Football A solution to the "sitting starters" in Week 16/17? - Page 3

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-06-2010, 03:13 PM

I think the draft pick idea is ridiculous, and could never work.

How can you reward good teams with extra draft picks, and widen the balance between the haves and the have nots?

I heard this proposal by a listener to Sirius NFL Radio:

Schedule all non-conference and non-division games at the beginning of the year, and backload all the division games over the last 6 weeks of the season.

Division titles would likely still be on the line, and teams would have much more to play for at the end of the season.

Thoughts?

**Bugeater** · 01-06-2010, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tooge

You could say if you sit a player with X number of games left this season, then you have to sit the same player with X number of games next year. That should do it.

Well then you just have them fake an injury.

Brock · 01-06-2010, 04:22 PM

It's never been a problem before. This has been going on for decades and nobody gave a shit about it. Let's move on to the next manufactured problem.

wild1 · 01-06-2010, 04:24 PM

Who cares? There is no problem.

**Bugeater** · 01-06-2010, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

It's never been a problem before. This has been going on for decades and nobody gave a shit about it. Let's move on to the next manufactured problem.

I can't help but think that a big part of the outrage this time is rooted in fantasy football, it probably affected a lot of people's seasons. Not that I give a shit, I don't play it, but a lot of people do and many take it very seriously.

Sully · 01-06-2010, 04:32 PM

So what rules can we put in to make sure teams stop taking knees with the game in hand?

The only rule that makes sense to "solve" this "problem" is to reimburse ticket holders a certain pecentage of what they paid depending on if a team doesn't play a predetermined number of starters for a predetermined amount of time. Then again, I think this problem is overblown to bgin with.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 01-06-2010, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugeater

I can't help but think that a big part of the outrage this time is rooted in fantasy football, it probably affected a lot of people's seasons. Not that I give a shit, I don't play it, but a lot of people do and many take it very seriously.

I don't think it has anything to do with FF.

I think the Commish is concerned about the integrity of the game.

Are teams resting starters because they genuinely want to reduce the risk of injury, or are they doing so knowing that a loss will keep a team they don't want to face out of the playoffs?

FTR, I don't give a shit, because it's been forever since we've been in that position.

I'm just posting a possible solution - and for all of those saying it's a non-issue, the NFL disagrees.

**dirk digler** · 01-06-2010, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

Difference being that this season a team forfeited a chance at an undefeated season to rest starters. The stakes are much higher this time around. It'll be hard for the Colts brass to live this one down if they don't win out in the post-season. Be that criticism fair or unfair.

Yep. The Colts are probably now in a more pressure situation than if they were 16-0 right now. But they only have themselves to blame. (the players aren't to blame)

**Bearcat** · 01-06-2010, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding

Okay how about this. This is pretty drastic, but I think it would work to have teams want to win.

-Change each Conference to 8 teams in the playoffs.

-Backload the Schedule w/ Division Games

-Team w/ best Division Record (regardless of W/L record) makes the playoffs.

-Next best 4 records in Conference Make the Playoffs as well

- Best division record among 4 teams with most wins get 1-4 seeds

- Best overall record determines 5-8 seeds

With 8 teams, you're taking away the byes, which is one of the incentives to keep playing.

I think it's overblown, and like Bugeater said, a lot of it has to do with FF as well as gambling. Teams earn the right to do whatever they want/need to do in order to prepare for the playoffs by clinching early. If the season ticket holders don't like it, sell your tickets that week.... and boo-f***ing-hoo, it means you get to watch one of the best teams in the league in the playoffs.

That said, dropping the first round playoff ticket prices in half or having free concessions during the playoffs or something like that would be a good way for teams to keep their fans happy in a situation like that.... but since when is the NFL about the fans?

**Bugeater** · 01-06-2010, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I don't think it has anything to do with FF.

I think the Commish is concerned about the integrity of the game.

Are teams resting starters because they genuinely want to reduce the risk of injury, or are they doing so knowing that a loss will keep a team they don't want to face out of the playoffs?

FTR, I don't give a shit, because it's been forever since we've been in that position.

I'm just posting a possible solution - and for all of those saying it's a non-issue, the NFL disagrees.

My concern lies with why the NFL feels it's an issue, if it's really because of the integrity of the game, then that's fine. As far as the scenario you mentioned, I don't see anything wrong with a team doing something like that if they're in the position to do so. Shit like that happens to teams when they leave their destinies in the hands of other teams.

**Rain Man** · 01-06-2010, 05:02 PM

On Sully's point, I would make the clock stop on a kneeldown. Make it like a spike. I hate kneeldowns.

On the sitting issue, you can never define a rule for it just because you can't always be sure why a player is sitting. Some players are legitimately questionable, and if they aren't, the coach will tell them to have back spasms during warmups. The only way you can address it is via either the schedule or via the playoff seeding system.

Options might include:

- the backweighting of division games, which I like. There's no need to put all of the games at the back.

- possibly having a couple of float games where in weeks 13 through 16 you switch games and have the playoff teams play tougher teams in the last two weeks. That would be difficult or impossible to pull off logistically.

I'm not even sure seeding differently would have an impact, because it's the teams at the very top that are sitting people, and they're sitting people because they've got the seeding under control. You'd have to make a radical change to have an impact. Maybe a BCS-type formula for seeding that dramatically impacts a team if they lose to a weaker team. Instead of wins, maybe you get 1 point for each win your opponent has at the end of the season. That'd be radically cool.

Perhaps the league should simply embrace it as a way to make games competitive against those top teams and groom younger players. Or as JD mentioned, teams should try to get good so their playoff hopes aren't impacted by other teams sitting players.

I would think the players union would be working hardest to fix this. I wonder if guys lose bonus money by not meeting yardage incentives.

SDChiefs · 01-06-2010, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Hey, Jim Caldwell - play Peyton Manning in Week 17 or we'll make you sit him Week 1.

This could do it.

**Rain Man** · 01-06-2010, 05:04 PM

Oh, or you could follow the NBA route. Playoff seedings are by lottery, and you get one ball per win. Maybe with a bonus ball for each win about 11 and two bonus balls for each win above 13.

**Rain Man** · 01-06-2010, 05:06 PM

I actually kind of like the lotto approach. That way, it'd make the fight for the last wild card spot more competitive because if you're in there's a chance you could draw home field.

Maybe you'd expand to eight teams so a wildcard wouldn't get a bye. But that's good marketing too.

SDChiefs · 01-06-2010, 05:06 PM

I say if they are eligible to play in the final 2 weeks and the coach sits them. Then they should be ineligible for the playoffs. Of course injury is a whole nother story.

**Bearcat** · 01-06-2010, 05:09 PM

Some of these ideas are pretty ridiculous..... we all complain when the government wants to interfere with how we choose to live, yet letting the NFL tell teams who to start is okay? It would just cause more problems.

01-06-2010, 03:13 PM
OnTheWarpath15 MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2121115	A solution to the "sitting starters" in Week 16/17? I think the draft pick idea is ridiculous, and could never work. How can you reward good teams with extra draft picks, and widen the balance between the haves and the have nots? I heard this proposal by a listener to Sirius NFL Radio: Schedule all non-conference and non-division games at the beginning of the year, and backload all the division games over the last 6 weeks of the season. Division titles would likely still be on the line, and teams would have much more to play for at the end of the season. Thoughts?
Posts: 60,750

01-06-2010, 04:22 PM	#32
Brock Say hello to my little friend Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Larryville Casino cash: $9598422	It's never been a problem before. This has been going on for decades and nobody gave a shit about it. Let's move on to the next manufactured problem.
Posts: 47,314

01-06-2010, 04:24 PM	#33
wild1 MVP Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: 31040 Casino cash: $10004900	Who cares? There is no problem.
Posts: 6,935

01-06-2010, 04:32 PM	#35
Sully It Goes On Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lees Summit Casino cash: $10026331	So what rules can we put in to make sure teams stop taking knees with the game in hand? The only rule that makes sense to "solve" this "problem" is to reimburse ticket holders a certain pecentage of what they paid depending on if a team doesn't play a predetermined number of starters for a predetermined amount of time. Then again, I think this problem is overblown to bgin with. __________________ "And I don't wish that girl any bad luck," he said, "but I hope she gets hit with a car." - Tommy Lasorda
Posts: 18,295

01-06-2010, 05:02 PM	#40
Rain Man Seize life. Be an ermine. Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $-562449 VARSITY	On Sully's point, I would make the clock stop on a kneeldown. Make it like a spike. I hate kneeldowns. On the sitting issue, you can never define a rule for it just because you can't always be sure why a player is sitting. Some players are legitimately questionable, and if they aren't, the coach will tell them to have back spasms during warmups. The only way you can address it is via either the schedule or via the playoff seeding system. Options might include: - the backweighting of division games, which I like. There's no need to put all of the games at the back. - possibly having a couple of float games where in weeks 13 through 16 you switch games and have the playoff teams play tougher teams in the last two weeks. That would be difficult or impossible to pull off logistically. I'm not even sure seeding differently would have an impact, because it's the teams at the very top that are sitting people, and they're sitting people because they've got the seeding under control. You'd have to make a radical change to have an impact. Maybe a BCS-type formula for seeding that dramatically impacts a team if they lose to a weaker team. Instead of wins, maybe you get 1 point for each win your opponent has at the end of the season. That'd be radically cool. Perhaps the league should simply embrace it as a way to make games competitive against those top teams and groom younger players. Or as JD mentioned, teams should try to get good so their playoff hopes aren't impacted by other teams sitting players. I would think the players union would be working hardest to fix this. I wonder if guys lose bonus money by not meeting yardage incentives. __________________ Active fan of the greatest team in NFL history.
Posts: 145,357

01-06-2010, 05:04 PM	#42
Rain Man Seize life. Be an ermine. Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $-562449 VARSITY	Oh, or you could follow the NBA route. Playoff seedings are by lottery, and you get one ball per win. Maybe with a bonus ball for each win about 11 and two bonus balls for each win above 13. __________________ Active fan of the greatest team in NFL history.
Posts: 145,357

01-06-2010, 05:06 PM	#43
Rain Man Seize life. Be an ermine. Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $-562449 VARSITY	I actually kind of like the lotto approach. That way, it'd make the fight for the last wild card spot more competitive because if you're in there's a chance you could draw home field. Maybe you'd expand to eight teams so a wildcard wouldn't get a bye. But that's good marketing too. __________________ Active fan of the greatest team in NFL history.
Posts: 145,357

01-06-2010, 05:06 PM	#44
SDChiefs Veteran Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Americas Finest City Casino cash: $7990778	I say if they are eligible to play in the final 2 weeks and the coach sits them. Then they should be ineligible for the playoffs. Of course injury is a whole nother story.
Posts: 2,321

01-06-2010, 05:09 PM	#45
Bearcat Would an idiot do that? Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Arizona Casino cash: $-955069	Some of these ideas are pretty ridiculous..... we all complain when the government wants to interfere with how we choose to live, yet letting the NFL tell teams who to start is okay? It would just cause more problems.
Posts: 59,509