rsaline Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 20 hours ago, the admiral said: EXPLOSIONS AND FOOTBALL I forgot Matt Flynn played for the Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 9 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: General comment: the one thing that this thread proves conclusively is that there are too damn many interconference games. If it is so easy to find recent examples of every possible matchup, that takes a lot away from the specialness of any matchup that occurs in the Super Bowl. Once every four years. I don't think it's too much to have a team from the other conference on your schedule once every four years. The real reason that it's so easy to find pictures of all these matchups is that none of the playoff teams have substantially changed their look in the past four years, and we have the Internet. This was the fourth season of the Dolphins' current look (which feels off to me, but that's what the mothership says) and the fifth season for the new Seahawks uniforms. The Lions are the only other change that I would consider semi-recent, and that was back in '09. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jungle Jim Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 Regarding inter conference play, others have already pointed out that each AFC team plays each NFC team only every four years, but a given NFC team plays in a given AFC city only every eight years. I'm in the Cincinnati market, and I know that there is a lot of excitement among fans of the Bears, Packers, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys when they make their once-every-eight-years visit to Paul Brown Stadium. Competitive issues aside, I think it beats adding more games against the Titans, Jaguars, etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Cesarano Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 On 1/4/2017 at 0:33 PM, the admiral said: Playing half the league once every four years doesn't sound bad to me. People could be digging back six or seven years for some of these photos. 21 hours ago, Cosmic said: Once every four years. I don't think it's too much to have a team from the other conference on your schedule once every four years. The real reason that it's so easy to find pictures of all these matchups is that none of the playoff teams have substantially changed their look in the past four years, and we have the Internet. This was the fourth season of the Dolphins' current look (which feels off to me, but that's what the mothership says) and the fifth season for the new Seahawks uniforms. The Lions are the only other change that I would consider semi-recent, and that was back in '09. 15 hours ago, Jungle Jim said: Regarding inter conference play, others have already pointed out that each AFC team plays each NFC team only every four years, but a given NFC team plays in a given AFC city only every eight years. I'm in the Cincinnati market, and I know that there is a lot of excitement among fans of the Bears, Packers, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys when they make their once-every-eight-years visit to Paul Brown Stadium. Competitive issues aside, I think it beats adding more games against the Titans, Jaguars, etc.. Well, I guess you're right that it isn't such a big deal that it needs changing. It appears that these interconference meetings are rare enough that they remain somewhat special. I think back to the first Giant-Jet game that I remember, the one from 1981. That was a really big deal because the teams hadn't met for quite a number of years -- a quick search reveals that the previous meeting had been in 1974. I admit that I'd be more comfortable with that scale; but, as @Jungle Jim mentions, each team visits a given city in the other conference only once every eight years, which is in excess of the average NFL career. If those games are perceived by fans as different from the ordinary in-conference matchups, then I suppose that that's evidence that the balance is good enough. (Though even Jim seems to concede that these games are problematic from the standpoint of the competition.) I guess that I was expecting to see older pictures in this thread, such as the shot posted on the first page by @Ray Lankford, a shot that appears to come from Super Bowl II; and I was a bit peeved to see so many shots that looked so current. But, as @Cosmic said, many of the teams have not changed uniforms in a while; so some of the pictures could indeed have gone back a good seven or eight years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaydre1019 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 22 hours ago, sayahh said: All-Texas Superbowl? Lowest rated Superbowl, anyone? (The last one I can think of was 49ers vs. Chargers.) Any superbowl with the cowboys will probably be the highest rated game in years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgiff17 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 If the Texans get to the afc championship game...wow I'm a fan but a realist. I don't think we have to worry about an all Texas SB. Would be awesome! I remember growing up during the moon led oiler days and billboards showing oiler vs cowboys super bowl. That was more of a possibility than it is now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianLion Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 IIRC correctly last year Denver was the home team but chose to wear white in the game. So this year the NFC is the home team so outside of a Dallas appearance the game it's going to be NFC dark vs AFC white. So by that then really any combination of Lions/Giants/Packers/Cowboys vs Raiders/Steelers/Chiefs/Texans/Dolphins(dark) will look good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ Sands Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 We're getting this again. Honestly, it's not a bad look. (The NFC is the home team and I'd bet the Giants would choose to wear white against the Pats like the first two times they played.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson160 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 21 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: Don Mattingly never played in a National League park. Ernie Banks never played in an American League park. This is not an issue. To argue for a certain type of schedule on the basis of the existence of one star player is not sensible, especially now, when the NFL has twice as many teams as Major League Baseball had when Ernie Banks started. On top of that, in football they play very few games; so we should not be shocked when a case comes up that a player has visited some given city rarely or not at all. And neither is the notion of "the best players and the best teams play[ing] each other" a valid basis for a schedule. By that reasoning, you'd have divisions not by geography, but by merit. You'd have promotion and relegation between two levels of the NFL, or amongst more than two levels. If someone were to say that this is absurd, then that person would be right; but this is what flows from the idea that "football is best when the best players and the best teams play each other". It is more important to have a schedule that is sensible than to try to arrange for the visits of every star player to every city. And, in a league that has four 4-team divisions per conference, and that is threatening to go to an 18-game schedule, the most sensible arrangement is the one with all intra-conference play. I hasten to say (again) that I don't expect this to happen, or even to be seriously considered. But when we take this on as a mental exercise, we shouldn't deny the conclusion that such a scheme would make the playoff qualifications more legitimate and the Super Bowl more interesting. I agree the Super Bowl could be more interesting. But that's one game out of an entire season. And the fact that half of baseball fans never got the chance to see Ernie Banks play in their city isn't something to be emulated, it's a shame. You think, for example, 1960s Twins fans wouldn't have rather seen Ernie Banks on occasion instead of having even more Twins/Orioles or Twins/Indians matchups? The more diverse the range of matchups is, the more interesting the season AS A WHOLE is, so why limit that diversity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 6 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said: Well, I guess you're right that it isn't such a big deal that it needs changing. It appears that these interconference meetings are rare enough that they remain somewhat special. I think back to the first Giant-Jet game that I remember, the one from 1981. That was a really big deal because the teams hadn't met for quite a number of years -- a quick search reveals that the previous meeting had been in 1974. I admit that I'd be more comfortable with that scale; but, as @Jungle Jim mentions, each team visits a given city in the other conference only once every eight years, which is in excess of the average NFL career. If those games are perceived by fans as different from the ordinary in-conference matchups, then I suppose that that's evidence that the balance is good enough. (Though even Jim seems to concede that these games are problematic from the standpoint of the competition.) I guess that I was expecting to see older pictures in this thread, such as the shot posted on the first page by @Ray Lankford, a shot that appears to come from Super Bowl II; and I was a bit peeved to see so many shots that looked so current. But, as @Cosmic said, many of the teams have not changed uniforms in a while; so some of the pictures could indeed have gone back a good seven or eight years. It's basically a philosophical discussion. Would it be cooler if the first time the Mets and Yankees ever played was in the World Series? Yeah, but I'd rather take the guarantee of the interleague games* than hope for a Subway Series once in a lifetime. I think finals series are exciting enough without needing the gimmick of the teams never playing against each other. It's nice having variety and seeing the entire league's stars in your home arena 99% of the time, rather than hoping for a special 1% thing. * I know that interleague is controversial and could be executed better, but I think the theoretical point stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Star Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Hmmm, I like where this is going Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silver_Star Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Or expect the unexpected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 8 hours ago, shaydre1019 said: Any superbowl with the cowboys will probably be the highest rated game in years. I wouldn't be so sure, but then again, unlike the Oscars, every year the Superbowl seems to break viewership records. I remember the Yankees - Mets World Series being low rated. Not sure if it was, though. Since many fans supposedly hate the Yankees and the Cowboys, I wouldn't know what will happen until it does. It will definitely be interesting if it does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 17 hours ago, Jungle Jim said: Regarding inter conference play, others have already pointed out that each AFC team plays each NFC team only every four years, but a given NFC team plays in a given AFC city only every eight years. I'm in the Cincinnati market, and I know that there is a lot of excitement among fans of the Bears, Packers, Redskins, Giants, and Cowboys when they make their once-every-eight-years visit to Paul Brown Stadium. Competitive issues aside, I think it beats adding more games against the Titans, Jaguars, etc.. Love your avatar, Jungle Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matito Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 18 hours ago, Silver_Star said: Hmmm, I like where this is going The only way I'd be able to stomach the Cowboys in the Super Bowl is if they wore their vastly superior navy jerseys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jungle Jim Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Why do the Cowboys find it necessary to outline the numbers on their blue jerseys but not on their white jerseys? The outlines ruin it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AgentColon2 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimball Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I'd love to see a possible color vs. color! If there is enough contrast -- why not? I think a Kansas City (red) vs. any of the blue teams (Dallas, Seattle, NY or Detroit) would be gorgeous. Not to mention an Atlanta vs. New England or Houston. Just no Color Rush jerseys. "I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific." Lily Tomlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordie13 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordie13 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Or this color on color match. (just dreaming) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.