dalemurphy
Hall of Fame
Obviously, the biggest concern right now is getting an agreement reached and beginning the 2011 NFL off-sesaon at some point before the lockout begins costing us quality football. With that urgency and focus, however, there is an elevated risk that compromises will be made on the periphery of the major issues that will damage the game. I have been hearing of one such area of compromise that is of great concern to me:
18 Game Regular Season- I am in favor of an 18 game season if it is done right. However, I am hearing NFL ownership discussing the issue in a way that makes me very nervous. Heres the new catch-phrase they are throwing around: its about total/aggregate plays, responding to the added risk of injury to players if two regular season games are added. I believe it was Mr. Rooney the other day that said they are exploring (and open to) ways that these games can be added without increasing the number of hits a player is subjected to.
Why is this a concern?: Well, if they were to consider my proposal for an 18 game schedule, which includes increasing the roster and additional roster flexibility, I think they can achieve that goal without damaging the product. However, I am terrified that their solution will be to explore ways to decrease the number of game snaps within the game. This has already happened once in the past 20 years and I dont know anyone else that has detected it.
In order to keep NFL games at roughly 3 hours in length, the NFL had to adjust something after instant replay was installed in order to make up for the 5-10 minutes per game that instant replay was adding to game time. What did they do? They changed the out of bounds rule. Before, as it is in college, when a player runs out of bounds (regardless of the clock), the clock would stop until the next snap. Now, the clock stops until the ball is reset but then it is restarted and an additional 15-25 seconds run off the clock until the next play (except during the two minute warning in the first half and the final 5 minutes of the fourth quarter). Harmless, right? Umm, not if you love football. That single rule change decreased the number of plays in an NFL game by close to 10%. There are six to ten fewer plays a game simply to allow for these ridiculous instant replays. Gross!
Heres my fear: what if the owners offer concessions to the NFLPA that include a decrease in the number of plays per game? The union would love that. Its equivalent to management offering a reduction in work hours at a manufacturing company without a reduction in wages.
It is simply one more angle where the selfishness among the owners and players can injure the NFL product and therefore, the fans. Not only would a decrease in ticket price not accompany a reduction in plays per game, but I am sure ticket prices would increase (per game) because the NFL is now replacing a preseason game with a regular season game (never mind that fans have been charged full price for preseason games as long as I can remember, and preseason games are mandatory in all season ticket packages).
Things to watch out for:
1. They could propose a constant running clock with to (2 minute warning and late 4th quarter exception still intact). In other words, when a player steps out of bounds the clock would continuing running just like it was a tackle on the field, instead of stopping it until the referee resets the ball on the field the impact of that would be 10-15 additional seconds lost of game clock per incident.
2. They could propose running the clock after the change of posession. College football tried that for one season and it was a disaster, but it may be something they could tinker with and consider.
3. They could propose adding more clock run-off penalties. As it is now, an offensive penalty in the last minute or so in the game that occurs when the clock is running is often accompanied with a 10 second runoff. They could add these options throughout the game.
Also, just watch out for language from the NFL like, trying to increase the pace/tempo of the game, or ensuring the game remains family friendly Those are phrases that could be masking other, and more insidious, intentions.
from TEXANS BULL BLOG
18 Game Regular Season- I am in favor of an 18 game season if it is done right. However, I am hearing NFL ownership discussing the issue in a way that makes me very nervous. Heres the new catch-phrase they are throwing around: its about total/aggregate plays, responding to the added risk of injury to players if two regular season games are added. I believe it was Mr. Rooney the other day that said they are exploring (and open to) ways that these games can be added without increasing the number of hits a player is subjected to.
Why is this a concern?: Well, if they were to consider my proposal for an 18 game schedule, which includes increasing the roster and additional roster flexibility, I think they can achieve that goal without damaging the product. However, I am terrified that their solution will be to explore ways to decrease the number of game snaps within the game. This has already happened once in the past 20 years and I dont know anyone else that has detected it.
In order to keep NFL games at roughly 3 hours in length, the NFL had to adjust something after instant replay was installed in order to make up for the 5-10 minutes per game that instant replay was adding to game time. What did they do? They changed the out of bounds rule. Before, as it is in college, when a player runs out of bounds (regardless of the clock), the clock would stop until the next snap. Now, the clock stops until the ball is reset but then it is restarted and an additional 15-25 seconds run off the clock until the next play (except during the two minute warning in the first half and the final 5 minutes of the fourth quarter). Harmless, right? Umm, not if you love football. That single rule change decreased the number of plays in an NFL game by close to 10%. There are six to ten fewer plays a game simply to allow for these ridiculous instant replays. Gross!
Heres my fear: what if the owners offer concessions to the NFLPA that include a decrease in the number of plays per game? The union would love that. Its equivalent to management offering a reduction in work hours at a manufacturing company without a reduction in wages.
It is simply one more angle where the selfishness among the owners and players can injure the NFL product and therefore, the fans. Not only would a decrease in ticket price not accompany a reduction in plays per game, but I am sure ticket prices would increase (per game) because the NFL is now replacing a preseason game with a regular season game (never mind that fans have been charged full price for preseason games as long as I can remember, and preseason games are mandatory in all season ticket packages).
Things to watch out for:
1. They could propose a constant running clock with to (2 minute warning and late 4th quarter exception still intact). In other words, when a player steps out of bounds the clock would continuing running just like it was a tackle on the field, instead of stopping it until the referee resets the ball on the field the impact of that would be 10-15 additional seconds lost of game clock per incident.
2. They could propose running the clock after the change of posession. College football tried that for one season and it was a disaster, but it may be something they could tinker with and consider.
3. They could propose adding more clock run-off penalties. As it is now, an offensive penalty in the last minute or so in the game that occurs when the clock is running is often accompanied with a 10 second runoff. They could add these options throughout the game.
Also, just watch out for language from the NFL like, trying to increase the pace/tempo of the game, or ensuring the game remains family friendly Those are phrases that could be masking other, and more insidious, intentions.
from TEXANS BULL BLOG
