Green Habit wrote:For the love of all that is holy, NFL, if a PAT can't change the outcome of the game, then it's absolutely pointless to force the winning team to execute an attempt if there's no time left on the clock.
They pushed them back so they'd be more exciting. They are more exciting. The NFL sells entertainment. Thus they should be required
It guess it is entertaining to see all the players, coaches, and media rushing the field in their usual roles knowing the game is over until they get shooed off by just seven officials.
Simple Torture wrote:The Patriots once scored a TD on an untimed down to end a game against the Bills after a controversial pass inference call. The Bills left the field so the Pats ran the XP without the other team out there. The holder handed it off to the kicker for 2.
This is exactly the #1 reason why the PAT shouldn't be required in that scenario, when something super controversial happens. Same thing with the Fail Mary--I was stunned that McCarthy actually sent Packers back out from the locker room after that debacle. Both of those happened with the winning team at home--I'm waiting for the day when the home team is the one that gets screwed and the PAT squad gets pelted with debris on a meaningless play.
Green Habit wrote:For the love of all that is holy, NFL, if a PAT can't change the outcome of the game, then it's absolutely pointless to force the winning team to execute an attempt if there's no time left on the clock.
They pushed them back so they'd be more exciting. They are more exciting. The NFL sells entertainment. Thus they should be required
It guess it is entertaining to see all the players, coaches, and media rushing the field in their usual roles knowing the game is over until they get shooed off by just seven officials.
The smiley didn't show. I meant it as a joke.
I was joking too. I guess I should have added some smilies or superfluous exclamation points of my own!
Green Habit wrote:For the love of all that is holy, NFL, if a PAT can't change the outcome of the game, then it's absolutely pointless to force the winning team to execute an attempt if there's no time left on the clock.
They pushed them back so they'd be more exciting. They are more exciting. The NFL sells entertainment. Thus they should be required
It guess it is entertaining to see all the players, coaches, and media rushing the field in their usual roles knowing the game is over until they get shooed off by just seven officials.
The smiley didn't show. I meant it as a joke.
I was joking too. I guess I should have added some smilies or superfluous exclamation points of my own!
I don't understand why the Holy Roller rule should only apply to 4th down and inside 2 minutes instead of all the time. Packers just got super lucky to get a TD there.
One thing that's particularly annoying about catches in the endzone is how it doesn't really line up with the other rules of the endzone. If the ball touches the pylon or crosses the plane of the goal it's a TD. I mean how many times has a receiver or RB fumbled after he breaks the plane? The play is essentially dead as soon as the ball crosses the goalline. Yet a receiver can catch the ball in the end zone, clearly have possession, then lose it after hits the ground (usually out of bounds) and it's not a TD.
turned2black wrote:One thing that's particularly annoying about catches in the endzone is how it doesn't really line up with the other rules of the endzone. If the ball touches the pylon or crosses the plane of the goal it's a TD. I mean how many times has a receiver or RB fumbled after he breaks the plane? The play is essentially dead as soon as the ball crosses the goalline. Yet a receiver can catch the ball in the end zone, clearly have possession, then lose it after hits the ground (usually out of bounds) and it's not a TD.
turned2black wrote:One thing that's particularly annoying about catches in the endzone is how it doesn't really line up with the other rules of the endzone. If the ball touches the pylon or crosses the plane of the goal it's a TD. I mean how many times has a receiver or RB fumbled after he breaks the plane? The play is essentially dead as soon as the ball crosses the goalline. Yet a receiver can catch the ball in the end zone, clearly have possession, then lose it after hits the ground (usually out of bounds) and it's not a TD.
i think the same thing every time i see a controversial endzone call
And they say that a hero could save us
I'm not gonna stand here and wait
New rule that I demand of bowl games: please always refer to your bowl game with the year that the associated regular season took place in, even if that's different than the actual year the game took place. Otherwise, you get stupid shit like this:
Bammer wrote:I, too, have a new rule for bowl games: You have to be better than 5-7 to qualify and if there aren't enough teams they start cancelling bowl games.
Fuck it. You have to be above .500
I would make it something like this.
You have to have a winning record to make a bowl unless you played at least two Power 5 conference schools in non-conference. If you did then you can be 6-6 and still be bowl eligible.
Bammer wrote:I, too, have a new rule for bowl games: You have to be better than 5-7 to qualify and if there aren't enough teams they start cancelling bowl games.
Fuck it. You have to be above .500
I would make it something like this.
You have to have a winning record to make a bowl unless you played at least two Power 5 conference schools in non-conference. If you did then you can be 6-6 and still be bowl eligible.
I like the general idea, but I'm not a fan of adding more P5/G5 differences. How about just going with strength of schedule?
Bammer wrote:I, too, have a new rule for bowl games: You have to be better than 5-7 to qualify and if there aren't enough teams they start cancelling bowl games.
Fuck it. You have to be above .500
I would make it something like this.
You have to have a winning record to make a bowl unless you played at least two Power 5 conference schools in non-conference. If you did then you can be 6-6 and still be bowl eligible.
I like the general idea, but I'm not a fan of adding more P5/G5 differences. How about just going with strength of schedule?
Strength of schedule could possibly work. It would get be a bit tricky though since non-conference games are scheduled so far in advance. Could penalize mediocre teams who think they scheduled good teams but end up playing other mediocre teams a few years later.
Vacating wins should never be used as a punishment. You can't change history--even if they cheated, the team in question still won. Go ahead and put asterisks, but stop subtracting from total sums.
Green Habit wrote:Vacating wins should never be used as a punishment. You can't change history--even if they cheated, the team in question still won. Go ahead and put asterisks, but stop subtracting from total sums.
A better penalty would be forcing the coaches involved to give back their salaries for that year. What a scumbag. Haith took the Tulsa job four days after receiving the notice of the NCAA investigation.
Green Habit wrote:Vacating wins should never be used as a punishment. You can't change history--even if they cheated, the team in question still won. Go ahead and put asterisks, but stop subtracting from total sums.
Agreed, it's such an empty, meaningless punishment.
The Trojans are still National Champs for 2004 regardless of being stripped of wins. The AP and coaches voted them No. 1. Absent a BCS "winner," they're still champs.
turned2black wrote:The Trojans are still National Champs for 2004 regardless of being stripped of wins. The AP and coaches voted them No. 1. Absent a BCS "winner," they're still champs.
But when the win was stripped, it also completely wiped my memory of where I was and who I was with when watching that game. So the NCAA accomplished its mission.
The smiley didn't show. I meant it as a joke.
