Ruining the Game?

[sheajets]

Not that it would ever happen but I would like to see a rule stating that once you enter the league you are no longer allowed to get any sort of tattoos that would be visible while on the field.

Glad to see no more changes to the kickoff. I really fear that day of reckoning is coming where they eliminate it entirely. It's such an exciting play though...watching a returner hit a hole at full speed trying to break one...or take a bone rattling hit. I love how the crescendo builds within a crowd when it looks like somebody is going to break one.

[MIKEBENNIDICT]

I don't see any big deal.

The most important thing about a football game is that the team your team does well and wins and everything else is just unimportant stuff.

[JohnH19]

I never had a problem with sudden death. I never agreed with or understood the whining about the first team with the ball has a huge advantage. Just stop them, for crying out loud!

Funny JWL would mention a theoretical Vikings-Packers game in GB. I was at the 26-26 tie there in December 2013.

[sheajets]

Once the endzone dances go overboard (and result in retaliation as you see in baseball sometimes with when a player goes too far showing up the opposition) you'll hear calls for once again reigning this stuff in...only then you'll have a million talking heads from the cesspool saying that it's some effort to silence the expressionism of these misunderstood young males and we mustn't be stifling this kind of behavior etc etc. Believe me it will be twisted into some sort of racism.

[sheajets]

I never had a problem with sudden death. I never agreed with or understood the whining about the first team with the ball has a huge advantage. Just stop them, for crying out loud!

Funny JWL would mention a theoretical Vikings-Packers game in GB. I was at the 26-26 tie there in December 2013.

It was fine for a while, but once the NFL became a league where we no longer look at 5,000 yard passing seasons with mouths agape and it's illegal to hit with any sort of ferocity, then yea perhaps a change was warranted. It's just too easy to get the ball and move into FG range. There were a lot of games where it was basically a quick slant for 6, a run for 4, and a sketchy PI call for 40 and you're in business. It's too easy to set up FG's nowadays

[Reaser]

How about the opening coin toss decides everything? Four choices. Each team picks two and it is a serpentine little draft thingy ... (cut for brevity)

Creative idea. I think it's simpler to just tie OT choice to the home team. In the regular season it's a possible advantage - if the game goes to sudden death OT - to playing at home that week. In the playoffs it's an earned seeding/home team advantage - if the game goes to sudden death OT.

[Evan]

I know it's a few posts back, but regarding how ties affect standings, can anyone remember an odder confluence of standings than the NFL East going into Week 14?

Here's how they stood:

NY Giants 10-3
Pittsburgh 7-3-3
Cleveland 9-4
St. Louis 9-4

In Week 14, Pittsburgh and New York met in what was billed a "winner-take-all" game for the NFL East title. Does that seem right to you all? A 10-3 team playing a 7-3-3 team for the best record?

As it turned out, New York beat Pittsburgh 33-17 to win the NFL East at 11-3, while Pittsburgh finished 7-4-3. Cleveland won to finish 10-4 and St. Louis lost to finish 9-5. Pro Football Reference sorts them out as NY first, Cleveland second, St. Louis third and Pittsburgh fourth, but I'm not sure that's accurate based on how standings were calculated at the time in 1963. Did Pittsburgh's 7-4-3 record place above St. Louis?

I sense a BD Sullivan post coming to clear up the standings haze here.

[JuggernautJ]

That is so strange.
I was just reading about that season (1963) in "The Scrapbook History of Pro Football" and was about to post here regarding same.
I guess you beat me to it.


Oh well, I guess an infinite number of monkeys reading football books....

[JuggernautJ]

In Week 14, Pittsburgh and New York met in what was billed a "winner-take-all" game for the NFL East title. Does that seem right to you all? A 10-3 team playing a 7-3-3 team for the best record?

Let's see if I and my trusty calculator can work this out...

Remember, place is decided by winning percentage and, in those days, ties did not count.

So, before the final week the standings were:
NY Giants 10-3 .769
Pittsburgh 7-3-3 .700
Cleveland 9-4 .692
St. Louis 9-4 .692

If Pittsburgh had won (8-3-3) they'd have been at .727 and the Giants (with a loss) at 10-4 would come in at .714.
As it was the Giants finished 11-3 and .785 and the Steelers (7-4-3) and .636.
Cleveland finished 10-4 (.714) and at 9-5 the Cardinals finished with a win percentage of .642.
So, I see the Cardinals finishing .006 ahead of the Steelers for 3rd place in the 1963 East.

Now if the Steelers and Giants had tied in the last week...

[rhickok1109]

That is so strange.
I was just reading about that season (1963) in "The Scrapbook History of Pro Football" and was about to post here regarding same.
I guess you beat me to it.


Oh well, I guess an infinite number of monkeys reading football books....

I guess we've had a big membership spurt