PDA

View Full Version : NFL mulls season-ending divisional games so teams will use starters



Denver Native (Carol)
03-24-2010, 07:32 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8171ff2f&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

ORLANDO, Fla. -- In an effort to have teams use their top players through the final games of the season, the NFL is considering making the last week -- and possibly weeks -- consist of all divisional matchups.

"Potentially, Week 17 will all be divisional games," commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday during his closing remarks at the NFL Annual Meeting. "That will address this to some extent. It will not necessarily eliminate the issue."

Goodell said the league actually is considering pairing division rivals in the final two weeks of the season. Last season, just 11 of the 32 games played in the last two weeks were divisional matchups.

While teams that clinch playoff berths routinely rest key players late in the season, an uproar of sorts erupted last season when the unbeaten Indianapolis Colts sat many starters in the second half of a Week 16 game that they eventually lost to the New York Jets.

The rationale for sitting players is to minimize injury risks and have key starters as healthy as possible for postseason play. But by scheduling teams against division opponents in the final week (or weeks), it could force teams to use those key starters because a division title -- and a playoff berth -- might hang in the balance.

dogfish
03-24-2010, 07:44 PM
and maybe when they're done with that, they can shorten the field to 80 yards, go to five downs instead of four, and allow the offense to start 12 players-- because goodell hasn't pissed on his new territory enough to feel comfortable with it yet. . . .



actually, i have no problem with trying to schedule more divisional games late in the season. . . the idea of trying to force teams to play their starters when there's nothing on the line enrages me, though. . . people think mcD has a big ego? check out the assclown commissioner! this guy won't be happy until he gets to run every team himself, and re-write the rule book so completely that no one even recognizes the game any more. . .

indy's decision-- which IMO was absolutely the correct one-- has raised the most pathetic outburst of sniveling that i've ever heard in my entire life. . . .

Denver Native (Carol)
03-24-2010, 07:48 PM
and maybe when they're done with that, they can shorten the field to 80 yards, go to five downs instead of four, and allow the offense to start 12 players-- because goodell hasn't pissed on his new territory enough to feel comfortable with it yet. . . .



actually, i have no problem with trying to schedule more divisional games late in the season. . . the idea of trying to force teams to play their starters when there's nothing on the line enrages me, though. . . people think mcD has a big ego? check out the assclown commissioner! this guy won't be happy until he gets to run every team himself, and re-write the rule book so completely that no one even recognizes the game any more. . .

indy's decision-- which IMO was absolutely the correct one-- has raised the most pathetic outburst of sniveling that i've ever heard in my entire life. . . .

I thought about them scheduling more divisional games late in the season, but then I thought about Detroit in 2008 - what would possibly be gained in a situation like that scheduling them against the team in 1st place in the division?????

Tned
03-24-2010, 07:49 PM
How does that help, unless the two teams have something to play for?

I don't get this. If playing each other would result in playing the starters, then in most cases (unless someone wins or loses an early game, and makes the late game irrelevant), the two teams will have relevant games even if they aren't playing each other.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-24-2010, 07:53 PM
How does that help, unless the two teams have something to play for?

I don't get this. If playing each other would result in playing the starters, then in most cases (unless someone wins or loses an early game, and makes the late game irrelevant), the two teams will have relevant games even if they aren't playing each other.


:whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows::whoknows:

dogfish
03-24-2010, 07:56 PM
from previous comments i've read, my understanding is that the league and/or the dipshit in charge believe that teams will be more reluctant to lay down against their divisional rivals. . . .

and re-reading that snippet, they apparently also believe that saving divisional games for late in the season will keep those divisions contested longer, thus keeping more late season games meaningful. . . the thought provcess here would be that those divisional wins can be important tie-breakers even if you're playing a team that's out of it. . .

in the end, it won't do much to help. . . the cream will still rise to the top, and good teams that play in weak divisions will continue to wrap them up well before the last week of the season. . .

goodtool may just as well issue an edict that everyone must play their starters-- and have fun trying to enforce it. . . jackass!

Tned
03-24-2010, 07:58 PM
from previous comments i've read, my understanding is that the league and/or the dipshit in charge believe that teams will be more reluctant to lay down against their divisional rivals. . . .

That's crazy. If there's nothing on the line, there's nothing on the line.

TXBRONC
03-24-2010, 07:59 PM
This sounds worthless. Good grief a team preparing for the playoffs should have right rest players get ready for the playoffs.

Denver Native (Carol)
03-24-2010, 08:04 PM
goodtool may just as well issue an edict that everyone must play their starters-- and have fun trying to enforce it. . . jackass!

every starter would be listed on the injury report :lol:

Lancane
03-24-2010, 09:11 PM
Next thing you know Goodell will implement something similar to the BCS system; top two teams in the division play for a third time declaring a divisional champion. Those champions will be the so-called playoff teams, but only one team from each division can go to the playoffs, each week they play till only one team of both league divisions is left standing then play in the Super Bowl.

Or even worse they add more season games and only the four teams with the best overall records will play the championships and yadda, yadda. He really is a dipstick by all defenitions of the term, and since he has taken over the league has become a weaker version of itself...look the the Super Bowl halftime shows...has any one of them recently had a band that should not be retired playing?

A damn shame. :shocked:

Poet
03-24-2010, 09:16 PM
This is stupid. Teams that are competitive and have a real shot at winning it all should have the right to sit starters if they want. Doing anything to stop them from that is retarded.

I'll find it especially funny when teams like the Colts find themselves in similiar situations like they have in years past and go "Oh damn, we're going to sit our players, but now it's against the Jags or the Texans or the Titans....damn."

It's a simple reality that certain teams feel that resting their players is a better strategy than playing their starters in games that they find meaningless. It's their right, regardless of how effective it turns out to be. It's part of coaching for the big picture.

If anything it's detrimental for fans. If they like to see their team play against divisional rivals but their teams have the Indy mentality they're going to be paying to watch a lot of divisional games that could very well mean nothing.

BroncoWave
03-24-2010, 09:34 PM
I am shocked at the disagreement with this change. I think it's an absolutely fantastic idea. I find it funny, though, how so many people bitch about teams resting their starters then bitch when Goodell tries to fix it. If the NFL can make it where fewer teams can lay down and rest their starters at the end of the season, I am all for it. Deserving teams miss the playoffs almost every year because of teams sneaking in because they beat the Curtis Painter-led Colts or something similar. I couldn't be more for this change. I really fail to see the bad in making the games at the end of the season actually matter. My only problem is that it's not changed enough. I think your last 2 or even 3 games should have to be against division opponents.

Lancane
03-24-2010, 10:03 PM
I am shocked at the disagreement with this change. I think it's an absolutely fantastic idea. I find it funny, though, how so many people bitch about teams resting their starters then bitch when Goodell tries to fix it. If the NFL can make it where fewer teams can lay down and rest their starters at the end of the season, I am all for it. Deserving teams miss the playoffs almost every year because of teams sneaking in because they beat the Curtis Painter-led Colts or something similar. I couldn't be more for this change. I really fail to see the bad in making the games at the end of the season actually matter. My only problem is that it's not changed enough. I think your last 2 or even 3 games should have to be against division opponents.

Okay, let's just say that one team with a 12-2 record, whose already clinched the division has to face teams that are above .500 and pretty good defensively and offensively. While another team with a similar record has to face two teams that are sub-par or below the benchmark. The one facing the softer schedule wins the final games outright and remains healthy, while the team with the harder schedule is forced to play starters and come the end lose one or both games, but they end up losing three or four starters for the year... So the big issue is that their is an unbalance, some teams will go into the playoffs banged up and unhealthy whilst others are not affected, it will tip the balance for some teams. It could cause for the playoffs to favor the teams with a weaker schedule, come the Super Bowl you could see a team that was a wild card the favorite because the team with a better record is beat to hell.

BroncoBJ
03-24-2010, 10:05 PM
I like the idea of playing divisional games late. Although it seems like the past few years ( Besides last year) .. We played San Diego really late in the season in San Diego. :fight: But I think it'd be interesting to see all the key matchups late in the season. I'm shocked Goodell doesn't just make the schedule flexible. Have no set schedule in the month of December and then rearrange it the way he wants according to the standings. :lol:

And as for resting your starters. I think every time a player rests they should be fined and suspended for the playoffs and the 1st 6 games of the next season. :salute: Just my opinion.

Lancane
03-24-2010, 10:17 PM
I like the idea of playing divisional games late. Although it seems like the past few years ( Besides last year) .. We played San Diego really late in the season in San Diego. :fight: But I think it'd be interesting to see all the key matchups late in the season. I'm shocked Goodell doesn't just make the schedule flexible. Have no set schedule in the month of December and then rearrange it the way he wants according to the standings. :lol:

And as for resting your starters. I think every time a player rests they should be fined and suspended for the playoffs and the 1st 6 games of the next season. :salute: Just my opinion.

Of course you would...you damned thug...lol. I'm sure you would also like to see the league pronounce that brass knuckles are now mandatory equipment for linebackers, offensive lineman, defensive lineman and safeties.

:lol:

OrangeHoof
03-24-2010, 10:18 PM
I hate almost every proposal Goodell makes but this one is okay by me. Even if it doesn't always force a team to play their starters, it should make for some truly classic final-week ballgames making some practically playoff elimination games. It beats having the SNF crew manufacture artificial drama between the Bengals and Jets.

bcbronc
03-24-2010, 10:53 PM
from previous comments i've read, my understanding is that the league and/or the dipshit in charge believe that teams will be more reluctant to lay down against their divisional rivals. . . .

and re-reading that snippet, they apparently also believe that saving divisional games for late in the season will keep those divisions contested longer, thus keeping more late season games meaningful. . . the thought provcess here would be that those divisional wins can be important tie-breakers even if you're playing a team that's out of it. . .

in the end, it won't do much to help. . . the cream will still rise to the top, and good teams that play in weak divisions will continue to wrap them up well before the last week of the season. . .

goodtool may just as well issue an edict that everyone must play their starters-- and have fun trying to enforce it. . . jackass!

gotta think big picture dog; it ****s fantasy leagues up having starters sit WK 17. :beer:


Next thing you know Goodell will implement something similar to the BCS system; top two teams in the division play for a third time declaring a divisional champion. Those champions will be the so-called playoff teams, but only one team from each division can go to the playoffs, each week they play till only one team of both league divisions is left standing then play in the Super Bowl.

Or even worse they add more season games and only the four teams with the best overall records will play the championships and yadda, yadda. He really is a dipstick by all defenitions of the term, and since he has taken over the league has become a weaker version of itself...look the the Super Bowl halftime shows...has any one of them recently had a band that should not be retired playing?

A damn shame. :shocked:

you got all that from making WK 17 be vs a division rival? that's cute. :coffee:


Okay, let's just say that one team with a 12-2 record, whose already clinched the division has to face teams that are above .500 and pretty good defensively and offensively. While another team with a similar record has to face two teams that are sub-par or below the benchmark. The one facing the softer schedule wins the final games outright and remains healthy, while the team with the harder schedule is forced to play starters and come the end lose one or both games, but they end up losing three or four starters for the year... So the big issue is that their is an unbalance, some teams will go into the playoffs banged up and unhealthy whilst others are not affected, it will tip the balance for some teams. It could cause for the playoffs to favor the teams with a weaker schedule, come the Super Bowl you could see a team that was a wild card the favorite because the team with a better record is beat to hell.

again, how is this caused by playing vs a division rival in the last week?


I like the idea. I don't know if it will make much difference as fas as keeping starters in, but it will mean most seasons will see at least one division crown decided on the final Sunday. I like the move just for the added drama, and would like to see the last two weeks of the season be "rival weekends".

I'd even go as far as the last three--play each div once down the stretch--but that might be stretching it a bit.

the only way I see it doing anything to keep starters in is in a case where the winner takes the division and the 4th seed, the loser doesn't make the playoffs. say Den beats SD in WK 2 & 6 and goes into WK 17 with the division and locked into 4th seed. But the records are such that the WK 6 match is the decider--if SD would have won, they would have won the division. So that game now takes place in WK 17, instead of Den. having nothing to play for, they now have to win to make the playoffs.

Doubt it would be the situation very often, so it won't do much to keep starters in, but teams not making the playoffs always love to play spoiler against their division rivals so the intensity will be a lot higher than simply teams playing out the schedule.

frauschieze
03-24-2010, 10:54 PM
I still don't understand why anyone bitches about a team resting their starters before the playoffs. :confused:

Northman
03-24-2010, 11:14 PM
Now this, makes sense. Im all for making teams play the entire year.

frauschieze
03-24-2010, 11:14 PM
Now this, makes sense. Im all for making teams play the entire year.

Why?

I honestly do not understand.

e-Lou-sive1
03-24-2010, 11:17 PM
I like the ideas Goodell is coming up with since previous commissioners rarely liked changes and teams became wise to using games like this to their advantage.Season ticket holders who were expecting a good final game were treated to a preseason game at regular season prices.

We sat players and we were a long shot from qualifying a playoff spot yet It wasn't a game Bronco fans were thrilled about with a few starters watching from the bench.

Maybe divisional match ups won't put the best teams against each other but the possibilities are better that it might.Kansas City was a divisional game for us and they beat us erasing any chances that we might squeak in as a wild card.

I think Goodell is looking at the game from the fans perspective and he would like the season ticket holder to get their moneys worth. Teams owe it to their fans to play with their best players and if they are injured they need to be held accountable and disclose each injury.

Northman
03-24-2010, 11:17 PM
How does that help, unless the two teams have something to play for?

I don't get this. If playing each other would result in playing the starters, then in most cases (unless someone wins or loses an early game, and makes the late game irrelevant), the two teams will have relevant games even if they aren't playing each other.


Denver had plenty to play for and KC and Oakland beat them. Most division games are competitive no matter if its Den/KC or DET/CHI.

dogfish
03-24-2010, 11:24 PM
gotta think big picture dog; it ****s fantasy leagues up having starters sit WK 17. :beer:


lolz. . . even friggin' twelve-year-olds are bright enough to just have their championship in week 16. . . solved! i'm probably about as avid a FF player as you'll find, but i despise the thought of forcing teams that have a playoff spot wrapped up to play their starters if the coach doesn't think it's the best approach for the team. . . football's a brutal game, and for all the "safety-first" bullshit image they try to propogate, not allowing teams to rest guys who have played big minutes and taken a pounding kinda seems to fly in the face of that image, doesn't it?

you EARN the right to rest your starters by winning games, that's how it has been and how it should stay. . . as far as i'm concerned it's an economic issue vs. an integrity of the game issue-- they're afraid of ticket sales being impacted for underachiever teams late in the season, particularly in a down economy where supporting the home team or just enjoying a game becomes much more of a luxury for the average joe. . .

and if they do force the issue, it might bite them in the ass if one of their media darling QBs gets his knee shredded in an effectively meaningless week 17 game that he would have otherwise sat out, and his 16-0 team gets run out of the playoffs. . .


i do agree with you that this isn't going to do much in terms of keeping more starters on the field-- maybe in a game or two every year, probably not much more. . .

and as i said before, i have zero problem with scheduling more division games the last few weeks-- as far as it goes that idea is just fine. . .



I still don't understand why anyone bitches about a team resting their starters before the playoffs. :confused:

because they're a bunch of sorry, sandy vaginas?


yea, i'm almost positive that's the reason. . .

Northman
03-24-2010, 11:33 PM
Why?

I honestly do not understand.

Because its football.

Poet
03-25-2010, 12:24 AM
The entire season is built around winning a Super Bowl. Well, at least if you're a competitive franchise.

Personally speaking, I don't like it when Cincinnati backs into the playoffs. But, they and every other team should be able to do that if they want.

It's going to hurt the fans. If Denver is comfortably sitting with a seed they like playing against the Raiders, Chiefs or Chargers isn't going to sway any coach from not resting their players if that's what they think they SHOULD do. And when that happens and you basically squandered a divisional game the fans are really going to feel it.

OR, so what if it does work? Trust me, you'd be pretty damn pissed if one of your key players gets hurt in a meaningless game and isn't ready for the playoffs.

It's a completely retarded idea.

Northman
03-25-2010, 12:56 AM
The entire season is built around winning a Super Bowl. Well, at least if you're a competitive franchise.

Personally speaking, I don't like it when Cincinnati backs into the playoffs. But, they and every other team should be able to do that if they want.

It's going to hurt the fans. If Denver is comfortably sitting with a seed they like playing against the Raiders, Chiefs or Chargers isn't going to sway any coach from not resting their players if that's what they think they SHOULD do. And when that happens and you basically squandered a divisional game the fans are really going to feel it.

OR, so what if it does work? Trust me, you'd be pretty damn pissed if one of your key players gets hurt in a meaningless game and isn't ready for the playoffs.

It's a completely retarded idea.


Key players can get hurt at anytime, its football. Grow a pair already and stuff it in Dog's sandy vagina. :D

BroncoWave
03-25-2010, 12:58 AM
The entire season is built around winning a Super Bowl. Well, at least if you're a competitive franchise.

Personally speaking, I don't like it when Cincinnati backs into the playoffs. But, they and every other team should be able to do that if they want.

It's going to hurt the fans. If Denver is comfortably sitting with a seed they like playing against the Raiders, Chiefs or Chargers isn't going to sway any coach from not resting their players if that's what they think they SHOULD do. And when that happens and you basically squandered a divisional game the fans are really going to feel it.

OR, so what if it does work? Trust me, you'd be pretty damn pissed if one of your key players gets hurt in a meaningless game and isn't ready for the playoffs.

It's a completely retarded idea.

This premise is completely ridiculous. You say we'd be pretty damn pissed if one of our starters got hurt in a meaningless game. If it's a meaningless game, we are probably resting our starters, divisional game or not. If we still haven't wrapped up the division or playoffs, then those last 2 games aren't meaningless and your premise is invalid.

You realize that teams play divisional games in week 17 EVERY SINGLE YEAR? So instead of just 3 or 4 of the games being divisional games, all of them will be. I haven't read a single convincing reason as to why that is a bad thing.

CrazyHorse
03-25-2010, 03:00 AM
I still don't understand why anyone bitches about a team resting their starters before the playoffs. :confused:

The argument is that fans that pay the same amount may not see the same quality of a game.

If they want action this is the way the season should be schedule. This would make damn sure every game is important. It would also be VERY easy to schedule. It would also be very climactic towards the end of the season.

In Order
Outter Conference Opponents(1 Division)
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4

Inner Conference Opponents(again 1 division with possible playoff implications here)
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8 (possibly also Same division rank)

Conference Opponents Same Divisional Rank(playoff implications among elite teams)
Week 9
Week 10

Divisional Rivals (huge playoff implications)
Week 11
Week 12
Week 13
Week 14
Week 15
Week 16
I contemplate moving half the divisional games to the beginning of the the season to separate them and also for openers.

Mike
03-25-2010, 07:59 AM
I think it is a reasonable decision and don't see the big deal. :whoknows:

Dirk
03-25-2010, 08:36 AM
I have no problem with it.

I think the league should do more. People pay to see the "starters" not the backups.

Ticket holders, DirecTV NFL purchasers etc. pay to watch "starters" not "backups".

What the league should do is fine the team for sitting starters and fine the starters for sitting. Take money from them like they take from the fans.

I agree with North....it's football. Play the damn game.

Broncolingus
03-25-2010, 08:51 AM
...i have no problem with trying to schedule more divisional games late in the season. . .(but) the idea of trying to force teams to play their starters when there's nothing on the line enrages me, though...

Excellent points...

100% agree, Dog...

frauschieze
03-25-2010, 08:51 AM
Fans who whine about not getting their money's worth if their team is already locked into the playoffs and is resting their starters for the playoffs ought to suck on nuts. People who care more about their personal enjoyment of one game than their team being best prepared to try to win the Lombardi are greedy asses. I'd rather watch two or three good games in January than one good game in December.

For those who say shut up and play the game, football is about strategy, is it not? Ultimate goal is not how many yards, how many touchdowns, how many points, but to be the ones hoisting the trophy at the end of the season. Don't be so short sighted.

claymore
03-25-2010, 09:00 AM
Fans who whine about not getting their money's worth if their team is already locked into the playoffs and is resting their starters for the playoffs ought to suck on nuts. People who care more about their personal enjoyment of one game than their team being best prepared to try to win the Lombardi are greedy asses. I'd rather watch two or three good games in January than one good game in December.

For those who say shut up and play the game, football is about strategy, is it not? Ultimate goal is not how many yards, how many touchdowns, how many points, but to be the ones hoisting the trophy at the end of the season. Don't be so short sighted.

This is a terrible analogy, and an UBER hypothetical situation... But I would be pissed if I bought tickets for a Jan home raider game, and had to suffer watching Quinn and Jabar Gaffney.

I do understand that I may have to watch them at a September game as well so.... :vomit:

Yeah, youre right... people with good teams have nothing to complain about.

Dirk
03-25-2010, 09:01 AM
It's not being short sided. And no I don't think people opposed should "suck nuts".

It isn't about self gratification. It's about getting your money's worth. Sorry, but that is why we spend our money. To get our money's worth.

I guess you would spend $20 for fine chocolates and be ok if part of the box is stale. Just so long as you get one last piece that isn't stale.

Just because some of us believe that the teams should play the season doesn't mean we don't want the ultimate prize.

frauschieze
03-25-2010, 09:08 AM
It means you put your own personal gratification over the best interests (in the eyes of the head coach) of the team. There is no debating that.

Try to make a comparable analogy. Chocolate is a one time consumption item whose performance has no bearing on the future actions of that box of chocolate.

If you want "your money's worth" then don't buy ever buy tickets to the last game of the season. If you have season tickets, you've got no gripe. If the team is in the position to sit their starters the last game, it's been a TERRIFIC season, full of wins and celebrations. You are looking at a game in a vacuum, which is not what the NFL sells. It sells seasons, not individual games.

Lonestar
03-25-2010, 09:10 AM
I like it.

If the team still wants to sit players let them but chances are they are going to think twice about it EVEN IF they may have a lead in their division the other three in the conference are most likely still up for grabs.

Makes HC think about it and that is not bad.

For that matter I'd schedule all games for the same time.
Just to keep it competitive till the final gun, for all teams.

Most of the years I had season tickets we were just spoilers trying to knock off Oak, SAN or KC to keep them out of the playoffs.


Sent from my BlackBerry Smartphone provided by Alltel

GEM
03-25-2010, 09:25 AM
Tell one of the Indy fans who paid $400/ticket for the last game of the year that this isn't fair to them. These football teams are more than just enjoyment. They are a product to earn their owners and the league money. Soon enough the only ones showing up for Indy's final game will be the season ticket holder. Who wants to take their kid to a game where 3rd stringers are playing? They pay to see the stars play.

CoachChaz
03-25-2010, 09:47 AM
Why do people go to games anyway? $400 to stand next to some drunk fatass that isnt wearing a shirt and is screaming obnoxiously, while paying $10 for a beer and a hot dog.

You could put an NFL all-star team out there and I wouldnt pay $400 for that. In fact...anyone that pays that much to watch a sporting event anywhere should have their head examined.

GEM
03-25-2010, 09:51 AM
Why do people go to games anyway? $400 to stand next to some drunk fatass that isnt wearing a shirt and is screaming obnoxiously, while paying $10 for a beer and a hot dog.

You could put an NFL all-star team out there and I wouldnt pay $400 for that. In fact...anyone that pays that much to watch a sporting event anywhere should have their head examined.

Yet, it happens in 16 cities across the nation 17 weeks out of a year. Double, triple and even quadruple that for playoffs and SB.

CoachChaz
03-25-2010, 09:58 AM
Yet, it happens in 16 cities across the nation 17 weeks out of a year. Double, triple and even quadruple that for playoffs and SB.

I know...and it still astonishes me. For the price of a ticket and concessions at an NFL game, I should at least get a happy ending on my way out.

Til then, I'm happy with the 52 inch tv, recliner, cold 12 pack and a hot pizza.

GEM
03-25-2010, 10:01 AM
I know...and it still astonishes me. For the price of a ticket and concessions at an NFL game, I should at least get a happy ending on my way out.

Til then, I'm happy with the 52 inch tv, recliner, cold 12 pack and a hot pizza.

It would be great if people drove the prices back down by not showing up. That isn't going to happen though, unfortunately. It sucks living in Denver and not being able to catch a live game once a year because the cost of tickets. And then we wonder why Invesco has turned into The Cheese and Wine Field. I don't even bother calling it Mile High anymore. It doesn't even compare.

CoachChaz
03-25-2010, 10:19 AM
It would be great if people drove the prices back down by not showing up. That isn't going to happen though, unfortunately. It sucks living in Denver and not being able to catch a live game once a year because the cost of tickets. And then we wonder why Invesco has turned into The Cheese and Wine Field. I don't even bother calling it Mile High anymore. It doesn't even compare.

Try going to a Cowboys game. Not that I ever would, but anywhere you want to park, within 2 miles of the stadium, costs a minimum of $50. I could go to a Rangers baseball game and pay $20 for very good parking. If I parked in that same spot for a Cowboys game, it would cost me $75 and I'd still have a decent walk ahead of me. The local Wal-Mart even got in on the action and started having cars towed that were sitting there too long because they knew they were game-goers. The towing companies were giving the manager $25 for every car.

So after all that, you still walk a mile to get to the stadium, pay $200 for bad seats or $100 to stand in what is essentially a mosh-pit and then end up watching the game on a very large TV anyway. Screw all that

dogfish
03-25-2010, 10:31 AM
Fans who whine about not getting their money's worth if their team is already locked into the playoffs and is resting their starters for the playoffs ought to suck on nuts. People who care more about their personal enjoyment of one game than their team being best prepared to try to win the Lombardi are greedy asses. I'd rather watch two or three good games in January than one good game in December.

For those who say shut up and play the game, football is about strategy, is it not? Ultimate goal is not how many yards, how many touchdowns, how many points, but to be the ones hoisting the trophy at the end of the season. Don't be so short sighted.

marry me?

frauschieze
03-25-2010, 10:40 AM
marry me?

:lol:

Okay.

T.K.O.
03-25-2010, 10:47 AM
i like the idea of late div games (although it did'nt work out so well last year)
i think it gives a team a fighting chance to finish strong and make up lost ground if they stumble early .
if the broncos are truly trying to build a team that finishes strong....it could work to our advantage.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 11:48 AM
We'll see if those in agreement with the rule are singing the same damn tune at which and when it effects the team. When they are in December ahead of the rest of the division forced to play and because of such either lose the division title because of injuries or worse...maybe homefield advantage and so on, let alone head into the playoffs banged up and more likely to lose. I would rather lose one game because starters needed rest then to see them decimated and lose not only one game but maybe more including a playoff game...just so some irrational fans got their money's worth!

Some of you act like this is the G'damned 70's, when players were truly as tough as nails, but the NFL like all pro sports is a billion dollar industry which is as some say a 'vagina-whipped' version of it's former self, and the same holds true for the MLB and NHL. Hockey became more and more famous for the fights on the ice rather then by simply being a good sport. Hockey is more famous now in America, but it was the fighting that first made it begin to get popular...same with the NFL, it was the gladitorial mindset of tough nosed, smashmouth and bloody football that made the game what it would become. But as it grew and grew, it in whole began to fiscally become more important to protect it's 'Cash Cows' so that fans continued to want to watch. I understand that fans want to go in late December to see their team and paid good money to do so...but at the cost that they may lose more? Isn't that a bit selfish?

Let's not forget that those final games are played against rivals...what happens when an Oakland player who will not see the playoffs and sees us or maybe San Diego going and they are not and then that player decides a $50,000 dollar fine is no big deal if he takes out a key player on the rival's roster?

underrated29
03-25-2010, 12:07 PM
eh its fine. It makes sense. It probably wont change much anyhow.....


But for those that think its wrong or whatever to sit you starters after you have locked up the playoffs.... You are fooolish!!


And if you say yes its dumb to sit starters, then I better not ever find out that you were also bitching that TD was in on a kickoff when he got hurt. Or mike anderson, or champ bailey this year..... Because under your philosophy you play your best players, your starters, you play to win..



The idea is fine, but forcing teams to sit their players IMO will never go through. As it is a horribly stupid idea.



And yes, I am one of those people who would gladly watch Kyle ORton and Knowhson sit the game while Quinn, arrington, mckinley, gaffney, and the other guys get some PT. Its not as bad as preseason, but i watch every preseason game.... And I love it!!! People still pay full price for those too. Curious as to why there would be complaints when your team has a chance in the playoffs, but preseason its ok.

frauschieze
03-25-2010, 12:08 PM
I don't mind the idea of late season divisional games (although Lancane brings up a valid concern about players who may have less scruples than desireable). I only have a problem with the attempts to force a team to play their starters. It's the administration dictating game plans. I wouldn't want them calling plays either.

Northman
03-25-2010, 12:32 PM
We'll see if those in agreement with the rule are singing the same damn tune at which and when it effects the team. When they are in December ahead of the rest of the division forced to play and because of such either lose the division title because of injuries or worse...maybe homefield advantage and so on, let alone head into the playoffs banged up and more likely to lose. I would rather lose one game because starters needed rest then to see them decimated and lose not only one game but maybe more including a playoff game...just so some irrational fans got their money's worth!

Some of you act like this is the G'damned 70's, when players were truly as tough as nails, but the NFL like all pro sports is a billion dollar industry which is as some say a 'vagina-whipped' version of it's former self, and the same holds true for the MLB and NHL. Hockey became more and more famous for the fights on the ice rather then by simply being a good sport. Hockey is more famous now in America, but it was the fighting that first made it begin to get popular...same with the NFL, it was the gladitorial mindset of tough nosed, smashmouth and bloody football that made the game what it would become. But as it grew and grew, it in whole began to fiscally become more important to protect it's 'Cash Cows' so that fans continued to want to watch. I understand that fans want to go in late December to see their team and paid good money to do so...but at the cost that they may lose more? Isn't that a bit selfish?

Let's not forget that those final games are played against rivals...what happens when an Oakland player who will not see the playoffs and sees us or maybe San Diego going and they are not and then that player decides a $50,000 dollar fine is no big deal if he takes out a key player on the rival's roster?

Welcome to the world of football. Shit happens anyway dude. Get over it.

Northman
03-25-2010, 12:33 PM
eh its fine. It makes sense. It probably wont change much anyhow.....


But for those that think its wrong or whatever to sit you starters after you have locked up the playoffs.... You are fooolish!!


And if you say yes its dumb to sit starters, then I better not ever find out that you were also bitching that TD was in on a kickoff when he got hurt. Or mike anderson, or champ bailey this year..... Because under your philosophy you play your best players, your starters, you play to win..



The idea is fine, but forcing teams to sit their players IMO will never go through. As it is a horribly stupid idea.



And yes, I am one of those people who would gladly watch Kyle ORton and Knowhson sit the game while Quinn, arrington, mckinley, gaffney, and the other guys get some PT. Its not as bad as preseason, but i watch every preseason game.... And I love it!!! People still pay full price for those too. Curious as to why there would be complaints when your team has a chance in the playoffs, but preseason its ok.

Because its football. I cant stress that enough. This generation of fan has become so pussified that they are actually scared to have players play. :lol:

Nomad
03-25-2010, 12:35 PM
I agree with this guy! These guys jobs are to play football! And as long as there is a game the starters should play at least 3 quarters of a game!! The NFL has been wussified!:lol:
__________________________________________________ ___________


No More Meaningless Late-Season Games?

Something like this in the final weeks would be preferable.
The NFL is considering scheduling divisional matchups in the final two weeks of the season to try to avoid something we’ve railed on before – teams that have clinched playoff berths sitting their starters.

Is it a foolproof plan? No, but it’s a step in the right direction.

Such a plan is unlikely to eliminate meaningless games – in most recent NFL seasons there’s been at least one team that rolls through the first 3/4 of the regular season and clinches home field advantage with a week or two to go. However, finishing with two divisional games greatly increases the chance a division title or a playoff berth will be on the line for even the best teams in the league in the final weeks of the season.

There are several things wrong, in my eyes, with teams who sit starters for extended periods of time at the end the regular season. Without debating the merits of the two schools of thought in NFL coaching circles – 1. avoid potential injury for the playoffs (sit your starters), or 2. keep your momentum going into the playoffs (play your starters) – here are the problems.

First, teams who sit their starters cheapen the integrity of the playoffs. I don’t have historical data, but I do know there is a good chance the playoff field would have looked different last season had everyone played at full strength down the stretch. The New York Jets were the main beneficiary of teams who purposefully tanked at the end of the season. This isn’t to say the Jets were a bad team and they did make a hell of a run in the playoffs, but had Indianapolis played their starters in week 16 and Cincinnati played theirs in week 17, it’s probable the Jets wouldn’t have made the playoffs at all. If they had lost one of those final contests, the defending Super Bowl Champion Steelers would have been in and the Jets would have been out. The Jets got a free pass, and they took full advantage of it, but if I were a Steelers fan, I would have been irate, considering both teams finished with identical records and the Steelers had to win against starters in the final two weeks.

Second, fans pay a lot of money to go to an NFL game – not just for their ticket, but for parking, concessions, etc. In most cases, they get their tickets well in advance. When I shell out all that money I want to see what I paid for – the A unit versus the A unit, not guys like Matt Flynn, Curtis Painter and Matt Leinart.

Maybe the NFL doesn’t really care about who gets into the playoffs and how they got there, but at the very least, the league should show some respect to the fans who are responsible for their billions of dollars in profit.

CoachChaz
03-25-2010, 12:40 PM
What stops a pitcher from drilling a ARod in the head? What stops a scrub from hard fouling Kobe Bryant?

It's a risk in every sport. COmes with the territory

Lancane
03-25-2010, 12:41 PM
Welcome to the world of football. Shit happens anyway dude. Get over it.

It won't happen for long...when the powerful owners of the favored teams begin to have shit happening because of it, they will force the league to tighten more and more of the regulations. So it will be okay if eventually the NFL becomes the National Flag-Football League?

I think not...but believe what you want.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 12:45 PM
Maybe the NFL doesn’t really care about who gets into the playoffs and how they got there, but at the very least, the league should show some respect to the fans who are responsible for their billions of dollars in profit.

The NFL makes more money during the playoffs and Super Bowl then at any other time of the year, followed by their holiday games; Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, Thanksgiving and now and then Halloween. So I think they do care and that the owners who continually put out teams that contend stand to lose more, then that is when the shit will hit the fan. That's why several team owners who are continual favorites were against the ruling.

BroncoWave
03-25-2010, 12:47 PM
We'll see if those in agreement with the rule are singing the same damn tune at which and when it effects the team. When they are in December ahead of the rest of the division forced to play and because of such either lose the division title because of injuries or worse...maybe homefield advantage and so on, let alone head into the playoffs banged up and more likely to lose. I would rather lose one game because starters needed rest then to see them decimated and lose not only one game but maybe more including a playoff game...just so some irrational fans got their money's worth!

Some of you act like this is the G'damned 70's, when players were truly as tough as nails, but the NFL like all pro sports is a billion dollar industry which is as some say a 'vagina-whipped' version of it's former self, and the same holds true for the MLB and NHL. Hockey became more and more famous for the fights on the ice rather then by simply being a good sport. Hockey is more famous now in America, but it was the fighting that first made it begin to get popular...same with the NFL, it was the gladitorial mindset of tough nosed, smashmouth and bloody football that made the game what it would become. But as it grew and grew, it in whole began to fiscally become more important to protect it's 'Cash Cows' so that fans continued to want to watch. I understand that fans want to go in late December to see their team and paid good money to do so...but at the cost that they may lose more? Isn't that a bit selfish?

Let's not forget that those final games are played against rivals...what happens when an Oakland player who will not see the playoffs and sees us or maybe San Diego going and they are not and then that player decides a $50,000 dollar fine is no big deal if he takes out a key player on the rival's roster?

You do realize that nearly half of this year's week 17 games were divisional games anyway don't you? That's the case every single freaking year. Denver has finished the season against a divisional rival the last couple of years.

You act like this is going to be some horrible detrimental change to the nfl when that could not be further from the truth. In the big picture, this change will be minimal at best. It'll probably make at least 1 or 2 fewer teams be able to rest their starters every year but if you are a playoff team why shouldn't you have to prove it? If you're good enough to make the playoffs, you should be good enough to win a few divisional games at the end of the season.

Northman
03-25-2010, 12:48 PM
It won't happen for long...when the powerful owners of the favored teams begin to have shit happening because of it, they will force the league to tighten more and more of the regulations. So it will be okay if eventually the NFL becomes the National Flag-Football League?

I think not...but believe what you want.

Its already starting to become a flag-football league which is disgusting. Hell, they couldnt handle Favre not getting to the SB so they had to change the OT rules to accomodate him. :lol:

BroncoWave
03-25-2010, 12:50 PM
I don't mind the idea of late season divisional games (although Lancane brings up a valid concern about players who may have less scruples than desireable). I only have a problem with the attempts to force a team to play their starters. It's the administration dictating game plans. I wouldn't want them calling plays either.

Good lord, Goodell isn't in any way FORCING teams to play their starters by doing this. That is such a terrible argument. All this rule is doing is slightly lessening the chance that some teams will be able to rest their starters. But if a team really is good enough to have a good enough record to be able to rest their starters as the end, then it shouldn't matter when they have to play their divisional games.

This idea that this rule change would FORCE a team to play their starters is such a fabrication.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 12:52 PM
You do realize that nearly half of this year's week 17 games were divisional games anyway don't you? That's the case every single freaking year. Denver has finished the season against a divisional rival the last couple of years.

You act like this is going to be some horrible detrimental change to the nfl when that could not be further from the truth. In the big picture, this change will be minimal at best. It'll probably make at least 1 or 2 fewer teams be able to rest their starters every year but if you are a playoff team why shouldn't you have to prove it? If you're good enough to make the playoffs, you should be good enough to win a few divisional games at the end of the season.

Getting our asses handed to us...

But I agree with the second part of your rant, the proving it part. I guess I can just see where this effects the whole of the league down the stretch, let alone that players will become targets for the malcontent on other teams who simply would like to hurt a team's chances. To hell with it, I'm sick of arguing...but I stand by my statement that fans will be changing their tune when it does effect this team from getting any closer to a championship.

BroncoWave
03-25-2010, 12:55 PM
Getting our asses handed to us...

But I agree with the second part of your rant, the proving it part. I guess I can just see where this effects the whole of the league down the stretch, let alone that players will become targets for the malcontent on other teams who simply would like to hurt a team's chances. To hell with it, I'm sick of arguing...but I stand by my statement that fans will be changing their tune when it does effect this team from getting any closer to a championship.

It's Denver's own damn fault that they couldn't close out a divisional rival in the last week to make the playoffs. San Diego and Kansas City weren't negatively affected by having to play us in the last week. They just played better.

underrated29
03-25-2010, 12:57 PM
Because its football. I cant stress that enough. This generation of fan has become so pussified that they are actually scared to have players play. :lol:

Its not that. I am all about hardcore nasty players. Playing through injury etc...Remember Hockey is my fav sport. Those guys are as tough as they come. Scott hannan got a highstick in last nights game...8 stiches in his face and lip....Came back on the ice a few minutes later to fiish playing the game...

But when you have everything locked up, there is no need to play them. Why play them? winning wont change anything. Losing wont either, but having a guy fall to injury when next week you need him most....That is imo stupid!...Has nothing to do with being a puss. It has to do with brains....Now if the guy pulls an LT and hurts his little ankle and wont play in the playoff game. Then yes, Screw him.... But most players will play through pain, because they want to win.

But losing a guy to a hammy like peyton hillis, TO breaking his ankle a fwe years back...What if that happened in the last game. he would not be able to play........It just does not make sense to take an unnecessacery risk.

Northman
03-25-2010, 12:57 PM
..but I stand by my statement that fans will be changing their tune when it does effect this team from getting any closer to a championship.

I think maybe just you and a select few others honestly. Most fans are intelligent enough to know that those kinds of things happen from week 1 until the last week of the season. Its been going on for years and the league has done just fine.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 01:00 PM
Its already starting to become a flag-football league which is disgusting. Hell, they couldnt handle Favre not getting to the SB so they had to change the OT rules to accomodate him. :lol:

True... I think that is my biggest complaint, that it has gotten so soft. That is part of the reason I think this will come back and bite the league in the ass. These kids are not the same sort we had in the early 90's and beyond, they are pampered, they get away with more and more on a continual basis they tend to have worse attitudes as the times change.

Like Ray Lewis said - "Let us play the game!", someone should have told him that, that league exists no longer...

Could you see Brandon Marshall, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers or a plethura of other players playing against a defense like the Purple People Eaters without being carted off or whinning about being hurt, about their portfolio issues and what not. The NFL is a league of stockbrokers and millionaires, it will never be the league it once was.

Northman
03-25-2010, 01:06 PM
Its not that. I am all about hardcore nasty players. Playing through injury etc...Remember Hockey is my fav sport. Those guys are as tough as they come. Scott hannan got a highstick in last nights game...8 stiches in his face and lip....Came back on the ice a few minutes later to fiish playing the game...

But when you have everything locked up, there is no need to play them. Why play them? winning wont change anything. Losing wont either, but having a guy fall to injury when next week you need him most....That is imo stupid!...Has nothing to do with being a puss. It has to do with brains....Now if the guy pulls an LT and hurts his little ankle and wont play in the playoff game. Then yes, Screw him.... But most players will play through pain, because they want to win.

But losing a guy to a hammy like peyton hillis, TO breaking his ankle a fwe years back...What if that happened in the last game. he would not be able to play........It just does not make sense to take an unnecessacery risk.


Again man, its football. Fans come to see their team play to the full extent of their capabilities. Playing scared gets you nothing just ask the Indy Colts last year. They rested and they lost the SB. You can say all day long that "at least they got there" but so did the Saints who played every game and so did the NE Patriots when they went 18-1. Fast forward to the next year when the Pats played a meaningless game against the KC chiefs in week 1 and lost Brady to a freak injury. Simply worrying about injuries is just moronic and it actually takes away what the sport is really about. Yes, the money is much bigger now but the fans are willing to pay that so as long as they are getting their moneys worth. When you start chipping away at what the sport is really about the fans will leave which maybe for you would be a great thing since hockey might be where they flock too. If at the end of the year the Broncos have homefield advantage locked up i would love for them to put a whooping on a division rival just to remind them of the fact we are going to the postseason. Thats money well spent for me. If a player on the opposing faction cheap shots one our players and he gets hurt because of it ill be pissed but im not going to say it cost us our season. Its football and those things can happen anytime during the course of a football season. Why start worrying about something that already goes on anyway?

Northman
03-25-2010, 01:07 PM
True... I think that is my biggest complaint, that it has gotten so soft. That is part of the reason I think this will come back and bite the league in the ass. These kids are not the same sort we had in the early 90's and beyond, they are pampered, they get away with more and more on a continual basis they tend to have worse attitudes as the times change.

Like Ray Lewis said - "Let us play the game!", someone should have told him that, that league exists no longer...

Could you see Brandon Marshall, Peyton Manning, Philip Rivers or a plethura of other players playing against a defense like the Purple People Eaters without being carted off or whinning about being hurt, about their portfolio issues and what not. The NFL is a league of stockbrokers and millionaires, it will never be the league it once was.

Time to bring them back to reality. I have no problem making them understand what the game is about. Time to weed out the weak i guess.

Lancane
03-25-2010, 01:08 PM
I think maybe just you and a select few others honestly. Most fans are intelligent enough to know that those kinds of things happen from week 1 until the last week of the season. Its been going on for years and the league has done just fine.

Keep running your mouth North, because in all seriousness that is about as much as you can do. We are simply fans...no more and no less, they will not listen and it will not change and eventually we'll all be bitching about where it takes us as fans.

I'm not complaining from what I feel is best, but what from what is likely to happen when million dollar athletes begin to get hurt and it ruins their chances to go deeper in the playoffs. I really don't care if the league toughens up some, but I don't think it can because of the money invested in these players...when owners begin to have 50 million or so dollars sitting on the bench due to injuries it will effect the restrictions the league has and eventually will effect the fans, those who see both the good and bad in this.

Northman
03-25-2010, 01:11 PM
Keep running your mouth North, because in all seriousness that is about as much as you can do. We are simply fans...no more and no less, they will not listen and it will not change and eventually we'll all be bitching about where it takes us as fans.

I'm not complaining from what I feel is best, but what from what is likely to happen when million dollar athletes begin to get hurt and it ruins their chances to go deeper in the playoffs. I really don't care if the league toughens up some, but I don't think it can because of the money invested in these players...when owners begin to have 50 million or so dollars sitting on the bench due to injuries it will effect the restrictions the league has and eventually will effect the fans, those who see both the good and bad in this.


Thanks, ill continue to give my side of the debate so thanks for taking the time. :beer:

Lancane
03-25-2010, 01:15 PM
Thanks, ill continue to give my side of the debate so thanks for taking the time. :beer:

Exactly...that is the point of the boards. Some agree and others disagree, in the end we are all fans.

But I think there are enough of us who know, you included that we might not want to see what becomes of the sport in say a hundred years, when players are making billions and it's more like a retarded version of laser tag!

:tsk:

Poet
03-25-2010, 01:51 PM
This premise is completely ridiculous. You say we'd be pretty damn pissed if one of our starters got hurt in a meaningless game. If it's a meaningless game, we are probably resting our starters, divisional game or not. If we still haven't wrapped up the division or playoffs, then those last 2 games aren't meaningless and your premise is invalid.

You realize that teams play divisional games in week 17 EVERY SINGLE YEAR? So instead of just 3 or 4 of the games being divisional games, all of them will be. I haven't read a single convincing reason as to why that is a bad thing.

But if they're putting more divisional games at the end of the year to try to make teams....

Hold up...



ORLANDO, Fla. -- In an effort to have teams use their top players through the final games of the season, the NFL is considering making the last week -- and possibly weeks -- consist of all divisional matchups.


You realize that EVERY team would be playing a divisional foe, and a LOT of the teams would be playing for nothing, and A LOT of those fans would be irked because a game that means nothing to their team is very likely to occur against a division rival?

And yeah, if you haven't wrapped up the title by then, it doesn't matter. But, again, it would be a big game regardless of who you were playing.

BroncoWave
03-25-2010, 01:57 PM
But if they're putting more divisional games at the end of the year to try to make teams....

Hold up...





You realize that EVERY team would be playing a divisional foe, and a LOT of the teams would be playing for nothing, and A LOT of those fans would be irked because a game that means nothing to their team is very likely to occur against a division rival?

And yeah, if you haven't wrapped up the title by then, it doesn't matter. But, again, it would be a big game regardless of who you were playing.

A LOT of teams play divisional games in week 17 anyway. You act like this is some breaking new revelation that will destroy the NFL.

Who freaking cares if a game that means nothing is against a divisional rival? Would you rather Cinci be fighting for their playoff lives against an NFC team in week 17 or already have their division wrapped up and play in a meaningless game against a divisional opponent?

If you answered the first one you just aren't being truthful.

MasterShake
03-25-2010, 03:05 PM
The simple answer (and this may have been said before, I've only read the first page) is to make seeding based on wins, not an 8-8 record and "winning" the AFC West. I think its simple anyway... Probably a lot more complicated than I'm thinking.

frauschieze
03-25-2010, 05:43 PM
Good lord, Goodell isn't in any way FORCING teams to play their starters by doing this. That is such a terrible argument. All this rule is doing is slightly lessening the chance that some teams will be able to rest their starters. But if a team really is good enough to have a good enough record to be able to rest their starters as the end, then it shouldn't matter when they have to play their divisional games.

This idea that this rule change would FORCE a team to play their starters is such a fabrication.


ORLANDO, Fla. -- In an effort to have teams use their top players through the final games of the season, the NFL is considering making the last week -- and possibly weeks -- consist of all divisional matchups.

Please actually read my posts before responding to them. And I didn't say it would force but ATTEMPT to force teams to play their starters instead of resting them.

If you don't understand the argument, then don't respond.

NameUsedBefore
03-25-2010, 05:44 PM
Or cut down on the preseason and expand the postseason.


This is my radical http://static.open.salon.com/files/che-guevara1242900104.jpg idea, btw.

BroncoWave
03-25-2010, 05:59 PM
Please actually read my posts before responding to them. And I didn't say it would force but ATTEMPT to force teams to play their starters instead of resting them.

If you don't understand the argument, then don't respond.

So what you are saying that an effort to make the NFL a more competitive league in the last few weeks instead of forcing fans to have to sit through watching players like Curtis Painter is a bad thing? I wholly disagree.

Like I said earlier, if you are good enough to wrap up your division early, it doesn't matter who you play and when, and this new change probably won't affect you any. If it does somehow negatively affect you, they you probably weren't as good in the first place as you thought you were.

I still haven't heard a good explanation as to why this is a bad thing. Teams play divisional games in the last week all the time. The last 2 super bowl champions had to play divisional games in the last week. It didn't seem to hurt them any.

All this change does is increase the chance that the week 17 games are more important. How that's a bad thing, I don't know.

dogfish
03-25-2010, 07:34 PM
I still haven't heard a good explanation as to why this is a bad thing.

why WHAT is a bad thing?

playing more division games late in the season, or the commish trying to force teams to not rest starters? because they're two different arguments. . . and i don't know that anyone is objecting to the former-- it's the prospect of the commish doing more in the future to move towards the latter that people have a problem with. . .

and THAT is a bad idea bec ause it's not the league's business to dictate to individual ballclubs how they should manage their own rosters. . . seems pretty straightforward. . .

the clubs sign and pay the players, they should be able to play who they want. . . what if we're starting orton and the commish thinks brady queen would generate better TV ratings, or put more butts in the seats-- does he get to call josh up and tell him he has to start queen because the league has deemed it's in the best interest of competitive balance?

obviously that's an extreme example, but people need to understand just what a slippery slope this really is. . . are teams just going to lie down for this? of course not-- if they want to rest certain starters, they'll put them on the injury report as questionable with a tweaked hamstring or something, and then how does the league respond? are they going to establish a panel of league physicians to review all injuries? what about a case like marshall's hamstring, where the MRI is inconclusive?

what about discipline cases? if marshall goes bonehead on us and we suspend him a week for conduct detrimental, can the commish force us to play him anyway because the fans paid to see him?

when you buy a ticket, there's never any guarantee what players you're going to get to see-- you could just as easily miss manning or brady because they got hurt. . . you buy the ticket to see the team-- it's at your own risk if you're there just to see specific stars. . . if you don't want to see curtis painter, use some common sense and buy a ticket for a game earlier in the year, or wait until gameday to purchase. . . colts fans in particular should understand by now that manning rarely ever plays that last week or two. . . how about people be smarter consumers instead of crying until the league has to make significant changes to the game. . .

it should be the organization's right to manage their own roster how they see fit, end of story. . .

otherwise, the league needs to start by taking over franchises like detroit, oakland and cleveland to insure that their fans get to see actual NFL talent when they come out to the park-- 'cuz those fools are getting stiffed year in and year out, not one week at the end of the season. . .

BroncoWave
03-25-2010, 07:55 PM
I obviously wouldn't be for a rule change that lets the NFL mandate how teams use their rosters but I've seen nothing to point toward Goodell considering that I think all the uproar over that possibility is pretty unfounded.

As for changes like this and possible future changes that would make it much more difficult for teams to rest their starters, I am all for that. Anything that makes this a more competitive league is just fine by me.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that teams not being able to rest their starters puts them at a competitive disadvantage in the playoffs and until someone shows some sort of evidence of that, I am completely ok with any change that makes it harder for teams to rest their starters down the stretch.

Northman
03-25-2010, 08:00 PM
I obviously wouldn't be for a rule change that lets the NFL mandate how teams use their rosters but I've seen nothing to point toward Goodell considering that I think all the uproar over that possibility is pretty unfounded.

As for changes like this and possible future changes that would make it much more difficult for teams to rest their starters, I am all for that. Anything that makes this a more competitive league is just fine by me.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that teams not being able to rest their starters puts them at a competitive disadvantage in the playoffs and until someone shows some sort of evidence of that, I am completely ok with any change that makes it harder for teams to rest their starters down the stretch.

Just a bunch of sandy vaginas dude.

dogfish
03-25-2010, 08:04 PM
Just a bunch of sandy vaginas dude.

oh you want some?


bring it ooooon, biznatch!!


:lol:

frauschieze
03-25-2010, 10:13 PM
I obviously wouldn't be for a rule change that lets the NFL mandate how teams use their rosters but I've seen nothing to point toward Goodell considering that I think all the uproar over that possibility is pretty unfounded.

Obviously you missed the direct quote from Goodell in the OP.


In an effort to have teams use their top players through the final games of the season, the NFL is considering making the last week -- and possibly weeks -- consist of all divisional matchups.

"Potentially, Week 17 will all be divisional games," commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday during his closing remarks at the NFL Annual Meeting. "That will address this to some extent. It will not necessarily eliminate the issue."

Eliminate the issue of starters resting? How is that not mandating how a team can manage their roster?

BroncoWave
03-25-2010, 11:06 PM
Eliminate the issue of starters resting? How is that not mandating how a team can manage their roster?

I still don't see where he said he has any plans of mandating how a team sets their roster. He is correct in saying that this doesn't eliminate the issue but that is far from saying that he plans on eliminating the issue by mandating how teams set their rosters. That is a pretty big leap on your part.

frauschieze
03-25-2010, 11:26 PM
I still don't see where he said he has any plans of mandating how a team sets their roster. He is correct in saying that this doesn't eliminate the issue but that is far from saying that he plans on eliminating the issue by mandating how teams set their rosters. That is a pretty big leap on your part.

:brickwall:

I am only taking into consideration WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLE! Will you PLEASE READ IT?! I am not making a leap of any kind.

- Goodell wants starters to play in the last game.
- He wants to schedule divisional games at the end of the season so it will happen more often.
- He acknowledges it will not completely solve the "problem" but it is a start.

Therefore, HE WANTS STARTERS TO PLAY IN ALL GAMES.

And, my friend, that is dictating how a team manages their roster.

With that, I am done trying to explain this to you, so I hope you understand now. Have a nice evening.

pnbronco
03-26-2010, 12:03 AM
oh you want some?


bring it ooooon, biznatch!!


:lol:

So Dog in the same thread you propose to Cheese and then cheat with North....:tsk:

I think it would have been funny if the Jets would have beat the Colts in the playoffs, since it was the Colts resting their starters that let in the Jets to begin with.

BroncoWave
03-26-2010, 12:17 AM
:brickwall:

I am only taking into consideration WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLE! Will you PLEASE READ IT?! I am not making a leap of any kind.

- Goodell wants starters to play in the last game.
- He wants to schedule divisional games at the end of the season so it will happen more often.
- He acknowledges it will not completely solve the "problem" but it is a start.

Therefore, HE WANTS STARTERS TO PLAY IN ALL GAMES.

And, my friend, that is dictating how a team manages their roster.

With that, I am done trying to explain this to you, so I hope you understand now. Have a nice evening.

Of course he WANTS teams to play their starters as much as possible. No one is arguing that.

What I am arguing is that he is somehow trying to mandate it. Just because he wants this problem to end doesn't mean he is going to in any way MANDATE what teams do.

Some things you just can't mandate and this is one of them, and I'm pretty sure he knows it. That doesn't mean he's not going to make every effort to eliminate it without flat out controlling what teams do.

TXBRONC
03-26-2010, 10:23 AM
:brickwall:

I am only taking into consideration WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLE! Will you PLEASE READ IT?! I am not making a leap of any kind.

- Goodell wants starters to play in the last game.
- He wants to schedule divisional games at the end of the season so it will happen more often.
- He acknowledges it will not completely solve the "problem" but it is a start.

Therefore, HE WANTS STARTERS TO PLAY IN ALL GAMES.

And, my friend, that is dictating how a team manages their roster.

With that, I am done trying to explain this to you, so I hope you understand now. Have a nice evening.

Goodell has come right up to the line but I don't think he can actually mandate that teams play their starters for all sixteen games. If he was able to and a team heading to playoffs lost a starter or multiple starters in a game or games that had no bearing on their playoff positioning he would more than likely be fired.

TXBRONC
03-26-2010, 10:28 AM
Of course he WANTS teams to play their starters as much as possible. No one is arguing that.

What I am arguing is that he is somehow trying to mandate it. Just because he wants this problem to end doesn't mean he is going to in any way MANDATE what teams do.

Some things you just can't mandate and this is one of them, and I'm pretty sure he knows it. That doesn't mean he's not going to make every effort to eliminate it without flat out controlling what teams do.

Yes this could be mandated but before that could happen he need to have owners on board. It can be done, it is possible, it's just not probable.

BroncoWave
03-26-2010, 10:31 AM
Goodell has come right up to the line but I don't think he can actually mandate that teams play their starters for all sixteen games. If he was able to and a team heading to playoffs lost a starter or multiple starters in a game or games that had no bearing on their playoff positioning he would more than likely be fired.

Exactly. The fact that people actually think that he has any plans to mandate how teams play their starters is pretty ridiculous. The owners would never let him do it and he would never try it.

The fact that some people equate "It will not necessarily eliminate the issue." to "I am going to mandate how teams play their starters" absolutely blows my mind. Anyone who knows how the NFL works knows how unrealistic that is.

BroncoWave
03-26-2010, 10:32 AM
Yes this could be mandated but before that could happen he need to have owners on board. It can be done, it is possible, it's just not probable.

There is no way the owners would ever let the NFL mandate how their teams play their starters. No way in hell.

TXBRONC
03-26-2010, 10:43 AM
There is no way the owners would ever let the NFL mandate how their teams play their starters. No way in hell.

You also said that emphatically that their was no way hell Denver would lose to the Raiders and Chiefs at the end this past season. How did that work out for us? :laugh: Sorry I couldn't resist.

Goodell would have to convince the owners that it would be worth the risk. So it is possible, it's just not probable.

BroncoWave
03-26-2010, 11:00 AM
You also said that emphatically that their was no way hell Denver would lose to the Raiders and Chiefs at the end this past season. How did that work out for us? :laugh: Sorry I couldn't resist.

Goodell would have to convince the owners that it would be worth the risk. So it is possible, it's just not probable.

:lol: Yeah I did say that but I'm way more confident about this. I just don't see any scenario in which the owners would go along with that. Especially given the comments from the Colts owner about how he wanted their starters to be rested at the end of the year.

JDL
03-27-2010, 11:39 AM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8171ff2f&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

ORLANDO, Fla. -- In an effort to have teams use their top players through the final games of the season, the NFL is considering making the last week -- and possibly weeks -- consist of all divisional matchups.

"Potentially, Week 17 will all be divisional games," commissioner Roger Goodell said Wednesday during his closing remarks at the NFL Annual Meeting. "That will address this to some extent. It will not necessarily eliminate the issue."

Goodell said the league actually is considering pairing division rivals in the final two weeks of the season. Last season, just 11 of the 32 games played in the last two weeks were divisional matchups.

While teams that clinch playoff berths routinely rest key players late in the season, an uproar of sorts erupted last season when the unbeaten Indianapolis Colts sat many starters in the second half of a Week 16 game that they eventually lost to the New York Jets.

The rationale for sitting players is to minimize injury risks and have key starters as healthy as possible for postseason play. But by scheduling teams against division opponents in the final week (or weeks), it could force teams to use those key starters because a division title -- and a playoff berth -- might hang in the balance.

I've been calling for this for years!!! That and moving NON-CONFERENCE games to the first 6 weeks... asinine that it has taken this long to get any movement... and it isn't even close to enough... last month you ought to play all 3 of your division rivals... imagine the AFC North last year (which had Cinci clinching about a month before the end of the season)... if you still have to play division opponents.. you most likely still have a chance to catch them... we done really after that 2nd San Diego game... hoping for help the rest of the way... would have been a MUCH better game to play them in December. (Even if they in all likelihood would have blasted us 100-2, us getting 2 on a mercy safety or something.)