View topic - Goodell wants to reward teams

[NJSteel27 Profile]

During the Steeler game, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked about the leagues stance on the Colts pulling players debacle.
He mentioned something about NOT PUNISHING teams, but instead, REWARDING them for using their starters in seemingly meaningless games.

I have one for you, Roger.

how about this:

The defending Super Bowl champion gets "extra credit" if their season-ending record is identical to wildcard teams, yet unable to make the playoffs due to the leagues ludicrous tie-breaking scheme, which, by the way, has as its last tie-breaker a COIN TOSS!!

That way, as an example for this year........if the Jets win tonight, they are 9-7, which is the same record as the Ravens and the Texans.
If the Super Bowl champion rule I have mentioned is enacted, then the Steelers would be given the 1st playoff spot and the remaining 9-7 teams would then utilize the NFL tie-breaker to determine the remaining playoff spot.......

If any of the other playoff teams have a better record, of course, they would be chosen first. My scenario is only enacted when there is a choice between the defending champion having the same record as one (of both) of the wildcard teams.

[chitownstillers Profile]

How about beating the clowns or raiders or chiefs or the bears??? I don't blame anyone but the steelers... we had the easiest schedule and couldn't get to 10 wins... we don't deserve it.

[BradshawsHairdresser Profile]

How about beating the clowns or raiders or chiefs or the bears??? I don't blame anyone but the steelers... we had the easiest schedule and couldn't get to 10 wins... we don't deserve it.

[BigE Profile]

I agree, you lose to the Chiefs, Raiders, Browns, Bears, and Bengals (twice). I don't blame the Colts or anyone else for that matter except the players and coaches of the Steelers. What a disappointing, underachieving year by this team. Now, we have 8 months to think about it, this sucks and so did the Steelers this year.

[NJSteel27 Profile]

I agree, you lose to the Chiefs, Raiders, Browns, Bears, and Bengals (twice). I don't blame the Colts or anyone else for that matter except the players and coaches of the Steelers. What a disappointing, underachieving year by this team. Now, we have 8 months to think about it, this sucks and so did the Steelers this year.

Obviously everyone has missed the point of this post totally.
I'm not blaming the COLTS for anything, nor do I blame ANY team we needed to lose yesterday in order to make the playoffs, I was merely trying to add some attention to the ludicrous tie-breaking scheme the NFL has adopted. I thought, perhaps, why not add something else to the mix by giving some incentive to the Super Bowl winner. Why not? I mean, they certainly "punish" the Super Bowl winner by having them pick LAST in the draft, don't they?

In the same regard, you guys have NO PROBLEMS with the Jets getting in at 9-7 after having been GIVEN 2 games at the end of the season? To me, that stinks WORSE than any loss we suffered this year.

[steelcitymetal Profile]

it's a stupid idea.

[NJSteel27 Profile]

it's a stupid idea.

Let's all bow down to the grizzled veteran.
He has spoken.
In his most eloquent manner, he has decided this is a stupid idea.

great reply, steelcitymetal, you are a scholar!

[steelcitymetal Profile]

great reply, steelcitymetal

fine, i'll elaborate.

it's one of the worst and most immature ideas i've ever heard. it's origins are from no place other than pure self-preservation and short-sighted anger. "how could the league allow for this travesty to happen!" maybe, due to our devastating loss of troy polamalu, the commissioner would allow us 12 players on defense. that seems fair right?

every rule in this league is aimed towards parity. super bowl champions don't get punished with the 32nd pick in the draft, they just don't get rewarded with the 1st out of fairness to other clubs. winning the super bowl means you probably have less rebuilding to do than the rams and lions.

the super bowl champion shouldn't need a special rule to stumble into the last wild card spot.

special rules are for special ed.

[NJSteel27 Profile]

great reply, steelcitymetal

fine, i'll elaborate.

it's one of the worst and most immature ideas i've ever heard. it's origins are from no place other than pure self-preservation and short-sighted anger. "how could the league allow for this travesty to happen!" maybe, due to our devastating loss of troy polamalu, the commissioner would allow us 12 players on defense. that seems fair right?

every rule in this league is aimed towards parity. super bowl champions don't get punished with the 32nd pick in the draft, they just don't get rewarded with the 1st out of fairness to other clubs. winning the super bowl means you probably have less rebuilding to do than the rams and lions.

the super bowl champion shouldn't need a special rule to stumble into the last wild card spot.

special rules are for special ed.

Finally, a well-thought and well-written string of phrases from you, SteelCityMetal. I'm impressed. Actually, my idea is not a novel one (and definitely not the worst and most immature idea to come about.) Are you familiar with the tie-breaking rules in the NFL and the fact that they have separate regulations depending on whether its a 2-team decision or a 3-team decision? Additionally, are you aware that, in their most illustrious fashion, the NFL has decided the last tie-breaker to be a coin toss? Before you call something immature and worst, i suggest you brush up on your facts because I don't see how you can accept THAT rule as something made with even the slightest bit of sanity or maturity.

Now, getting back to the idea itself, which I have just explained was not a novel one, but one in which I extrapolated the principle from the days of professional tennis, before the bloated salaries and the "open" era was in existence - those days in which amateurs and professionals did not play together. Championships like Wimbledon and the Us Open, for example, would automatically place the winner of the championship directly into the final match the following year. The entire tournament, essentially, was played just to determine one player; the one who would face the previous years winner.

I am not suggesting that that be done in the NFL because, quite frankly, I think THAT is a ludicrous, idiotic (immature as you call it) and stupid regulation. However, there is some common thought that could be utilized, with some tweaking. Thus, my reason for proposing the Super Bowl champion weighting rule, as I stated previously. Why NOT reward the champion, if circumstances were such that the champion had an off-year, yet its record was identical to teams that would be making the wildcard game, but still didn't qualify (because of the tie-breaker rules)?

Your thought that my idea was merely to prolong the Steelers unworthy abysmal season into the playoffs is as incorrect and as unfounded as a team like the Jets, who, with the identical record, are in the playoffs after having been given 2 victories that they didn't deserve. Why aren't you "shouting from the rooftops" because of the inherent flaw here? And please don't use the excuse that the Steelers dug their own graves by losing the games they lost this season. That's a lame, although true, excuse. All teams lose games, for whatever reason.

Did anyone ever mention why Ben practiced the entire week (after his "concussion"), yet was held out of the game against the Rat-birds at the 11th hour? Then, immediately AFTER that loss, the airwaves were flooded with the news of the NFL announcing their new "policy" against protecting players who had suffered concussions and the new guidelines to reinstate players for games? Doesn't it seem "fishy" that a highly recognizable name like the defending Super Bowl champion QB was suddenly prevented from playing in a game in which he had practiced for an entire week? Seems like, if you had to point to any one LOSS of the season, that one screams the need for investigation.

[steelcitymetal Profile]

I am not suggesting that that be done in the NFL because, quite frankly, I think THAT is a ludicrous, idiotic (immature as you call it) and stupid regulation.

you admit the principal is ludicrous, but suggest the nfl take a step in that direction? i guess an idea is plausible if it's only "slightly ludicrous".

immature as you call it

yes, your idea is immature. it reminds me of the kind of rules children come up with during games to benefit their own situation. "the sandbox is base... unless i throw my hat in it... then you have to run to the other side of the house"

Why NOT reward the champion

parity.

Additionally, are you aware that, in their most illustrious fashion, the NFL has decided the last tie-breaker to be a coin toss? Before you call something immature and worst, i suggest you brush up on your facts

coin toss is 12th on a list which rarely goes past 4th. settle down.

Doesn't it seem "fishy" that a highly recognizable name like the defending Super Bowl champion QB was suddenly prevented from playing in a game in which he had practiced for an entire week? Seems like, if you had to point to any one LOSS of the season, that one screams the need for investigation.

ben did not play because he continued to experience headaches.

conspiracy theorists are the worst.