USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Resting the starters in the NFL
- Thread starter gregg729
- Start date
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
If they penalize teams, that ruins the integrity of the game, IMO. Give better draft picks to the teams who've done well enough to rest the starters? Horrid.
Stole this from another forum:
I saw in some other article that Goodell was toying with the idea of penalizing teams that did this of draft picks.
If they penalize teams, that ruins the integrity of the game, IMO. Give better draft picks to the teams who've done well enough to rest the starters? Horrid.
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
The funny thing is, Goodell is using the "integrity of the game" as a justification for possible action.
It's a level playing field at the start of week 1 and every team has an opportunity to grab the #1 conference seed. If a team's good enough to do it in 15 weeks then it's their prerogative, it behooves them even, to minimize the risk of their starters to injury in meaningless games. Besides, it's not like the backups are playing to lose.
I'm just wondering two things. This situation happens year in and year out, what happened this year to make it an issue all of the sudden? And who really cares about this besides Goodell?
The funny thing is, Goodell is using the "integrity of the game" as a justification for possible action.
It's a level playing field at the start of week 1 and every team has an opportunity to grab the #1 conference seed. If a team's good enough to do it in 15 weeks then it's their prerogative, it behooves them even, to minimize the risk of their starters to injury in meaningless games. Besides, it's not like the backups are playing to lose.
I'm just wondering two things. This situation happens year in and year out, what happened this year to make it an issue all of the sudden? And who really cares about this besides Goodell?
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
The Colts and the Golden Boy Manning. That team is night and day if Manning is in or not.
Wait until this is in effect, and a superstar is seriously hurt. Let the second-guessing begin.
The Colts and the Golden Boy Manning. That team is night and day if Manning is in or not.
Wait until this is in effect, and a superstar is seriously hurt. Let the second-guessing begin.
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
Exactly - the fact that they clinched with 3 games remaining (instead of the usual 1) means that 19% of their games were probably less attractive to fans in person or on TV than they probably would have been. If the Colts had been "required" (or coerced) to play their starters in Week 15 and won, I guarantee their ratings in week 16 would have been significantly higher - people tuning in to see if they could pull off the perfect season. Not to mention the increased ratings for the playoffs, too.
Cheap ratings ploy by the NFL, pure and simple (if they do it). What's next, they're going to outlaw prevent defenses by requiring 7 down-defensive linemen even if you're winning by 30 points? Why not just have all the plays called from the central office of the NFL?
Exactly - the fact that they clinched with 3 games remaining (instead of the usual 1) means that 19% of their games were probably less attractive to fans in person or on TV than they probably would have been. If the Colts had been "required" (or coerced) to play their starters in Week 15 and won, I guarantee their ratings in week 16 would have been significantly higher - people tuning in to see if they could pull off the perfect season. Not to mention the increased ratings for the playoffs, too.
Cheap ratings ploy by the NFL, pure and simple (if they do it). What's next, they're going to outlaw prevent defenses by requiring 7 down-defensive linemen even if you're winning by 30 points? Why not just have all the plays called from the central office of the NFL?
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
I think the NFL is probably getting backlash from their season ticket holders that are already paying full price for two preseason games. Throw in a week 15 and 17 home game schedule for a team like Indy, and their fans are paying 10 full game price for 6 games+4 exhibitions. If you're going to throw games, those fans ought to get their home playoff tickets comped. Personally, I'd spend some time *****ing out Polian for that.
I think the NFL is probably getting backlash from their season ticket holders that are already paying full price for two preseason games. Throw in a week 15 and 17 home game schedule for a team like Indy, and their fans are paying 10 full game price for 6 games+4 exhibitions. If you're going to throw games, those fans ought to get their home playoff tickets comped. Personally, I'd spend some time *****ing out Polian for that.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
Plus PSLs and whatever else a team can do to jack up prices.
Plus PSLs and whatever else a team can do to jack up prices.
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
Ya think? Have you seen anything anywhere that would tend to support that? I'm not sure I buy it. The season ticket holders are in general terms the more dedicated and educated fans. It would seem to me that those type of fans would want and expect the starters to take a break in the second half of the week 17 game to prevent risking injury when the #1 seed was buttoned up two weeks ago, ya know?
Just sayin....
To me, this is just a media-created backlash for the Colts not pulling out all the stops to go for a perfect season.
Ya think? Have you seen anything anywhere that would tend to support that? I'm not sure I buy it. The season ticket holders are in general terms the more dedicated and educated fans. It would seem to me that those type of fans would want and expect the starters to take a break in the second half of the week 17 game to prevent risking injury when the #1 seed was buttoned up two weeks ago, ya know?
Just sayin....
To me, this is just a media-created backlash for the Colts not pulling out all the stops to go for a perfect season.
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
Actually Colts fans were quite ****ed about it. I think it's more of an issue this year because the Colts were unbeaten until they pulled their players. Their fans wanted the perfect season. One other side note is the fact that the Jets were basically dead for the playoffs, and then they beat the Colts backups and poof they are alive again. I think if they Colts had one loss already, and it happened against a team not rescued from the dead, we wouldn't be hearing much about it.
Actually Colts fans were quite ****ed about it. I think it's more of an issue this year because the Colts were unbeaten until they pulled their players. Their fans wanted the perfect season. One other side note is the fact that the Jets were basically dead for the playoffs, and then they beat the Colts backups and poof they are alive again. I think if they Colts had one loss already, and it happened against a team not rescued from the dead, we wouldn't be hearing much about it.
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
I'm sure they were ****ed, a chance at perfection doesn't come around too often - and then toss in that whole Brady/Manning rivalry.... But are Colts fan calling for a mandate from the NFL to ban the ability of a team to rest their starters if they choose?
And I do agree that if the Colts had one loss it would be a nonissue, regardless of who they were playing.
I'm sure they were ****ed, a chance at perfection doesn't come around too often - and then toss in that whole Brady/Manning rivalry.... But are Colts fan calling for a mandate from the NFL to ban the ability of a team to rest their starters if they choose?
And I do agree that if the Colts had one loss it would be a nonissue, regardless of who they were playing.
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
http://oscnewsgazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5403&Itemid=7
This article is nothing short of a diatribe but one sentence rings true.
The Pats' magical run was shattered with a postseason loss. All that matters to an elite team is winning the big one.
http://oscnewsgazette.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5403&Itemid=7
This article is nothing short of a diatribe but one sentence rings true.
The Pats' magical run was shattered with a postseason loss. All that matters to an elite team is winning the big one.
RaceBoarder
Waiting for the Snow to fly...
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the whole "We payed $xxxx for our tickets, so we deserve a better on field performance" argument at all in sports...
The fact of the matter is that ticket prices are based upon simple supply and demand when it comes down to it... The same fans that are *****ing about not getting their dollars worth are the same ones that year after year push up the entry price... If you really feel that you are getting so ripped off, then simply don't renew your seats... Make a statement with your wallet...
If you really are that concerned with what you are paying for your tickets, there are several secondary markets that offer tickets... And with a little work, you can probably come out ahead on said price... Oh, but then again, you would have to give up the "Conveniences" that you get with your season tickets... I mean, is that bobble head that you get as your annual gift really worth that much to you?
The ultimate goal is to win a Super Bowl in the Colts' case... You want them to do that by any means necessary... You know that if Peyton had been hurt against the Jets when the Colts 24-17 in the 4th, the fans would be livid over him being in...
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into the whole "We payed $xxxx for our tickets, so we deserve a better on field performance" argument at all in sports...
The fact of the matter is that ticket prices are based upon simple supply and demand when it comes down to it... The same fans that are *****ing about not getting their dollars worth are the same ones that year after year push up the entry price... If you really feel that you are getting so ripped off, then simply don't renew your seats... Make a statement with your wallet...
If you really are that concerned with what you are paying for your tickets, there are several secondary markets that offer tickets... And with a little work, you can probably come out ahead on said price... Oh, but then again, you would have to give up the "Conveniences" that you get with your season tickets... I mean, is that bobble head that you get as your annual gift really worth that much to you?
The ultimate goal is to win a Super Bowl in the Colts' case... You want them to do that by any means necessary... You know that if Peyton had been hurt against the Jets when the Colts 24-17 in the 4th, the fans would be livid over him being in...
JF_Gophers
2147483647
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
Colts have rested before and lost 3 times in their next playoff game. So obviously rest isn't working for them.
The question I have is, how much "rest" are you actually getting sitting out for a half of a game? I get not wanting to get injured, but you could of been injured in week 14 before you rested also, so the risk isn't any greater in the last 2 weeks.
Also, as a QB you aren't exactly exerting yourself physically the same way as the linemen, running backs and wide receivers. That position is much more mental. So a QB resting just seems like a farce to me.
Ultimately you should just play your games. If you want to take guys out in a blow out win or loss, go ahead. But I don't think games are meaningless just because they don't effect your playoff position. They still mean something to the chemistry and timing of your team.
Colts have rested before and lost 3 times in their next playoff game. So obviously rest isn't working for them.
The question I have is, how much "rest" are you actually getting sitting out for a half of a game? I get not wanting to get injured, but you could of been injured in week 14 before you rested also, so the risk isn't any greater in the last 2 weeks.
Also, as a QB you aren't exactly exerting yourself physically the same way as the linemen, running backs and wide receivers. That position is much more mental. So a QB resting just seems like a farce to me.
Ultimately you should just play your games. If you want to take guys out in a blow out win or loss, go ahead. But I don't think games are meaningless just because they don't effect your playoff position. They still mean something to the chemistry and timing of your team.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
It isn't just the Colts...the only reason the Jets made the playoffs was because the teams they played at the end rested their starters or had nothing to play for. I mean the Colts pulled their starters at halftime and the Bengals had locked up their spot so they basically took a dive. (they looked like the Giants vs. the Vikes...like they didn't care because the game had no meaning) That kept out the defending champs (which you know the media and the NFL don't like) and put in a team that honestly no one cares about or thinks should be a playoff team.
Now the Jets needed to win the games but they benefited from a strange quirk that happened this season. They won last week too so really the talk has died down quite a bit. (Goodell proposed this a couple weeks ago, it is really rather old news) The Bengals got their comeuppance by losing last week again to the Jets and I think the Colts will get theirs as well. Stuff like this happens every year...I remember in the 90's the Vikes needed to win their last game to get into the playoffs and they were playing San Fran on Monday Night. (I believe) San Fran had nothing to play for (their seed was locked) and rested their starters half the game and what do you know the Vikes made the playoffs.
I don't support the idea but I support what it wants to encourage, and even if it did go into effect I think we would be talking second day picks or no better than 4th rounders or something so it isnt really that big of a deal. Hell in the article you posted it doesn't say they are going to do any of the ideas he heard about, just that it was suggested. In the end nothing will happen.
The NFL has enough to worry about the next couple years. The upcoming uncapped year, the owners wanting to end revenue sharing in the new CBA, possible expansion of the season and 2-3 teams that may just be on the move. This stuff will fade away after the Super Bowl, unless the Jets happen to win and then oh boy it could be fun
It isn't just the Colts...the only reason the Jets made the playoffs was because the teams they played at the end rested their starters or had nothing to play for. I mean the Colts pulled their starters at halftime and the Bengals had locked up their spot so they basically took a dive. (they looked like the Giants vs. the Vikes...like they didn't care because the game had no meaning) That kept out the defending champs (which you know the media and the NFL don't like) and put in a team that honestly no one cares about or thinks should be a playoff team.
Now the Jets needed to win the games but they benefited from a strange quirk that happened this season. They won last week too so really the talk has died down quite a bit. (Goodell proposed this a couple weeks ago, it is really rather old news) The Bengals got their comeuppance by losing last week again to the Jets and I think the Colts will get theirs as well. Stuff like this happens every year...I remember in the 90's the Vikes needed to win their last game to get into the playoffs and they were playing San Fran on Monday Night. (I believe) San Fran had nothing to play for (their seed was locked) and rested their starters half the game and what do you know the Vikes made the playoffs.
I don't support the idea but I support what it wants to encourage, and even if it did go into effect I think we would be talking second day picks or no better than 4th rounders or something so it isnt really that big of a deal. Hell in the article you posted it doesn't say they are going to do any of the ideas he heard about, just that it was suggested. In the end nothing will happen.
The NFL has enough to worry about the next couple years. The upcoming uncapped year, the owners wanting to end revenue sharing in the new CBA, possible expansion of the season and 2-3 teams that may just be on the move. This stuff will fade away after the Super Bowl, unless the Jets happen to win and then oh boy it could be fun
The Paragon of Virtue
Captain Ressentiment
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
Actually, the stuff with the Jets kept Houston out. The Steelers finished 8th.
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
Fans of the team would ultimately support the team doing what it took (or felt it took, based on how well resting starters actually has worked) to win the championship. People complaining are more fans of themselves getting to see a good game, regardless of how it affects the team's overall season.
True, but what's more important, going undefeated or winning the Super Bowl? If the team's ultimate goals conflict with what the fans want, the fans should stop supporting that team.
And for complaints about, say, the Texans getting screwed because the Jets had a gimme, no team battling for a wild card spot has done so crazy well that they deserve a playoff spot. Any of those teams probably had a few games they could have won earlier in the season that would have made it all moot. So it doesn't make sense for one team to complain about some quirk in scheduling.
Fans of the team would ultimately support the team doing what it took (or felt it took, based on how well resting starters actually has worked) to win the championship. People complaining are more fans of themselves getting to see a good game, regardless of how it affects the team's overall season.
True, but what's more important, going undefeated or winning the Super Bowl? If the team's ultimate goals conflict with what the fans want, the fans should stop supporting that team.
And for complaints about, say, the Texans getting screwed because the Jets had a gimme, no team battling for a wild card spot has done so crazy well that they deserve a playoff spot. Any of those teams probably had a few games they could have won earlier in the season that would have made it all moot. So it doesn't make sense for one team to complain about some quirk in scheduling.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
It's completely about protecting from injury, not resting. The risk of a week 14 injury entering week 17 is exactly 0%, whereas there is still a real risk of injury in the last 30 minutes of the season. I don't think any coach in halftime of the last game is thinking, "Well we dodged a bullet with the injuries in week 14 so we probably can do it again."
It's late in the first quarter and the Saints scored their third touchdown - their chemistry and timing seem to be fine.
It's completely about protecting from injury, not resting. The risk of a week 14 injury entering week 17 is exactly 0%, whereas there is still a real risk of injury in the last 30 minutes of the season. I don't think any coach in halftime of the last game is thinking, "Well we dodged a bullet with the injuries in week 14 so we probably can do it again."
It's late in the first quarter and the Saints scored their third touchdown - their chemistry and timing seem to be fine.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: Resting the starters in the NFL
do away with wild cards... you need to win your division to make the playoffs. if you still want 6 teams in, expand to 36 teams and have 6 3-team divisions in each conference.
don't award home field by w-l record. award by "winning streak", and if tied, "point differential". ....now teams will want to win and want to WIN
do away with wild cards... you need to win your division to make the playoffs. if you still want 6 teams in, expand to 36 teams and have 6 3-team divisions in each conference.
don't award home field by w-l record. award by "winning streak", and if tied, "point differential". ....now teams will want to win and want to WIN