November 25, 201312 yr ^ Sure, if they want. Don't particularly care. If they can't figure it out in the time allotted, then why does either of the teams deserve a win? Because it is a competition. Where there is a loser and a winner. As Lombardi said, "If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?"
November 25, 201312 yr If they can't figure it out in the time allotted, then why does either of the teams deserve a win? Don't agree with this line of thinking at all. It's a competition. Out lasting your opponent is part of that. Being better than your opponent in the end is what it's about.
November 25, 201312 yr Because it is a competition. Where there is a loser and a winner. As Lombardi said, "If it doesn't matter who wins or loses, then why do they keep score?" This is ludicrous. Of course it matters who wins or loses. If you win, that's admirable and likely well-earned. If you're not capable of getting a win in the time allotted, why do you get extra time? In the postseason you absolutely have to determine a winner. That can't be said for the regular season. It's an artificial construct, not because the game demands it, but because people just decided it should be so. Whatever. If people can't appreciate sport in its pure form but need one of the teams to feel better about themselves and another to feel worse, then that's fine. But let's not pretend that there's something inherent to these games that demands one team come out the victor and one the loser in every single contest.
November 25, 201312 yr I believe I heard someone on the competition committee a few years back on Sirius NFL Network, that it was the fatigue and injury factor as to why they stopped after five 15 minute time frames. Can't say quarters with 5. I don't agree with it, but there is the reason, I believe.
November 26, 201312 yr Author I believe I heard someone on the competition committee a few years back on Sirius NFL Network, that it was the fatigue and injury factor as to why they stopped after five 15 minute time frames. Can't say quarters with 5. I don't agree with it, but there is the reason, I believe. That is just silly. The 1 or 2 games a year that would require extra time or downs would not matter with fatigue or injury. Heck college games have many more plays in regular time and they play as many OTs as necessary. If fatigue and injury are a concern quit playing 4 pre-season games and quit playing on games on Thursday after a Sunday.
November 26, 201312 yr That is just silly. The 1 or 2 games a year that would require extra time or downs would not matter with fatigue or injury. Heck college games have many more plays in regular time and they play as many OTs as necessary. If fatigue and injury are a concern quit playing 4 pre-season games and quit playing on games on Thursday after a Sunday. It would not be the only silly thing they do.
November 26, 201312 yr That is just silly. The 1 or 2 games a year that would require extra time or downs would not matter with fatigue or injury. Heck college games have many more plays in regular time and they play as many OTs as necessary. If fatigue and injury are a concern quit playing 4 pre-season games and quit playing on games on Thursday after a Sunday. College teams also have 100 players at their disposal. NFL teams have 47 active players for a game. If you can "win" in 75 minutes, call it a day and move on to the next one...
November 26, 201312 yr College teams also have 100 players at their disposal. NFL teams have 47 active players for a game. If you can "win" in 75 minutes' date=' call it a day and move on to the next one...[/quote'] Not saying they should change OT...but I do think they should change the rule that you can only have 47 active players. Why not let all 53 be active?
November 26, 201312 yr I hate the way colleges plays OT. Play calling becomes conservative, and often teams with the best field goal kicker wins...as bad as a shootout in soccer. I really don't like sudden death OT either.
November 26, 201312 yr Not saying they should change OT...but I do think they should change the rule that you can only have 47 active players. Why not let all 53 be active? The 47 number is absurd to me. You can't even carry a legit two deep on the active roster...
November 26, 201312 yr Expanding the roster to 53 on game day would make a huge difference and would probably help with the injury situation. You know there are many games when guys are out there when they shouldn't be or wouldn't be, but there is no next man, except the inactive guy in sweats on the sideline. One player per position group would be huge IMO.
November 26, 201312 yr The 47 number is absurd to me. You can't even carry a legit two deep on the active roster... I'm in favor of even upping the 53... How'd they get these numbers? 53 players with 47 active? Seems like odd numbers.
November 26, 201312 yr I'm in favor of even upping the 53... How'd they get these numbers? 53 players with 47 active? Seems like odd numbers. More than 53 would cost the owners more, they don't generally like to do that. They pay the 53 whether active or not in most contracts.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.