2013 NFL Football

[Golfingdad]

I think it's a terrific idea. I think you overestimate the odds of a major storm and the negative effects it would have.

[quote name="jamo" url="/t/69880/2013-nfl-football/870#post_941908"] Agreed. We had this discussion a few pages ago.[/quote]Also agree. And I'll just add that Nate Silver (statistician extraordinaire) estimated the chances of severe weather (under 25F, precip., or wind) as pretty low. Don't remember the actual numbers of each, but they were under 30%, and the chances if all 3 were under 2%. This is going to be fun!

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

I think it's a terrific idea. I think you overestimate the odds of a major storm and the negative effects it would have.

Agreed. We had this discussion a few pages ago.

That was before this arctic vortex started dumping on the northeast.  This is already the second wave, and it's not likely that it's going to end with this one.  I still think that it's a stupid idea, and if this weather continues, it be the undoing of Goodell.  Every game played in extreme weather this season has involved some sort of aberration in the play of the game.  Normal entertaining football has been impossible in both heavy rain and snow.  Cold is as much of an issue as storm level precipitation and high winds.

I just don't see it as a fair test for either team.  It certainly isn't something that the fans are going to enjoy sitting in the stands, and it's not going to be what the NFL considers as the most popular fare for TV viewers.  If they really wanted this type of game they wouldn't have made all of the changes to favor the passing game.  It seems almost insane to me that they do that, then schedule a championship game that might negate that entire philosophy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

I think it's a terrific idea. I think you overestimate the odds of a major storm and the negative effects it would have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamo

Agreed. We had this discussion a few pages ago.

Also agree. And I'll just add that Nate Silver (statistician extraordinaire) estimated the chances of severe weather (under 25F, precip., or wind) as pretty low. Don't remember the actual numbers of each, but they were under 30%, and the chances if all 3 were under 2%.

This is going to be fun!

Since when does the weather care about statistics?  That's one of the strangest reasons I can think of for scheduling an outdoor event.  This year has already blown any weather statistics out of th water.  We are being impacted by arctic fronts here on the south side of the Tropic of Cancer (it got down to around 69-70 degrees over the weekend).  South Texas is experiencing wintery weather.

[Harmonious]

Normal entertaining football has been impossible in both heavy rain and snow.  Cold is as much of an issue as storm level precipitation and high winds.

Have to disagree with you.  Remember the snow games several weeks ago? Those games were very entertaining, and the teams managed to perform pretty well.  The rainstorm for the New Orleans-Seattle playoff game two weeks ago was also very entertaining.  And remember those olden days in Green Bay with the frozen turf?

Football is meant to be played in the elements. The Broncos are no strangers to cold weather.  The Seahawks are rather familiar with rain. Improvements in equipment (gloves) and apparel (underarmour) make playing in nasty conditions no big deal, it seems.

As far as the "fans" in the stands - They are corporate seatfillers, not real fans.  The game is made for TV, not the people in the stands.

[Golfingdad]

Since when does the weather care about statistics?  That's one of the strangest reasons I can think of for scheduling an outdoor event.  This year has already blown any weather statistics out of th water.  We are being impacted by arctic fronts here on the south side of the Tropic of Cancer (it got down to around 69-70 degrees over the weekend).  South Texas is experiencing wintery weather.

Oh, I may not have been totally clear then.  I didn't mean to say that Nate Silver calculated the odds for Goodell and then Goodell made the decision to host the Super Bowl in NY based on that info.  I was simply saying that I saw him on the TV the other day throwing out these stats now.  Just as a tidbit of information, that's all.

Have to disagree with you.  Remember the snow games several weeks ago? Those games were very entertaining, and the teams managed to perform pretty well.  The rainstorm for the New Orleans-Seattle playoff game two weeks ago was also very entertaining.  And remember those olden days in Green Bay with the frozen turf?

Football is meant to be played in the elements. The Broncos are no strangers to cold weather.  The Seahawks are rather familiar with rain. Improvements in equipment (gloves) and apparel (underarmour) make playing in nasty conditions no big deal, it seems.

As far as the "fans" in the stands - They are corporate seatfillers, not real fans.  The game is made for TV, not the people in the stands.

Agree 1000%

-------------------------------

Also, what's with all the "Goodell is only doing this for one reason ... money" nonsense?  No freakin' doy!  When has the NFL ever pretended otherwise??  It's not some big conspiracy, it's a friggin' business.  If this makes them more money then how could you argue that it was a bad decision?

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Normal entertaining football has been impossible in both heavy rain and snow.  Cold is as much of an issue as storm level precipitation and high winds.

Have to disagree with you.  Remember the snow games several weeks ago? Those games were very entertaining, and the teams managed to perform pretty well.  The rainstorm for the New Orleans-Seattle playoff game two weeks ago was also very entertaining.  And remember those olden days in Green Bay with the frozen turf?

Football is meant to be played in the elements. The Broncos are no strangers to cold weather.  The Seahawks are rather familiar with rain. Improvements in equipment (gloves) and apparel (underarmour) make playing in nasty conditions no big deal, it seems.

As far as the "fans" in the stands - They are corporate seatfillers, not real fans.  The game is made for TV, not the people in the stands.

But that is NOT what the typical Super Bowl watcher is hoping for.  You are a football fan.  The Super Bowl depends on football fringe viewers.  The last thing in the world they want is a 7-6 struggle where nobody does anything.  Those games you talk about are an aberration, not a norm.  It may be fun to talk about, but trust me, the advertisers paying millions for ads do NOT want that sort of a game.  The sound of TV remotes clicking over to reruns of Big Bang Theory is what their nightmares are made of.  All I'm saying is that the NFL is taking a serious risk with this one, and whether it works or not, I'd bet that it doesn't see a repeat.  Goodell has to be watching the weather and sweating blood.

[newtogolf]

Just catching up on here so sorry if some topics are old...

• Sherman is a beast, anyone that played football knows how pumped up you are after a win.  Fox knew they'd get that sort of reaction and Erin Andrews knew it too which is why she's come out publicly and defended Sherman and his emotional interview.
• Manning is pure class and one of the most intelligent QB's to ever play the game.  Denver is the only AFC team that had a shot to beat Seattle or SF so the best team in the AFC won.
• I'm looking out the window at about 12" of snow right now here on Long Island with about 6" more due overnight.  I have no idea what the weather will be like for the Super Bowl but you're insane if you'd want to pay $1000 per seat to sit in a freezing MetLife stadium in the rain or snow for 7 hours.  I know, because I have season tickets for the Jets and you don't want to be sitting there when it's less than 40*.  Dumb move by the NFL to put the Super Bowl here, only saving grace is I doubt we'll ever see another one in NY.

[dsc123]

Fourputt, why can't you accept that your view is not universal? A lot of people view football as a game that should be played in the freezing cold and the snow. Didn't the game in Green Bay have very high ratings? Grantland copied the idea of nate silver and made this chart

[David in FL]

A lot of people view football as a game that should be played in the freezing cold and the snow.

ABSOLUTELY! Didn't help my Packers this year though...... :-(

[Fourputt]

Fourputt, why can't you accept that your view is not universal? A lot of people view football as a game that should be played in the freezing cold and the snow. Didn't the game in Green Bay have very high ratings?

Grantland copied the idea of nate silver and made this chart

The NFL has created that misconception by continuing to add to the season in the search for more money.  You do realize that the College football season ends in mid December, the same as it has for a century?  The NCAA is smart enough to recognize that beyond November, football brings diminishing returns.  They have all of their bowl games in sensible parts of the country.

The NFL used to be similar.  Every time they change the playoff structure, they push the final game out further.  That wasn't a problem when they were smart enough to play the Super Bowl in a reasonable environment for a February game.  I love a football game with weather as much as the next guy.  I'm opposed to dome sports for both football and baseball.  But I'm not sadistic, and I like the game to have a chance to show the skill of the players.  Extreme weather effectively removes that option from the game.  I guess we can just hope that it works.  Still a dumb idea, and no amount of colored circles will change my mind on that.

By the way, the extended forecast is showing good weather that day.  Of course looking ahead a week and a half for a forecast is nearly as useless as that circle chart above.  Might as well just check the Farmer's Almanac.

[RonTheSavage]

Meh still a horrible idea, but we've been over this already. My opinion is the same.

[Dave2512]

I suppose it remains to be seen if it works out or not. Personally I don't want to see a SB where the weather could possibly affect the outcome. I also don't think we can compare the classic ice bowls of the past to modern football. Back then pro football was slower paced and played by men that weren't much different than the average guy on the street. The SB is quirky enough without the bad luck bad weather can bring. Even if it is the same for both teams it has a way of limiting what they do. I want to watch elite athletes play their best game not a game of who slips the least or gets the best bad weather bounces.

[Golfingdad]

http://www.wpxi.com/news/sports/nfl-might-eliminate-boring-extra-point/ncwB8/

We've already gone over all of the nonsense regarding how stupid they were to schedule an outdoor, cold-weather game in an outdoor, cold-weather facility (oh the humanity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) so I'd rather talk about something else.

I like the idea of tweaking the kicking rules for extra points and kickoffs.  I don't think the option above is a good one though because it won't really change anything.  Except in a few late game situations, everybody is going to take the free point (99% conversion rate) if offered.  Maybe if they combined the two options though.  Make it a 30 or 35 yard try and -1 if you miss and then I think you may have something.  A few more options, courtesy of TMQ:

Tinkering with Kickoff, Try and Onside Rules: Last week TMQ proposed doing away with the kickoff -- the scored-upon team would start at the 25, which is generous to the receiving team because the average returned kickoff reaches the 23 -- and also eliminating the singleton PAT kick, making all tries two-point attempts. My reasoning was that eliminating kickoffs would reduce concussions, while requiring two-point attempts would add back roughly the amount of excitement lost with no kickoffs. The PAT kick is the dullest moment in professional football -- more than 99 percent succeed -- while the kickoff is the most dangerous moment. So fix both in one fell swoop, whatever "fell swoop" means.

My alternative suggestion was to eliminate kickoffs, then after touchdowns, give the scoring team the option of going for two from the opponent's 2-yard line (the current deuce try) or kicking for one with the ball spotted on the 35. That would add all kinds of strategy to the second half, and sports fans love statistical analysis.

Reader Tim Kokesh of San Jose, Calif., countered: "Instead of doing away with the kicked PAT altogether, how about requiring the player who scored the touchdown to kick the PAT? Kind of like a foul shot on a made basket. The scoring team could either allow their touchdown man to kick for one, or go for two using the current deuce format."

[+] Enlarge

AP Photo/Kathy WillensMove the kickoff spot to the 50 and there will be more of these.

Dave Moore of Pittsburgh wrote: "I don't like the injuries on kickoffs either, but I love the strategic choice of the onside. So why not leave the PAT rule as is, and change kickoffs to encourage the onside? Spot the ball at the 50 for kickoffs. Most of the time, the scoring team would just sail the kickoff out of the end zone for a touchback -- no wedge-busting, no kickoff concussions. But with the kickoff spot at the 50, onside kicks would become more likely. A failed onside would cost only about 20 yards in field position: the opponent would start around his 40 instead of at his 20. Risking 20 yards of field position in return for the chance of a turnover could be attractive, especially in the fourth quarter."

In the 2013 regular season, there were 2,748 kickoffs and only 62 onside kicks, about 2 percent of kickoffs. Under Moore's scheme, onside kickoffs would become more common. In 2013, 11 onsides were recovered, or 18 percent. Would recovery likelihood go down (receiving teams more wary) or up (kickers practice the onside more) under Moore's idea? Only experience would tell, as only experience would tell whether more onside kicks would become a concussion factor. Even if the recovery percentage stayed the same, there could be many instances where an 18 percent chance of getting the ball back was worth the risk of 20 yards of field position.

All of these ideas are interesting.  I could see any of them working.  Although, I'd probably lean towards the simplest ... just get rid of the kicking altogether.  All extra points are 2 point attempts, and start at the 25 going the other way afterwards.  And if we wanted to keep the option of onside kicks alive, then maybe give the scoring team the option of completely forgoing the extra point try to attempt a kickoff.

[dsc123]

All of these ideas are interesting.  I could see any of them working.  Although, I'd probably lean towards the simplest ... just get rid of the kicking altogether.  All extra points are 2 point attempts, and start at the 25 going the other way afterwards.  And if we wanted to keep the option of onside kicks alive, then maybe give the scoring team the option of completely forgoing the extra point try to attempt a kickoff.

What about field goals?

On one hand I like the idea of getting rid of kicking the PATs, but on the other I think it really marginalizes kickers.

[Golfingdad]

What about field goals?

On one hand I like the idea of getting rid of kicking the PATs, but on the other I think it really marginalizes kickers.

You're right, it does sort of marginalize them.  On the other hand, if they're trotting out there to make them 99% of the time, its basically just a formality anyway.  So maybe just move it back some to the point where it's not a formality?

And there isn't really anything I can imagine that would improve upon field goals.  At first I though that they could make longer field goals worth more, or shorter field goals worth less ... and then I realized that is totally backwards.  You're creating incentive for a team to not want to advance the ball in certain situations.  A team like the Raiders could end up being "rewarded" for mediocrity because they have Sebastian Janikowski.  So, that is a dumb idea, I think.

[RonTheSavage]

I'd rather the NFL deal with the HORRIBLE officiating first and foremost. Whats reviewable and what not?

[rustyredcab]

I'd rather the NFL deal with the HORRIBLE officiating first and foremost. Whats reviewable and what not?

+1

The less-than-casual fans in my family who will watch this game simply because it is The Super Bowl, will justifiably find blown calls, that everyone can see where blown but are not reviewable, as further evidence that I should spend less time watching this "stupid" game. "But you can see that he pulled the ball out and was down on the ground with it and he still doesn't get to keep it? Why not? It should be his ball? And what is and what isn't pass interference?"

[phan52]

As a long time NFC East fan and as somebody who has seen many games played in the Swamps of NJ, the biggest weather factor is going to be the wind. It almost always is.That probably hurts the Broncos more than the Seahawks because of their passing game.

[boogielicious]

You're right, it does sort of marginalize them.  On the other hand, if they're trotting out there to make them 99% of the time, its basically just a formality anyway.  So maybe just move it back some to the point where it's not a formality?

And there isn't really anything I can imagine that would improve upon field goals.  At first I though that they could make longer field goals worth more, or shorter field goals worth less ... and then I realized that is totally backwards.  You're creating incentive for a team to not want to advance the ball in certain situations.  A team like the Raiders could end up being "rewarded" for mediocrity because they have Sebastian Janikowski.  So, that is a dumb idea, I think.

Are we forgetting Tony Romo's famous extra point flubbed snap?  It is pretty routine now.  The two point conversion only sounds intriguing.

I propose we have every Superbowl in the Bahama's.  We can all crash at @Fourputt 's place and do some bonefish fishing too!