulation is 2nd and 8 on the teams own 40, and the team gains 5 yards, the first play of overtime would be 3rd and 3 on their own 45.

[/ QUOTE ]Wow, another idea I like a lot....you guys are full of insight.

[/ QUOTE ]
This idea sucks. Think of all the exiting last second plays and drives that wouldn't happen under this format.

[/ QUOTE ]Those drives and exciting plays would just happen in OT instead of regulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are just plain wrong. They'd be completely different drives.
Example:
Tom Brady's signature a drive in the hurry up leading to Vinatieri kicking a 48 yard FG as time expires to win their first SuperBowl doesn't happen. Instead they drive without any pressure from the clock, huddle after every play and get a much closer FG try. It is much less exciting football.

[/ QUOTE ]You would still have those drives when the score isn't tied. I just can't admit that I was wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, as the one who originally suggested the idea, I will say that in light of the argument against it, I now think it would not be a great idea (but still better than any system currently in place). There are plenty of other good ideas that have been suggested however.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as it stands right now kickers are way too important in the NFL, I'm not pretending to know a good solution to this though without changing the game dramatically so ill leave it at that

[/ QUOTE ]

Solution, make FGs worth 2 points. Teams "settle" for FGs because they're worth 3 points. Being only worth a safety might make them change their mind. (P.S. I don't think they're too important, but if you do, reducing the value is the obvious solution.)

[/ QUOTE ]Another solution would be to put restrictive substitution rules in place that would require that the kicker also be a regular player.

For example you could make the rule that there are 22 "active" palyers. In order to put a "bench" player into the game, one of the "active" players would be required to leave the game and not return. This would elimintate specialization except for offence/defence.

However, I don't think kickers are too important, so I actually think this idea is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]So the QB would have to be in on punts and kickoffs and FGs? I think you'd see that idea end as soon as a star QB got injured doing this.

[/ QUOTE ]

To argue in favor of my very bad and very silly idea, you wouldn't have to have the QB in on such plays, you could have a defensive player in in his place.

[TheNoodleMan]

The thread was supposed to be ways to improve the NFL but some of you have decided to turn it in to half baked major changes that I just came up with for the sake of change. Do you see the difference?