Red Mosquito

So are you guys advocating that they just continue to play? If so, be careful about also criticizing the NFL for the rash of injuries and concussions, and in particular it wanting to add 2 more games to the schedule.

Chris_H_2 wrote:So are you guys advocating that they just continue to play? If so, be careful about also criticizing the NFL for the rash of injuries and concussions, and in particular it wanting to add 2 more games to the schedule.

And Thursday nite games.

Chris_H_2 wrote:So are you guys advocating that they just continue to play? If so, be careful about also criticizing the NFL for the rash of injuries and concussions, and in particular it wanting to add 2 more games to the schedule.

Playing a few more minutes in a rare double OT occurrence is pretty different from playing two more games or on a short week that's guaranteed every season.

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:So are you guys advocating that they just continue to play? If so, be careful about also criticizing the NFL for the rash of injuries and concussions, and in particular it wanting to add 2 more games to the schedule.

Playing a few more minutes in a rare double OT occurrence is pretty different from playing two more games or on a short week that's guaranteed every season.

You can't start making exceptions though, because then it's a slippery slope. Who's to say that playing even more after a team's already played 75 minutes and is completely exhausted isn't more dangerous than a new game after a week of rest? The point is, from a safety perspective, the rule makes sense.

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:So are you guys advocating that they just continue to play? If so, be careful about also criticizing the NFL for the rash of injuries and concussions, and in particular it wanting to add 2 more games to the schedule.

Playing a few more minutes in a rare double OT occurrence is pretty different from playing two more games or on a short week that's guaranteed every season.

You can't start making exceptions though, because then it's a slippery slope. Who's to say that playing even more after a team's already played 75 minutes and is completely exhausted isn't more dangerous than a new game after a week of rest? The point is, from a safety perspective, the rule makes sense.

If that's the angle at play, then why not eliminate overtime altogether? It hasn't been around forever. Why not shorten regulation from 60 minutes to 48? I'm open to hearing arguments on more injuries happening in overtime than regulation, but even if that's true, I think there can be other avenues to pursue than having to resort to ties.

This isn't a stupid rule, just a personal annoyance of mine, but I don't know where else to put this. I just heard that the Phoenix Coyotes changed their name to the Arizona Coyotes. Grrrr. Teams should be named after their metro areas and not entire states. The Cardinals made this same mistake back in the 90s, and I'd much rather see names like the Denver Avalanche or Oakland Warriors.

how about the east rutherford jets/giants?

doug rr wrote:how about the east rutherford jets/giants?

Still part of the New York metro area. But that kind of proves my point, it'd be fairly silly to call them the New Jersey Jets/Giants as well.

Green Habit wrote:This isn't a stupid rule, just a personal annoyance of mine, but I don't know where else to put this. I just heard that the Phoenix Coyotes changed their name to the Arizona Coyotes. Grrrr. Teams should be named after their metro areas and not entire states. The Cardinals made this same mistake back in the 90s, and I'd much rather see names like the Denver Avalanche or Oakland Warriors.

What if the whole state has to contribute to the construction of a new stadium?

Green Habit wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Ties in the NFL. Just do what McNabb assumed and queue up another quarter.

I had to bail on the awesome CAR/CIN game to go to a party. Unfortunately, I guess I didn't miss much. Ties suck.

What they should do is if the first team that touches the ball scores a TD, the game is over - just as it is now. But if they kick a FG, the other team HAS to go for a TD. That way you pretty much eliminate a tie unless neither team scores.

Ties dont bother me. They're so infrequent, and usually are a result of significant failures by both teams, not the success of one. Usually neither team deserves a win.

@SkitchP wrote:Ties dont bother me. They're so infrequent, and usually are a result of significant failures by both teams, not the success of one. Usually neither team deserves a win.

What if a game goes into OT because of a shitty call by a ref that completely screws over a team that otherwise should've won in regulation?

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Ties dont bother me. They're so infrequent, and usually are a result of significant failures by both teams, not the success of one. Usually neither team deserves a win.

What if a game goes into OT because of a shitty call by a ref that completely screws over a team that otherwise should've won in regulation?

Pfft, what if? What if I'm taking a shower and I slip on a bar of soap?

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Ties dont bother me. They're so infrequent, and usually are a result of significant failures by both teams, not the success of one. Usually neither team deserves a win.

What if a game goes into OT because of a shitty call by a ref that completely screws over a team that otherwise should've won in regulation?

Pfft, what if? What if I'm taking a shower and I slip on a bar of soap?

the apartment below you floods?

doug rr wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

@SkitchP wrote:Ties dont bother me. They're so infrequent, and usually are a result of significant failures by both teams, not the success of one. Usually neither team deserves a win.

What if a game goes into OT because of a shitty call by a ref that completely screws over a team that otherwise should've won in regulation?

Pfft, what if? What if I'm taking a shower and I slip on a bar of soap?

the apartment below you floods?

Chud's got the garden apartment Doug.

RussellManiac12 wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Ties in the NFL. Just do what McNabb assumed and queue up another quarter.

I had to bail on the awesome CAR/CIN game to go to a party. Unfortunately, I guess I didn't miss much. Ties suck.

What they should do is if the first team that touches the ball scores a TD, the game is over - just as it is now. But if they kick a FG, the other team HAS to go for a TD. That way you pretty much eliminate a tie unless neither team scores.

For how little ties actually do happen, I don't see a need to change the rules to avoid it.

If I were to change it I would make it closer to college:
Each team gets a possession
No kickoffs- just starts at a designated yard line (35 perhaps)
If one team out scores the other on those possessions, that team wins.
Game ends if a touchdown is scored on a turnover
If still tied, then sudden death for the full length of a quarter.

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Green Habit wrote:This isn't a stupid rule, just a personal annoyance of mine, but I don't know where else to put this. I just heard that the Phoenix Coyotes changed their name to the Arizona Coyotes. Grrrr. Teams should be named after their metro areas and not entire states. The Cardinals made this same mistake back in the 90s, and I'd much rather see names like the Denver Avalanche or Oakland Warriors.

What if the whole state has to contribute to the construction of a new stadium?

This sort of gets to why the Coyotes are no longer from Phoenix. They have played in Glendale/Jobing.com/Gila River Arena for over a decade and Glendale continues to foot a huge portion of the bill for that arena and for the team's existence generally. The city of Glendale was thus not all too thrilled that they were propping up a team called the "Phoenix Coyotes."

The Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals changed their name long before moving to Glendale, but even at that point they were actually playing in Tempe, not Phoenix (I don't know if that had anything to do with the name change, or if it was one of those silly attempts to try to get people in the rest of the state to feel like it was "their" team too). Nonetheless, I doubt Glendale loves that the football stadium within their borders is University of Phoenix Stadium.

mray10 wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Green Habit wrote:This isn't a stupid rule, just a personal annoyance of mine, but I don't know where else to put this. I just heard that the Phoenix Coyotes changed their name to the Arizona Coyotes. Grrrr. Teams should be named after their metro areas and not entire states. The Cardinals made this same mistake back in the 90s, and I'd much rather see names like the Denver Avalanche or Oakland Warriors.

What if the whole state has to contribute to the construction of a new stadium?

This sort of gets to why the Coyotes are no longer from Phoenix. They have played in Glendale/Jobing.com/Gila River Arena for over a decade and Glendale continues to foot a huge portion of the bill for that arena and for the team's existence generally. The city of Glendale was thus not all too thrilled that they were propping up a team called the "Phoenix Coyotes."

The Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals changed their name long before moving to Glendale, but even at that point they were actually playing in Tempe, not Phoenix (I don't know if that had anything to do with the name change, or if it was one of those silly attempts to try to get people in the rest of the state to feel like it was "their" team too). Nonetheless, I doubt Glendale loves that the football stadium within their borders is University of Phoenix Stadium.

Glendale and Tempe are both still in the Phoenix metro area, though. Does this mean we should also have the Arlington Cowboys? Though, Glendale Coyotes would at least be better, kinda like Brooklyn Nets I guess.

But I do think the part of your post I bolded is why they did it, which is why it annoys me.

Green Habit wrote:

mray10 wrote:

Fuck You Jobu wrote:

Green Habit wrote:This isn't a stupid rule, just a personal annoyance of mine, but I don't know where else to put this. I just heard that the Phoenix Coyotes changed their name to the Arizona Coyotes. Grrrr. Teams should be named after their metro areas and not entire states. The Cardinals made this same mistake back in the 90s, and I'd much rather see names like the Denver Avalanche or Oakland Warriors.

What if the whole state has to contribute to the construction of a new stadium?

This sort of gets to why the Coyotes are no longer from Phoenix. They have played in Glendale/Jobing.com/Gila River Arena for over a decade and Glendale continues to foot a huge portion of the bill for that arena and for the team's existence generally. The city of Glendale was thus not all too thrilled that they were propping up a team called the "Phoenix Coyotes."

The Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals changed their name long before moving to Glendale, but even at that point they were actually playing in Tempe, not Phoenix (I don't know if that had anything to do with the name change, or if it was one of those silly attempts to try to get people in the rest of the state to feel like it was "their" team too). Nonetheless, I doubt Glendale loves that the football stadium within their borders is University of Phoenix Stadium.

Glendale and Tempe are both still in the Phoenix metro area, though. Does this mean we should also have the Arlington Cowboys? Though, Glendale Coyotes would at least be better, kinda like Brooklyn Nets I guess.

But I do think the part of your post I bolded is why they did it, which is why it annoys me.

Of course they are, but since Glendale is footing the bill for the hockey team I think they are rather more sensitive about it. Yet another good reason not to build you stadium out in the suburbs.

As for the Cardinals, I did some searching to see if I could find a reason, but the most I found was that some surveys showed that fans preferred "Arizona" to "Phoenix." But no more elaboration. Were those fans in Flagstaff? Mesa? Who knows.

For me, it doesn't much bother me if a team takes the name of its state, so long as it is the only team in that state or region. Texas Rangers, though? Annoys me. California Angels I never liked and Golden State Warriors sounds sort of cool but is pretty stupid if you think about it for a moment. There are other offenders out there as well, of course.

I'm hearing a lot of people rage about the DH (or lack thereof) from this Adam Wainwright injury. Max Scherzer had an interesting perception:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/writer/jon ... th-leagues

Personally, I like the DH but that's only because I root for an AL team that has one of the most awesome DHs. But I don't really like to make a strong point about it, though--especially when so many other people do like to make strong points.