OT-- oh Goddell, really?

**Ravenswintitle** · 12-06-2012, 06:15 PM

they'll probably move to kickoffs to start the first and second half, and that's it. The rest of the time the team gets the ball on the 20. It's gonna happen

**HKusp** · 12-06-2012, 06:28 PM

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

You have a very poor understanding of just how successful and popular the NFL is under Goodell. As much as a certain class of fans likes to complain that he's ruining the game, he's negotiated the biggest TV deal in history, and been in charge for the NFL's greatest run of parity to date. The game is bigger than ever and the idea that it's "circling the drain" is inexcusably wrong.

I think you misunderstand the idea of going too far or "jumping the shark". At some point in the very near future, if they continue along this path, they are going to jump the shark. You can choose to have the OPINION that I am inexcusably wrong all you want. I don't care what the TV contracts are, if you change the game into something that people don't want to watch it won't matter.

**ActualSpamBot** · 12-06-2012, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by HKusp

I think you misunderstand the idea of going too far or "jumping the shark". At some point in the very near future, if they continue along this path, they are going to jump the shark. You can choose to have the OPINION that I am inexcusably wrong all you want. I don't care what the TV contracts are, if you change the game into something that people don't want to watch it won't matter.

Except every change that's been made under Goodell and Tags before him have ultimately made the game more popular. You can personally dislike them all you want, but the results speak for themselves. We're not approaching some "shark jumping" watershed here, quite the opposite. Goodell has his finger on the pulse of what the majority of fans (note, not what the majority of old school die hards) want and that's A. Points, B. Parity, and C. For the recognizable stars of the game (generally QBs) to play longer and at a high level.

You can get behind his vision and keep enjoying football or not, it won't matter to the NFL though because for every 3 yards and a cloud of dust fan they lose, they gain 2 fans of wide open high octane offense driven football.

**Dade** · 12-06-2012, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by HKusp

I think you misunderstand the idea of going too far or "jumping the shark". At some point in the very near future, if they continue along this path, they are going to jump the shark. You can choose to have the OPINION that I am inexcusably wrong all you want. I don't care what the TV contracts are, if you change the game into something that people don't want to watch it won't matter.

+1

**HKusp** · 12-06-2012, 06:44 PM

We will see.

**Shambla** · 12-06-2012, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dade

Here's the flaw in this...

Imagine this...Jets vs Patriots, Patriots lose opening toss. Decide to go for the 4th and 15 and convert. Score a TD on the drive. Convert 4th and 15 again, score another TD. Repeat. Potentially one team could keep the ball all game. Wasn't thats why they change the OT rules? Cause only one team potentially would have the ball. Also if the Patriots throw an incomplete on the 4th and 15, the Jets would get the ball at the Patriots 30 yard line!

In 5-10 years time, football will become totally unrecognizable from its current state.

I think the league percentage for 4th and 15 is about 20% (the idea is to make it about the same chance as an onside kick). To pull that off even 2 out of 2 times would be a 4% chance and meanwhile you're taking a big risk of letting a lesser team get some nice field position.

I think the biggest flaw as someone pointed out is a 1st down via penalty. I absolutely think that if you want to take away a DB's ability to lay a hit and separate the ball from a man you need to let them be more physical and ease up on pass interference.

**akashicrecorder** · 12-06-2012, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Shambla

I think the biggest flaw as someone pointed out is a 1st down via penalty. I absolutely think that if you want to take away a DB's ability to lay a hit and separate the ball from a man you need to let them be more physical and ease up on pass interference.

That was me and I was about to reiterate the point, because ...

Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot

If you allow a team to convert multiple 4-15s, you deserve to lose just as much as a team that allows the opponent to convert every single onside kick.

... does not take into account how subjective and ticky-tack passing penalties have gotten. It's not all about which team "deserves" the conversion or "deserves" to be converted on.

**HoustonRaven** · 12-06-2012, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by landspeed

At what point has kickoffs been "unsafe" over the past 2 years?

Theyve definitely improved.

Either get over it or let the NFL fade out, because now the integrity of the game is just being stomped on.

I am not arguing the validity of the move. And I agree that the game is is becoming a shell of its former self.

But from a legal standpoint, they have to show they are doing something, even if its a bad decision, that they are taking steps to improve player safety.

Te players are slowly biting the hand that's been feeding them and if they are not careful, it will go away much like the demise of Hostess.

**Haloti92** · 12-06-2012, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

they'll probably move to kickoffs to start the first and second half, and that's it. The rest of the time the team gets the ball on the 20. It's gonna happen

I think they need some way for a scoring team to retain the ball after a score (i.e. onsides kick). Otherwise the outcome of games will be definitively determined well before the final whistle (which isn't really the case now). Maybe kickoffs in the last 5 minutes of the game as an option. Who knows?

**Ravenswintitle** · 12-06-2012, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

I think they need some way for a scoring team to retain the ball after a score (i.e. onsides kick). Otherwise the outcome of games will be definitively determined well before the final whistle (which isn't really the case now). Maybe kickoffs in the last 5 minutes of the game as an option. Who knows?

Goodell has already said he wants to eliminate the kickoff. Can you imagine a game starting with the team strolling out to the 20 instead of a kickoff? Buzzkill

**Haloti92** · 12-06-2012, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

Goodell has already said he wants to eliminate the kickoff. Can you imagine a game starting with the team strolling out to the 20 instead of a kickoff? Buzzkill

Yeah, I know he wants to eliminate the kickoff, for "safety" reasons. But I still think he will need to come up with some way for the scoring team to retain possession. So we are talking about the 4th-and-15 nonsense or some variation, or maybe a compromise where kickoffs still occur but only to start halves and in the last 5 minutes or something.

If every score results in the other team getting it at the 20, then fans are going to be leaving stadiums and changing the channel way earlier than they currently do. Eventhough onsides kicks are long odds, they aren't so long as to prevent people from staying and hoping (maybe 10% chance of recovery with rule changes? it used to be way higher, but I haven't checked the last couple years' data).

Total buzzkill. I agree. Death by a thousand cuts.

**edgecrusher** · 12-06-2012, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by akashicrecorder

What a terrible idea.

4 and 15 isn't nearly intimidating enough. Watch Belicheat send his offense out and just look for a flag on Gronkowski or something. And with illegal contact giving an automatic first down regardless of where on the field it happens, why not try?

Again, terrible idea.

You could easily end up with situations where teams like the Patriots and Packers stay on the field for entire quarters.