The Great Sports Fix-It Thread.

[TrueYankee26]

Sports in General

Problem: Too many greedy owners

Solution: Fan owned and community owned teams

[The Six]

Because it's sports and it's more fun when everyone has an equal chance.

That's not absolute. Some people prefer dynasties. I'm not sure sports is about equal chances. Some are better off than others. The US wins more medals in every Olympics because it's better, richer, and cares more in general about a wider range of sports than the rest of the world. And as has been documented a cap doesn't guarantee equality, anyway. We see small baseball cities get their shot. If you can't sign a free agent, than draft and build your team from within. If your player leaves, too bad. He made his choice to go to the most attractive option. Just like I may choose one restaurant over the other

I'm not saying equal chance to make more money, I'm saying equal chance to compete on the field.

Competitive balance is good for everyone because more markets around the country are involved which induces the fans of those teams to spend more money on tickets/merchandise which is good for the health of the league

So is it about the money or not?

I feel like you're intentionally being thick-headed on this issue, or is this more cowboy wisdom?

Translation: I don't respect your argument, so I will assume that you aren't really being serious. Oh, and I'll bring up a comedy thread you made months ago for no reason.

[Lights Out]

If you can't sign a free agent, than draft and build your team from within.

...and maybe you'll make the playoffs once before all those top young players go to the Red Sox, Yankees, or Phillies.

This goes beyond one player individually deciding to leave - small-market teams are hemorrhaging players because they don't and can't make Yankees-esque amounts of money. This makes it impossible for most small-market franchises to build any sort of continuity and long-term success, and even more impossible to win a title. Occasionally, a small-market team will luck into a superstar like Greinke or Mauer who prefers to play in small markets, but those are few and far between. That's not fair at all.

And yes, sports are about equal chances. It's true that in real life, you won't always get a fair chance at whatever you want, but sports aren't supposed to mirror real life, they're supposed to serve as a fun diversion from real life. Baseball can't be fun at all for Royals or Pirates fans who know their team is eliminated from the playoffs practically on day 1.

Finally, let's be honest: the only people who prefer dynasties are front-running douchebags and/or fans of said dynasty. Otherwise, to quote Wilt Chamberlain, "nobody roots for Goliath."

[epper]

Baseball does not need a salary cap. The Rangers and Rays made the playoffs with baseball's 4th and 10th lowest payrolls. The Padres barely missed with the 2nd lowest.

Conversely, the Cubs and Mets missed the playoffs with baseball's 3rd and fifth highest payrolls.

Adding a salary cap would not protect teams from making stupid decisions. The Royals and Pirates are consistently terrible because they do things like drafting Luke Hochevar over Evan Longoria and Tim Lincecum, giving Jose Guillen 3 years and $36M, Gil Meche 5 years and $55M, getting nothing in return for Jason Bay, Aramis Ramirez,Nate McLouth, Jose Bautista, etc etc etc.

[Lights Out]

It's funny you mention that considering that right now, the Royals have far and away the best minor league system in the MLB. The Pirates have one of the stupidest front offices in sports but the Royals actually have their poop in a group for once.

[The_Admiral]

I know a salary cap is no panacea for baseball's ills, but there has to be some sense of unease over the fact that the range of payrolls has to be over $175 million by now. What was the range just ten years ago? How much does it have to widen before it's out of control? Is it ever out of control?

[DustDevil61]

Sports in General

Problem: Too many greedy owners

Solution: Fan owned and community owned teams

I actually agree with this one, to an extent. I could see these teams (current owners aside, and off the top of my head) do well being owned by their community:

MLB: St. Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs, Minnesota Twins, Milwaukee Brewers

NFL: Pittsburgh Steelers, Cleveland Browns, Indianapolis Colts, Detroit Lions, Seattle Seahawks, Buffalo Bills, Denver Broncos

NBA: Utah Jazz, San Antonio Spurs, Portland Trail Blazers, Cleveland Cavaliers, Indiana Pacers

NHL: (Pretty much every team in Canada), Detroit Red Wings, San Jose Sharks, Pittsburgh Penguins

Anyways, here's my list. Some of my opinions might be drastically different from others (especially for MLB), so just bear that in mind when reading this.

MLB

--Establish a salary floor and cap, and/or revenue sharing. There needs to be more balance in the playing field.

--Include instant replay for all questionable calls. It only makes sense, especially if, in a one-run game, the umpire mistakenly calls a runner out at first with 2 outs in the 9th.

--Include enough interleague games that each MLB team plays every other MLB team at least once, maybe twice. Even under my idea, the season would still sit at around 140-145 games. Away teams "bring their brand of ball" to the park--in other words, Angels fans would be able to see NL play in their "Rivalry Series" (or whatever it's called) with the Dodgers.

--Cut season back a few games (about 15-20), add extra (though short, like 3-5 game series) round of playoffs. Having 6 teams per league enter would fit.

--Re-align the leagues at 15 apiece. I think it could work (though I won't do the math here)

NFL:

--Go with college-style overtime. One guaranteed possession for each team. After 2 or 3 go-arounds, both teams must go for 2 after any touchdown.

--No more guaranteed first downs. Let only flagrant, intentional penalties (such as purposely put an opposing player at risk for a serious injury) give an automatic first down. Pass interference, unless flagrant, would only be a 15-yard penalty.

--Winning a division only guarantees a playoff spot, not a home game. I know it doesn't happen often, but if this was in place last year, the Seahawks would have been the #6 seed. My preference would be to let the teams with the top 6 records in each conference get a spot and forbid any team under .500 from participating in postseason play, regardless of division. However, I understand that what happened with Seattle last year is more often the exception than the rule, and I'll let it slide here, unless we have another 2 sub-.500 division winners in the next 5 years or so.

NBA:

--Institute a hard salary cap and/or revenue sharing. For a league with so many smaller-market teams (moreso than the any other league, except maybe the NHL), it would only be fair to spread the wealth and level the playing field, or else many of those smaller markets may never have a true chance at winning a championship, or even being viable in the long run.

--Enforce the Rules. Rules are written for a reason--to avoid stuff like "star treatment" of superstars. I'm getting sick of a player like Al Jefferson (being a homer here) getting hacked to pieces on one end of the floor and then hearing a whistle on the other when Paul Pierce's or Kobe Bryant's arm is barely (or not) grazed. I don't expect all the calls to be 100% right (unless we get well-built robots to do so...not happening soon), but there's a lot of water to tread here.

--Legitimately Clear the League's Name of Scandals. The NBA has been notorious for questionable reffing. Perhaps the most important thing for the league, besides getting a new CBA in place, is to clean up its act when it comes to questionable officiating. It doesn't help when you've had a scandal (Tim Donaghy), and one of the only true sports conspiracy theories (2002 Western Conference Finals Game 6 to give a Game 7 for revenue) taint your image. Whether it means pushing David Stern out of office or cleaning house with the officials, it needs to be done for the league if the Association wants to improve.

--Put a team back in Seattle. This is one city that didn't deserve to lose its team the way it did. Things would have been fine, if not excellent, had the NBA fought 1/100th as hard for Seattle as the NHL has for Phoenix, with a then-upcoming superstar in Kevin Durant. Two more years might have been enough to secure the Sonics' future in Seattle for the long term (read: a new arena), but David Stern had a laissez-faire approach when it came to fighting for Seattle. I feel that this one will be settled soon, one way or another (arena included), as teams such as New Orleans and Memphis don't have a bright future in staying where they're at.

NHL:

--Put teams in cities where there is considerable interest in hockey. I recall that when the Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix, there was no real desire or interest in an NHL team there. I think this was also the case with Atlanta or Florida. There still isn't enough interest in Phoenix for a viable NHL team there (and I won't go there here). I think that the NHL would do itself a favor in putting teams in cities where there is serious desire for hockey. If that means having teams (back) in cities like Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hartford, instead of Phoenix, Miami, and Atlanta, so be it. This approach has worked out in the NBA with teams in Portland, Salt Lake, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, and Orlando instead of Kansas City, St. Louis, San Diego, and Baltimore (any arena issues in any of those cities aside).

--Let the RBK Edge template be optional. While a more uniform-related nitpick, I don't see why the more traditional teams with lower hem stripes, such as Chicago, Montreal, Boston, and the NY Rangers have to use those apron-like sweaters when their uniform designs wasn't clearly used for it. Let the slimmer CCM style be an option for teams like these. I'll admit, the Edge (in some cases) has grown on me, but it shouldn't be forced on teams whose designs clearly weren't made for it. With a combo of Edge and CCM designs, who's to say that we can't get the best of both worlds?

Woohoo, 1200th post!!

[epper]

Ok, I'll bite:

MLB

- Eliminate interleague play

- Eliminate the All-Star Winner getting homefield advantage in the WS

- Eliminate the DH.

- 2 divisions per league.

- Add 1 playoff team per league. Have 2 wildcards play a quick best of 3 series. Winner of that plays the #1 seed in the league, with all 5 games at the #1 seed's park.

NHL

- 60 game seasons

- Contract 2 teams

- Eliminate the shootout. Make wins worth 3 and ties worth 1. No more point for OTLs.

NBA

- 60 game seasons

- Contract 2 teams

NASCAR

- The rules for championship eligibility were a good start. I say take it a step further: if you have more than 100 starts in Cup, you aren't allowed to run Nationwide, period. This would let young cup guys like Logano and Keselowski to get extra track time, and stop guys like Harvick and Edwards from hogging the good equipment. This is why the rookie of the year classes have been so pathetic in Cup the past few years: the Cup stars are stunting the growth of young drivers by taking up all the good Nationwide rides.

- Maybe a couple big races a year (like Daytona, Charlotte and Bristol) let the Cup guys run, but that's it.

CFB

-8-team Playoff

[WJMorris3]

MLS

Problem: The conference structure, as well as the playoff system.

Solution: Either go single-table, or realizing that single table might not work so well with expansion, divide into divisions as follows:

Eastern: Columbus Crew, DC United, New England Revolution, New York Red Bulls, Philadelphia Union, Toronto FC

Central: Chicago Fire, Colorado Rapids, FC Dallas, Houston Dynamo, Real Salt Lake, Sporting Kansas City

Western: CD Chivas USA, Los Angeles Galaxy, Portland Timbers, San Jose Earthquakes, Seattle Sounders FC, Vancouver Whitecaps FC

Top 2 in each division make the playoffs. Division champs are seeded 1, 2, 3 by total points. Second-place teams are seeded 4, 5, 6 by total points. In addition, the next best four teams, regardless of division, make the preliminary round of the playoffs. They will be seeded 7, 8, 9, 10. All playoff rounds are single match, with extra time and shootout if necessary.

Start with the preliminary round. 7 hosts 10, 8 hosts 9. Winners advance to the pre-quarterfinals, losers are eliminated.

This brings us to the pre-quarterfinals. 1 would host 4, 2 would host 3, with the winners heading to the semifinals and the losers to the quarterfinals. 5 would host 8, 6 would host 7, winners to the quarterfinals.

Quarterfinals would have highest seed hosting lowest seed, and second-highest seed hosting second-lowest seed. Winners to the semifinals.

Semifinals is pre-quarter winners hosting quarterfinal winners, with the matchup being high v low (provided the two didn't meet in the pre-quarters.

MLS Cup, as always, neutral venue.

[Magnus]

Let me expand on some of what DustDevil61 has said:

As far as community team ownership is concerned, I think that any community that has a fanbase supportive of the idea and has the required monetary resources should at least consider owning the most popular of the sports franchises in their city/region. It would (hopefully) keep greedy owners and controlling interests from all the nasty tactics they seem to pull on fans in this day and age.

MLB

--Establish a salary floor and cap, and/or revenue sharing. There needs to be more balance in the playing field.

Agreed. $90 million should be a reasonable starting point, as 90% of MLB teams' payrolls are already below that.

--Include instant replay for all questionable calls. It only makes sense, especially if, in a one-run game, the umpire mistakenly calls a runner out at first with 2 outs in the 9th.

Agreed.

--Include enough interleague games that each MLB team plays every other MLB team at least once, maybe twice. Even under my idea, the season would still sit at around 140-145 games. Away teams "bring their brand of ball" to the park--in other words, Angels fans would be able to see NL play in their "Rivalry Series" (or whatever it's called) with the Dodgers.

Yup. 150 games would suffice for me; 140 in their own league and 10 interleague.

--Cut season back a few games (about 15-20), add extra (though short, like 3-5 game series) round of playoffs. Having 6 teams per league enter would fit.

Sounds alright.

--Re-align the leagues at 15 apiece. I think it could work (though I won't do the math here)

Exactly.

[Magnus]

NFL:

--Go with college-style overtime. One guaranteed possession for each team. After 2 or 3 go-arounds, both teams must go for 2 after any touchdown.

I believe this is similar to the way the CFL does it too, so yes.

--No more guaranteed first downs. Let only flagrant, intentional penalties (such as purposely put an opposing player at risk for a serious injury) give an automatic first down. Pass interference, unless flagrant, would only be a 15-yard penalty.

Interesting proposal; I'd like to see it tried out.

--Winning a division only guarantees a playoff spot, not a home game. I know it doesn't happen often, but if this was in place last year, the Seahawks would have been the #6 seed. My preference would be to let the teams with the top 6 records in each conference get a spot and forbid any team under .500 from participating in postseason play, regardless of division. However, I understand that what happened with Seattle last year is more often the exception than the rule, and I'll let it slide here, unless we have another 2 sub-.500 division winners in the next 5 years or so.

Winning a division should not be an indicator of whether or not a team is allowed in the playoffs if the playoff format ranks seeds by conference and not division.

If the NFC West champ is 7-9 and there are 6 other NFC teams that have better records, then those teams should make it. End of story.

NBA:

--Institute a hard salary cap and/or revenue sharing. For a league with so many smaller-market teams (moreso than the any other league, except maybe the NHL), it would only be fair to spread the wealth and level the playing field, or else many of those smaller markets may never have a true chance at winning a championship, or even being viable in the long run.

I like the exceptions idea, but there should be a luxury tax of some sort.

--Enforce the Rules. Rules are written for a reason--to avoid stuff like "star treatment" of superstars. I'm getting sick of a player like Al Jefferson (being a homer here) getting hacked to pieces on one end of the floor and then hearing a whistle on the other when Paul Pierce's or Kobe Bryant's arm is barely (or not) grazed. I don't expect all the calls to be 100% right (unless we get well-built robots to do so...not happening soon), but there's a lot of water to tread here.

No strong opinion on this one.

--Legitimately Clear the League's Name of Scandals. The NBA has been notorious for questionable reffing. Perhaps the most important thing for the league, besides getting a new CBA in place, is to clean up its act when it comes to questionable officiating. It doesn't help when you've had a scandal (Tim Donaghy), and one of the only true sports conspiracy theories (2002 Western Conference Finals Game 6 to give a Game 7 for revenue) taint your image. Whether it means pushing David Stern out of office or cleaning house with the officials, it needs to be done for the league if the Association wants to improve.

Yes. 100% yes.

--Put a team back in Seattle. This is one city that didn't deserve to lose its team the way it did. Things would have been fine, if not excellent, had the NBA fought 1/100th as hard for Seattle as the NHL has for Phoenix, with a then-upcoming superstar in Kevin Durant. Two more years might have been enough to secure the Sonics' future in Seattle for the long term (read: a new arena), but David Stern had a laissez-faire approach when it came to fighting for Seattle. I feel that this one will be settled soon, one way or another (arena included), as teams such as New Orleans and Memphis don't have a bright future in staying where they're at.

Yes, or an NHL team.

NHL:

--Put teams in cities where there is considerable interest in hockey. I recall that when the Winnipeg Jets moved to Phoenix, there was no real desire or interest in an NHL team there. I think this was also the case with Atlanta or Florida. There still isn't enough interest in Phoenix for a viable NHL team there (and I won't go there here). I think that the NHL would do itself a favor in putting teams in cities where there is serious desire for hockey. If that means having teams (back) in cities like Winnipeg, Quebec City, Hartford, instead of Phoenix, Miami, and Atlanta, so be it. This approach has worked out in the NBA with teams in Portland, Salt Lake, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, and Orlando instead of Kansas City, St. Louis, San Diego, and Baltimore (any arena issues in any of those cities aside).

Yes, 100 times yes.

--Let the RBK Edge template be optional. While a more uniform-related nitpick, I don't see why the more traditional teams with lower hem stripes, such as Chicago, Montreal, Boston, and the NY Rangers have to use those apron-like sweaters when their uniform designs wasn't clearly used for it. Let the slimmer CCM style be an option for teams like these. I'll admit, the Edge (in some cases) has grown on me, but it shouldn't be forced on teams whose designs clearly weren't made for it. With a combo of Edge and CCM designs, who's to say that we can't get the best of both worlds?

No strong opinion.

[The_Admiral]

Sports in General

Problem: Too many greedy owners

Solution: Fan owned and community owned teams

I actually agree with this one, to an extent. I could see these teams (current owners aside, and off the top of my head) do well being owned by their community:

MLB: St. Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs, Minnesota Twins, Milwaukee Brewers

NFL: Pittsburgh Steelers, Cleveland Browns, Indianapolis Colts, Detroit Lions, Seattle Seahawks, Buffalo Bills, Denver Broncos

NBA: Utah Jazz, San Antonio Spurs, Portland Trail Blazers, Cleveland Cavaliers, Indiana Pacers

NHL: (Pretty much every team in Canada), Detroit Red Wings, San Jose Sharks, Pittsburgh Penguins

What do we mean by "community-owned"? A wide consortium of local businessmen? Taxpayers? Do you care that in the Steelers, Colts, Spurs, and Red Wings, you have some of the best ownership groups around?

[ESTONES6]

NBA:

1.) Add 2 seconds to the shot clock. It seems like the half court sets are a little too short and it seems to lessen the beauty of ever offense, except Mike Brown's.

2.) Bring back the 1 and 1. I love that they have it in College, and it needs to come back to the NBA. The 6th foul (non-shooting) is 1 and 1. The 8th foul is then an automatic 2 shots like we have now.

3.) Move the backboard so its flush with the baseline. If you hit the side of the backboard... you stepped on the baseline. Turn over.

4.) Institute some sort of traveling rule.

5.) Enforce traveling rule.

6.) Penalize officials for terribly, obviously blown calls.

[The_Admiral]

I don't understand the traveling obsession.

[DustDevil61]

Sports in General

Problem: Too many greedy owners

Solution: Fan owned and community owned teams

I actually agree with this one, to an extent. I could see these teams (current owners aside, and off the top of my head) do well being owned by their community:

MLB: St. Louis Cardinals, Chicago Cubs, Minnesota Twins, Milwaukee Brewers

NFL: Pittsburgh Steelers, Cleveland Browns, Indianapolis Colts, Detroit Lions, Seattle Seahawks, Buffalo Bills, Denver Broncos

NBA: Utah Jazz, San Antonio Spurs, Portland Trail Blazers, Cleveland Cavaliers, Indiana Pacers

NHL: (Pretty much every team in Canada), Detroit Red Wings, San Jose Sharks, Pittsburgh Penguins

What do we mean by "community-owned"? A wide consortium of local businessmen? Taxpayers? Do you care that in the Steelers, Colts, Spurs, and Red Wings, you have some of the best ownership groups around?

Well, the term "community owned" is broad, but it could mean local businessmen or taxpayers. If a team is so well-supported in its city, then local businessmen or taxpayers (at lease the majority of them) would be more willing to pay for their given team. The venues would be payed by the taxpayer for the community, instead of footing the bill for a billionaire who would, in theory, be able to do it themselves.

Notice that I said "current owners aside," meaning, not paying attention to the actual current ownership of the team. In other words, if the team were to be sold to their city, then I could see all the teams mentioned above owning a their respective team, and being successful under that approach. I'm more than aware that the Steelers, Colts, Spurs, and Red Wings ownerships are some of the best in the Big 4.

[Rockstar Matt]

NFL

Problem: Sudden death overtime.

Solution: I don't know exactly how I'd fix it. The only thing I've come up with is this: Field goals are out, and the team who scores first still has an advantage but there is a drawback too: The second team has only one series to score a tying touchdown, but they have draw odds, thus winning the game if they tie the overtime score.

Draw odds for the second team more or less forces the first team to go for two with their TD. Because when they score, sure may kick the extra point, but they know that if they give up the tying touchdown, it is exceedingly likely that the second team will convert the PAT - and there's the win. Anyway:

Benefit: One possession overtimes go away.

I disagree with you completely on this one. To me, if you lose the toss, kick the ball to the opponent, and if you can't stop them of defense or special teams, then you don't deserve to win. Defense and special teams are just as important to the game as is getting the ball offensively.

Take the Colts vs. Cowboys game last year. The game went into overtime and the Colts won the toss. The Cowboys ended up intercepting Manning and kicking the game-winning field goal. Cowboys didn't start out with the ball, but they played great D, got it back in form of a turnover, and subsequently won. The point is that if you can't play great/good D or special teams to give your offense a chance at winning, then you don't deserve to win. Period. I personally love the rule.

[Epiphanic]

NFL Overtime

To me, sudden death overtime in football is similar to sudden death extra innings in baseball because possession of the ball (and thus the ability to score) is so segmented. To those who prefer sudden death OT in football, let me pose a question. If the road team scores a run in the top of the 10th inning, should the game be over? If not, why not? Shouldn't the home team have played better defense?

*In sports like soccer or hockey where possession of the ball (or puck) is fluid and teams are essentially playing offense and defense simultaneously, I feel that sudden death is an acceptable rule set.

How would I fix NFL Overtime? First, I'd make ties out of the question. (Unless you nix OT altogether. If you're going to go through the effort of extra time to determine a winner, you go until there is a winner. Ties after an OT period is doing it half-assed.) Second, the OT period would be played for a duration of 8 minutes under regulation time rules. Whichever team is leading after the 8 minutes wins. Still tied? Another 8 minute overtime. Rinse and repeat.

NFL Challenge System

I'd change the challenge system to one of two systems.

1. Give each team a set number of challenges. You win, you keep it. You lose, you lose it. No costing of timeouts.

2. Each challenge is worth a timeout. Win, keep it. Lose, lose it. However you can only challenge if you have timeouts. No timeouts? No challenge.

*Not really related and I don't think it's really a problem, but I wonder what it would be like if instead of 3 timeouts per half, teams got 5 timeouts for the entire game.

NFL Penalties

All penalties have a specific yardage. I'm not a fan of the spot foul for pass interference, I'd prefer it be 15 yards like in college. However, the important thing is no automatic first downs. Defensive holdings can be a 10 yard penalty, but it shouldn't be an automatic first down. If the penalty yards happen to move the ball past the first down marker, give it to them. The only exception to this rule is personal fouls. Penalties of egregious nature can be automatic first downs if committed by a defensive player. To make things equal, if committed by an offensive player, I'd impose yards and loss of down.

Interleague Play

I don't like it and would nix it entirely. If it must be done, then I would schedule it so everyone plays everyone for at least one series. Once that's done, I think I'd like to see six 5-team divisions. Yes, that means that there would be at least one interleague matchup with all 30 teams playing. No, that's not a sin against nature. Not any more a sin than interleague play is anyway.

NHL Standings

Either get rid of OTLs and go by straight wins and losses or adopt a game=3 points system. That would work the following way:

Regulation win = 3 points

Overtime/SO win = 2 points

Overtime/SO loss = 1 point

Regulation loss = 0 points

-------

I'm sure I'm not the only one with these ideas and also wouldn't be surprised if they were repeats from previous posts.

[ninersdd]

About NFL Penalties: Illegal contact penalties(5 yards) should not be automatic first down. Case in point, the Bears and 49ers last year, it was late in the game, 4th and 10 in Bear territory, 49ers up 10-6, pass goes incomplete. However, a very weak illegal contact call awarded the Bears an automatic first down. They drove it down to the SF 10, but fortunately Cutler threw his 5th pick into the endzone.

[Rockstar Matt]

NFL Overtime

To me, sudden death overtime in football is similar to sudden death extra innings in baseball because possession of the ball (and thus the ability to score) is so segmented. To those who prefer sudden death OT in football, let me pose a question. If the road team scores a run in the top of the 10th inning, should the game be over? If not, why not? Shouldn't the home team have played better defense?

*In sports like soccer or hockey where possession of the ball (or puck) is fluid and teams are essentially playing offense and defense simultaneously, I feel that sudden death is an acceptable rule set.

First off, baseball is nothing like football. On any given play, possession can go from one team to another, you can't do that in baseball. That's what's great about football and also how it is vastly different than baseball.

[Epiphanic]

While true, I think that overstates things. Possession is not fluid and that's why I think NFL Overtime is problematic. How many hockey overtimes result in a score when only one team had possession of the puck?