NFL Rule Change Proposals - Page 3

Chiefnj2 · 03-27-2008, 08:07 AM

The following plan to be discussed next week:

1. Playoff Seeding. Each of the four division winners in each conference would earn postseason berths, but only the two division winners in each conference with the best records would get automatic home games. The division winners with the lower two records, plus the two wild-card teams, would compete for seeds three through six based on record.

- I like that.

2. Owners will vote on proposals to eliminate the force-out of a receiver, similar to the college game; it was called 15 times last season. And a force-out would be called only if a defender picked up an offensive player and carried him out of bounds.

- I'd vote to keep it the same.

3. The committee is proposing to include field goals in instant replay review.

- Is this really necessary?

4. Give teams the option of deferring to receive the ball in the second half on the coin toss.

- I don't care.

5. Eliminate the 5-yard minor face mask penalty, covering all facemask violations - twisting, turning or pulling - with a 15-yard penalty.

- I don't like. There are some unintentional non-flagrant face mask grabbing where players let go quickly.

Also there is the "Chiefs Whine Like Babies Rule to be considered":

"The committee wants to create a five- to seven-day dead period before the start of veteran free agency during which certified agents can negotiate but not sign contracts for their clients.

There would be no player visit or contact allowed with prospective new teams. The Kansas City Chiefs, among others, have complained that other teams have had contact with prospective free agents prior to the signing period."

SithCeNtZ · 03-27-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

Now imagine the #6 seed scenario is your beloved Chiefs and how would you feel?

On the other hand, what if your beloved chiefs were the Jags and had to go on the road in round 1 while a team that did worse than you got to host a playoff game?

DenverChief · 03-27-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SithCeNtZ

On the other hand, what if your beloved chiefs were the Jags and had to go on the road in round 1 while a team that did worse than you got to host a playoff game?

That is the whole point of the wildcard system....there has to be incentive to win your division ...why would a team that is going to go to the playoffs anyway and play on the road attempt to win the division? which is the whole "reasoning" behind this rule change...more wins

**morphius** · 03-27-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

I don't see why a 9-7 division winner (of a crappy division) "deserves" a home game over a 11-5 wild card (that got a better record in, most cases, a better division).

The difference in an 11-5 wild card and a 9-6 team division winner could be the difference of having 2 horrible teams instead of 3 solid teams in your division.

**Bugeater** · 03-27-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

Yes.

So how the hell is reviewing it going to help?

SithCeNtZ · 03-27-2008, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

That is the whole point of the wildcard system....there has to be incentive to win your division ...why would a team that is going to go to the playoffs anyway and play on the road attempt to win the division? which is the whole "reasoning" behind this rule change...more wins

Because if you don't win the division you won't make the playoffs? If your team is in such bad shape that by winning the division you have no chance of having a home game then chances are by not winning the division you won't get a a wild card spot.

DenverChief · 03-27-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SithCeNtZ

Because if you don't win the division you won't make the playoffs? If your team is in such bad shape that by winning the division you have no chance of having a home game then chances are by not winning the division you won't get a a wild card spot.

What? so the Jags and the Tits didn't make the playoffs? I see

DenverChief · 03-27-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

The difference in an 11-5 wild card and a 9-6 team division winner could be the difference of having 2 horrible teams instead of 3 solid teams in your division.

Bingo!

**morphius** · 03-27-2008, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoBo

So how the hell is reviewing it going to help?

Just because it was a judgement call, doesn't mean that the judgement should be above scrutiny.

SithCeNtZ · 03-27-2008, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverChief

What? so the Jags and the Tits didn't make the playoffs? I see

If you are a wild card team like the Jags you would then want to win as many games as possible even if you couldn't win the division. In this case, the Jags would have been rewarded with a home game for their efforts. You keep saying in this new scenerio teams wouldn't have incentive to win their division, but why wouldn't they? You still get a higher seed by winning more games. I can't think of a scenerio with this rule change where you would be afforded the opportunity to take off 2 games like the Bucs did at the end of the season and not have it hurt you, which is the point of the rule, to prevent tanking games at the end.

acesn8s · 03-27-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psyko Tek

hell do away with all kickers
no punting, no field goals

make every series a four down situation

And get rid of our best player(Colquitt)?

**Bugeater** · 03-27-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

Just because it was a judgement call, doesn't mean that the judgement should be above scrutiny.

The problem is that you need "indisputable evidence" to overturn a call, you'll never be able to meet that criteria. There's no way it could be overturned.

StcChief · 03-27-2008, 10:27 AM

Conference games should still have weight factor in tie breaker. I like the best records get higher seeds. Not just a division W for home game.

Review FG. Why not put lazer light in goal post to ensure Football doesn't go thru it. Turned light on during attempt.

SithCeNtZ · 03-27-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

The difference in an 11-5 wild card and a 9-6 team division winner could be the difference of having 2 horrible teams instead of 3 solid teams in your division.

On the other hand, your division could just be terrible like the NFC south was last year where no one deserved to host a home game. This rule doesn't cause more injustices in playoff seeding, it just changes how those might occur.

**Lzen** · 03-27-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sedated

I don't see why a 9-7 division winner (of a crappy division) "deserves" a home game over a 11-5 wild card (that got a better record in, most cases, a better division).

I agree with this line of thinking.

Actually, I would prefer this:

Only 2 divisions per conference. 2 division winners get first round byes. 4 wild cards from each conference based on records.

sedated · 03-27-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morphius

The difference in an 11-5 wild card and a 9-6 team division winner could be the difference of having 2 horrible teams instead of 3 solid teams in your division.

But if a 9-7 wins a division, then all the other teams in that division are 8-8 or worse. They played 6 games against below .500 teams.

An 11-5 wild card may have 2 horrible teams at the bottom, but has at least a 12-4 team. And this doesn't guarantee the other teams were "horrible", just worse than 11-5. That may be 4 bad games, but also 2 great games.

(* I know there could be ties, but this is the simplistic way of saying it)

03-27-2008, 08:07 AM
Chiefnj2 In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2007 Casino cash: $7694388	NFL Rule Change Proposals The following plan to be discussed next week: 1. Playoff Seeding. Each of the four division winners in each conference would earn postseason berths, but only the two division winners in each conference with the best records would get automatic home games. The division winners with the lower two records, plus the two wild-card teams, would compete for seeds three through six based on record. - I like that. 2. Owners will vote on proposals to eliminate the force-out of a receiver, similar to the college game; it was called 15 times last season. And a force-out would be called only if a defender picked up an offensive player and carried him out of bounds. - I'd vote to keep it the same. 3. The committee is proposing to include field goals in instant replay review. - Is this really necessary? 4. Give teams the option of deferring to receive the ball in the second half on the coin toss. - I don't care. 5. Eliminate the 5-yard minor face mask penalty, covering all facemask violations - twisting, turning or pulling - with a 15-yard penalty. - I don't like. There are some unintentional non-flagrant face mask grabbing where players let go quickly. Also there is the "Chiefs Whine Like Babies Rule to be considered": "The committee wants to create a five- to seven-day dead period before the start of veteran free agency during which certified agents can negotiate but not sign contracts for their clients. There would be no player visit or contact allowed with prospective new teams. The Kansas City Chiefs, among others, have complained that other teams have had contact with prospective free agents prior to the signing period."
Posts: 22,411

03-27-2008, 10:27 AM	#42
StcChief Playing for #1 Draft Pick Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Just West of Lambs land Casino cash: $10004900	Conference games should still have weight factor in tie breaker. I like the best records get higher seeds. Not just a division W for home game. Review FG. Why not put lazer light in goal post to ensure Football doesn't go thru it. Turned light on during attempt. __________________ sig test for this screwy schema
Posts: 25,901