well except that for tate to ever even touch the ball he shoved sam shields to the ground
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
The Everything NFL Thread - 2012 Season (Up til 2013 Draft)
- Thread starter DM
- Start date
- Status
I've been thinking about expansion because I was linked to an article about LA building another football stadium. I'm against any kind of expansion to the number of teams/games. 32 teams playing 16 games is PERFECT. The way scheduling works right now is perfect in my opinion. You always know what you're going to expect and it is so symmetrical. Going to 18 games ruins it. Adding any amount of teams (except 32 lol) ruins it. Say you add one team to each division. You would be forced to go to 18 games since you'd play 8 against your division, and ten games split between two other divisions. This eliminate the games against the conference opponents who finished in the same position in their division which is a strength of the current system since it keeps the best teams in the conference playing each other every year. Under the new system the best two teams in a conference will only play once every three years. It also puts more emphasis on division games since 8/18 > 6/16. It would be a mess.
I was thinking we should do it like they do in football in Europe. Keep the NFL as is but create a WFL. World Football League. Two conferences of eight teams from all over the world. Smaller cities in the US could make up a few teams. Maybe like Portland, OR; Richmond, VA; and maybe Oklahoma City or something. A few from Canada: Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver maybe. And then you can have what the NFL really wants by getting teams in Europe and Asia.. I would think you could play games in Europe in their football stadiums so there'd be no new stadiums required.
I could see two conferences of eight teams each broken up into two divisions of four teams:
Western Football Conference
Canadian Division
American Division
Eastern Football Conference
European Division
Asian Division
I would think they'd play most of their games in their division to cut down on travel and maybe play the games over a longer season to give more travel time. At the end of the playoffs the two teams that make it to the championship game move up to the NFL and the two teams that finish worst in the NFL (one from each conference) move down. The teams that move up would play their home games in the stadium of team that moves down and vice versa.
I was thinking we should do it like they do in football in Europe. Keep the NFL as is but create a WFL. World Football League. Two conferences of eight teams from all over the world. Smaller cities in the US could make up a few teams. Maybe like Portland, OR; Richmond, VA; and maybe Oklahoma City or something. A few from Canada: Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver maybe. And then you can have what the NFL really wants by getting teams in Europe and Asia.. I would think you could play games in Europe in their football stadiums so there'd be no new stadiums required.
I could see two conferences of eight teams each broken up into two divisions of four teams:
Western Football Conference
Canadian Division
American Division
Eastern Football Conference
European Division
Asian Division
I would think they'd play most of their games in their division to cut down on travel and maybe play the games over a longer season to give more travel time. At the end of the playoffs the two teams that make it to the championship game move up to the NFL and the two teams that finish worst in the NFL (one from each conference) move down. The teams that move up would play their home games in the stadium of team that moves down and vice versa.
As crazy as it sounds, there isn't enough demand for another football league.
The main problem - when would they play their games? No new league is going to have enough demand to draw viewers away from the NFL or NCAA. This would force all the games to play either during the offseason (as a few of the startup leagues have done) or in the middle of the week. Add that to the inherent advantage the North American teams would have over their world counterparts; virtually all the stars are from the US, all the coaches, players who get dumped from NFL teams would wind up playing for the US WFL teams, etc.
Schedule making is complicated business, but they can in fact make a schedule work with a strange number of teams. There haven't always been 32 teams in the NFL!
In the 70's, they had 4 divisions of 4 and 2 divisions of 5. Starting in '76 they switched to 2 divisions of 4 and 4 divisions of 5. Before the Texans came into the league, they had 5 divisions of 5 and 1 division of 6.
If they choose to expand - I doubt they will soon, as a team should be more likely to move than to add more teams - they can make it work with a weird number of teams. 36 might be an ideal number, as each conference would have 18 and there would be four 5 team divisions and four 4 team divisions. Scheduling would be a nightmare on the surface, but all they really need is one consistent method to make the schedules. They have plenty of people from the league offices that are probably working on it before they even announce the possibility of expanding.
I want to take a minute and plug in this website. It contains maps of the US showing where all the games will be broadcast, for those of us without a Sunday package. It definitely comes in handy to see what out of market games you get for the week!
The main problem - when would they play their games? No new league is going to have enough demand to draw viewers away from the NFL or NCAA. This would force all the games to play either during the offseason (as a few of the startup leagues have done) or in the middle of the week. Add that to the inherent advantage the North American teams would have over their world counterparts; virtually all the stars are from the US, all the coaches, players who get dumped from NFL teams would wind up playing for the US WFL teams, etc.
Schedule making is complicated business, but they can in fact make a schedule work with a strange number of teams. There haven't always been 32 teams in the NFL!
In the 70's, they had 4 divisions of 4 and 2 divisions of 5. Starting in '76 they switched to 2 divisions of 4 and 4 divisions of 5. Before the Texans came into the league, they had 5 divisions of 5 and 1 division of 6.
If they choose to expand - I doubt they will soon, as a team should be more likely to move than to add more teams - they can make it work with a weird number of teams. 36 might be an ideal number, as each conference would have 18 and there would be four 5 team divisions and four 4 team divisions. Scheduling would be a nightmare on the surface, but all they really need is one consistent method to make the schedules. They have plenty of people from the league offices that are probably working on it before they even announce the possibility of expanding.
I want to take a minute and plug in this website. It contains maps of the US showing where all the games will be broadcast, for those of us without a Sunday package. It definitely comes in handy to see what out of market games you get for the week!
I know the NFL hasn't always had 32 teams. But once you have such a perfect system why throw it away?
I agree with you on the lack of demand. I know the NFL wants to expand into Europe and Asia but i haven't been able to think of how they'll do it.
I want a summer football league. Off season is murder. (this year wasn't as bad since I had the Nats).
I agree with you on the lack of demand. I know the NFL wants to expand into Europe and Asia but i haven't been able to think of how they'll do it.
I want a summer football league. Off season is murder. (this year wasn't as bad since I had the Nats).
Money is always more valuable than logistics. If they think a 33rd team will be profitable for the league and have a place to put that team, I doubt they would really hesitate to do so.
The problem is, add another team and each team gets less of the cut that is the league's profit. It would be far more profitable to move a team with a small amount of revenue (Jacksonville, Oakland, Minnesota) to another market like LA than it would for them to place a 33rd team there.
San Diego, Oakland, Buffalo, St. Louis, and Jacksonville are all in the bottom 10 of team revenue, and most of them have smaller markets than the league average. These are probably the five teams most likely to move.
The problem is, add another team and each team gets less of the cut that is the league's profit. It would be far more profitable to move a team with a small amount of revenue (Jacksonville, Oakland, Minnesota) to another market like LA than it would for them to place a 33rd team there.
San Diego, Oakland, Buffalo, St. Louis, and Jacksonville are all in the bottom 10 of team revenue, and most of them have smaller markets than the league average. These are probably the five teams most likely to move.
and here comes one of the few skip bayless fans in the room...
I kind of meant that the Seahawks in a way earned the win. You make it sound like the Packers had control of the game the whole time and at the last minute the refs just decided to hand the win to the Hawks. Which i don't see as true because the Hawks defense played fantastically and held the Pack to 12 points. Now the refs did in the end help the Hawks in the final drive, but overall the Hawks played well enough that they should feel pride in the win. All i'm saying. I agree that they should have lost and the penalties were bs but lets not let the Hawks defensive performance get overshadowed by the referees or try to take that game away from them.
I'm as big a Rodgers fan as anyone, but i appreciate good defense a little more and i thought(final drive aside) that this was the best game of the year so far.
You would think as they are both Cowboy fans, but i doubt it. I find both Bayless and Smith entertaining and watch the show just because of the stupid stuff they say. I like both of them, but lost a lot of respect for Bayless when i found out it was him who called Troy Aikman gay. Which is why i doubt any Cowboy fan likes Bayless.
Yes, clearly because I do not like one guy it must be because I dislike the other guy, since fallacious logic is always true. They are both idiots who argue based on false notions and emotional ideas because all talking heads "have" to talk talk talk themselves to death ever since the news cycle became about inventing news instead of reporting news, but these guys are both some of the very worst. I got to like 1:30 in that video where Smith was calling Lebron out like shit was drizzling out of his mouth with every ignorant word and just had to turn the clip off. Scum like him having an opinion people take seriously is exactly why I am so vehemently against modern sports media.
there won't be any new expansions. the league wants a team in LA, so there will be a team in LA, possibly two, but they will be existing teams that relocate.
also, that team most certainly will not be the Jags, fyi.
Khan just spent millions of dollars renovating the lockerroom, and they have a lease with EverBank stadium for the next like 15 or 20 years, and it would cost millions to break that contract (if at all). Jags haven't had a blackout since 2009, which is something the Bucs, Dolphins, et cetera can't say.
also, that team most certainly will not be the Jags, fyi.
Khan just spent millions of dollars renovating the lockerroom, and they have a lease with EverBank stadium for the next like 15 or 20 years, and it would cost millions to break that contract (if at all). Jags haven't had a blackout since 2009, which is something the Bucs, Dolphins, et cetera can't say.
It will cost most any team money to get out of their lease. However, there are stipulations from the league that allow teams that lose money to get out of the lease for cheaper, and the cost would be shared by the league.
The only reason the Jags have a chance of moving is because they have both a small market and a small revenue. I don't think they're the most likely to move, but it's a distinct possibility.
Can someone tell the Chiefs this? Two turnovers inside their own 20, and they've only run 4 plays!
They are incredibly lucky to only be down 20-6. They're good enough to catch back up, but they have to stop making stupid mistakes.
Likewise the Pats seem to be making some bad mistakes as well. 2 fumbles and 2 missed field goals already, and even though Fitz already has 2 interceptions the Bills are about to go up 2 possessions.
Likewise the Pats seem to be making some bad mistakes as well. 2 fumbles and 2 missed field goals already, and even though Fitz already has 2 interceptions the Bills are about to go up 2 possessions.
AncienRegime and I have been talking mad shit about the Lions and I think we might have been too conservative with it.
Even given how good we know they always are, I am shocked that my Patriots -3.5 pick is suddenly looking like a mortal lock after that early turnover misery gave up so much momentum.
Even given how good we know they always are, I am shocked that my Patriots -3.5 pick is suddenly looking like a mortal lock after that early turnover misery gave up so much momentum.
I greatly dislike both Bayless and Smith. In other news, CJ must have had a "breakout" game against us by running for over 100 yards. Also, I was really hoping the Bills would win that one, but they fucked it up with so many damn turnovers.
they were certainly booing Sanchez, at least
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Fuck you NFL. Fuck you, and your confusing as fuck teams.
- Status