ESPN Clayton: Owner Meetings Update...

carphalen5150

New Member
Messages
1,064
Reaction score
0
VA Cowboy;1439539 said:
Any coincidence that Pacman and Henry both played at West Virginia?
That state does not have laws.

It also does not have family trees that fork, but that is besides the point.
 

theogt

Surrealist
Messages
45,846
Reaction score
5,912
fanfromvirginia;1439534 said:
Of course, it is "fair" in some important sense. If the coin toss is not rigged, then by definition it's fair. Rather or not it is "just" is another matter.
If you define "fair" as having a game decided by factors other than the players, then yeah, I guess it's fair.

Edit: Nevermind, you're just making some silly argument about the distinction between the words "fair" and "just." Booooooooooring.

I don't want the college system. I don't want to every check the ticker and see that the Colts beat the Patriots 61-58 and Manning and Brady had 14 TDs between them.
Yeah, that's not really desirable either. The double-possession change would be such that if the first possession team scored, the second team would get a possession. If the second doesn't score, game over. If they do score, then it would go to sudden death.
 

VA Cowboy

Benched
Messages
1,858
Reaction score
0
carphalen5150;1439541 said:
That state does not have laws.

It also does not have family trees that fork, but that is besides the point.

Inbreeding could have something to do with it...or being able to legally eat road kill.
 

parchy

Active Member
Messages
2,256
Reaction score
3
It's awesome the Bears are pissed at the Commanders about how they dealt with the Briggs situation.

Commanders suck.
 

fanfromvirginia

Inconceivable!
Messages
4,014
Reaction score
164
theogt;1439544 said:
If you define "fair" as having a game decided by factors other than the players, then yeah, I guess it's fair.

Edit: Nevermind, you're just making some silly argument about the distinction between the words "fair" and "just." Booooooooooring.

Yeah, that's not really desirable either. The double-possession change would be such that if the first possession team scored, the second team would get a possession. If the second doesn't score, game over. If they do score, then it would go to sudden death.
I think the distinction between the terms is at the heart of the matter. The owners are likely to reject this offer in part because the system they have now is in some important sense "fair" and the fixes thus far proposed are overly clunky. They make a bad situation (luck as a significant determinant) worse (clunky, annoying, unnatural football like substance.)
 
Top