Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!

New proposed nfl rules changes

CloakNNNdagger

CloakNNNdagger

Hall of Fame
The League will be again tinkering with the rules at their next meeting. Some potential changes.

1. Taking chop blocks, peel-back blocks, roll blocks and downfield cut blocks out of the game

This has been long overdue. For years, the NFL has been making sure offensive players are safe and sound without worrying about the other side of the ball. Few things are more dangerous than an offensive lineman diving at the knees of a defensive lineman or a linebacker. It's time to change the thought process here.

This will also protect the heads of defensive players who are fixated on the ball-carrier. Under current rules, a offensive player can peel off his block and side-swipe a would-be tackler.

2. The "hands to the face" call, which would expand to include quick shots to the head for players on either side of the ball. This would eliminate strikes to the helmet as a tactic.

In this day and age, anything to protect a guy from getting a concussion has to be considered. There are plenty of people who scream about the softening of the game. Those people don't play in the NFL and should stop complaining. Let these guys enjoy their retirements.

This call would effectively keep players from going upside a player's helmet with their hands. While the head-slap has long been illegal, this would keep players from "punching" into the face mask. The rule is intended for receivers and corners, along with linemen.

3. Instant replay going to the college system or the NHL way

Look, replay is a great thing and works pretty well now, but could be better. The NHL has all their decisions made from Toronto, providing great consistency. In college, the replay official upstairs makes the call. Personally, I love the NHL way, very few calls are missed.

4. Playoff expansion, which would put another team from each conference into the postseason. Only the No. 1 seeds would get a bye. The other 12 teams would play on Wild-Card weekend.

Everybody says it would cheapen the product. That's garbage. Would anybody have complained if a 10-6 Arizona Cardinals team was in the playoffs last year? How about if the Pittsburgh Steelers and Ben Roethlisberger made it? Why not reward the team with the best record in the conference as the only team with a bye? Plus, it's more football. Frankly, you're un-American if you don't want more football.

5. Taunting and fighting penalties being enforced to maintain respect among players

Again, some will scream about this. Again, put a lid on it. These are grown men who can handle themselves, but who are also a role model to kids. They need to put their big-boy pants on and refrain from being obnoxious idiots to each other. Can't go wrong here.

There is no place in the game for some clown sacking the quarterback up or down by 30 points and then getting in the face of the opponent over it.

6. Eliminating the point-after attempt

This is where I starting going the other way. Why does this need to be taken out of the game? It has been part of football forever. Do people really complain about having to sit through the extra point? Sometimes things are over-analyzed and this is one of them. If it's not broken ...

There has been talk about changing this rule throughout the offseason with myriad ideas. The best one has been to make a touchdown seven points and if you want to go for eight, it's the same as a two-point conversion is now. Only catch? If you miss, you lose a point.

7. Low hits on defenseless players, especially receivers

Now, I will call this soft. I understand you want to protect knees and that is admirable, but you can't protect high and low. The defenders have to be able to target somewhere on the body, and when a 250-pound target is moving at 4.4 speed, it's ridiculous to ask them to only hit from the shoulders to the belt. Sometimes a smaller player has to cut a guy down. The NFL needs to make sure defense still matters and gives these guys a somewhat fair shake.

8. Protecting read-option quarterbacks in the pocket

Quarterbacks are already treated like they are made out of glass. If a quarterback wants to run the option, that's fine. However, a defender should be able to pop him like a paper bag if he does so. Again, this speaks to fairness. Stop protecting all the quarterbacks constantly. If they are threatening to be a runner, cream them.

Currently, a quarterback can be hit if he is in the process of the read-option within the pocket. Please, leave the rule alone.
Click to expand...
LINK
 
Point After may not be eliminated......just distance-adjusted.


NFL might experiment with making extra-point attempts longer

By Judy Battista
NFL Media reporter
Published: March 3, 2014 at 03:40 p.m.
Updated: March 4, 2014 at 08:53 a.m.

The NFL Competition Committee has discussed experimenting this preseason with a longer -- much longer -- extra-point try. According to one member, the committee's meetings this weekend included preliminary talks about placing the ball at the 25-yard line for the extra-point kick -- which would make it a 43-yard attempt -- rather than the 2-yard line, where it is currently placed.

Last season, kickers missed just five of 1,267 extra-point attempts, a conversion rate of 99.6 percent -- so good that Commissioner Roger Goodell recently suggested the demise of the extra point could be imminent, because it is almost automatic, and thus not exciting enough. A longer extra-point try certainly would make things more interesting and require significantly more strategizing. The conversion rate of field goals between 40 and 49 yards last season was 83 percent. The last time the extra-point conversation rate regularly fell below 90 percent was in the 1930s and early 1940s. That surely would give coaches something to ponder when weighing whether to kick for one point or try for two, with the success rate for two-point conversion attempts typically around 50 percent.

"There is no consensus yet," said the committee member. "We could experiment in preseason, but we are not there yet."

No matter. It seems likely that the extra point as it is currently tallied eventually will be the latest victim of the kickers' own success. It will follow in the footsteps of sudden-death overtime, which was altered first for the 2010 playoffs and then for the regular season in 2012 after years of deliberation, sparked in large part by the kickers' increasing accuracy. Owners feared a Super Bowl might someday be decided by an overtime coin flip, with one team booting the winning field goal while the opposing squad never had a chance to touch the ball.

The NFL, of course, usually moves deliberately before enacting significant rules changes. In the meantime, kickers -- through a combination of specialization, better field conditions, the now-omnipresent kicking gurus and camps and rules changes -- are only getting better. Kickers made a higher percentage of field-goal (86.5 percent) and extra-point attempts (99.6 percent) last season than they ever had before. Perhaps even more striking is how many long field-goal attempts are being made. In 2013, 67.13 percent of all field-goal attempts of at least 50 yards were good. While the numbers fluctuate from year to year, that is a sharp rise even from 2012, when just 60.92 from long distance were good, and it is dramatically up from just 10 years ago, when kickers made just 48.38 percent from 50 yards or more. THE REST OF THE STORY
 
8. Protecting read-option quarterbacks in the pocket

Quarterbacks are already treated like they are made out of glass. If a quarterback wants to run the option, that's fine. However, a defender should be able to pop him like a paper bag if he does so. Again, this speaks to fairness. Stop protecting all the quarterbacks constantly. If they are threatening to be a runner, cream them.

Currently, a quarterback can be hit if he is in the process of the read-option within the pocket. Please, leave the rule alone.
Click to expand...

I hate this one generally. If you are going to act like you have the ball, you get hit like you have the ball. But an additional reason is because it will become a playoff differential on how the game is played like PI is now. Make game changing discretionary ticky tack calls during the season to "enforce the rule" and then during the playoffs "let them play."
 
Whatever to the rules.

It'll either still be an interesting game or it won't. I love football. It's been a huge part of my life, but I don't mind not watching if it no longer interest me on a professional level.
 
The one I am most excited about is the Instant Replay rule. I think it'll make the game quicker, more consistent, and better overall.
 
Generally agree with all of those proposals, save a few.

1. Taking chop blocks, peel-back blocks, roll blocks and downfield cut blocks out of the game
Click to expand...

Love this. Should have happened years ago. It's been blatantly obvious up to this point that the league only cares about the safety of ball carriers (QB, RB, WR). It's about time this happened. If we're protecting players let's protect all of them, not just the ones you put on your video game covers.

4. Playoff expansion, which would put another team from each conference into the postseason. Only the No. 1 seeds would get a bye. The other 12 teams would play on Wild-Card weekend.
Click to expand...

I don't like this. Seems totally unnecessary to me.

7. Low hits on defenseless players, especially receivers
Click to expand...

Stupid. Just put flags on them then.

8. Protecting read-option quarterbacks in the pocket
Click to expand...

Same as above. If you're going to pretend to have the ball then you can expect to get hit.
 
4. Playoff expansion, which would put another team from each conference into the postseason. Only the No. 1 seeds would get a bye. The other 12 teams would play on Wild-Card weekend.
Click to expand...

The only reason why I think this could be good for the NFL (besides revenue) is that it would make the last couple games important for teams that are fighting for the #1 and #2 seeds.
 
6. Eliminating the point-after attempt
Click to expand...

Make the extra point be a drop kick.

And if it's really about wanting the play to be more exciting, then allow the defense to score 2 if it's blocked, picked off and returned.

Not really in favor of the 2nd part as I don't see why a defense should get an opportunity to be rewarded for giving up a TD.
 
1. Taking chop blocks, peel-back blocks, roll blocks and downfield cut blocks out of the game

This has been long overdue. For years, the NFL has been making sure offensive players are safe and sound without worrying about the other side of the ball. Few things are more dangerous than an offensive lineman diving at the knees of a defensive lineman or a linebacker. It's time to change the thought process here.

This will also protect the heads of defensive players who are fixated on the ball-carrier. Under current rules, a offensive player can peel off his block and side-swipe a would-be tackler.
Click to expand...

About time!

I've been against these ever since we got rid of Kubiak and his scheme. :truck:
 
4. Playoff expansion, which would put another team from each conference into the postseason. Only the No. 1 seeds would get a bye. The other 12 teams would play on Wild-Card weekend.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to lie, I like it. The wildcard weekend is when the end of the season realization hits, mainly that Sunday night. Give us a couple of extra playoff games that weekend. It is the part of the season I live for as a football fan.

And like Dutch mentioned, it makes the top seeds continue to play hard in weeks 16/17 instead of resting players. They have a reason to win if it is for the only bye.
 
Double Barrel said:
I'm not going to lie, I like it. The wildcard weekend is when the end of the season realization hits, mainly that Sunday night. Give us a couple of extra playoff games that weekend. It is the part of the season I live for as a football fan.

And like Dutch mentioned, it makes the top seeds continue to play hard in weeks 16/17 instead of resting players. They have a reason to win if it is for the only bye.
Click to expand...

Agreed - a playoff weekend that has two Saturday games, two Sunday games, and either two Monday night games or a Friday night (no HS football to worry about) and a Monday night game would be fantastic as far as I'm concerned. Additionally, other than any years where the Texans (or Chiefs) end up as the #2 seed, I like the idea that they're making the top seed even more valuable than it already is. I don't think I'd ever want them to make it a 16 team playoff, but as long as less than half of the teams get in, I like the idea.
 
If they move the extra point kick back to the 25 yd line, there will be plenty of 2-point attempts.

I feel that it would make it more of an exciting chess strategy move if the rules would say, "If a team chooses to avoid the extra point kick, and opts for the 2-point attempt.........and the 2-point attempt fails, the kicking team will LOSE 1 point."
 
From PFT:

Interesting proposal from Gibbs.

Hall of Fame coach Joe Gibbs is all for eliminating the extra point. But why stop there?

Gibbs told Colin Cowherd on ESPN Radio that he wouldn’t mind getting rid of field goals in addition to extra points. Why should 11 football players have to march the ball down the field only to put the team’s fate on the foot of a puny kicker? Gibbs thinks that if you want to give out partial points to a drive that gets stopped short of the end zone, award points for a team that gets inside the 10-yard line or the 5-yard line but fails to score.

“Even field goals, you know what I mean? I was one who wanted to let the team decide,” Gibbs said. “You get to the 10 you get one point, you get to the 5 you get two. I’m for anything like that where the team — that’s 11 guys — help determine the outcome of the game. Not one person kicking something.”

Gibbs is an old-school coach whose career started back in the days when men were men and kickers were expected to play another position, not just specialize. So it’s not surprising that when Gibbs thinks of a team of 11 guys determining the outcome of a game, he’s not thinking of one of those guys being a kicker.

But eliminating field goals isn’t even up for discussion in the NFL. Anyone who wants to de-emphasize kicking would be wise to keep the focus on extra points.
Click to expand...
 
Like the NHL style replay.

Also, if a RB can stiff arm a defender in the face, the defender should be able to do the same. Make it fair or eliminate it. Stiff arm would still be allowed, just not to the helmet.
 
Kevin Seifert @KevinSeifertESPN
Startling figures for project I’m in...

2006: 69.4 pct of QB dropbacks came from under center.
2014: 21.9. Nearly 4 of 5 in shotgun/pistol.
Click to expand...
 
They need to do playoff seeding like the NBA does. This would effectively eliminate sub .500 teams making the playoffs like Carolina did this past year.

They also need to eliminate that division winner automatically getting a home game rule. It's ridiculous to think that a team who's been trash most of the year gets rewarded with a home game b/c they won a trash division ......like Carolina did this year.
 
Mr teX said:
They need to do playoff seeding like the NBA does. This would effectively eliminate sub .500 teams making the playoffs like Carolina did this past year.

They also need to eliminate that division winner automatically getting a home game rule. It's ridiculous to think that a team who's been trash most of the year gets rewarded with a home game b/c they won a trash division ......like Carolina did this year.
Click to expand...

First, seeding and who makes the playoffs are two separate things. Secondly, the NBA awards playoff spots to the team with the best record in each of its six divisions. How is that any different than the NFL, and how would that have kept the Panthers out of the playoffs?
 
Mr teX said:
They need to do playoff seeding like the NBA does. This would effectively eliminate sub .500 teams making the playoffs like Carolina did this past year.

They also need to eliminate that division winner automatically getting a home game rule. It's ridiculous that a team who's been trash most of the year gets rewarded with a home game b/c they won a trash division......like Carolina did this year.
Click to expand...

Divisions fluctuate in strength. Win your division, get a home game. IMO, tough **** to those that don't win theirs. The two teams that were in this situation, Carolina and Seattle, both won their first round game...trash record and all.

NBA Division winners could go no lower than the 4th seed. So even if two teams have a better record than them, the division winner still gets 4. Translated to this years NFL Playoff, instead Arizona @ Carolina it would have been Detroit @ Carolina since Detroit was the lowest seed.

The team that has the best record in each of the three divisions in each conference is declared division champion. The three division champions, and another team in the conference with the best record, are seeded one through four by their records. This guarantees the division champions no worse than the fourth seed, and also guarantees the team with the second-best record in the conference will be the second seed even if isn't a division champion. Of the remaining eleven conference teams, the four with the best records are seeded fifth through eighth based on their record.
Click to expand...
 
Mr teX said:
They need to do playoff seeding like the NBA does. This would effectively eliminate sub .500 teams making the playoffs like Carolina did this past year.

They also need to eliminate that division winner automatically getting a home game rule. It's ridiculous to think that a team who's been trash most of the year gets rewarded with a home game b/c they won a trash division ......like Carolina did this year.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think divisions are outdated. It basically means that "winning your division" is more important than winning games.

Eliminate divisions and keep the two conference system. Teams would play EVERY team in their conference each season. This would clearly take care of tiebreakers, and then the playoffs could be seeded according to records.

What is the NFL going to do with future expansion teams with the current four team divisions? It would mean some divisions become uneven, having to play more division games every season and making it statistically tougher for the 5 team divisions.

I know it will never happen. People are scared of change. So as a compromise, let the division winners have playoff spots, but then seed the teams by conference for home games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TD
PapaL said:
Divisions fluctuate in strength. Win your division, get a home game. IMO, tough **** to those that don't win theirs. The two teams that were in this situation, Carolina and Seattle, both won their first round game...trash record and all.
Click to expand...

not to mention there have been way more examples of division winners with double-digit wins that were one-and-done despite their shiny W/L record and "home field advantage". ....the Denver Peytons come immediately to mind followed closely by the Falcons.

Division winners getting into the playoffs with losing W/L records has happened exactly twice. And, as PapaL said, both won their opening playoff game - ON THE ROAD. There ain't nothing to fix here.
 
Division winners should get an automatic playoff spot, but they shouldn't get an automatic home game.
 
Double Barrel said:
I agree. I think divisions are outdated. It basically means that "winning your division" is more important than winning games.

Eliminate divisions and keep the two conference system. Teams would play EVERY team in their conference each season. This would clearly take care of tiebreakers, and then the playoffs could be seeded according to records.

What is the NFL going to do with future expansion teams with the current four team divisions? It would mean some divisions become uneven, having to play more division games every season and making it statistically tougher for the 5 team divisions.

I know it will never happen. People are scared of change. So as a compromise, let the division winners have playoff spots, but then seed the teams by conference for home games.
Click to expand...

So a 15 game season and no out of conference games?

It isn't about people being scared of change. It's just that there's no change that's going to make it much better than it is now. You're going to have an unbalanced schedule no matter what.

Your solution of 2 conferences/no divisions, play every team in your conference puts you at 15 games. So every team is going to have to play a different team for that 16th. So unless you cut the season to 15 games, that won't work either. Add 2 more teams and it would work but then you never play teams in the other conference. I never liked that in baseball before interleague play, and I know I won't like that in football. And really, 2 more teams dilutes the talent more than it already is.

How about two conferences, two 8 team divisions? How do you make that schedule? It isn't going to work no matter how you line the teams up.

I think the way they have it now is the best way they can do it. You play your divison teams twice, that division plays the same 4 teams in the other conference and their conference once, and you have 2 other conference games corresponding to where you finished in the standings. No, still not perfect but it works.

You keep hearing Seattle and Carolina, 2 sub .500 teams in the last 5 years or whatever, when in reality, since the alignment they have in place now came to be in 2002, 2 sub .500 teams making the playoffs has happened twice in 14 years.

And remember, Seattle and Carolina both won their 1st round games against 11-5 teams.

I think Carolina making it is being overblown, just like any time a game ends in a tie. The few times we have a tie, everybody wants to change the rules all of a sudden. And I think the change in the OT rules they did make, make it easier for a game to end in a tie. With both teams having to have possession, that can run off damn near half the quarter before it becomes true sudden death.

Sub .500 teams making it in aren't going to happen as often as you think. Unless they expand the playoffs, then you'll see it a lot more often.
 
I'd like some form of realignment. Teams playing teams in their geographic area while still maintaining rivalries. Aka Indianapolis should not be in the AFC South.
 
bah007 said:
Division winners should get an automatic playoff spot, but they shouldn't get an automatic home game.
Click to expand...

I could live with that. Maybe that's what CND was saying... every division champ is automatically in the dance. Then we go by records to determine seeding. Of course that means a 9-7 division champ would go on the road to a 10-6 wild card team. I understand the logic but it still doesn't sound right.
 
Speedy said:
So a 15 game season and no out of conference games?
Click to expand...

They could still schedule out of conference games with the 16th game, and then two more when they eventually expand to an 18 game schedule (which is probably just a matter of time).

My main point was that winning games should be held to a higher priority than "winning your division". I think that is pretty easy to understand, even in disagreement.

And while you downplay sub-.500 teams making the playoffs, it has already happened twice in the past five seasons. I guess the only redeeming thing is that both times the sub-.500 teams won payoff games.

What is being forgotten is that a 10 win team is left out for a 7 win team. That elevates division titles to a higher priority than winning games.

Easy solution is to expand the playoffs with another wildcard for each division and make division titles good for clenching playoffs, but not necessarily rewarded with home playoff games.

btw, I'm not 100% behind the elimination of divisions. It was just an idea thrown out there. Part of me does enjoy the drama of division rivals, even though our team seems to be stuck being the Colts' biatch every year but two.
 
PapaL said:
I'd like some form of realignment. Teams playing teams in their geographic area while still maintaining rivalries. Aka Indianapolis should not be in the AFC South.
Click to expand...

Agree! Colts should be in the north, Ravens should be in the east, and Dolphins should be in the south.
 
Byrds Man said:
Agree! Colts should be in the north, Ravens should be in the east, and Dolphins should be in the south.
Click to expand...

This scenario would completely blow up established rivalries but would make more sense geographically.

Houston
Dallas
New Orleans
Tennessee

Denver
St. Louis
Kansas City
Arizona

Miami
Jacksonville
Atlanta
Tampa Bay

Chicago
Green Bay
Detroit
Minnesota

Oakland
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle

Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Cincinnati

NY Jets
New England
Buffalo
Carolina

NY Giants
Philadelphia
Washington
Baltimore
 
gwallaia said:
This scenario would completely blow up established rivalries but would make more sense geographically.

Houston
Dallas
New Orleans
Tennessee

Denver
St. Louis
Kansas City
Arizona

Miami
Jacksonville
Atlanta
Tampa Bay

Chicago
Green Bay
Detroit
Minnesota

Oakland
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle

Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Cincinnati

NY Jets
New England
Buffalo
Carolina

NY Giants
Philadelphia
Washington
Baltimore
Click to expand...

Looks pretty good. I suggest swapping Carolina and the NJ Giants so the Jets and Giants would have to face off every year, but that's the only change I'd make.
 
ObsiWan said:
Looks pretty good. I suggest swapping Carolina and the NJ Giants so the Jets and Giants would have to face off every year, but that's the only change I'd make.
Click to expand...

I kept the Jets and Giants in different divisions since they play in the same stadium. I figured it might create scheduling problems.
 
gwallaia said:
I kept the Jets and Giants in different divisions since they play in the same stadium. I figured it might create scheduling problems.
Click to expand...

good point
but I bet they'd figure it out to have a game in NYC every weekend
 
Double Barrel said:
Are we watching the same game? :um:

NFL Big Hits and Plays Compilation!

Seriously, how can you honestly say what you said and see the above video? Seems like your rhetoric is completely detached from reality.

Quit watching if it's so "pussified". Maybe this league is not for you.
Click to expand...

I don't think he was talking about the hits. It's the penalties you get for making the hits.

I hate the defenseless receiver rule. If a receiver goes over the middle and jumps up for a ball you should be able to blow them up to prevent the reception.
 
gwallaia said:
This scenario would completely blow up established rivalries but would make more sense geographically.
Click to expand...
It's TV that keeps that from happening. Let's say that Houston & Dallas are in the same division, and therefore both broadcast by the same network. If I'm in Houston, there's a big chunk of Dallas games that I'll be unable to see on TV. Since there are a good amount of Dallas fans in the Houston area, that would hurt TV ratings. Same goes for the Niners/Raiders in the same division. I think it's fixing something that's not broken.
 
Last edited:
6. Eliminating the point-after attempt

I'd rather see something to encourage going for the alternative. Maybe change the 2 point conversion to 2.5 or 3? Combine that with a longer extra point attempt and coaches would have some real decisions to make beyond the clipboard chart.
 
TEXANRED said:
I don't think he was talking about the hits. It's the penalties you get for making the hits.

I hate the defenseless receiver rule. If a receiver goes over the middle and jumps up for a ball you should be able to blow them up to prevent the reception.
Click to expand...

There are still tons of legal hits every week. I see them weekly on the postgame shows of NFLN and ESPN.

You can go to the NFL's website and see "best of" videos that reveal bone-jarring hits. The league is not going to promote the illegal hits, so everything you see is within the rules.

I'd like to see anyone pushing the "pussified" groan tell J.J. Watt that his hits are pussified. Or, better yet, pad up and take one of those legal hits.

I just get tired of the whine. Quit watching if it's not blood sport enough. The league is not going backwards to the 3-downs-and-a-cloud-of-dust past.
 
TD said:
6. Eliminating the point-after attempt

I'd rather see something to encourage going for the alternative. Maybe change the 2 point conversion to 2.5 or 3? Combine that with a longer extra point attempt and coaches would have some real decisions to make beyond the clipboard chart.
Click to expand...
I would like a 3 point PAT. It would have to be a 60 yarder and kicked from the center of the field. Short PAT's would be eligible to be caught and run back. Now you are talking some real excitement.
 
TD said:
6. Eliminating the point-after attempt

I'd rather see something to encourage going for the alternative. Maybe change the 2 point conversion to 2.5 or 3? Combine that with a longer extra point attempt and coaches would have some real decisions to make beyond the clipboard chart.
Click to expand...

Already addressed this in post #9. Bring back the drop kick on PATs. That might make it less automatic.
 
Speedy said:
Already addressed this in post #9. Bring back the drop kick on PATs. That might make it less automatic.
Click to expand...
How about a reduced area for the PAT, ala the arena league?

IMG_1862.JPG
 
Lucky said:
How about a reduced area for the PAT, ala the arena league?

IMG_1862.JPG
Click to expand...

Whether they narrowed it or not, I loved the missed kick goes back into play rule. That would make those long kicks really, really interesting.
 
TD said:
Whether they narrowed it or not, I loved the missed kick goes back into play rule. That would make those long kicks really, really interesting.
Click to expand...

That is the rule for missed field goals. Aaron Glenn once returned one for a TD when with the Jets.
 
Lucky said:
It's TV that keeps that from happening. Let's say that Houston & Dallas are in the same division, and therefore both broadcast by the same network. If I'm in Houston, there's a big chunk of Dallas games that I'll be unable to see on TV. Since there are a good amount of Dallas fans in the Houston area, that would hurt TV ratings. Same goes for the Niners/Raiders in the same division. I think it's fixing something that's not broken.
Click to expand...

Good point. I had not even considered that.
 
Lucky said:
It's TV that keeps that from happening. Let's say that Houston & Dallas are in the same division, and therefore both broadcast by the same network. If I'm in Houston, there's a big chunk of Dallas games that I'll be unable to see on TV. Since there are a good amount of Dallas fans in the Houston area, that would hurt TV ratings. Same goes for the Niners/Raiders in the same division. I think it's fixing something that's not broken.
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing
:D

Seriously though, I think the schedulers would work it out. The Texans' games could be at noon - which most of them were this season - and the Cowboy games could be at 3:00. I think a fair portion of them were this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top