Sports Central / Original Sports Fan Commentary Since 1998

#47 · 02-24-2003, 09:24 PM

Small thing here, 48 guys suit up on game day and there are another 5 on the practice squad.

*Anthony* · 02-27-2003, 02:35 AM

Obviously, if player salaries were increased across the board, then so would the salary cap - thereby enabling teams to secure more depth for their rosters.

As far as the bye week (during the regular season) goes, do you think for one minute that it was implemented to give everybody a week's rest? No; it was put in to give the networks an extra week's worth of games to televise. It would probably be eliminated if an 18-game regular season ever becomes a reality; if the NFL tried to play 18 games over 19 weeks, they might be sued by the NCAA because the Super Bowl could end up being referred to as "March Madness" by the media!

And as far as injuries go, players get injured in preseason games too, don't they? (Including quarterbacks - Gary Danielson, Steve Beuerlein and Kerry Collins come readily to mind). So trading two preseason games for two regular-season games will not increase the total number of games missed by injured players. The typical baseball team plays 162 regular-season games and approximately 27 exhibitions - a 6-to-1 ratio; NBA and NHL teams usually play 10 preseason games - making the ratio in those two sports 8-to-1. So why the 4-to-1 ratio - and for some teams, 3 1/3-to-1 - in football?

As we speak, the TV networks are exerting growing pressure on Paul Tagliabue to "do something" about the Los Angeles situation. Unless the Chargers make the move back up I-5 to where they originally played in the beginning of their AFL days (a vague possibility; and Arizona's stadium situation was resolved last fall, so the Cardinals aren't going anywhere - probably in more ways than one!), it will take expansion to fill the void in L.A. - and one expansion team means two because the NFL will not tolerate having an odd number of teams on a permanent basis. San Antonio would be the favorite to get the other expansion team based on population; other candidates include Hartford (which almost lured the Patriots from the Boston area a few years ago), Columbus (the next largest non-NFL city after L.A. and San Antonio), Portland, and even a third franchise in New York, to play its games in New York City itself (as opposed to New Jersey, where both the Giants and Jets play). The current contract between the NFL and the networks expires at the end of the 2005 season - and without going into great detail (and believe me when I say it would be great), there would be no way to preserve the current rotation of out-of-division meetings (which the league went to so much trouble to create) if two more teams were added without adding two games as well; so my best guess is that the L.A. team will begin play in 2005 and play all 16 NFC teams once each. Then, in 2006, the other expansion team joins, and that's when the regular season will be lengthened, with both expansion teams playing regular, division-based schedules beginning in 2006.

CC_Hornet · 02-27-2003, 10:47 AM

What a crock! They need to leave well enough alone. A team ought to be able to choose who they went and long they want to take to choose him. What is wrong with society today? It is getting out of hand.

buckeyefan78 · 02-27-2003, 01:08 PM

You're right Dave, this one struck a nerve...sorry about the outburst....( sighs and takes a deep breath)...

Whenever I hear the word " expansion" or " lengthen" in regards to sports, a time bomb sets off in me and I explode

You're right, I wasn't thinking of the dollars part Dave, I was trying to be five years old again and thinking football was well....football. It's actually quite healthy sometimes..LOL..

I don't want a longer season, but you are right, if it happens, we would have to expand the rosters. I like the shorten season, and yes I know it will never happen cause of money. When's the last time something went my way in sports, as far as shortening seasons or playoffs? It's never going to happen, but that's why I want so desperately to limit expansion. Expansion in regards to teams, games, rosters and the such cause I know it's just a matter of time before it gets bigger and bigger.

I can live with 16 games like we have now, would prefer 14, and would say 18 is GOT TO BE THE CAP, once the expansion monster rears his ugly head back into the NFL.

We agree on the bye...

I think we agree on the cutting back of pre season.

Roster's are fine how they are right now with the amount of games. I like the cut throat nature of it and the hard decision making process ( although most of it is cap related maneuvering). It reminds of ....hmmm...sports !

Anthony's got a good point about if salaries increased across the board, so would the cap, enabling more people on the roster. It's all in proportion I guess.

I still don't understand how anyone wants to see more games played. Yeah, I LOVE football, but I like it cause it's special and only for the fall and winter ( now pre season makes it the new summer sport though). We can't have year around leagues, can we? That's my fear. Thank God I'll proably be dead by the time they get to that, although who knows.

*Anthony* · 02-28-2003, 02:35 AM

Don't worry buckeyefan78, I doubt if you'll ever see the regular season go beyond 18 games; even in a 40-team league (four five-team divisions in each conference), 18 games could be easily apportioned: Eight games within the division, and then one game each against all five teams in two of the other divisions - one within the same conference and the other outside the conference.

But if there are 34, or 36, or 40 markets out there that could support pro football, then why shouldn't all of them have it? And any issues relating to money and the players' union would be peripheral and could always be easily resolved. More teams would also mean more openings for "coaches of color" - the original topic of this thread! (In addition, the more teams you have, the lower the previous year's Super Bowl champion would draft - meaning that continued expansion promotes competitive balance).

Personally I disagreed with the latest realignment, on the grounds that having four-team divisions will lead to trouble down the line, as sooner or later someone is going to win a very weak division with a 7-9 record, sparking the very sort of negative publicity the NFL, in the Tagliabue Era, prefers to avoid. Eventually (by 2010?) there's going to be 36 teams - and under the old, three-divisions-per conference setup, that would have meant three six-team divisions in each conference (and also the 18-game regular season).

And they could have gotten away with making very minimal changes: In the AFC they could have merely switched the Colts and the Ravens, plus moved Jacksonville from the AFC Central to the AFC East, so as to cultivate an intra-state rivalry with Miami; and in the NFC they could have switched the Rams and the Buccaneers, and then simply changed the name of the old NFC West to the NFC South (at 37 degrees, 47 minutes north latitude, San Francisco is further south than all of what would have been their non-division rivals within the NFC except the Cowboys and Cardinals). The Texans could have been slotted into the NFC East, where a built-in rivalry with Dallas would have awaited - and even Arizona would have then had two division rivals more or less close by (and if CBS didn't like it that Fox would have gotten both Texas teams, what about CBS having both Ohio teams as well as two out of the three Florida teams? Plus the NFL could have guaranteed that the San Antonio expansion team that is going to be created sooner or later would be placed in the AFC). This would have restored the original post-merger arrangement of 1970 through 1975, when the two Eastern divisions in both conferences had one more team than the other four divisions.

But the NFL chose to do what it did, and at some point they are going to reap what they have sown.

MountaineerDave · 02-28-2003, 03:13 PM

As far as a weak team winning a division goes, Anthony, isn't the simple and very likely solution (after it happens once, but not likely before) a simple reseeding by record at playoff time.

I know the NHL doesn't abide by such a reasonable solution, but that league isn't run nearly as well (we all see it dissolving before our eyes). I don't think the competition committee will look at it before it is an issue --they often have enough on their plates-- but I'm going to be unreasonable optimistic that they would see one season of it and change the playoff seeding rules...

Pie in the sky

Dave

*Anthony* · 03-01-2003, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MountaineerDave
As far as a weak team winning a division goes, Anthony, isn't the simple and very likely solution (after it happens once, but not likely before) a simple reseeding by record at playoff time.

I know the NHL doesn't abide by such a reasonable solution, but that league isn't run nearly as well (we all see it dissolving before our eyes). I don't think the competition committee will look at it before it is an issue --they often have enough on their plates-- but I'm going to be unreasonable optimistic that they would see one season of it and change the playoff seeding rules...

Pie in the sky

Dave

A simple compromise would work perfectly: If two teams finish with the same record and one of them won their division while the other was a wild card, the division winner gets seeded higher; but if the wild card had a better record the wild card gets seeded higher. Division championships would still mean quite a bit, because every year many teams in the same conference finish with identical records. The same principle can also be applied to determining the wild cards: If two teams tie for a wild card and one finished second in their division and the other finished third in theirs, the second-place team should get in (making division rivalries more meaningful).

02-24-2003, 09:24 PM	#31
#47 Sports Virtuoso Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: upstate NY Posts: 2,017	Small thing here, 48 guys suit up on game day and there are another 5 on the practice squad. __________________ USC Football......... 22 in a row! 2003 and '04 NC's in Football. 33-1, the last 34 gms. Heisman #6.

02-27-2003, 02:35 AM	#32
Anthony Moderator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 8,220	Obviously, if player salaries were increased across the board, then so would the salary cap - thereby enabling teams to secure more depth for their rosters. As far as the bye week (during the regular season) goes, do you think for one minute that it was implemented to give everybody a week's rest? No; it was put in to give the networks an extra week's worth of games to televise. It would probably be eliminated if an 18-game regular season ever becomes a reality; if the NFL tried to play 18 games over 19 weeks, they might be sued by the NCAA because the Super Bowl could end up being referred to as "March Madness" by the media! And as far as injuries go, players get injured in preseason games too, don't they? (Including quarterbacks - Gary Danielson, Steve Beuerlein and Kerry Collins come readily to mind). So trading two preseason games for two regular-season games will not increase the total number of games missed by injured players. The typical baseball team plays 162 regular-season games and approximately 27 exhibitions - a 6-to-1 ratio; NBA and NHL teams usually play 10 preseason games - making the ratio in those two sports 8-to-1. So why the 4-to-1 ratio - and for some teams, 3 1/3-to-1 - in football? As we speak, the TV networks are exerting growing pressure on Paul Tagliabue to "do something" about the Los Angeles situation. Unless the Chargers make the move back up I-5 to where they originally played in the beginning of their AFL days (a vague possibility; and Arizona's stadium situation was resolved last fall, so the Cardinals aren't going anywhere - probably in more ways than one!), it will take expansion to fill the void in L.A. - and one expansion team means two because the NFL will not tolerate having an odd number of teams on a permanent basis. San Antonio would be the favorite to get the other expansion team based on population; other candidates include Hartford (which almost lured the Patriots from the Boston area a few years ago), Columbus (the next largest non-NFL city after L.A. and San Antonio), Portland, and even a third franchise in New York, to play its games in New York City itself (as opposed to New Jersey, where both the Giants and Jets play). The current contract between the NFL and the networks expires at the end of the 2005 season - and without going into great detail (and believe me when I say it would be great), there would be no way to preserve the current rotation of out-of-division meetings (which the league went to so much trouble to create) if two more teams were added without adding two games as well; so my best guess is that the L.A. team will begin play in 2005 and play all 16 NFC teams once each. Then, in 2006, the other expansion team joins, and that's when the regular season will be lengthened, with both expansion teams playing regular, division-based schedules beginning in 2006. __________________ You can be bitter - but I will be better. DIAL DOWN THE DIALOGUE!

02-28-2003, 02:35 AM	#35
Anthony Moderator Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 8,220	Don't worry buckeyefan78, I doubt if you'll ever see the regular season go beyond 18 games; even in a 40-team league (four five-team divisions in each conference), 18 games could be easily apportioned: Eight games within the division, and then one game each against all five teams in two of the other divisions - one within the same conference and the other outside the conference. But if there are 34, or 36, or 40 markets out there that could support pro football, then why shouldn't all of them have it? And any issues relating to money and the players' union would be peripheral and could always be easily resolved. More teams would also mean more openings for "coaches of color" - the original topic of this thread! (In addition, the more teams you have, the lower the previous year's Super Bowl champion would draft - meaning that continued expansion promotes competitive balance). Personally I disagreed with the latest realignment, on the grounds that having four-team divisions will lead to trouble down the line, as sooner or later someone is going to win a very weak division with a 7-9 record, sparking the very sort of negative publicity the NFL, in the Tagliabue Era, prefers to avoid. Eventually (by 2010?) there's going to be 36 teams - and under the old, three-divisions-per conference setup, that would have meant three six-team divisions in each conference (and also the 18-game regular season). And they could have gotten away with making very minimal changes: In the AFC they could have merely switched the Colts and the Ravens, plus moved Jacksonville from the AFC Central to the AFC East, so as to cultivate an intra-state rivalry with Miami; and in the NFC they could have switched the Rams and the Buccaneers, and then simply changed the name of the old NFC West to the NFC South (at 37 degrees, 47 minutes north latitude, San Francisco is further south than all of what would have been their non-division rivals within the NFC except the Cowboys and Cardinals). The Texans could have been slotted into the NFC East, where a built-in rivalry with Dallas would have awaited - and even Arizona would have then had two division rivals more or less close by (and if CBS didn't like it that Fox would have gotten both Texas teams, what about CBS having both Ohio teams as well as two out of the three Florida teams? Plus the NFL could have guaranteed that the San Antonio expansion team that is going to be created sooner or later would be placed in the AFC). This would have restored the original post-merger arrangement of 1970 through 1975, when the two Eastern divisions in both conferences had one more team than the other four divisions. But the NFL chose to do what it did, and at some point they are going to reap what they have sown. __________________ You can be bitter - but I will be better. DIAL DOWN THE DIALOGUE!

02-28-2003, 03:13 PM	#36
MountaineerDave Where am I? Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 5,661	As far as a weak team winning a division goes, Anthony, isn't the simple and very likely solution (after it happens once, but not likely before) a simple reseeding by record at playoff time. I know the NHL doesn't abide by such a reasonable solution, but that league isn't run nearly as well (we all see it dissolving before our eyes). I don't think the competition committee will look at it before it is an issue --they often have enough on their plates-- but I'm going to be unreasonable optimistic that they would see one season of it and change the playoff seeding rules... Pie in the sky Dave __________________ mountaineerdave on twitter mountaineerdavem on AIM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-27-2003, 10:47 AM	#33
CC_Hornet Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: New Orleans Posts: 63	What a crock! They need to leave well enough alone. A team ought to be able to choose who they went and long they want to take to choose him. What is wrong with society today? It is getting out of hand.

02-27-2003, 01:08 PM	#34
buckeyefan78 Happy Land Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 12,853	You're right Dave, this one struck a nerve...sorry about the outburst....( sighs and takes a deep breath)... Whenever I hear the word " expansion" or " lengthen" in regards to sports, a time bomb sets off in me and I explode You're right, I wasn't thinking of the dollars part Dave, I was trying to be five years old again and thinking football was well....football. It's actually quite healthy sometimes..LOL.. I don't want a longer season, but you are right, if it happens, we would have to expand the rosters. I like the shorten season, and yes I know it will never happen cause of money. When's the last time something went my way in sports, as far as shortening seasons or playoffs? It's never going to happen, but that's why I want so desperately to limit expansion. Expansion in regards to teams, games, rosters and the such cause I know it's just a matter of time before it gets bigger and bigger. I can live with 16 games like we have now, would prefer 14, and would say 18 is GOT TO BE THE CAP, once the expansion monster rears his ugly head back into the NFL. We agree on the bye... I think we agree on the cutting back of pre season. Roster's are fine how they are right now with the amount of games. I like the cut throat nature of it and the hard decision making process ( although most of it is cap related maneuvering). It reminds of ....hmmm...sports ! Anthony's got a good point about if salaries increased across the board, so would the cap, enabling more people on the roster. It's all in proportion I guess. I still don't understand how anyone wants to see more games played. Yeah, I LOVE football, but I like it cause it's special and only for the fall and winter ( now pre season makes it the new summer sport though). We can't have year around leagues, can we? That's my fear. Thank God I'll proably be dead by the time they get to that, although who knows.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)