New kickoff rule approved

[Flamma]

Money will mostly help what is best for the game... because people who own teams want to make money, and the best way to make money is to put the best product out there possible.

But there's a limit to that. Money will not help what is best for the game as it becomes evident that some people could become egregiously harmed by that pursuit... and thus, the fear of losing money isn't helpful to the game... but the game isn't more important than people's general capacity to live a full and enjoyable life, including football player people.

So all that just to reaffirm... the economic self-interest is a good thing all the way around, in this case.

But it's not limited to injury concerns. Is a 17 game season better for the game? Or better for their pocket? Same goes for 14 playoff teams.

Most people don't care about kickoffs, but if for some odd reason the new kickoff rules cut the stadium attendance down by half, the old kickoffs would be back in a heartbeat.

 

[_sturt_]

Is a 17 game season better for the game?

Make whatever argument you want for a 16 game season or an 18 game season... there is no objective ideal number of games for a season, my friend. Some of us even enjoy the game so much, we'd be more than happy to see further expansion of the season if there was some way to finagle it. But regardless of how many would vote for more or less or the same, the ground level point is, yes, there is an argument for whatever number of games, and practically no one is wrong... by the dictionary definition of "wrong"... to take the position they would take.

The only objective measure would be to conduct methodologically-sound survey studies to see how the football fan slice of the population feels about whatever number, and let the percentages from that dictate. Wouldn't be too dismissive that they've quietly contracted and paid to perform those studies, either. Wealthy people with a lot at stake tend to be willing to pay to gain insight.

Yes, 14 playoff teams, same.

And if you asked it just that way... "do you care about kickoffs"... I'm right there with you... most people would say, "No, I really don't." And for those old enough to remember, some would continue on, "I used to, but why should I anymore... it's the most non-interesting play in the game now." And the salient point stands... making the play interesting or not is pivotal to caring or not.

Your hypothetical, as you yourself suggest, is "odd." It's one play. Making one play interesting again is an improvement over leaving the one play a total bore. Improvement, good. Bore, bad.

 

[Flamma]

Make whatever argument you want for a 16 game season or an 18 game season... there is no objective ideal number of games for a season, my friend. Some of us even enjoy the game so much, we'd be more than happy to see further expansion of the season if there was some way to finagle it. But regardless of how many would vote for more or less or the same, the ground level point is, yes, there is an argument for whatever number of games, and practically no one is wrong... by the dictionary definition of "wrong"... to take the position they would take.

The only objective measure would be to conduct methodologically-sound survey studies to see how the football fan slice of the population feels about whatever number, and let the percentages from that dictate. Wouldn't be too dismissive that they've quietly contracted and paid to perform those studies, either. Wealthy people with a lot at stake tend to be willing to pay to gain insight.

Yes, 14 playoff teams, same.

And if you asked it just that way... "do you care about kickoffs"... I'm right there with you... most people would say, "No, I really don't." And for those old enough to remember, some would continue on, "I used to, but why should I anymore... it's the most non-interesting play in the game now." And the salient point stands... making the play interesting or not is pivotal to caring or not.

Your hypothetical, as you yourself suggest, is "odd." It's one play. Making one play interesting again is an improvement over leaving the one play a total bore. Improvement, good. Bore, bad.

I don't disagree with anything you said. But I think you missed my point slightly. Mainly because I failed to explain it. I'm not trying to say what is right and wrong in regard to the number of regular season games and playoff teams there should be. There are varying opinions. What I'm suggesting is why they are expanding in these areas. They do it for more revenue, what's best for the game didn't get a vote.

My hypothetical was just a what if scenario. Of course an improvement is better than a bore. But why was it a bore? They made it that way. I don't know that correctly your own mistake is an improvement. But yeah, having any kickoff is better than none. If I crap the bed, then put new sheets on it, is it any more improved over what it looked like before I made the mess?

 

[_sturt_]

What I'm suggesting is why they are expanding in these areas. They do it for more revenue, what's best for the game didn't get a vote.

Fair enough.

My point would be... what's best for the game didn't get a vote because what's best for the game is a subjective, moving target in the first place. On that particular dimension, there's no standard by which to make a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt argument for or against 17 games... right?

But why was it a bore? They made it that way. I don't know that correctly your own mistake is an improvement. But yeah, having any kickoff is better than none. If I crap the bed, then put new sheets on it, is it any more improved over what it looked like before I made the mess?

Missing element in the crapped the bed analogy is that you used to be able to lay in the bed in a way that you enjoyed... but it became apparent that there was an asbestos pillow you were laying on, so the solution chosen was to get rid of the pillow, taking a minimalist approach and thinking you still could be satisfied. It was an experiment that didn't turn out so well, and so we found a more invasive approach would be necessary... and so, after some contemplation, one was chosen... new sheets, new non-asbestos pillow... to see if that might get you back to the sweet sleep you enjoyed before... or better, even.

We'll see.

 

[plymkr]

Yeah he’s pretty much guaranteed a roster spot with this new rule.

Is he still under contract or a FA?

 

[BrassCowboy]

https://youtu.be/Fy5hTiEnZCU

It's weird that only 3 teams voted against what I think all should have voted against

 

[Flamma]

My point would be... what's best for the game didn't get a vote because what's best for the game is a subjective, moving target in the first place. On that particular dimension, there's no standard by which to make a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt argument for or against 17 games... right?

You can say it's subjective, but it's always the most possible, and for the most money. If they are concerned with player health, they wouldn't be adding more games.

There's no concrete argument that says 17 games is worse for the game. But there isn't one that says 37 games is bad for the game either. You have to make a decision on when enough is enough. We do it in all aspects of life. All of these leagues will try to cram in as many games as possible. At one point the NHL had 16 out of 21 teams making the playoffs. You can say whether that is good for the game or bad is subjective, but you can't deny that it renders the regular season almost meaningless. That makes it bad for the game.