PDA

View Full Version : Radically simple idea to add games without added player risk



RuthlessBurgher
03-05-2011, 01:13 AM
This idea may sound a bit extreme at first, but hear me out.

On one side, the owners want to go from 16 games to 18 games in order to get more TV revenue. Jerry Jones even had the cojones to suggest that a 22 game regular season would be doable.

On the other side, the players oppose this idea because it puts more wear and tear on their bodies, resulting more injured players during a longer season, and shorter careers overall.

How can we possibly add more games to get more money, but not increase the toll that playing a longer season would take on players' fragile bodies? Make each game shorter.

Think about it. NFL football has four 15 minute quarters. NBA basketball has four 12 minute quarters. What if the NFL switched to the NBA model for quarter length?

Currently, 16 games at 60 minutes each is equal to 960 minutes of regular season playing time. If the NFL played 48 minute games like the NBA does, then they could schedule a 20 game season which would still equal the exact same 960 minutes of regular season playing time.

I could just hear the cash register "ka-ching" going off in the owners' heads when thinking about how much they could make from the networks with a TWENTY game regular season schedule. If only Jerry Jones' botched plastic surgery would allow him to smile again, he would certainly be smiling ear-to-ear at the mere thought of it.

Shorter games would also mean that the 1:00 games won't overlap into the 4:00 time slot. You could actually have a nice little recap show following the early games and before the start of the late afternoon games.

Shorter games would also mean that folks on the east coast wouldn't whine about having to stay up to midnight or later to watch Monday Night Football with work in the morning.

Shorter games could also potentially solve these ridiculous overtime changes where everyone is getting their panties in a bunch to make sure that both teams get a chance to possess the ball. If the games were 48 minutes, you wouldn't need to worry about sudden death at all anymore.

Overtime could be a 5th full 12 minute quarter. Play the whole quarter (which would make it a 60 minute game...exactly what we have now...so there would be no whining about an entire extra quarter being too taxing). If it remains tied after 5 quarters in the regular season, it's a tie. Live with it. In the playoffs, you could start a 6th quarter if it is still tied after 5. No one complains if we end up with multiple full-period OT games in playoff hockey...we cherish it.

Because the overall time played in the regular season would remain at 960 minutes, you wouldn't have to worry about career records for yardage, touchdowns, etc. being skewed by increasing the number of games either (although, under this new timing structure, gaining 100 yards rushing, 100 yards receiving, or 300 yards passing in a given game would be a true accomplishment instead of a commonplace occurrence).

Just stop and consider it for a moment...it would certainly seem odd at first, but would we really miss 3 minutes per quarter in the grand scheme of things?

Crash
03-05-2011, 01:23 AM
Um...no.

Wolfhound45
03-05-2011, 01:37 AM
Not a bad idea.

How would you work commercial time into it? That is the main source of TV revenue.

Djfan
03-05-2011, 01:58 AM
How about they just raise the TV contract amount and leave the league alone!!! Enough with the destroying tradition, changing nonsense just to make money, and other Goodell cr@p!

I'm am so done with that clown.

Crash
03-05-2011, 02:06 AM
I forget who the player is but he said one way to max out revenue is to have the Thursday Night game go to the highest bidder rather than just leave it on NFLN.

I think NFLN sucks. It serves no purpose really.

Goodell has really F-d this league up. From the inconsistent PCP, to Spygate cover-ups, to doing simple things like changing when the first round of the draft is to the shape of the conference title trophies. He has no respect for the tradition of the game or how it was run before him.

He's too worried about showing who's boss and making the decisoins, even if the decisions are bad.

pittpete
03-05-2011, 09:33 AM
So with a shorter game, do ticket prices go down per game?

flippy
03-05-2011, 11:22 AM
THe NFL is already becoming more like basketball in that all the games come down to the wire. Why not just play 4th quarters? Heck, why not just flip a coin and play the final 2 minutes?

SteelCrazy
03-05-2011, 12:25 PM
That is a great idea if you really want to fix the problem, but cutting down quarter time also cuts down commercial time and that is a big no-no when the owners are trying to squeeze every ounce of revenue out of the game.

ramblinjim
03-05-2011, 01:27 PM
I also think this is a pretty cool idea. You could add five minutes to half time, add a commercial time spot between each quarter and even have timeouts last an extra fifteen seconds for quick commercial spots. That should settle up the commercial time and allow the owners to squeeze the networks.

Plus they could add say four players to the full time roster and say four players to the game day roster.

Nice idea. Sounds logical, which we all know means makes it impossible to happen.

papillon
03-05-2011, 05:32 PM
That is a great idea if you really want to fix the problem, but cutting down quarter time also cuts down commercial time and that is a big no-no when the owners are trying to squeeze every ounce of revenue out of the game.

No, if you currently get get 6 spots per 60 minute game for 250,000 then you would get the same 6 spots, but it would overlap into a second game. Maybe, 4 in one game and 2 in the week following. The advertisers would potentially like it even better that way, because, you would get two spots with an entirely different viewing audience form the previous.

It all can be worked out to be the same. I just don't know how a 12 minute quarter would affect the game.

Pappy

SteelCrazy
03-05-2011, 08:18 PM
That is a great idea if you really want to fix the problem, but cutting down quarter time also cuts down commercial time and that is a big no-no when the owners are trying to squeeze every ounce of revenue out of the game.

No, if you currently get get 6 spots per 60 minute game for 250,000 then you would get the same 6 spots, but it would overlap into a second game. Maybe, 4 in one game and 2 in the week following. The advertisers would potentially like it even better that way, because, you would get two spots with an entirely different viewing audience form the previous.

It all can be worked out to be the same. I just don't know how a 12 minute quarter would affect the game.

Pappy

You lost me on the 6 spots, but on the 12 minute quarters it seems the only change to the game would be an earlier sense of urgency.

Sugar
03-05-2011, 11:00 PM
Not a bad idea. However, I already think that having 16 games is almost too many. Like I say, you CAN have too much of a good thing. I love Veal Parmigiana too, but if I had it every week for 20 weeks straight, it would get old.

papillon
03-05-2011, 11:26 PM
That is a great idea if you really want to fix the problem, but cutting down quarter time also cuts down commercial time and that is a big no-no when the owners are trying to squeeze every ounce of revenue out of the game.

No, if you currently get get 6 spots per 60 minute game for 250,000 then you would get the same 6 spots, but it would overlap into a second game. Maybe, 4 in one game and 2 in the week following. The advertisers would potentially like it even better that way, because, you would get two spots with an entirely different viewing audience form the previous.

It all can be worked out to be the same. I just don't know how a 12 minute quarter would affect the game.

Pappy

You lost me on the 6 spots, but on the 12 minute quarters it seems the only change to the game would be an earlier sense of urgency.

I forgot the word "advertising", that is, say you're Coca-Cola and during a regular season game the NFL expects $250,000 for 6 advertising spots per game. Well, since the game is shorter Coca-cola can't get 6 advertising spots in, so the NFL gives them 4 in one game and then 2 in another game for the same $250,000. The financials can all be worked out, but the game would change, it's just too difficult to tell how much

Pappy

Discipline of Steel
03-06-2011, 09:34 AM
The new format would have 80% of the game time of the old and therefore games would be lower scoring. Time of possession would be magnified, and turnovers would then become more important. I think it would also force teams to commit to more of an identity as a running or passing team.

Northern_Blitz
03-06-2011, 10:07 AM
That is a great idea if you really want to fix the problem, but cutting down quarter time also cuts down commercial time and that is a big no-no when the owners are trying to squeeze every ounce of revenue out of the game.

I doubt that it would cut down commercial time. I think it would increase commercial time.

The league would leave the start times alone (1:00 & 4:00) and run more TV timeouts.

I also think that fans would expect a reduction in seat prices since game time would be cut by 20%.

feltdizz
03-07-2011, 02:27 PM
Great idea... the game is too long and the half time is too short.

I have no problem with a few more TV breaks and a longer halftime.

I think scoring would increase due to teams going for it on 4th down when on the other teams 35 or 40 yard line.

papillon
03-07-2011, 02:58 PM
Great idea... the game is too long and the half time is too short.

I have no problem with a few more TV breaks and a longer halftime.

I think scoring would increase due to teams going for it on 4th down when on the other teams 35 or 40 yard line.

My biggest fear is that it will emphasize the passing game in an even more pronounced fashion. Since, teams won't have as much time to make comebacks, the running game will be abandoned even earlier in the game. A two touchdown lead will almost certainly see the trailing team begin to pass more, immediately and abandon any semblance of running.

The passing game has become too big a part of the game for my liking right now. I'm not sure I'd like to see more passing.

Pappy

feltdizz
03-07-2011, 03:58 PM
Great idea... the game is too long and the half time is too short.

I have no problem with a few more TV breaks and a longer halftime.

I think scoring would increase due to teams going for it on 4th down when on the other teams 35 or 40 yard line.

My biggest fear is that it will emphasize the passing game in an even more pronounced fashion. Since, teams won't have as much time to make comebacks, the running game will be abandoned even earlier in the game. A two touchdown lead will almost certainly see the trailing team begin to pass more, immediately and abandon any semblance of running.

The passing game has become too big a part of the game for my liking right now. I'm not sure I'd like to see more passing.

Pappy

teams always pass more when they are down 2 TD's...

Crash
03-07-2011, 04:00 PM
Yeah lets keep the game 60 minutes just so we can run the ball 50 times a game.

Yoi!

papillon
03-07-2011, 04:03 PM
Yeah lets keep the game 60 minutes just so we can run the ball 50 times a game.

Yoi!

Just watch the CFL then, if you don't want to see any running; 3 downs, rarely a run, three guys in motion at once, have at it, you'll love it.

Pappy

papillon
03-07-2011, 04:07 PM
Great idea... the game is too long and the half time is too short.

I have no problem with a few more TV breaks and a longer halftime.

I think scoring would increase due to teams going for it on 4th down when on the other teams 35 or 40 yard line.

My biggest fear is that it will emphasize the passing game in an even more pronounced fashion. Since, teams won't have as much time to make comebacks, the running game will be abandoned even earlier in the game. A two touchdown lead will almost certainly see the trailing team begin to pass more, immediately and abandon any semblance of running.

The passing game has become too big a part of the game for my liking right now. I'm not sure I'd like to see more passing.

Pappy

teams always pass more when they are down 2 TD's...

Only when it gets very late in the game. A two TD deficit in the first half or even early in the 3rd quarter still allows for a balanced attack, if you choose to run one. A two TD deficit with 12 minute quarters gets a team off of its game plan a earlier, if their game plan had any running involved, otherwise, it doesn't affect anything. Of course, in today's game, I'm not sure I'd try to run the ball at all, teams have proven you can completely ignore thew run and win consistently and that's what you like.

Pappy

Crash
03-07-2011, 04:13 PM
Yeah lets keep the game 60 minutes just so we can run the ball 50 times a game.

Yoi!

Just watch the CFL then, if you don't want to see any running; 3 downs, rarely a run, three guys in motion at once, have at it, you'll love it.

Pappy

I don't care about the running game. I care about winning. I'm not one of those Steelers fans who's content with just running the ball.

1983-2003 gave you tons of running and tons of Stiller defense.

But they didn't win rings.

Eich
03-07-2011, 06:49 PM
Can't say I'd be thrilled with more TV breaks as said above.

The game could be shortened without changing the 15 min quarters though. Make it more difficult to stop the clock. For example, don't stop it for an incomplete pass. Not sure I like it but it's another option.

feltdizz
03-07-2011, 07:01 PM
Can't say I'd be thrilled with more TV breaks as said above.

The game could be shortened without changing the 15 min quarters though. Make it more difficult to stop the clock. For example, don't stop it for an incomplete pass. Not sure I like it but it's another option.

I don't like the passing idea but letting the clock run when the ball carrier goes out of bounds until the last 2 minutes would save time.

SteelTorch
03-08-2011, 01:05 AM
if yinz really want more football, you could try resurrecting the XFL... :)