NFL Complaints, Observations, Suggestions

[wdm1219inpenna]

Hello all. The NFL post-season playoff berths are filling up fast, and it's quite an exciting time of year. The schedule makers really did quite well again it would seem.

I still am quite peeved that we now have TWO regular season games being played outside the United States. This troubles me big time because last year it was one, now it's two, and I fear it won't be too much longer before many more are played outside the U.S. as well. I know this practice won't stop because more money is to be had apparantly outside the United States, and that's just how it is now unfortunately.

I still dislike the bye-week set up, and that's not even due to fantasy football. I tried it for a few years, but it got rather beat to me so I stopped this year. I enjoy the NFL enough already as is. Perhaps that's a sign of my getting older, I don't know. I do like that they have bye weeks because it does give us 1 extra weekend of NFL action, so that's a plus. I remember one year, 1993 I think, where they had 2 bye weeks, and I thought that was going to be great, but I disliked that actually. I'd prefer that all 8 divisions get a bye on the same week, then the following week, play one another. This way all teams are equally rested. Nothing's worse than a team who had a bye in week 4 playing a team who just came off a bye in week 10. By having the entire AFC East off one week, then play one another the following week, you'd have more faireness. Furthermore, you'd not have offset records, all game totals would be equal. I hate when it's Dallas 4-2, Washington 3-2, Philly 3-3 & Giants 2-3. I like for the game numbers to be even within the division, so that's another reason I'd change it. Also, week 4 seems to be a bit too early for a bye, but I grant you it's better than having it on week 3. Weeks 5 - 12 seems most reasonable. This way all teams play 4 games to start, and 5 games to end. That's what I'd like to see done anyway, and what I'd push for if I were commissioner.

No NFL team in Los Angeles since 1994 seems to be a thorn in the league's side for some reason, yet they continue to thrive, even during bad economic times. L.A. has the USC Trojans. Los Angelinos have 3 other California teams to choose from. That being said, I'd rejoice if the Rams moved back to L.A. and left that dark dreary dome in St. Louis. It seems like that dome became even darker since they went to their toned down uniform look, which I detest. I miss the colorful looking Ram uniforms, and wish they'd bring something like that back again. I hate that L.A. is hanging over the league's head, and that other teams could potentially move there, and possibly screw up the otherwise pretty decent realignment that took place in 2002. The Chargers moving back there, or the Rams moving back there would be the best case scenario I'd say. Apparantly new stadium deals are fouling things up somehow.

I miss seeing the Super Bowl being played in JANUARY, and OUTDOORS and in DAYLIGHT. I have never liked having the biggest game played indoors. Watching so many Super Bowl highlights, it's so much nicer when the games are played outdoors, in sunlight. Even Super Bowl XIV was played in sunlight in the first half. Now the Rose Bowl doesn't even get to host a game anymore, nor the L.A. Coliseum. I was too young to remember Super Bowl I or VII being played there, but I'd love to see a Super Bowl played there again someday. I know that won't happen, but it would seem fitting for Super Bowl L to be played there, to mark the 50th anniversary, and have it be played where it started. I disliked the game in New Orleans, Minnesota, Houston & Arizona all because it was indoors. Miami is good, Tampa is good, San Diego seems to be my favorite place for the game to be held now. And while the game ends around 10:00 or 10:30 EST, I'd still love it to be a 1 or 2pm start, 4pm if played on the west coast. I know that won't happen either

The scheduling formula used starting in 2002 seems to be awesome. I hope they plan to keep that same format in place for 2010 - 2017 seasons too. The rotating of inter-conference games every 4 years is great, and intra-conference every 3 years, and having 1st place teams play 1st place teams, etc. A really well done thing that I hope remains in place always.

No more expansion. 32 teams seems to be just the perfect/ideal number of teams. 33 or 34 would foul up everything. 8 divisions, 4 teams per division, it's about as perfect a balance as one could ever hope for.

Get RID of alternate uniforms. The alternate uniforms that many teams wear are hideous! (Saints in all black, Texans in all red, Bears in orange, Broncos in orange, Eagles in black, Jets in all green, Titans in all light blue, Lions in black shirts,), just hideous. The only teams that look ok in alternates are the Bengals in orange, and the Falcons in black (red was their alt, now it's the norm, but I must admit I prefer them in the red, not the black).

Ditch the Pro Bowl. Nobody seems to watch it or care. I tune it in because I love the novelty of seeing a Redskin, a Cowboy and a Saint coming together on the field, and seeing the array of colorful helmets all together on one field. Other than that, I could do without the game altogether. Hearing that "so and so is a Pro Bowler" or an "All pro" is like "meh...ok that's nice, how did his TEAM do this season?".

I'm torn between a week off or not before the Super Bowl. I'd prefer the game to be played right away, rather than wait 2 weeks. It seems the teams would possibly prefer that too, but there's so much media coverage now, and 10 billion accomodations to be made.

I fear that at least 1 10 win team, and possibly an 11 win team may not make the playoffs this year. I fear this because I fear that the fans or the league or the commish will want to add a 7th playoff team, and that would be too many in my humble opinion. The system as it is now is perfect. Division winners get the top 4 seeds, and 2 wild card teams from each conference. 6 at 3, 5 at 4. Also, if an 11 win wildcard teams has to play at a 9 win division winner, I am ok w/that too. If the 11 win team is truly better than the 9 win team, then the 11 win team should be able to win on the road without a problem. If it's Indy at Denver, and INdy loses, then take the roof off of your dome and play outdoors. I hate domed stadiums in the NFL. I can sort of understand it w/Houston & Arizona due to heat, but as for the other cities, no. They only have it to be a potential Super Bowl site, and I hate it. Teams with names like Rams, Vikings & Lions should be OUT doors, in the cold, in the snow, in the wind, in the sleet and rain.

I think that's about all my weary brain can conjure up at this time. Thank you for reading, and Happy New Year!

[O_Town_Clown]

NFL griping, I love it!

Three words:

TV time outs.

Announcer: "The extra point is good, and we'll be back after a few messages."

Announcer: "We're back with the kick-off which is fair caught at the 18, and we'll take a time out."

Announcer: "We're back with Team A's opening drive. The quarterback doesn't like what he sees, so he'll have to burn a time out, and we'll take it with him."

[twi]

I would say the NFL is just plain overdone. Don't get me wrong, I love it and know it is a multi-billion dollar industry but does it have to be in my face all the time? I think I would enjoy it more if I weren't inundated with it all day every day.

I think it takes itself too seriously. Satellite pictures of defenses printed out after every series for the QB to look at? That seems absurd to me.

Lastly, celebrations. Let them go crazy in the endzone, some of them are actually creative and/or funny. On the other hand, the extravagant displays after routine plays are a little ridiculous. "I tackled a guy, LOOK AT MY BICEPS"

But at the end of the day, these things are washed out by what I like about it. Solidly my third favorite pro sport to watch.

[dfwabel]

My only response is this is the 4th thread of a similar vain which you started in 2008.

Complaint/Observation (Started Oct. 12, 2008)

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?sh...c=62081&hl=

Suggestions (Started February 25, 2008)

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?sh...c=57013&hl=

All three (Started February 17, 2008)

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?sh...c=56828&hl=

[TC]

This is along the lines of what twi said, but I see nothing wrong with celebrating. I mean, a fifteen yard penalty for making a snow angel which only lasted about four seconds seems a little much to me.

[infrared41]

What I don't like about the NFL...

1. The number of punt and kickoff returns for TDs that are called back because of a penalty. It's so bad that in the rare event of one that might actually stand, the first words out of the announcer's mouths are "no flags on the play!" The number of long plays that are called back because of a penalty. It seems like anything exciting in an NFL game cannot be allowed.

2. The way the officials control the game. Absurd rules like the "tuck rule" and "must make a football type action" etc. seem to be designed specifically to allow for officials to exert their influence over a game. NFL officials affect the outcome of a game far too often. This year's first match up between the Chargers and Broncos is a prime example. They gave that game to the Broncos only to admit they blew it after it was too late to do anything about it. I swear they make up when they don't know how to handle something. It also seems like the NFL officials call way more penalties than do their counterparts in college. I read somewhere that NFL officiating is really bad this year. Newsflash: It's been bad for as long as I can remember.

3. Three words, "he broke contain."

4. The reverence the networks show for the sport. No one who has a deal with the league ever dares to criticize the league.

5. The whole thing is taken way too seriously by fans, commentators, writers, and coaches.

[wdm1219inpenna]

Thank you for your replies, and to the gent who found my original post. I knew I had made a similar post a while back, but could not find it. When I tried searching, I kept getting an error message.

Too many TV time outs, absolutely. Every decent run back on a kickoff seems to be "Holding" or "Illegal block in the back".

Also, the officiating has been not as high caliber as it could be or should be. The league needs to make them FULL TIME employees!!!!

Thank you all for your contributions and again Happy New Year.

[BlueSky]

TV timeouts...one of my pet peeves. What's shocking is an objective comparison of then vs. now. For example, I have an original NFL broadcast from 1977, Saints at Bears at Soldier Field. The first time I watched it, I kept waiting and waiting for the first TV timeout...and waiting...and waiting. It finally came IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST QUARTER! They basically treated the game like it was a program, with commercial breaks every 10 to 12 minutes. Even after kickoffs, punts, etc., they just stayed with it as the offenses and defenses came and went from the field. It was a shocker compared to today's "Well, the quarterback just scratched his a** so we'll take a timeout." I can't stand it when a team scores and like someone pointed out, we get a commercial after the extra point and again after the kickoff. Ridiculous.

Another problem is parity. The NFL aimed for it and they've pretty much got it, and it makes for some terrible football. Every year we have 4 to 6 superior teams, 4 to 6 absolutely terrible teams, and a huge glob of mediocrity in the middle. Some of these games are just awful. Professional teams that can't get out of their own way. Is the league too big, thus diluting the talent?

[infrared41]

Another problem is parity. The NFL aimed for it and they've pretty much got it, and it makes for some terrible football. Every year we have 4 to 6 superior teams, 4 to 6 absolutely terrible teams, and a huge glob of mediocrity in the middle. Some of these games are just awful. Professional teams that can't get out of their own way. Is the league too big, thus diluting the talent?

I could not agree more. Even the superior teams aren't really that good. The quality of play has really dropped off in the past 15 years. I think a lot of it has to do with muscle-bound freaks and 350 pound lineman. It's just an ugly game these days. Watch any game prior to say 1995 and you'll notice that it's just a, for lack of a better term, better looking game. There was a helluva lot more "grace" in the game back in those days. Today's NFL is like watching pro wrestlers playing football. I thought parity was a good idea until I saw what it has done to the overall product. There was a time in my life where I would have never preferred to watch College Football over The NFL. These days I watch The NFL for one simple reason, because it's on. I still follow The NFL but my interest is nowhere near what it used to be.

[quantum]

Another problem is parity. The NFL aimed for it and they've pretty much got it, and it makes for some terrible football. Every year we have 4 to 6 superior teams, 4 to 6 absolutely terrible teams, and a huge glob of mediocrity in the middle. Some of these games are just awful. Professional teams that can't get out of their own way. Is the league too big, thus diluting the talent?

So what is the alternative -- have 2 or 3 teams that dominate the rest of the league? I find it much more interesting that teams can turn their fortunes around in a relatively short time instead of the days when the same handful of teams beat up on the rest. Parity helps keep the season interesting in the last month of the season. I'll take the game as it is now as opposed to the supposed "good ol' days".

That said, I'm annoyed with the challenges rule. Considering how bad officiating has been in the league, why should a team be limited to at best three challenges? The point should be to get all the calls right. I'd change the rule so that challenges can be made until the 2nd upheld ruling is made.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Ditto on the challenge thing. It's a bit much that the viewer can't see what the ref is seeing in the videoscope box, and therefore has no idea why he would either keep or overturn a call that the announcers just said is sure to go the other way. Why is it such a mystery?

[infrared41]

Ditto on the challenge thing. It's a bit much that the viewer can't see what the ref is seeing in the videoscope box, and therefore has no idea why he would either keep or overturn a call that the announcers just said is sure to go the other way. Why is it such a mystery?

How many billions are gambled on NFL football each season? Just saying...

[BlueSky]

Another problem is parity. The NFL aimed for it and they've pretty much got it, and it makes for some terrible football. Every year we have 4 to 6 superior teams, 4 to 6 absolutely terrible teams, and a huge glob of mediocrity in the middle. Some of these games are just awful. Professional teams that can't get out of their own way. Is the league too big, thus diluting the talent?

So what is the alternative -- have 2 or 3 teams that dominate the rest of the league? I find it much more interesting that teams can turn their fortunes around in a relatively short time instead of the days when the same handful of teams beat up on the rest. Parity helps keep the season interesting in the last month of the season. I'll take the game as it is now as opposed to the supposed "good ol' days".

No, that's not my point at all, it's simply supply and demand. There just don't seem to be enough quality players or coaches (or owners/front office staff for that matter). If there were fewer teams, the overall level of play would be better because fewer marginal guys would be starting in the NFL. Look at the QB position. There are 32 openings. How many true NFL-caliber QBs are there? Not 32 by any stretch.

[quantum]

Another problem is parity. The NFL aimed for it and they've pretty much got it, and it makes for some terrible football. Every year we have 4 to 6 superior teams, 4 to 6 absolutely terrible teams, and a huge glob of mediocrity in the middle. Some of these games are just awful. Professional teams that can't get out of their own way. Is the league too big, thus diluting the talent?

So what is the alternative -- have 2 or 3 teams that dominate the rest of the league? I find it much more interesting that teams can turn their fortunes around in a relatively short time instead of the days when the same handful of teams beat up on the rest. Parity helps keep the season interesting in the last month of the season. I'll take the game as it is now as opposed to the supposed "good ol' days".

No, that's not my point at all, it's simply supply and demand. There just don't seem to be enough quality players or coaches (or owners/front office staff for that matter). If there were fewer teams, the overall level of play would be better because fewer marginal guys would be starting in the NFL. Look at the QB position. There are 32 openings. How many true NFL-caliber QBs are there? Not 32 by any stretch.

OK, I understand. I thought you had something against parity itself. As for the lack of real talent, the problem is opportunity has grown for players in the NFL, but we likely have the same or fewer college programs to pick from (see Title IX). This is where the NFL really does itself a disservice by not operating a development league. Arena football (at any level) or the CFL just doesn't provide the same game training that an NFL program would provide IMO.

[hormone]

I hate the TV timeout, wearing white at home, not knowing the thought process of the ref under the replay hood (he's mic'd), the challenge system (it's needed, but it's just not right).

It brings me to my next point. Flex games. Granted, the NFL wants to highlight their best matchups, but what about fans who travel to the game or plan their day around the game? It almost seems this year was scripted for some of the games. (I'm not going all conspiracy on you, just sayin') I'm a huge (frustrated) Bucs fan. During the MNF Car game, they kept saying how "if" Car wins, in two weeks they play the Giants for the #1 seed. It was hyped all game...before the game got out of hand...next thing...flexed into SNF. Same was when CBS kept hyping "if" SD comes back to beat TB and "if" the Bills can somehow find a way to win in Den...flexed. The same goes with today's Dallas vs. Philly...flexed to 4.

Again, I'm not being the conspiracy guy (SD vs Pit and the spread?? ) I just remember when Ferrall was complaining about that stuff and someone called in and said the NFL and major sports have no fixes possible and he replied "tell that to David Stern"

I'll stop now! (crosses fingers...need a TB win coupled with a Philly win)

[BBTV]

Anyone who doesn't believe that a "fix" is possible should watch a tape of Super Bowl XL. I have no horse in that race, but that was the most obviously fixed pro game I've ever seen.

[infrared41]

Anyone who doesn't believe that a "fix" is possible should watch a tape of Super Bowl XL. I have no horse in that race, but that was the most obviously fixed pro game I've ever seen.

Agreed. There is entirely too much money involved in The NFL to think otherwise. To believe that the amount of money has no influence over anything is the height of naivete. TV money feeds the machine.

I won't go so far as to say that the outcome of a game is pre-determined but I firmly believe that "advantages" are given to a team to make it easier for them to win. Watch the 1986 or '87 (I don't recall which year but The Skins were at home) NFC playoff game between The 49ers and Redskins to see a great example of it. Washington's game winning drive was a result of three of the worst pass interference calls you'll ever see.

With regard to Super Bowl XL, NFL properties had far more to gain with a Steelers win than they did with a Seahawks win. So did Vegas. Just saying...

[DG_ThenNowForever]

That Seahawks/Steelers game was especially egregious. Was that Goodell's first Super Bowl? Or Tagliabue's last? Did they even respond to criticism then? Or was it like the Patriots fiasco, where they said no real harm was done, and they destroyed the tapes anyway, so shut up and watch football and buy .

I think one good way to deal with criticism is to get rid of the holding rule altogether. Everyone always says that refs could call holding on every play. Well, if that's the case, why don't they? And if they don't, why bother having the rule?

[infrared41]

That Seahawks/Steelers game was especially egregious. Was that Goodell's first Super Bowl? Or Tagliabue's last? Did they even respond to criticism then? Or was it like the Patriots fiasco, where they said no real harm was done, and they destroyed the tapes anyway, so shut up and watch football and buy .

I think one good way to deal with criticism is to get rid of the holding rule altogether. Everyone always says that refs could call holding on every play. Well, if that's the case, why don't they? And if they don't, why bother having the rule?

I think you answered your holding question yourself. Why have the rule? Because a holding call can kill a drive, bring back a touchdown, continue a drive (defensive holding) etc...

As I said before, I don't think the outcomes are predetermined but I think there are a lot of games where team A has 18 players on the field while team B has 11. The fans see it. The coaches see it. The players see it. The problem is that if a coach or a player dares to say anything then they get fined. Who was it last year who said "Well I guess the refs wanted so and so to win today." Remember all the turmoil that resulted from that remark? If you can beat the opponent and the officials then you get the win. Good luck.

Let me put it this way. Let's say I come here and tell a story about a soccer game in some third world nation. The game is tied. The home team comes down and gets a wide open shot at a goal. The ball hits the cross bar and careens off into the out of bounds area. (Bear with me on this. I know nothing about soccer) My understanding is that the visiting team would get a kick to send the ball the other way or something. But lo and behold a foul is called.

Every replay in the place shows that no foul actually took place. The announcers are pointing out that the ref clearly blew the call. For our purposes third world soccer has replay so they go to the tape. The tape proves what everyone already knows; that no foul took place. Despite that, the home team is awarded a corner kick and they score the winning goal on the play. The next day newspapers across the third world country are saying the call was bogus and it sure looked like the refs wanted the home team to win. The ref comes out and admits he clearly blew the call. There have always been rumors that the third world league occasionally "helps" some teams win games.

I post this story and ask you guys what you think happened here? Since it happened in a third world nation do we automatically assume that the league is squeaky clean and there just couldn't be any foul play? Or since it happened in a third world nation do we automatically assume that something was up? I'd say that based on where it happened and how, the majority of us would immediately assume that foul play was involved. Kinda like we did in the '72 Olympics when the Russians were given so many second chances to beat us in Basketball. Everyone's first assumption was that the refs were handing the game to the Russians.

If you hadn't already guessed, my third world soccer game was based on the Chargers-Broncos game earlier this season. We automatically assumed that the refs handed Russia a basketball game in the Olympics. We would likely think that the call in my imaginary soccer game was highly questionable. Yet we will accept without question the fact that Ed Hoculi simply -ed up? Or that the officials in Super Bowl XL just had a "bad game?" Influencing the outcome of a sporting event isn't as abstract a concept as we'd like to believe it is.

[BlueSky]

Anyone who doesn't believe that a "fix" is possible should watch a tape of Super Bowl XL. I have no horse in that race, but that was the most obviously fixed pro game I've ever seen.

Agreed. There is entirely too much money involved in The NFL to think otherwise. To believe that the amount of money has no influence over anything is the height of naivete. TV money feeds the machine.

I won't go so far as to say that the outcome of a game is pre-determined but I firmly believe that "advantages" are given to a team to make it easier for them to win. Watch the 1986 or '87 (I don't recall which year but The Skins were at home) NFC playoff game between The 49ers and Redskins to see a great example of it. Washington's game winning drive was a result of three of the worst pass interference calls you'll ever see.

With regard to Super Bowl XL, NFL properties had far more to gain with a Steelers win than they did with a Seahawks win. So did Vegas. Just saying...

For a while I've had a feeling, nothing more, that the NFL has 'the call' just like NASCAR allegedly does. The league knows what the great storylines are, like the Falcons this year. In case anyone on this board could possibly not know it, I hate the Falcons, so take this with a grain of salt if you must. Still, an OBJECTIVE observer can see this stuff as well as I can. Late in the Falcons-Bucs game in Atlanta, suddenly the Bucs either started committing critical penalties or the refs just started calling them. At the end of the Atlanta-Minnesota game, the Falcons commited OBVIOUS pass interference on a 4th down play when the Vikes could have tied the game - no call. (If you're wondering how it is I hate Atlanta but see so many of their games, I live near Atlanta so it's often the only game on.)

To be fair, there were people who thought the Saints were getting calls during the 'back from Katrina' season in '06.

What bugs me is when fouls are ridiculously obvious and not called, or when it's stuff like holding that could be called on every play. That just makes it too easy to toss a flag. The other thing that's ludicrous, and I've seen it a few times on all levels, is when the flag doesn't come out until it's obvious a guy is going to score. At least TRY to be subtle for crying out loud!