thursday night football

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:31 pm

I dont get the NFL network. So for the first time I'm watching a football game on my cell phone. I wouldnt wish this on anyone.

Good game though. The Jets just can't help choking can they?

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:48 am

I don't get it either. I found out with a minute left in the game that NFL.com had live video (but no audio), so I caught the Patriots drive and OT.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:56 am

next time try...Justin.tv

they steam every football game every week.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 12:04 pm

J.E.T.S.....JETS JETS JETS....

sorry, don't get to do that much.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:39 pm

Impressive final drive by Cassell, I really didn't think he was gonna pull that off but he showed a lot of poise and guts. Unfortunately the NFL reminded me once again why I hate their OT policy. I'm convinced they'd take on College Football's policy except the hick muck-a-muck's would never admit that CF does ANYTHING better.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:05 am

The college OT is unnecessarily complicated (and more importantly for TV purposes time consuming) for the NFL, they should just use the Arena Football overtime policy, 15 minute period, each team guaranteed one possession then sudden death after the second team's possession. It's beautifully simple, if the first team scores then the second team has to match, if the first team gets stopped and the second team scores they win, otherwise it goes to sudden death, but it stays in the flow of a football game unlike college overtime.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:41 am

Either way, everyone should be able to agree that the current OT system is an absolute joke.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:07 pm

Athletics wrote:The college OT is unnecessarily complicated (and more importantly for TV purposes time consuming) for the NFL, they should just use the Arena Football overtime policy, 15 minute period, each team guaranteed one possession then sudden death after the second team's possession. It's beautifully simple, if the first team scores then the second team has to match, if the first team gets stopped and the second team scores they win, otherwise it goes to sudden death, but it stays in the flow of a football game unlike college overtime.

I don't see the time consuming as being an issue really. Yes, if you have a game on immediately afterwards, you will probably miss part of that game, but how often is that going to happen? This week, out of 16 games, only 4 have a game on the same network immediately afterwards. You might have to stay up late on ThNF, SNF or MNF if you're on the East Coast, but since when has the NFL (or any pro sports league) ever cared about that?

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 1:25 pm

The networks absolutely care about it (hence Fox moving their PM start times back 15 minutes a couple of years ago). The big issue with time consuming as far as networks are concerned is the NFL contract that says a home team's games go on regardless of anything else in local markets. That's not an issue for you all on the East Coast, but it is out here, where we lose overtime in games on Fox so that the Raiders game can start on CBS. Just another example of east coast bias Bren.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:21 pm

Athletics wrote:The networks absolutely care about it (hence Fox moving their PM start times back 15 minutes a couple of years ago). The big issue with time consuming as far as networks are concerned is the NFL contract that says a home team's games go on regardless of anything else in local markets. That's not an issue for you all on the East Coast, but it is out here, where we lose overtime in games on Fox so that the Raiders game can start on CBS. Just another example of east coast bias Bren.

Funny thing to say about someone who lives in Colorado, how exactly am I rolling out East Coast Bias (the great whine of the West Coaster)?
The pre-empting of games in local markets is a separate issue but which, frankly, there isn't much you can do about. I never get a Pats game unless it's a national game, ditto my roommates Eagles games. There are a couple simple solutions. Get the Direct TV package (wish they offered it on Cable) or watch the game at a local sportsbar, which is what we do. You live outside of market, suck it up and deal with it. East Coast, West Coast or Central, it doesn't matter. It's gonna be a challenge to see your team if you live out of market.
Solution? There are three timeslots each Sunday (Early, late and the single) make them all singles on three separate networks.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:30 am

We aren't discussing this issue from a fan's perspective, so the plight of a fan trying to watch out of market games is completely irrelevant (especially because my comment was about local market games, presumably not an issue to an out of market fan). The question is what would be amenable to the networks, who absolutely care about time slots and overruns and all of that, certainly more than they care about which fans watch which games.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:57 am

Cubs wrote:Either way, everyone should be able to agree that the current OT system is an absolute joke.

To solve the overtime dilemma, the NFL should, like college, guarantee that teams receive equal possessions. But unlike college, they should continue to play, er, football. It can still be sudden death, provided that each team gets an equal shot at scoring. [my emphasis] So for instance, if on that first possession, Jets quarterback Brett Favre had thrown an interception, and the Pats returned the ball for a touchdown, the game would be over since the Jets had had a series on offense. If the game is still tied at the end of the 15 minute period, then it would still be a draw, as NFL games are now.

Mara, the Giants owner, says the competition committee discusses overtime reform every off-season. In both 2003 and 2004, owners voted on a scaled-back version of the proposal outlined above. Each team would be guaranteed a single offensive possession, but after that, it would be sudden death, first to score wins. Not 100% fair, but a vast improvement over the current rules. To implement a rule change, three-fourths of the owners must agree with the proposal. In '03, just 55% of the owners approved it. The next year, only 22% jumped on board.

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0 ... tter-daily

Sadly it doesn't appear it will be happening anytime soon ...

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 3:40 pm

That is precisely the system that Arena Football uses and what I was advocating. A very simple and not especially radical change.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 4:39 pm

Athletics wrote:That is precisely the system that Arena Football uses and what I was advocating. A very simple and not especially radical change.

I understand - and agree. What I was attempting to point is:

To implement a rule change, three-fourths of the owners must agree with the proposal. In '03, just 55% of the owners approved it. The next year, only 22% jumped on board.

As I concluded, sadly it doesn't appear it will be happening anytime soon ...

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:15 pm

Ah I see. It's unbelievable how resistant to change football people are.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:58 pm

And tonight, we get a tie. The NFL is the only pro sport where a game can still end in a tie. Even the NHL which is probably the most poorly managed sport of the big 4, managed to fix that issue.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:18 am

Well at least you can't say both teams didn't get a chance in this one...

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 1:18 am

RedSox wrote:And tonight, we get a tie. The NFL is the only pro sport where a game can still end in a tie. Even the NHL which is probably the most poorly managed sport of the big 4, managed to fix that issue.

I don't know. I'm not sure that a game that ends with one team getting two points and one team getting one point is more stable than an NFL tie or an old NHL tie.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 7:46 am

The only time I ever hear someone complain about the overtime rule is when their team loses because they didn't get a possession

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:26 pm

That's because that is precisely the flaw in the system.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:37 pm

I don't agree with that. People everywhere complain about the OT, despite teams. I complained after the NYJ and NE game, and the team I hate most in the whole NFL is the one that lost. I feel pretty comfortable saying the OT system is unpopular among all fans, despite team affiliation.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 9:10 pm

It's just a bad system. Eventually it's going to come to a head in a playoff game or a Superbowl. I'm not sure the NFL could come up with a worse system than what they have.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:16 pm

Um... it has happened in Super Bowls. Good news is that during the postseason McNabb is right and there are no ties.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:22 pm

There's never been an overtime Super Bowl

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Nov 18, 2008 4:32 pm

You're right, I was thinking about the Greatest Game Ever Played, which was actually the NFL championship game in 1958 as the Super Bowl didn't exist yet. The only NFL playoff game in which a team didn't get possession in overtime as far as I can tell (yes I just spent 20 minutes researching this) was a divisional game during the 89-90 season between the Rams and the Giants.