|
|
So not only did the Pro Bowl move from Hawaii to Miami this year, but now it is right before the Super Bowl. The problem with this is anyone who is playing in the Conference Championship or the Super Bowl will not play. This could mean 6 – 10 Pro Bowl players will for sure skip the game. Not to mention anyone else who decides to skip the game because of injury. The Pro Bowl used to be a couple of weeks after the Super Bowl, and maybe that wasn’t the best spot for it either, but at least then you didn’t have contending players bow out. I think the best time for the Pro Bowl would be about 3 weeks after the Super Bowl. That way anyone who was in the play offs still has time to rest before they game, and anyone with possible injuries has time to heal before the game happens. Plus it would make it a great way to close out the season with a bunch of players having fun, doing field goal and catching contests, and just playing 1 last game that doesn’t mean anything but a bonus check. At least this way we get to see more Pro Bowl caliber players.
|
|
With the Pro Bowl being moved to the week before the Super Bowl we finally won’t have a week without football until the season is officially over. Before you would have this empty bye week before the Super Bowl and there was nothing to do but watch the NBA and Hockey (or spend time with the wife and kids). At least this way we get to watch another game, even if it is just as meaningless as it always has been. Who cares if some of the elite players won’t make the game because they are still playing for the NFL Championship? Most of the players bow out anyways because of many reasons. They don’t care to make the trip, they have plans with family, or they are nursing a bogus injury that may or may not be serious. Fact of the matter is, no matter when it is played players are going to skip it, so we might as well have it at a time when people will actually watch. If we wait until after the Super Bowl you risk losing a ton of ratings because people will be done with football. Leave it before the Super Bowl, but move it back to Hawaii.
|
| |
 Loading ...
I got this stat from another site so I apologize if it’s not 100% accurate. But according to this site since 2002 60% of the teams that won the coin toss in overtime won the game. Now that is a huge percentage. In 2008-2009 season nearly 70% won the game. The reason is field goal kickers are becoming more and more accurate, especially from long range. We are starting to see more 40+ and 50+ yard field goals. These are exact reason why we need a more fair overtime system. Something that gives both teams at least 1 shot at the ball would make sense. There have been lots of ideas and frankly most of them sound better than the current system. There has been an idea to auction off starting position. The team who is willing to start the farthest away would win the first possession. There has been the idea of letting each team have 1 try and then from there it is sudden death. We could just play another 10 minutes. We could also just eliminate field goals from overtime. Frankly I like the last one because kickers are way to over hyped. They aren’t even athletes. But that is another discussion. Either way we need to change the format.
|
|
The current format works fine. Since the introduction of this format in 1974 only 27% of the opening drive in overtime has won the game. That is far less than the 60% we are talking about in the last few years. The averages always balance out and in the end it is the format that we have. Any change would take years to implement, not to mention a vote from the competition committee. It is just too much of a hassle for something that truly works for right now. If you are saying that the rules need to be changed then you are completely discounting your defense. The defense is part of the team too and they need to do their job. Stop the opposing team, cause a turn over, or just push them back and make them punt. If your defense cannot stop a team starting at the 20-25 yard line from marching into field goal range, then you probably deserved to lose. There is a reason there are 53 men on the roster. Let’s leave the rules alone, we don’t need to go changing the best sport in the world.
|
| |
Loading ...
Please make sure you look at this question correctly and understand it’s not about whether L.A. deserves a team or if people want a team there. It is about the NFL needing one for its cash flow and ratings. L.A. is the second largest city in the U.S. when we look at population. This means this is a huge market that the NFL is missing out on that could easily be taken advantage of. Now Governor Schwarzenegger just signed a new bill to build a 75,000 seat $800 million stadium just east of L.A. This gives an even bigger reason to move a team there. I know teams have been there in the past and truly haven’t succeeded the way they wanted to. But a lot of that argument is because of the old stadiums and now that is being solved. We have already seen 8 black outs in the 2009 season in just 7 weeks. That is a lot of T.V. and ticket sales the NFL has missed out on. I truly don’t think that will happen in L.A. You can take any one of the struggling market teams and easily move them there. This market a lone could help to get the NFL through what is already looking like a tough economic time for everyone.
|
|
So the big part of this question is the “Need” part. I don’t think they need a team in L.A. I’m sure they would love to see a team there, especially with all that revenue, but it’s not needed. Plus, what team will you move there? No matter what town you choose you are bound to upset some people. You might suggest Buffalo, but they haven’t been the culprit of any of the black outs this year. Would you truly move the historic Detroit Lions? I guess you could suggest the Rams, but haven’t they been moved around enough? In fact they were in L.A. once and it didn’t work out. No matter what though, the NFL is by far the richest of all the major sports and it doesn’t have to worry about getting richer. More people watch the Super Bowl every year than any other title game. They already charge a ton of money for a 30 second commercial spot for that game, they don’t need to worry about trying to move in on another market.
|
| |
Loading ...
|
Well doesn’t everyone love more fighting? Shouldn’t this be an easy yes? If we look back to when hockey had some of its highest rated years, it was when they allowed a lot more fighting. In the 80’s when fighting was common the game seemed more enjoyable to me. It is like watching NASCAR for the wrecks, you watch hockey for the fights. I’m sure the commissioner thinks this is the wrong image to give, but fights actually hurt a team by giving a 5 minute major and they usually had a 2 minute instigator to go along with them. None the less, fighting is necessary in the game because you need thugs to bully the shooters and show them they can’t just skate anywhere. But you also need thugs to protect those same shooters and keep them from getting hurt. Either way this leads to more fighting and more fighting leads to better ratings. No wonder why the UFC is doing so well. People love fighting.
|
|
We don’t need to be turning the NHL into the UFC. That is completely the wrong image. You know what happens when you start allowing more fights? You get Patrick Roy’s kid taking out a whole team and getting expelled for the season. That right there shows the wrong image. All major sports are designed to show team work and togetherness. They aren’t there to show how to beat someone up when they look at you wrong or say something mean to you. There is a time and place for fighting and in a boxing ring is one of them, not an ice ring. Fighting also takes time away from the game and stops the momentum. It can turn a hot streak cold and ruin a good run for a team. Fighting doesn’t need to be increased. Truly it needs to be decreased even more than it is.
|
| |
Loading ...
|
Let me first start out with no matter what, MLB needs to get some better angles for replay either way. For anyone who has watched the 2009 World Series and actually rooted for one of the teams, you have seen quite a few blown calls by the umpires. There have actually been blown calls through out all of the playoffs, let a lone the World Series so far. Normally calls this bad don’t show up very often and when they do, the replay shouldn’t take very long. We aren’t talking about trying to figure out if a ball went over the fence. We are talking about bang bang plays at first or a close call on a stolen base. These are extremely crucial and as we have seen in the play offs these plays can change the momentum of the game. Replay needs to be expanded, especially since baseball is the only sport of the major 4 that rarely uses it.
|
|
This is a big fat NO! Baseball games already take more than 3 hours on average and we don’t need that lasting any longer. You want to take a sport that is dying for ratings and make it longer and probably lose more ratings? If these plays don’t happen enough to think it will hurt the game then they don’t happen enough to expand replay. Not to mention right now for a replay to happen a manager has to come out and challenge a play. Are we going to have a replay every time a manager comes out and argues something? If that was the case Bobby Cox would have more replays than the entire league put together. Bud Selig has already said he would not be in favor of expanding replay and I’m pretty sure lots of true fans would have to agree.
|
| |
Loading ...
|
Now I know Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and yes some people might not like to admit this. But soccer is boring. Sorry people but it is. You want to say Golf is more boring? Tiger Woods and Lefty get more publicity and better ratings than most soccer games. The only time ESPN even seems to mention soccer is when the World Cup is approaching or happening. The big problem with soccer is there truly isn’t enough action. Hockey had this same scare and changed the rules to increase scoring and now their ratings are higher than ever. I know some cool shots happen and Beckham can bend that ball like no other. But how often does that truly happen? You have 1 great play every 3 or 4 games maybe it seems. I would rather watch tennis, golf, curling, and paint drying than soccer.
|
|
How can you say this about the world’s most popular sport? And you don’t need scoring to make a game interesting. There are a lot of people who would say they would prefer soccer over baseball because at least there is action and people moving all the time. You actually have to pay attention in soccer to know where the ball is and who has it. Plus in soccer you can lose players and be facing a 10 on 11. Yellow cards and red cards happen on some of the roughest plays in the sport. Plus, have you ever watched Beckham bend a penalty kick? Or have you ever seen a bicycle kick go in with almost no time left on the clock. Those are things of beauty and make the game extremely exciting. Soccer is a sport that isn’t about teams but more about countries. When you go to a soccer game you hear the whole crowd singing and cheering. It’s literally like being at a concert and a sports game all in one. Golf, curling, and baseball are far worse to watch easily.
|
| |
Loading ...
|
|
Please log into the site.