Your Unpopular Football Opinions

[Jay Z]

Like the college football regular season once was...let the 2PC exist in the NFL (it, really, should have in the first place), but no OT at all in the regular season. If 2PCs can't help decide things in regulation, then oh well.

Playoffs? Well, of course, overtime in that case.

I can't believe college allowed ties back then in Bowl games even! Thinking 'bout Dye in '87!

Back in the 1980s they had a playoff for the lower division NCAA schools. So they HAD to have OT. But not for the championship! THAT could end in a tie and did one year. That did seem extremely stupid. Then one of the teams was disqualified, so you had one half championship.

[rhickok1109]

1) I still don't love the 2 point conversion. I understand why it exists, and I wasn't resisting it's arrival in 1994...to me it just wasn't necessary. It was fine that a 16 point lead was something that you should not be able to make up with just two touchdowns and 2 cheap "easter egg" plays to tie the game. Like an artificial booster to leave the door slightly ajar for teams that are trailing to assist them in making comebacks.

Say it's 10-10...then you give up a TD and then allow the opposition to kick 3 consecutive field goals...or allow 2 touchdowns and a safety. You're getting outplayed for a good period of time and it's 26-10...I don't think you deserve to have at your disposal this little 2 pt opportunity to make up the deficit quicker on just two possessions.

If you come within 1 point on a late score...there shouldn't be an opportunity to "steal" the entire game...make it boil down to one special teams play to win or lose. It should be make the extra point (which was moved back as it had gotten too automatic) and then if you want to win the game...get the ball back and score points. Or make a play defensively. The two point conversion was like this wild card that you can suddenly pull out.

Sorry but I don’t miss the days when an 8 point lead late basically meant game over and pray for an onside kick

So then you should be in favor of a 3-point conversion--perhaps from the 15-yard line?--because why should a 9-point lead mean game over and pray for an onside kick. Or is there some magical difference between 8 and 9?

[TanksAndSpartans]

I can't believe college allowed ties back then in Bowl games even! Thinking 'bout Dye in '87!

I watched that game. I still remember one of the headlines in NJ (close enough to Syracuse I guess) was something along the lines "The war eagle is a chicken". Not trying to stir up any Auburn fans, just thought it was funny I remembered so many years later. I was surprised at the time, but felt it was their prerogative. Maybe they didn't have a play and didn't want to leave with a loss.

[SixtiesFan]

I recall a panel of football writers on TV back in the 60s discussing the two-point conversion. One opposed it because, " a team could be dominating and have their opponent score a lucky touchdown and win 8-7."

[CSKreager]

I recall a panel of football writers on TV back in the 60s discussing the two-point conversion. One opposed it because, " a team could be dominating and have their opponent score a lucky touchdown and win 8-7."

And? If a team was up 8 points the last 2 minutes it felt like a waste of time

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

I'm all for the 2pt in college football. But I don't think it has a place in pro football. Run it in/pass it in - 1 pt in pros, I think it should be.

Pro football, in my opinion, should have a higher bar of victory than college football. If a pro team builds a 16 pt lead with 6 minutes left, it should be game over unless something crazy happens or there's a recovered onside kick. Same with taking an 8 point lead with 3 minutes left. That's just my opinion.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

I can't believe college allowed ties back then in Bowl games even! Thinking 'bout Dye in '87!

I watched that game. I still remember one of the headlines in NJ (close enough to Syracuse I guess) was something along the lines "The war eagle is a chicken". Not trying to stir up any Auburn fans, just thought it was funny I remembered so many years later. I was surprised at the time, but felt it was their prerogative. Maybe they didn't have a play and didn't want to leave with a loss.

Coach Osborne would not do that. He'd go for two. Even though they lost the national championship because of it, I still highly respect his decision and the respect he had for the game in going for 2.

[Saban1]

Here is one by someone who called himself "Nobodyaskedbut" who posted this on another website:

Nobodyaskedbut

"The Browns 1946-57 were the greatest and most consistently outstanding pro football team of all time. They dominated like no other team has since and be aware that they were not liked by the other NFL owners and coaches after they entered the NFL and dominated them. That means that nothing was easy for them in the NFL. The 1st 4 seasons that the Browns were in the NFL, they were in the top 2 in penalties called on and no other team was close to being top 2 in every one of those years not to mention what was allowed to be done to Graham, especially by the Lions."

I think that there is truth to what he posted. Nobodyaskedbut seems to know a lot about pro football of that era.

[Brian wolf]

The Lions were still 6-1 against the Browns during that era of dominance.

[Bryan]

Here is one by someone who called himself "Nobodyaskedbut" who posted this on another website:

Nobodyaskedbut

"The Browns 1946-57 were the greatest and most consistently outstanding pro football team of all time. They dominated like no other team has since and be aware that they were not liked by the other NFL owners and coaches after they entered the NFL and dominated them. That means that nothing was easy for them in the NFL. The 1st 4 seasons that the Browns were in the NFL, they were in the top 2 in penalties called on and no other team was close to being top 2 in every one of those years not to mention what was allowed to be done to Graham, especially by the Lions."

I think that there is truth to what he posted. Nobodyaskedbut seems to know a lot about pro football of that era.

I disagree with most of this. The Browns were a great team, and Otto Graham's 10 title games in 10 seasons is a remarkable achievement....but I guess a lot of it depends on how much you weigh the AAFC stuff. 4 titles in 4 years (AAFC) is more impressive than 3 titles in 8 years (NFL), although both are significant.

The comment of "they dominated like no other team has since" requires a lot of interpretation...the Packers won 3 titles in 3 years twice. I think a lot of the Browns' success was due to Graham...if you look at the NFL title games, if Graham didn't play exceptionally well, the Browns lost. When Graham retired, the Browns immediately fell apart.

If the rules were different in 1950, the Giants would have won the head-to-head tiebreaker with the Browns and been the Eastern representative in the title game against the Rams. Much was made of the Browns dominating the Eagles in the opener, but the Eagles didn't have Van Buren and were not a great team in 1950. The 1950 title game with the Rams could have gone either way. The Browns didn't win another title until 1954. So I don't really agree that the Browns just entered the NFL and dominated. They were immediately competitive, and perhaps even the best overall team, but they didn't win enough titles to be 'dominant' IMO.

The nonsense about penalties and the anecdotal "what was allowed to be done to Graham" is ridiculous. Here are where the Browns ranked in the AAFC in penalties from 1946 - 1949: first, first, second, first. I mean, nobody asked....but....