Let's Fix Things That May or May Not Be Broken

[leopard88]

2 minutes ago, goalieboy82 said:

one thing i can think of off the top is get rid long  bad stadium leases (see Tampa Bay Rays).  

 

My proposed change.

 

Long leases are necessary to make sure municipalities/owners are willing to invest in construction.  The Rays lease isn't bad because it's long.  It's bad because it's onerous, the stadium is terrible, and it appears to have no escape clause for the Rays.

On the other hand, the Orioles and Ravens each have $600MM waiting for stadium upgrades if they sign long term leases/extensions.  That is pretty good trade off.

[DCarp1231]

NFL should have a 3 team loser playoff to decide the Top 3 draft picks

[PrimalCookie]

If we're proposing solutions to tanking for the first pick, I have an NBA specific one that I've been thinking about for a bit, based around the format the WCC uses for its basketball tournament:

Basically, you have a "ladder" seeded 1-10 for the teams that don't make the play in (which becomes a permanent feature of the playoffs). The winner of each game advances to play the next seed on their ladder, ultimately resulting in a final game for the 1st pick. There'd also be a second game for the losers to decide who gets the tiebreaker (so, the losers of the second round on either side play for the 7th pick).

 

What I like about this format compared to other proposals is the 1 seed can get at worst 4th, the same as currently. That still ensures that the truly bad teams can get a great player in the draft, but also creates competitive games for teams and fanbases that otherwise haven't sniffed one in years and disincentives intentionally making the team as bad as possible because you'll still need to win at least two games at the end. 

 

It's still not a fully baked idea, I'm sure there's some fundamental problem with it that I haven't thought of yet, but idk I like the idea of it being in the team's hands and not in the hands of some ping pong balls.

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

If we're proposing solutions to tanking for the first pick, I have an NBA specific one that I've been thinking about for a bit, based around the format the WCC uses for its basketball tournament:

Basically, you have a "ladder" seeded 1-10 for the teams that don't make the play in (which becomes a permanent feature of the playoffs). The winner of each game advances to play the next seed on their ladder, ultimately resulting in a final game for the 1st pick. There'd also be a second game for the losers to decide who gets the tiebreaker (so, the losers of the second round on either side play for the 7th pick).

 

What I like about this format compared to other proposals is the 1 seed can get at worst 4th, the same as currently. That still ensures that the truly bad teams can get a great player in the draft, but also creates competitive games for teams and fanbases that otherwise haven't sniffed one in years and disincentives intentionally making the team as bad as possible because you'll still need to win at least two games at the end. 

 

It's still not a fully baked idea, I'm sure there's some fundamental problem with it that I haven't thought of yet, but idk I like the idea of it being in the team's hands and not in the hands of some ping pong balls.

 

5 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

NFL should have a 3 team loser playoff to decide the Top 3 draft picks

 

I don't know.  If I'm the QB of one of these teams, and the top pick is going to be a QB that takes my job, I'm probably not going to sell out for the team to win.  Same for a player at any other position who's job is at stake if certain players are drafted.

[BBTV]

8 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

 

I sense a disturbing pattern in the framing.  If the defensive team doesn't want to be flagged for pass interference, then the DB should not touch the receiver.  You say that pass interference should not be an offensive strategy; but even worse would be its use as a defensive strategy, which your suggestions would invite.

 

On pass interference, a good rules adjustment would be the abolition of offensive pass interference.  The very concept of offensive pass interference is ridiculous, as it's the offence's damn ball.  The DB and the receiver are not equals; the rules should explicitly state that the receiver is allowed to make physical contact with the defender in ways that the defender is not allowed to do with the receiver.

 

 

This is flat out insanity.  Insane insanity.  The Eagles have been flagged for an abnormally-high amount of OPI in the past two years, because they were trying to get away with disguising what are essentially pick plays that ensured the receiver would catch the ball and get a lot of yards after catch.  While I obviously hate the calls, if they weren't made, then a team could score without any impedance and the game would absolutely suck.

 

I think PI - along with roughing the passer - should only be called on the field if it's so obvious that someone's ankles or neck has snapped.  Otherwise hold the flag and let the booth look at it and call down.  The on field refs have proven that they simply can't officiate a fair game, and they constantly leave doubt in mind that games are truly on a level playing field.  We've seen replay guys be equally incompetent, but that's much more rare.  Game-changing calls should all be reviewed, with common sense prevailing.  

[DCarp1231]

I typed out a whole thing about NFL players being loaned between teams, but then I realized that would likely be a very bad idea.

[TBGKon]

19 hours ago, goalieboy82 said:

one thing i can think of off the top is get rid long stadium leases (see Tampa Bay Rays).  

Unfortunately that's hard to avoid if a municipality is providing funding to the project.  They need commitments from the team to remain so there's a return on any funds spent.

 

As for the the Rays, a 30 year term was a little excessive for a building that at the time the Rays began was already going on 10 years old.  A 10-15 year lease would have made more sense.

[TBGKon]

13 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

I typed out a whole thing about NFL players being loaned between teams, but then I realized that would likely be a very bad idea.

Loans work in soccer leagues since they generally dont compete directly.  Loans within one league (NFL for example) where there are no equal alternative is essentially a temporary contract and is likely against the CBA.

[leopard88]

19 hours ago, Magic Dynasty said:

If we're proposing solutions to tanking for the first pick, I have an NBA specific one that I've been thinking about for a bit, based around the format the WCC uses for its basketball tournament:

Basically, you have a "ladder" seeded 1-10 for the teams that don't make the play in (which becomes a permanent feature of the playoffs). The winner of each game advances to play the next seed on their ladder, ultimately resulting in a final game for the 1st pick. There'd also be a second game for the losers to decide who gets the tiebreaker (so, the losers of the second round on either side play for the 7th pick).

 

What I like about this format compared to other proposals is the 1 seed can get at worst 4th, the same as currently. That still ensures that the truly bad teams can get a great player in the draft, but also creates competitive games for teams and fanbases that otherwise haven't sniffed one in years and disincentives intentionally making the team as bad as possible because you'll still need to win at least two games at the end. 

 

It's still not a fully baked idea, I'm sure there's some fundamental problem with it that I haven't thought of yet, but idk I like the idea of it being in the team's hands and not in the hands of some ping pong balls.

 

This is similar to what the PBA did on the Saturday bowling tournaments back when I was a wee lad.  Five bowlers qualified for the Saturday slot.  It was 5 vs. 4 with the winner playing 3 and so on, with No. 1 waiting in the final.

[DCarp1231]

NFL regular season should be an 18 game schedule with 2 bye weeks per team OR 18 games with a league wide standard mid season break.

[TBGKon]

11 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

NFL regular season should be an 18 game schedule with 2 bye weeks per team OR 18 games with a league wide standard mid season break.

Maybe to the two bye weeks, but a standard mid season break would never happen.  Theres no chance the league would just go dormant for a week and have nothing to broadcast.

[Sport]

Angry at the Cincinnati Reds playing out another meaningless September and thinking about how we probably can't implement promotion and relegation in MLB or MLS at this point - I think there needs to be more of a deterrent to finishing in last place than there currently is to keep teams trying and playing their hardest throughout the season. High draft picks actually incentivize losing and lotteries don't seem to prevent tanking in any meaningful way. Solution: Forced Embarrassment. In MLS they have the title of Wooden Spoon, but nobody actually gets a wooden spoon. What I'm saying is, they should. League rule should be that if you finish in last place they send you a giant wooden spoon with the year on it and you have to prominently display it in your stadium like a scarlet letter for everyone to see. If you don't you forfeit your #1 overall draft pick. Not sure what MLB could do - maybe send the Washington Nationals a big red ass that says "2022 Last Place" and they have to keep that in their stadium next to the 2019 World Series flag forever. 

[BBTV]

13 hours ago, DCarp1231 said:

NFL regular season should be an 18 game schedule with 2 bye weeks per team OR 18 games with a league wide standard mid season break.

 

That would mean a 20-week regular season, plus a 5-week playoff (including the bye before the Super Bowl.

 

There's simply no way to fit that in to any kind of reasonable time frame.  Games should simply never start before Labor day, and going into March is just too much - especially if you're also a baseball fan going to sprint training or just getting into baseball mode since the regular season seems to start in March more often these days.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I like 17 games if every team plays a neutral site game.

 

I like 18 games if every team plays 9 home games.

 

I don't think you can have schedule parity and international games.

[gosioux76]

On 10/24/2022 at 9:12 PM, BBTV said:

 

 

I don't know.  If I'm the QB of one of these teams, and the top pick is going to be a QB that takes my job, I'm probably not going to sell out for the team to win.  Same for a player at any other position who's job is at stake if certain players are drafted.

This is a good point, but I think it only adds to the appeal of this game. 

 

Those players are under contract and they sit out / tank to their own detriment. They can also use that game as a showcase event to prove that they can perform under pressure. It only helps their case as they pursue their next contract.  If nothing else, I'd think you can bank on players playing for pride, if nothing else.

 

The only drawback here is for those seasons in which the worst team is, by far, the worst team. So much so that even a matchup against the second-worst team is lop sided, meaning they're likely to lose a chance to get a top draft pick that could change their trajectory.

 

But even then, I still think it's worth doing. 

[PERRIN]

One of the rules in football that boggles my mind the most is the rule that a fumble by the offense going through their opponents end zone and out of bounds is a touchback, with possession granted the the opposite team. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Why should a fumble out of bounds only switch possession in the end zone, but not anywhere else on the field?  Since the play happens so rarely, but enough to be enforced, I've seen it enough times to feel like it's completely unfair to the offense. Sure, it can occur on a great play by a defensive player knocking the ball free just before the runner crosses the plain of the goal line, (Kam Chancellor did so to Calvin Johnson that one time) but most of the time it occurs via sheer dumb luck, where the runner simply loses their grip on the ball when reaching for the pylon. 

 

I think the rule could use an update that involves the offense retaining possession, but still being put at a disadvantage. You still gotta hang on to the ball, after all.

 

I discussed this with my brother and we came up with two ideas:

 

Proposal 1: A fumble through the opposing endzone results in the play blown dead. The ball is granted to the offense at the opponents' 20 yard line, regardless of where the previous play took place. A sort of offensive touchback.

 

This applies to any situation, whether it’s 3rd and goal on the 7 or an interception return from the other end of the field. The ball always goes to the 20 yard line, and play resumes from there. On offensive plays, the down is generally lost. That 3rd and goal on the 7 now becomes 4th and goal from the 20. Say the ball is fumbled through the endzone on a run from 2nd and 6 on the 35, the 20 yard line is enough for a first down, so the play results in 1st and 10 from the 20, and the down isn't lost. On returns, since there wasn’t a down before that play, it’s 1st and 10 from the 20.

 

Proposal 2: The ball returns to the spot of the previous play, with loss of down. If the fumble occurs on a return of any kind, including a turnover, the ball is moved back to where the returning team gained possession of the ball, 1st and 10 from that spot.

 

Say a DB picks the ball off at his own 45, runs it back, and fumbles through the endzone. The ball goes back to where he picked it off, at the 45. If he made the interception in his own endzone, ran it back 100 yards, and then fumbled through the opposite endzone, the play is considered a touchback, since he was in his own end zone when he intercepted the pass. If the return occurs on a kickoff, where the returner caught the ball inside the 10, the play is ruled a touchback. Let’s at least be a little bit nice to kickoff returners, they’ve got tough jobs.

 

I'd love to see what y'all think about this, it's a tricky rule to adjust and one that's quite controversial. Hopefully either of these two ideas make enough sense. 

[McCall]

4 hours ago, PERRIN said:

Why should a fumble out of bounds only switch possession in the end zone, but not anywhere else on the field?

Because it's the endzone and not anywhere else on the field. Why is a kickoff/punt a touchback only when it goes out the endzone and not anywhere else on the field? Why is it only a touchdown when the offense gets the ball into the endzone and not anywhere else on the field? The endzone is NOT the same as anywhere else on the field, therefore, things are different when it happens there.

[PERRIN]

15 minutes ago, McCall said:

Because it's the endzone and not anywhere else on the field. Why is a kickoff/punt a touchback only when it goes out the endzone and not anywhere else on the field? Why is it only a touchdown when the offense gets the ball into the endzone and not anywhere else on the field? The endzone is NOT the same as anywhere else on the field, therefore, things are different when it happens there.

I am well aware. I have nothing against the endzone being a place where different things happen compared to other areas of the field. That isn't what bothers me. What I'm protesting is what happens when this situation occurs in the endzone. I agree that something should happen when a fumble goes through the opponents endzone, I just disagree that it should result in a change of possession. Something needs to happen when it's fumbled through, for sure, but what currently happens doesn't fit in my book. It's too dramatic a consequence for too specific a situation, like how back in the olden days the football hitting the uprights resulted in a safety, no matter the context.

[McCall]

9 hours ago, PERRIN said:

I am well aware. I have nothing against the endzone being a place where different things happen compared to other areas of the field. That isn't what bothers me. What I'm protesting is what happens when this situation occurs in the endzone. I agree that something should happen when a fumble goes through the opponents endzone, I just disagree that it should result in a change of possession. Something needs to happen when it's fumbled through, for sure, but what currently happens doesn't fit in my book. It's too dramatic a consequence for too specific a situation, like how back in the olden days the football hitting the uprights resulted in a safety, no matter the context.

No, not really. You mentioned a safety. Why do they change possessions when an offensive player is tackled in their own endzone (thus resulting in a safety), but not anywhere else on the field? Because it's in the endzone. It's not "too dramatic" (dramatic?). You are literally the only person I have ever heard complain about this.

[8BW14]

Let me drop my two cents in on the endzone fumble topic. I don’t have any issue with the current rule, but if we had to change it here is my proposal:

In the event of a fumble lost out of bounds in the end zone, give the ball back to the offense, but at the 20yd line with the goal to go. That way the offense retains possession but they’re penalized significantly. Again, I don’t necessarily think this is broken but maybe that’s the way to “fix” it.

 

edit:didn’t read all the way back through @PERRIN’s post, where this is already mentioned. The only difference in my proposal would the the goal to go