Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Change Format of SuperBowl & Playoffs

R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 9:44:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://voices.yahoo.com...

Decent arguments here... eliminate preseason, go back to 14 game season, use 3 game series for SB (who wouldn't have wanted Peyton to have a second try at the Legion of Boom, after all?). He makes a lot of good points, and everything seems like it would be a lot better for the players, more fun for fans, and more money for advertisements.

He doesn't mention what to do about the ailing Pro-Bowl, but I think that something like home-field advantage for the SuperBowl (like in Baseball) would make it more interesting.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 6:27:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 9:44:09 AM, R0b1Billion wrote:
http://voices.yahoo.com...

Decent arguments here... eliminate preseason, go back to 14 game season, use 3 game series for SB (who wouldn't have wanted Peyton to have a second try at the Legion of Boom, after all?). He makes a lot of good points, and everything seems like it would be a lot better for the players, more fun for fans, and more money for advertisements.

He doesn't mention what to do about the ailing Pro-Bowl, but I think that something like home-field advantage for the SuperBowl (like in Baseball) would make it more interesting.

He did mention that others have suggested removing the pro-bowl.

But I do think this is a bad idea. 3 games of the same teams playing each other is going to see similar results that baseball has. Fans grow bored of the repetition. I don't want to see the same game match up 3 times in a row, for 3 dang weeks in a row. Baseball is rough enough, I intentionally only watch one game a series, but I at least get a game or two a week through that.

I'd like to see the preseason lowers and the regular season expanded. But I'd also love to see the leagues expand to 40 teams with 16 in the playoffs with no bye week.

The guy complains that it is possible of a cruddy team to get to the superbowl on a series of lucky plays, however, if we look historically #1 and #2 seeds have done very well.

http://espn.go.com...

They have won 28 of 37 Super Bowls, while the 5 and 6 seeds have won 3. So while there is a factor of "any given sunday" it is still largely who the better team is.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2014 8:23:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm in favor of reducing the pre-season by a couple of games, but I'm entirely against restructuring the season in any way.

It's a long season as it is at 16 games, and if that is increased, the rosters would also have to be increased. There are enough injuries as it is, if we add two more games, we'll have even more.

I think exploring expanded playoffs might be worthwhile, but that's the extent of changes I'm willing to consider.

...

On that note I do wish to see significant changes made to NCAA football. I think the season should be shortened by a couple games, and a football version of the basketball march madness tournament implemented. It would take a couple months, but it would be awesome.
Debate.org Moderator
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 1:44:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 8:23:22 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I'm in favor of reducing the pre-season by a couple of games, but I'm entirely against restructuring the season in any way.

It's a long season as it is at 16 games, and if that is increased, the rosters would also have to be increased. There are enough injuries as it is, if we add two more games, we'll have even more.

I think exploring expanded playoffs might be worthwhile, but that's the extent of changes I'm willing to consider.

...

On that note I do wish to see significant changes made to NCAA football. I think the season should be shortened by a couple games, and a football version of the basketball march madness tournament implemented. It would take a couple months, but it would be awesome.

I'd be nervous of shorting the NCAA too much. You take out a few games and they become half as long as the NFL season. That will only make it harder for NFL scouts to know which players will be tough enough to make it through those 16 games. A major player that is injured half the season is no good for himself, his team, or his fans. So that ultimately hurts all aspects of the game.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2014 1:59:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/21/2014 1:44:51 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 4/20/2014 8:23:22 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
I'm in favor of reducing the pre-season by a couple of games, but I'm entirely against restructuring the season in any way.

It's a long season as it is at 16 games, and if that is increased, the rosters would also have to be increased. There are enough injuries as it is, if we add two more games, we'll have even more.

I think exploring expanded playoffs might be worthwhile, but that's the extent of changes I'm willing to consider.

...

On that note I do wish to see significant changes made to NCAA football. I think the season should be shortened by a couple games, and a football version of the basketball march madness tournament implemented. It would take a couple months, but it would be awesome.

I'd be nervous of shorting the NCAA too much. You take out a few games and they become half as long as the NFL season. That will only make it harder for NFL scouts to know which players will be tough enough to make it through those 16 games. A major player that is injured half the season is no good for himself, his team, or his fans. So that ultimately hurts all aspects of the game.

We certainly agree on the injury thing, which is why I don't want the NFL season extended.

As for the NCAA thing, I suppose your concern is a legitimate one, though I'm willing to take that risk to see an NCAA football tournament. The top 64 teams in the nation (all of the top programs) would end up having their seasons be the same length (perhaps the lesser programs could have an NIT equivalent?), with the top 16 teams, actually playing more games than they do now. Smaller schools, or less developed football programs, would have the same problems they have now. But at least in an established tournament it's more fair than the BCS has been up until now... Though this is less of a problem this year since a final four playoff has finally been realized.

I'd rather not consider all of the problems with this... I really just want a March madness equivalent for football... It'd be awesome - at least in theory.
Debate.org Moderator
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 7:24:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would stop watching the NFL completely if the playoffs got changed to a series... No, Peyton Manning should not be allowed to redeem himself for the way he played that game. The only reason I watch NFL over the NBA is because of the sudden death elimination. If they did a series than the superbowl would be predictable just like the NBA. DO WE REALLY WANT THAT?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 8:17:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/20/2014 6:27:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'd like to see the preseason lowers and the regular season expanded. But I'd also love to see the leagues expand to 40 teams with 16 in the playoffs with no bye week.

I agree that pre season is meaningless. To me it can even be detrimental, as some players could get injured and ruin their season. It also previews a team's plays before the season begins. However I agree with Airmax that the regular season should not be modified. The author of the article writes that the last 2 games of the season are meaningless, but that's not true at all. Last season for example we saw a scramble in the NFC North and East (off the top of my head) looking for a division winner. So I think the pre season games should be scrapped, and I would be okay with a 3 game Super Bowl series (which would generate even more revenue, as you could charge a lot more for a Super Bowl ticket than a pre season ticket). More fans could also attend the Super Bowl, generating more revenue for the host city (which tends to incur a sh!t ton of expenses making it questionably "worth it" to host the big game).

Why would you be opposed to a BYE week? What about as a "reward" for the teams who win their division and don't have to fight for a WC spot? I am okay with the team structure as-is though not opposed to your proposal. That could be interesting. What 8 markets would you bring franchises to? Just curious. I would nominate Toronto, Alabama, Connecticut, Portland, the Dakotas, the Virginias, ... and Hawaii and Alaska, if it would be feasible, since they have no professional sports teams at all and the NFL is a huge game (I didn't include Europe or Asia on this list).

They have won 28 of 37 Super Bowls, while the 5 and 6 seeds have won 3. So while there is a factor of "any given sunday" it is still largely who the better team is.

I agree, and the fact that 1 and 2 seeds have done well historically prove that the system is decent - certainly better than NCAA. However I think football in itself can be a lot of "any given plays" let alone any given Sunday. That's what makes the game exciting and great and awesome, but somewhat problematic in determining the "best." So I would be cool with extending the Super Bowl to a best of 3 game series and eliminating pre season. The only argument I could really see the players have opposing this is the injury risk. Then again if hockey can do it...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 8:22:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 7:24:56 PM, Loserboi wrote:
If they did a series than the superbowl would be predictable just like the NBA. DO WE REALLY WANT THAT?

There were three 7-game series in last year's NBA Finals alone: Bulls vs. Nets in the first round, Heat vs. Pacers in the Conference Finals, and the Heat vs. Spurs in the Finals. How predictable can the NBA be if the Heat (whom I presume you think is the "automatic" winner) had to go to 2 game 7's in a row in order to win? Most series I follow have been interesting and keep it close. While I agree the "sudden death" element creates an intensity that makes each and every game exciting, you have to factor in what element of "fairness" you want to include in addition to just excitement. Is the goal to achieve a wow factor that appeals to fans, or find the most deserving champions? I'm sure most people would suggest a mix of both. That's why I think a best of 3 game series instead of 7 seems fair.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2014 10:08:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 8:17:49 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/20/2014 6:27:26 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I'd like to see the preseason lowers and the regular season expanded. But I'd also love to see the leagues expand to 40 teams with 16 in the playoffs with no bye week.

I agree that pre season is meaningless. To me it can even be detrimental, as some players could get injured and ruin their season. It also previews a team's plays before the season begins. However I agree with Airmax that the regular season should not be modified. The author of the article writes that the last 2 games of the season are meaningless, but that's not true at all. Last season for example we saw a scramble in the NFC North and East (off the top of my head) looking for a division winner. So I think the pre season games should be scrapped, and I would be okay with a 3 game Super Bowl series (which would generate even more revenue, as you could charge a lot more for a Super Bowl ticket than a pre season ticket). More fans could also attend the Super Bowl, generating more revenue for the host city (which tends to incur a sh!t ton of expenses making it questionably "worth it" to host the big game).

The Preseason is vital for new players fighting for their spots on the team. These games, even if against second string, third string, and potentially cut players, the real game time, semi-game pressure can be a major factor for seeing how well a player handles it, especially for players that may be coming from very small schools, that don't have the 100,000 fans of Alabama that they've gotten used to.


Why would you be opposed to a BYE week? What about as a "reward" for the teams who win their division and don't have to fight for a WC spot? I am okay with the team structure as-is though not opposed to your proposal. That could be interesting. What 8 markets would you bring franchises to? Just curious. I would nominate Toronto, Alabama, Connecticut, Portland, the Dakotas, the Virginias, ... and Hawaii and Alaska, if it would be feasible, since they have no professional sports teams at all and the NFL is a huge game (I didn't include Europe or Asia on this list).

1) I don't like the concept of a team winning because they played fewer games. I know that home field advantage is a major thing, but that is not something that can feasibly be done away with, so it becomes "which team has earned it more."

As for where new markets might be, of course I'd love to see a team in Portland (the Portland Storms, of course, taking home in the Thunderdome). Alabama would also be a great market, you can pretty much bet that a place that has a solid college football fan base would likely be very welcoming to an NFL team. I've always thought Vegas would be an awesome spot, but I haven't really looked into it.

Of course, with 40 teams, the new teams would need to be in their respective areas. Toronto would likely be a good area, after all, they host 1 Bills preseason game each year and I believe that they get pretty good attendance (but then, it is the Bills).

North Dakota may prove to be a good place now, with their oil market booming, there is money, and jobs, and a lot of people moving in. And those people will probably want more entertainment than the occasional moose porn.



They have won 28 of 37 Super Bowls, while the 5 and 6 seeds have won 3. So while there is a factor of "any given sunday" it is still largely who the better team is.

I agree, and the fact that 1 and 2 seeds have done well historically prove that the system is decent - certainly better than NCAA. However I think football in itself can be a lot of "any given plays" let alone any given Sunday. That's what makes the game exciting and great and awesome, but somewhat problematic in determining the "best." So I would be cool with extending the Super Bowl to a best of 3 game series and eliminating pre season. The only argument I could really see the players have opposing this is the injury risk. Then again if hockey can do it...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Loserboi
Posts: 1,232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:06:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/22/2014 8:22:28 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/22/2014 7:24:56 PM, Loserboi wrote:
If they did a series than the superbowl would be predictable just like the NBA. DO WE REALLY WANT THAT?

There were three 7-game series in last year's NBA Finals alone: Bulls vs. Nets in the first round, Heat vs. Pacers in the Conference Finals, and the Heat vs. Spurs in the Finals. How predictable can the NBA be if the Heat (whom I presume you think is the "automatic" winner) had to go to 2 game 7's in a row in order to win? Most series I follow have been interesting and keep it close. While I agree the "sudden death" element creates an intensity that makes each and every game exciting, you have to factor in what element of "fairness" you want to include in addition to just excitement. Is the goal to achieve a wow factor that appeals to fans, or find the most deserving champions? I'm sure most people would suggest a mix of both. That's why I think a best of 3 game series instead of 7 seems fair.

I have seen the underdog win the NBA finals 2 times in my entire life. Which were the Mavericks and the Pistons. Pistons was only because Lakers were going through huge turmoil and scandal that more than likely distracted their team play. I am opposed to a series because I feel it takes away the excitement completely. Football is the same group of guys playing which will mean the team with the more talented team will most likely win every year if its forced into a series.

The reason why baseball can have an exciting series is because it is not the same match up every single game in the series. 4 different starting pitchers changes the entire dynamics of the game. The NBA and NFL does not switch up any key players for their game so that is why I believe if we take away the series then underdogs winning the championship will become another once in a lifetime occurrence, which shouldn't be.