I was not going to watch the SuperBowl. Having done so, there was not much to commend it, apart from 49er Moody breaking the SuperBowl record for longest field goal, only to have his record broken not long after by the Chief's Butker. That was cool. Neither team played especially well, far below what I expect to see in such a climatic finish to the season as all such events are meant to be: "The Two Best" vying for the ultimate prize of the sport.
Anyway, there's much to justify never watching professional sports again, just as there to justify rejecting Hollywood films and TV shows. But I love sports and can't always help myself. I watch my teams...typically the Bears and Bulls, but don't watch games between other teams if one of them isn't my own. During the playoffs I'll watch some of the games, and pay more attention to the conference finals deciding the SuperBowl contenders, though I didn't this year. I do similar with the NBA.
That said, the reason I wasn't going to watch because they again chose to foist upon the fans and nation a performance of someone singing "Lift Every Voice and Sing" by referring to it as the "Black National Anthem". I hate this crap. There is no "white" national anthem. There's only the National Anthem of the United States of American, known as the "Star-Spangled Banner". It's the anthem for an entire population of people who each regard themselves as citizens of the United States...and actually are. Thus, for one segment of our population to presume they're worthy of their own anthem they can refer to as a "National" anthem is divisive in a most racist manner.
I have no problem with the song itself. I'm thinking of doing a cover of it myself in either Bluegrass or Headbanger style. (I haven't decided yet). It's a nice tune and the message is a good one. No freakin' problem at all with it.
I don't even have a problem that the song is held as especially meaningful for a particular segment of the population. I'm rather partial to Grand Funk's "T.N.U.C" for example. It speaks to me. I'll even go a step farther and say I don't have a problem with black people regarding the song as a "Black Anthem". But they don't get to call it a "national" anthem, because they have no nation. They are Americans, not "African" Americans or "Black" Americans or any other thing as if they are separate and apart from the non-black fellow Americans. We are all the same in God's sight and as such, it's not at all something toward which MLK Jr was striving. And we've just been inundated with high praise for that guy as if he was a president or an Apostle of Christ.
I had wondered if we'd see people sitting or players kneeling for either song. I didn't notice anything like that during Reba's rendition of our one true anthem. I saw a bunch of folks still looking for their seats, as well as people sitting during Andra Day's tortured performance of "Life Every Voice.." I say "tortured" because she grimace in a variety of ways while singing. I had muted it when it began, because I wasn't interested and went about doing other things. But when I would check the tube, there she was appearing to be in pain. Now, I'm guessing she was wailing on as if giving praise to God or as if someone shot her dog. I didn't notice Reba doing that. She looked happy and proud for the opportunity and did a good job. I'm sure this Day chick can sing like nobody's business, but again, on principle, I wasn't interested. (And then there was this "Post Malone" dude singing "American the Beautiful". What the hell is his problem? )
The performance of this song, as if it is actually a national anthem, is no more than pandering to the morons who run the bullshit narratives about how oppressed black people are by white racists in this country. I get it, Day and all those black football players are suffering daily simply because they're black people. God help them. They just must weep all day long in their mansions. But hey...if we can continue to stoke racial division, then let's have everyone sing their anthems before the games. Wake me when it's over. I wanna watch football.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When, say, the White Sox play the Blue Jays in Toronto, they play the Canadian anthem first and the Star-Spangled Banner second. When they play in Chicago, the play our anthem first. At least this is how it happens during the playoffs. I believe they do it in the NBA and the NHL, but I'm not sure. I haven't paid attention. I just recall that happening in MLB. Anyway, why the hell is "Lift Every Voice..." performed before the actual National Anthem? I think it's because Roger Goodell and the team owners are nutless panderers to the BLM types who aren't worth the time of day. There are real and serious problems in the black community, and we only hear about the assholes who make their bones on it rather than actually doing black people any good. The accusations by dumbshits like Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James are lies, though they're not bright enough, honest enough or mature enough to truly learn. They're chumps for the cause promoted by race-hustlers like Ibram X Kendi, Al Sharpton and the like. "BLM" type slogans painted on football fields or Washington DC streets don't to damned thing to improve the lives of those who are suffering.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't heard at this point, but I am keen on seeing continue low ratings for the SuperBowl, as compared to what its traditionally compelled in days past when men played the game. I don't have cable service, and I don't have standard television. We're doing the streaming thing, mostly via Firestick. I don't know the details of how all that works. It could be there's some manner in which viewers through these types of streaming service are counted along with every one to determine just how good or bad viewership was. In my case, because I now live in S. Carolina but still wish to watch Chicago sports teams, I use an "IPTV" app loaded on through my Firestick. Thus, this seems to be another layer which I'm unsure as to whether it is recognized by those who do the counting of viewers. I'm hoping that's not the case so I can continuing watching my teams without being added to those who by their viewing support or are complicit in the woke shit promoted by pro-sports these days.
This is another of those things wherein if I could get what I want and need without supporting assholes who promote evil and immorality, I'd continue to do so without a single care. But with each purchase, with each viewing, with each radio station which gets my ear, I wonder if the provider is a lefty jackwad or a spineless right-winger. It's clearly a case of being in but not of, but it still bothers me to know that I'll drive myself crazy trying to find only those I can trust are companies of real character.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My last item relates to my state of S. Carolina. I get emails from a number of my reps and my state senator Sean Bennett sent one which listed a number of things which happened in the senate. Among them is what appears to be both House and Senate agreeing to what is known as "Constitutional Carry", by which any law abiding person who can legally obtain a firearm (not a felon or lunatic, for example) can carry that piece as they choose without permission from the state government. A concealed carry permit will still be available for those who wish to carry their weapon in other states who will honor that permit (as every state honors one's driver's license), but knowing one can carry within the state borders means one's every day life can be a bit more protected from harm and a permit so one can carry in other states can be handled as needed.
This is a good development and at this point I believe it still awaits the governor, Henry McMaster's signature to close the deal. Should he do so, I believe that would make us the 27th state with Constitutional Carry. For the modern progressives out there, that means more than half the states in the union do less to infringe upon our God-given right to defend ourselves, than do shitholes like Illinois, New York, California and the most disappointing to me personally, Hawaii.
I haven't read the bill yet. The quick version sounds reasonable, as it adds to the penalties for illegal use of firearms. That's OK with me, so long as they're dedicated toward knowing the truth of why one chose to use their rod. At the same time, I also haven't heard from local 2nd Amendment groups who have been sending me emails about the progress of this push for Constitutional Carry. (Bennett referred to it as "permitless carry", or some such wording) Such groups would get specific about whether the bill goes far enough, whether it is a watered-down, impotent bastardization of what it should be, or whether it's a true victory for Americans.
From here, the next step would be to begin working toward national reciprocity. This means getting the stupid in states like those I just mentioned to push their moron leaders to get with the program for the benefit and safety of all Americans. Hawaii...again, most disappointing to me...will be a severely tough nut to crack as they just has a ruling which basically said the US Constitution is NOT the law of the land and that they don't have to abide it or SCOTUS rulings regarding the 2nd Amendment and how it should be understood. It's like Hawaii is run by people like Dan. It makes me wonder how they can enjoy the immense beauty of that state with their heads rammed so solidly and deeply up their asses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, getting back to the SuperBowl, I'm really hacked about the current OT rules for this sport. Could there be a more wussy-fied league of huge dudes engaged in a contact sport? From the first they enacted this rule change, I've been outraged at how whiny it is! In the good old days when men played the game, if one could not win the game, and instead only tied, Overtime was played in a "Sudden Death" manner, which meant the first to score...regardless of how (touchdown, field goal, safety)...would be the winner of the contest. Somewhere along the line, some girly man insisted both sides should have a chance to score...as if that wasn't always the case. Back then, if one won the OT coin toss and chose to receive the kickoff, that team could possibly end the game with a field goal or touch down. Indeed, all one had to do was get into field goal range, which take less effort that it does to score a touchdown. But what of the other team? As was true of the entire regulation period of play, that team's defense has the job of preventing the other team from scoring any points. That's as important as having a good offense. If the defensive team succeeds, their offense then has the opportunity to score and end the game in their favor. There should be no whining given each team had the opportunity to outscore the other during regulation. Now that each team failed, their opportunities still result in an outcome based on which team had a good offense and/or defense.
The 49ers got a favorable coin toss and elected to receive the kick so that their offense can get busy. They marched down and scored a field goal. In the old days, when men played the game, that would have been the end of the game with Frisco being the league champs this year. But NOOOO! The Chiefs have to have a chance to score, too! Had they only been able to score a field goal, the OT period would proceed. It's stupid! There are two acceptable options to bring a little sanity to a game which has been horribly sanitized over the last few decades:
1. Go back to the Sudden Death plan.
2. Play an entire OT period of whatever time limit chosen for overtime and let each team score as many points as they can. The team with the most points wins. Period. This would be like how the NBA does OT and, more importantly, HOW FREAKIN' REGULATION WORKS!!!
It's like they don't want fans anymore!
58 comments:
Finally, getting back to the Super Bowl, I'm really hacked about the current OT rules for this sport. Could there be a more wussy-fied league of huge dudes engaged in a contact sport? From the first they enacted this rule change, I've been outraged at how whiny it is!
You are so easily triggered.
What does this have to do with being wussy or whiny? The NFL saw that the team that won the coin flip won a large majority of the games by electing to receive. They decided that this made the result of the coin flip more important than it should be. By assuring that both teams get a possession, receiving the ball first does not confer as big an advantage, and, therefore, winning the coin flip doesn't confer as big an advantage. What's the big deal?
I get that you liked the old rule better. I liked baseball better before the designated hitter was introduced. On the other hand, I understand that other people may find the game more interesting when the pitcher doesn't have to bat. I don't consider it an assault on American manhood.
"You are so easily triggered."
That's funny.
"What does this have to do with being wussy or whiny?"
I believe that was explained quite clearly in the post.
"The NFL saw that the team that won the coin flip won a large majority of the games by electing to receive. They decided that this made the result of the coin flip more important than it should be."
Clearly, the team which didn't win the OT coin toss had a defense which played a roll in the tie which sent the game to OT. The result of the toss, then, has no influence on the ability of the winner of the toss to win. It merely gives that team the first opportunity. Someone has to have it, and that's the winner of the toss. But again, the whine that the other team needs "a chance", too, is absurd given the other team had a chance to win in regulation and failed to do so. By only gaining a stalemate, that team has the "chance" of chance that they'll win the toss. They also have the chance to deny the toss winner the ability to score.
"By assuring that both teams get a possession, receiving the ball first does not confer as big an advantage, and, therefore, winning the coin flip doesn't confer as big an advantage. What's the big deal?"
The "big deal" is there is no advantage conferred upon the winner of the coin toss. Advantage is a matter of the strength of one's teams (offensive and defensive teams). If my defense is better than your offense, you will not score and then it's a matter of whether or not my offense is better than your defense.
Another advantage is coaching staff. If my DC is better than your OC, then you won't score, particularly if my D is better than your O.
This is how it works.
"I get that you liked the old rule better."
That's because it is better, as is my alternative to it. Sudden Death OR a full OT period of play. The current rule is just plain crap.
" I liked baseball better before the designated hitter was introduced. On the other hand, I understand that other people may find the game more interesting when the pitcher doesn't have to bat. I don't consider it an assault on American manhood."
Apples and oranges. The argument for the DH has been around with the same degree of fervor since the 19th century, when teams realized the value of strong pitching after it had evolved from underhanded throwing simply to put the ball in play, to a defensive position of denying hits from the batter. Teams so badly wanted good pitching that they encouraged pitchers to devote their training to pitching only, or with token batting practice. There's no comparable football parallel.
(For my part, given there are two leagues, each with their own preference or rejection of the DH rule, and I still consider myself a Chicago fan despite having left the shithole known as Illinois, as well as never actually having lived in Chicago proper, I always supported both North and South side teams.)
Don't forget the current OT rules are the result of Buffalo losing a few years ago and whining about it. It's strange, KC won under the old rules, and the rules got changed. Now KC wins under the new rules and somehow that's a problem as well.
I have no problem giving both teams the opportunity to possess the ball and score in OT, just like the do in regulation. Sudden death was always a shitty way to do OT, because it reduced the result to a coin flip instead of actually letting the players decide. In this case the KC defense held the SF offense to a FG, KC offense scored a TD. I'm not sure how that offends you so.
I have no problem with simply playing an additional quarter as they do in basketball, nor do I have a problem with giving each team the ball on the 40, and alternating possessions until one team scores.
However, the difference in this OT is that SF did not have a plan for OT, while KC did. Postgame, multiple KC players were shocked that SF took the ball first, and talked about how they spend time at multiple practices working on strategy. Both teams play under the same rules, and it appears that one wasn't as prepared as the other.
As far as the rest of the game, it was mostly two of the best defenses in the NFL playing a very good game.
Obviously as a KC fan, I'm happy with the outcome, and thrilled that KC was able to win with a young team and overcome marginal WR play. But after beating both #1 seeds, and the #2 seed in the AFC playing road games, and beating MIA as a home underdog in brutal weather conditions, I think it was a very good run. And this was supposed to be a down/rebuild/reload year.
I'm thrilled that Chicago passed on Mahomes, they would have ruined him like Trubisky and Fields, and I'm thrilled that Mahomes ended up in the perfect place.
This is one of the best 5 year runs in NFL history, and they're still in a position to be back next year.
But hey the Bears have the #1 pick and are projected to take Caleb Williams, who appears to not want to play for the Bears. Keep the streak of screwing up talented college QB's going.
I suspect that the NFLPA probably has something to say about OT as well, in addition to player safety concerns.
Let's go for the threepeat.
Given the fact that this Super Bowl was the most watched game in history, 123 million viewers, the AFC championship game also set records. Maybe you're in the minority, or it's just frustration because the Bears suck.
Craig,
"Don't forget the current OT rules are the result of Buffalo losing a few years ago and whining about it."
Exactly as I said...the new rules are a result of wussy whining, not because they're actually better than the previous rules...which they aren't.
"I have no problem giving both teams the opportunity to possess the ball and score in OT, just like the do in regulation."
Both teams aren't given equal opportunity as if each must have an offensive possession. If I choose to receive the opening kick as a result of winning the coin toss, and I'm able to milk the clock for the full first quarter before finally scoring, the other team wasn't given an opportunity to possess the ball to run their offense. Yet, they still did indeed have the opportunity to not only prevent my team from scoring, but to cause a turn over by fumble, INT or on downs.
Continuing with my hypothetical, my team could score and then cause a turnover on the ensuing kick off and again run out the clock for the second quarter and either score or punt and cause another turnover and thus deny the opportunity of my opponent to ever have a chance to score. It's always a matter of if one's offense is superior to the defense of the other team, and equally if one's defense is superior to the other team's offense. The opportunity each team has is to advance the ball and score, as well as to prevent advancement and scoring by the other team. THAT is the true "opportunity" of each team during regulation.
"Sudden death was always a shitty way to do OT, because it reduced the result to a coin flip instead of actually letting the players decide."
As my hypothetical shows, the coin flip has the same impact in regulation. The only difference is that the clock isn't a factor as it is during regulation. So long as time remains, one has the chance to do something which results in turning the tide. Having failed to do that sufficiently to have more points on the board than the other team...and the other team also failing in that regard...the OT period is simply to get the game over with. Thus, the regardless of the coin toss, one's team needs to be superior to the other enough to score first, by either advancing the ball if one wins the toss and chooses to receive (which in Sudden Death is really the only choice), or by denying the toss winner and advancing it one's self.
The original rule was no more or less than an extension of the final moments of regulation. A tie resulted and it forces the game to continue until the tie is broken. Once that happens, it's akin to scoring in the final seconds of regulation leaving the other team to weep in their helmets.
" In this case the KC defense held the SF offense to a FG, KC offense scored a TD. I'm not sure how that offends you so."
In playoff games, each team has to step it up to advance to and then win the SB. That's why no playoff game can end in a tie. A winner must emerge. KC couldn't prevent SF's field goal and thus didn't step up enough to win. But then, due to the aforementioned whining, the rules were changed and what should have been the end of the game no longer is. The whine that each team needs a chance can be extended beyond KC's touchdown by saying, "Hey! WE should get to score a touchdown, too!" It's a variation of the "opportunity to score" whine and equally stupid or valid.
Ostensibly, each participant represents the best of the best, with this particular game deciding who is best from between them. Each has their "opportunity" to prove which is truly the best by winning in regulation. This is the last chance for each season to discover who that team is. Sudden Death simply accelerates that challenge, from the team who can score the most points to the team who can score first. I don't see why anyone has a problem with that. I find it more exciting than the participation trophy version of OT now in place. Step up your game. Score first!
"I have no problem with simply playing an additional quarter as they do in basketball..."
If a chance must have happened, it should have happened in that manner (the NBA has a shorter OT period than a regulation time limit and that would be fine for football as well). The problem is the tie. The chance for serious injury in the NFL is clearly greater than in any other sport given the intense contact being so much a part of the game. Thus, multiple OT periods to get to that ultimate winner has the potential for more career ending injuries. This is yet another good reason the Sudden Death scenario works best.
The best team wouldn't need to be "given" an opportunity, because the best team would've made their opportunity by being the better team and scoring first.
"However, the difference in this OT is that SF did not have a plan for OT, while KC did."
Of course they did! In this case, it was to receive the kick off if they won the toss, which they did. Then, after scoring by whatever means possible, prevent KC from scoring and then pop the corks!
"As far as the rest of the game, it was mostly two of the best defenses in the NFL playing a very good game."
Not really. SF kept shooting themselves in the foot with penalties early when they had all the momentum and were moving the ball at will. Then, they went away from the run, which was moronic. Then, their defense, which was really making KC look like the team they really were throughout the season, forgot who they were playing against and what Mahommes is capable of doing. I don't think either team really played great football. The size of the viewing audience had nothing to do with that.
The Bears do indeed suck, but not as much as they did last year. That is, they are improving. The jury's still out on this management team because they're new. This draft will tell us a lot about them and the results of next season will even more so. Keep in mind that among those who "screwed up" talented QBs is your own Matt Nagy, who stupidly tried to force a team to fit his notion of how it should be without considering whether the strengths and weaknesses of the players would advance that plan. What he should have been doing is saying, "Who do I have and how can I get the best out of them?" He tried to make Trubisky a pocket passer when he was better rolling out. But he's gone, there's a new dude who is also still in pretty much a honeymoon period. They've made quite a few changes with their coaching staff (including a woman assistant RB coach), so we'll see if they screw up Fields or Williams without knowing at this point which will be our guy.
"If I choose to receive the opening kick as a result of winning the coin toss, and I'm able to milk the clock for the full first quarter before finally scoring, the other team wasn't given an opportunity to possess the ball to run their offense."
Except, they'll simply play the 2nd OT period. Just like the refs at the SB said when they went through the OT rules.
"As my hypothetical shows, the coin flip has the same impact in regulation."
Your hypothetical ignores the fact that they'll play the second OT quarter. As far as the hypothetical fumble that's irrelevant. The offense/return team has the opportunity to possess the ball. Once they have that opportunity, failure to score or a turnover ends the game.
"A winner must emerge. KC couldn't prevent SF's field goal and thus didn't step up enough to win. But then, due to the aforementioned whining, the rules were changed and what should have been the end of the game no longer is. The whine that each team needs a chance can be extended beyond KC's touchdown by saying, "Hey! WE should get to score a touchdown, too!" It's a variation of the "opportunity to score" whine and equally stupid or valid."
First, it's interesting to see how much you're whining about a rule change you complain was caused y whining. Second, by your logic, the fact that SF couldn't stop KC from scoring a TD mans that they didn't step up and win the game either. Football is a sport of 3 parts. Offense, defense, and special teams. In OT the KC defense did their jobs and prevented the offense from scoring a TD, then the KC special teams and offense did their job and scored a TD. Or to use your logic, SF simply failed at the coin flip, on offense, and on defense.
Both teams play OT by the same rules, and those rules have been in place for several years. But if you want to whine about the rules, about the fact that SF couldn't win in regulation, and about the fact that they screwed up their OT strategy, go ahead and whine.
"The best team wouldn't need to be "given" an opportunity, because the best team would've made their opportunity by being the better team and scoring first."
In this case the "better" team failed to score enough points when they possessed the ball on offense to win the game. It's that simple, and whining isn't going to change it.
What's next, whining about the rule that makes it a live ball when the receiving team touches it but doesn't possess it? Whine about the fact that Kittle was more interested in taunting than in paying attention to the fumbled ball?
"Of course they did! In this case, it was to receive the kick off if they won the toss, which they did. Then, after scoring by whatever means possible, prevent KC from scoring and then pop the corks!"
Interesting, given the fact that the SF players admitted not knowing how OT worked, I'm not sure I buy that. That also ignores the fact that Shanahan himself said they were playing for the THIRD possession. But ignoring both of those facts, the reality is that the "better" team failed to execute their "plan" and then got suckered on the exact same play that KC used to score TWICE on PHI last year in the SB. Which led to much rejoicing, a second SB win in a row, the third in 5 years, and a chance for a three peat.
Oh, and they did it all as the underdog/road team against two #1 seeds and a #2 seed.
"SF kept shooting themselves in the foot with penalties early when they had all the momentum and were moving the ball at will."
All year KC's defense has allowed teams to get yards, but not score. Exactly as the did in the SB.
"Then, they went away from the run, which was moronic."
Interesting, you seem to be admitting that SF's coaching staff lost the game by making a change in their strategy. Doesn't sound like the best team, does it?
"Then, their defense, which was really making KC look like the team they really were throughout the season, forgot who they were playing against and what Mahommes is capable of doing. I don't think either team really played great football."
What a brilliant take. Yet somehow KC managed to come back from a 10 point deficit at half time, score enough offensive points to tie the game at the end, then to score the only offensive TD in OT. Oh yeah, KC was the most penalized team throughout the season, and had the worst WR room and the highest % of drops all year. Yet somehow they managed to beat SF which allegedly had the best offensive talent in the league and a defense that was ranked #1 in the NFL (I believe).
"The size of the viewing audience had nothing to do with that."
Well, you're the one whining about how the game was so bad and how the whining was driving viewers away from the NFL, not me.
"The Bears do indeed suck, but not as much as they did last year. That is, they are improving."
Well, I geuss 7-10 and last place in the NFC North is a little better than the year before.
"The jury's still out on this management team because they're new. This draft will tell us a lot about them and the results of next season will even more so."
Thanks Captain Obvious. I seriously doubt they'll be any better than third in the North, and that's only if the Vikings screw up their QB situation.
"Keep in mind that among those who "screwed up" talented QBs is your own Matt Nagy, who stupidly tried to force a team to fit his notion of how it should be without considering whether the strengths and weaknesses of the players would advance that plan. What he should have been doing is saying, "Who do I have and how can I get the best out of them?" He tried to make Trubisky a pocket passer when he was better rolling out."
Well, many coaches do that. Strangely enough, Mahomes has managed to make the transition to staying in the pocket and do pretty well with it. I guess Nagy just magically appeared as the Bears coach one day, and the ownership/leadership didn't hire him. But enough whining. Let's look ahead to another defensive coach trying to win with a talented QB (who doesn't seem to want to go to CHI) as see how that works.
" But he's gone, there's a new dude who is also still in pretty much a honeymoon period. They've made quite a few changes with their coaching staff (including a woman assistant RB coach), so we'll see if they screw up Fields or Williams without knowing at this point which will be our guy."
It's not like the Bears have much of a history of great QB play, at least over the last 25-30 years. I mean it's not like McMahon was that spectacular, right?
Look, I get it. I grew up a Chiefs fan, and I have no memory of the first SB win. So it was 50 long years of mostly bad teams, with a decade of disappointment in the '90's (great regular seasons, bad playoffs), followed by more mediocrity. I lived through the crap, I'm enjoying this ride.
Yet somehow, Veach latched on to QB1 as the guy he wanted to draft, Reid went along with him, and lots of teams passed him up. Perfect match of coach, player, mentor, supporting cast, and timing to set up one of the best 5 year runs in NFL history. Fortunately, it doesn't look like it's over yet. Draft and sign a WR or two, navigate keeping or replacing some great players, and next year should be just fine. Not to mention the fact that QB1 has done an amazing job of becoming a part of KC, buying into the Royals and the Currant, charitable stuff, he's a perfect fit for the city. I appreciate him following his dad's advice.
As QB1 said recently, "If they need me to be the villain, I can be the villain."
I'll admit that you whining about this is pretty amusing.
"Except, they'll simply play the 2nd OT period. Just like the refs at the SB said when they went through the OT rules."
Given the comment of mine to which this is provided as a response, it makes no sense since I was speaking of regulation and you're speaking of OT. OT had always been no more than an extension of the final seconds of the game where any tie is broken by whomever gets the chance to break it and does so. In the same way of a Sudden Death OT, whoever takes advantage of their chance to break the tie is and should be the winner, with no "chance" simply handed to the other team which did not succeed in taking possession before the other team scored.
"Your hypothetical ignores the fact that they'll play the second OT quarter."
No. My hypothetical clearly deals with regulation and the potential to deny the other team the opportunity to score. So again, if I milk the clock in the 1st Q of regulation and score right before the Q ends, I've deprived the other team from the opportunity to score and I won the Q. Then we move to the 2nd Q of regulation and in the ensuing kickoff, my team causes a turnover. Keep in mind, the ball simply has to touch any part of the body of a person on the receiving team, and any of my players can then take possession. Thus, hypothetically, that can happen from that point on without ever scoring another point and by the end of the game, my team has won without the other team ever having had the opportunity to possess the ball in order to advance it across the goal line.
Yet, they always had the opportunity if only they could have gotten possession. In a Sudden Death situation, that same opportunity exists if only the team who didn't win the toss can prevent the toss winner from scoring and take possession and score themselves. Hence, both teams had the opportunity to score all along when Sudden Death was the OT rule.
"Why didn't you score first?"
"Because the other team won the coin toss, elected to receive the kick and then marched down the field and scored first."
"Why didn't you stop them?"
"Uh...because we aren't the better team???"
" As far as the hypothetical fumble that's irrelevant."
No it's not, because be causing a turnover, the my team has prevented the other team from having an opportunity to score...unless they cause a turnover themselves and take possession. My mention of turnovers was to point out how the opportunity of one team can be denied throughout the four quarters of regulation play. It addresses the whine that both sides should have the opportunity to score in OT. No they shouldn't. Some just want that to be the case. Yet it always was the case without having to change the OT rules.
" The offense/return team has the opportunity to possess the ball. Once they have that opportunity, failure to score or a turnover ends the game."
But they already had that chance under the old rules. They failed to stop the coin toss winner and then take possession and score themselves. You're basically giving them a mulligan, which is wussy rules. They've wussified the sport enough already.
"First, it's interesting to see how much you're whining about a rule change you complain was caused y whining."
That's hilarious and surprisingly goofy. It's not whining to point out the flaws of a rule changed due to whining. Good gosh!
" Second, by your logic, the fact that SF couldn't stop KC from scoring a TD mans that they didn't step up and win the game either."
They shouldn't have had to given the realities of the former OT rules which had already provided opportunity enough for either team to win. But because the new rules gave KC a mully, they got a SECOND opportunity they shouldn't have had because they failed to stop SF.
"Football is a sport of 3 parts. Offense, defense, and special teams."
Not really. We always speak of "all three facets of the game", but special teams are extensions of offense and defense. This is because each is one or the other of advancing the ball (offense) or preventing the advancement of the ball (defense).
My logic is consistent regardless of which rules are in play. The better team has to win by being better in "all three facets of the game". Your logic...or the logic of the new rules...is that the team who isn't good enough to stop the first to have scored gets a second chance. Again, OT had always been no more than an extension of the final seconds of a tie ball game. During regulation, if the team with the ball can score, there's no opportunity for the other team to score without putting minutes on the clock which had run out. The only reason they're playing OT at all is because that didn't happen. The game wasn't decided. Whoever scores first from that point is the winner. The coin toss is irrelevant. It could have been KC who won it and then they could've used that opportunity to win had SF failed to stop them from doing so.
"Both teams play OT by the same rules, and those rules have been in place for several years. But if you want to whine about the rules, about the fact that SF couldn't win in regulation, and about the fact that they screwed up their OT strategy, go ahead and whine."
Why do you insist on pretending I'm whining simply by stating and explaining my objection to rules changed because of whining? That's bullshit and unnecessary. It seems an alternative to an actual alternative argument to accuse me of whining. Here's an idea: just call me a racist. That's how lefties do it.
I have no problem with rule changes if there's a good reason for it. There was none other than the fact that Buffalo didn't like losing to KC in OT.
"In this case the "better" team failed to score enough points when they possessed the ball on offense to win the game."
No. The whiners made it a matter of scoring "enough" points rather than scoring first. You're good with it only because in this case it favored your team. Had the roles been reversed, it wouldn't make a difference to me. Had it been KC who won the toss and marched down to kick the FG, other than seeing too much of Taylor Swift and the future Mr. Swift, it wouldn't have mattered to me. I wouldn't have like seeing SF get the mulligan.
"What's next, whining about the rule that makes it a live ball when the receiving team touches it but doesn't possess it?"
What are you talking about??! The rules already say that! SF F'd that play up. They deserved to lose possession! Good gosh!
"Interesting, given the fact that the SF players admitted not knowing how OT worked, I'm not sure I buy that."
It's irrelevant in any case, but it's absurd to think they had no plan or else they'd have been standing around wondering why KC's kick receiving team was on the field. Were they? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure they were out there ready to kick off.
"That also ignores the fact that Shanahan himself said they were playing for the THIRD possession."
Which suggests the necessary people understood the rules. I would take his plan to mean they expected a Mahommes led team was likely to at least score. I would take it to mean he intended to score a TD and that KC would also, meaning he'd have to score again on the third possession. Sounds like planning to me.
"Oh, and they did it all as the underdog/road team against two #1 seeds and a #2 seed."
They "did it" by a rules change which awarded them an opportunity they didn't deserve due to their poor play. Good for them, but they had a crappy year. Crappy years don't matter if a crappy team makes it to the playoffs. As they say, throw them stats out the window!
The rule change sucks. I hate ties even when my team comes back from a deficit to get one. I want them to come back and take the lead and put the dog down for good. You know...the way it's always been meant to be. This is a problem I have with hockey, as ties are routine. Ties are a loss because they work against you when records are matched up, unless the other teams sucks more than you do. Baseball is great because they don't stop playing until there's a winner. No ties OR crying in baseball! The only time I like ties or OT is when I'm in the stands after paying for stupidly expensive tickets, in which case I'm getting a bit more for having done so.
The NFL needs to return to the Sudden Death rule. Buck up and win the game and no OT is necessary.
Whiners!
"All year KC's defense has allowed teams to get yards, but not score. Exactly as the did in the SB."
If not for stupid offensive penalties, KC would have had a larger hurdle to overcome. Thanks to those penalties, the score was never out of hand. Maybe you should have watched the game.
" Interesting, you seem to be admitting that SF's coaching staff lost the game by making a change in their strategy. Doesn't sound like the best team, does it?"
No. But I wasn't putting them up as the best team, was I? No. I wasn't. All I said was that they won the coin toss in OT and scored on their first possession which would have been a win...making them the best team...were it not for whining which led to a stupidly unjustified rule change. I could not have been more clear.
"What a brilliant take. Yet somehow KC managed to come back from a 10 point deficit at half time, score enough offensive points to tie the game at the end, then to score the only offensive TD in OT."
An OT TD they wouldn't have been allowed to even attempt were it not for the whiny and unjustified rule change. What a brilliant rejoinder to my point.
" Yet somehow they managed to beat SF which allegedly had the best offensive talent in the league and a defense that was ranked #1 in the NFL (I believe)."
"Somehow"??? It's no mystery. They were able to win because the whine induced rule change gave them a mulligan. Geez!
"Well, you're the one whining about how the game was so bad and how the whining was driving viewers away from the NFL, not me."
what the f**k is it with this psychotic need to portray me as "whining"? It wasn't a great game. That's a fact, not a whine. I don't recall saying anything about anyone being driven away from viewing the game (though I've seen tons of comments on a variety of forums in which those posting comments say they no longer watch pro sports).
" Well, I geuss 7-10 and last place in the NFC North is a little better than the year before."
Yeah, they continue to disappoint. They gave away three games they had in the bag...one in like two or three minutes remaining. There was one game where they had massive control of the clock, and when it mattered most, at the end of the game, they ran plays totally contrary than the game plan which kept the other offense off the field. Three and out in 15 seconds of play. I almost trashed the flat screen!
" I seriously doubt they'll be any better than third in the North, and that's only if the Vikings screw up their QB situation."
Spoken like someone who doesn't watch the NFC North. The Lions are still the team to beat. The likelihood of the Bears still being 4th is still quite high, but the intangibles which aren't exposed by scores and placement in the division aren't obvious to those who aren't watching regularly. For example, I could tell by the standings and scores that KC wasn't the team they were last year. But I didn't watch them enough to know why or if the standings and scores really told the tale of who they were. Fields was out for four weeks and at first, it seemed the unknown back up might be someone special. I think he still could be, but his rookiness took its toll. Then Fields returned and played really well, but the team as a whole is incomplete and incapable of matching up against the really good teams.
But for example, the addition of DJ Moore alone made a huge difference in their potential. Then adding Sweat on defense helped improve an already improving defense. And while I would love to see improvement in the O line, who did enough to improve our running game, another WR on the level of Moore would be incredibly beneficial. I read of one draft option of a tight end who has numbers which are better than most any other TE who ever came out of college. That would work, too. There are fewer holes to fill than there were last year, but they're just as gaping.
IF they keep Fields, one or two more stellar receivers (WR or TE) could mean a lot. Good receivers help QBs look great. Moore is a great yards after catch guy, something the Bears haven't had in quite a while...if ever.
I don't know that it's accurate to say that Caleb Williams doesn't want to come here, so much as to say he might like to go to a team like KC.
The Bears have a sorry record of having something like...I dunno...472 QBs during Aaron Rogers' tenure in Green Bay. We had a good one in Jay Cutler, who, if we assumed three elite QBs in the league like Rogers or Brady, Cutler was high in the next level. Some of the passes he made were miraculous. But he wasn't surrounded with a good offense. Indeed, one year, he was sacked so many times and took so many hits in addition, I couldn't believe he could still get up off the turf. Along the way since the '85 SB win, we've had a few coaches that were absolutely stupid and some of the QB's were nonsensical. I recall the year they drafted Trubisky (who many ranked above Mahommes and the other guy they could have taken instead...which is weird), they had this dude behind whom Trubisky was to sit and from whom he was supposed to learn. A real geeky looking guy whose name I can never remember. The coach was Fox, who coached the Broncos when they were still somebody. He sucked. The QB sucked and soon, when Trubisky was supposed to be learning the game from the bench and in garbage time, the replaced the starter with Mitch who looked to be a vast improvement because he scrambled well and completed passes. Well, fast forward and we dumped him for Fields he sat behind, Nick Foles I believe it was. Still without a great surrounding cast, Fields finally got his chance and played, to my mind, quite like Trubisky. Now he's much better but still questionable or they wouldn't be considering Williams.
Anyway, that's a greatly abbreviated history of the sad sacks known as the "Munsters" of the Midway. And now I'm really depressed.
"Well, many coaches do that."
Yeah, and they fail.
"Strangely enough, Mahomes has managed to make the transition to staying in the pocket and do pretty well with it."
There are not many Mahomes', Rogers', Bradys, so game planning to the strengths and abilities of the players one has is what great coaches do.
"I guess Nagy just magically appeared as the Bears coach one day, and the ownership/leadership didn't hire him."
No. He was hired away from KC as a "QB Whisperer" who can make anyone who can throw a football a great QB. He sucked as a head coach. Had they hired him as a QB coach, maybe Mitch might have had a chance. He suggests that great coaching has as much to do with having great players than it does with any football intelligence. I felt that way about Phil Jackson as Bulls coach. He'd be a moron to lose with a team which had Jordan and Pippen, and his having Tex Winter and the other dude whose name escapes me, likely had more to do with how they played in terms of Xs and Os.
"But enough whining. Let's look ahead to another defensive coach trying to win with a talented QB (who doesn't seem to want to go to CHI) as see how that works."
Yeah, please, stop whining. I haven't whined yet, except about you pretending I've been whining. What the f**k is it with you needing me to be whining?
We Bears fans can only look ahead with hope. It's not as if we've had a Trump with a proven record about whom some haters think his supporters only "hope" he'll be an improvement over what's happening now. No. We have a lot of questions yet unanswered about the coaching staff. But then, if Caleb Williams is the cat's pajamas the way Mahomes was, it likely won't matter what the coaching staff does. Then, Eberflus will be worshiped like Reid.
"It's not like the Bears have much of a history of great QB play, at least over the last 25-30 years. I mean it's not like McMahon was that spectacular, right?"
Actually, McMahon was very good in terms of understanding the game and what's needed to win. He wasn't great in terms of technique (spirals were a rarity), but he was accurate enough for a QB on a run heavy team.
" Perfect match of coach, player, mentor, supporting cast, and timing to set up one of the best 5 year runs in NFL history."
Hard to be great without all those parts coming together as they have. KC is the new NE Pats!
"I'll admit that you whining about this is pretty amusing."
You must get great weed in the frozen north. The only whining I've done is about your obsessive desire to pretend I've been whining. You're like a typical lefty seeing what he wants to see. Oh, shit! Was that whining??? ARGHHH!
"OT had always been no more than an extension of the final seconds of the game"
Where exactly is this in the NFL rules? I've been watching football for decades, one of my kids played college ball, and I've never heard this, ever.
"My hypothetical clearly deals with regulation"
If you say so. Although, IF your hypothetical played out through all 4 quarters with a 0-0 tie, then it'd go to OT under the current rules. If under your hypothetical, one team scored more than the other in regulation, they'd win.
But why bother with a hypothetical when we actually have OT, with rules that apply to both teams and everything. FYI, how many times do we see teams down by 3 late in the 4th and they make the decision to play for the tie and for OT. Are you somehow suggesting that these teams are "lesser" because they make a strategic decision you don't like?
"Uh...because we aren't the better team???"
What an interesting contention. The notion that the "better team" is solely determined by one drive in OT. I guess based on the notion that the "better team" always wins.
"Not really."
Well, I guess I'll take your word for it against virtually every football professional ever. That's why the OC and the DC are in charge of the kicking and punting units and why teams have players on their rosters who almost exclusively play special teams.
"Why do you insist on pretending I'm whining simply by stating and explaining my objection to rules changed because of whining?"
Well, because you're whining about the outcome of the SB even though both teams played by the same set of rules, and the result was correct under the current rules.
"The whiners made it a matter of scoring "enough" points rather than scoring first."
Yet, that's the entire point of the game. To score "enough" points that your score at the end is higher than the other team.
You're good with it only because in this case it favored your team. Had the roles been reversed, it wouldn't make a difference to me. Had it been KC who won the toss and marched down to kick the FG, other than seeing too much of Taylor Swift and the future Mr. Swift, it wouldn't have mattered to me. I wouldn't have like seeing SF get the mulligan.
BREAK for a hypothetical.
If, as you claim, OT is merely an extension of regulation. Then if Team X has the ball and is driving down the field and the clock expires with 2nd down and 3 on their opponents 48 yard line, then why wouldn't OT start at the point regulation ended? If it's merely a continuation, why start over with a coin toss?
"You're good with it only because in this case it favored your team."
Not really. I've though the both this OT rule, and the old rule sucked, I just never complained about them because they were the rules. FYI, even though Buffalo was the team that pushed the rule change, it still took a majority of teams to vote for it.
"other than seeing too much of Taylor Swift"
Yeah, that 54 seconds of Swift was just too much. Let's make a rule that bans the broadcast from showing ALL wives, girlfriends, parents, siblings, and celebrities who might be attending the game. Did you whine about Eminem getting too much screen time in the NFCCG?
"and the future Mr. Swift, it wouldn't have mattered to me."
yeah, why in the world would the give screen time to Kelce. It's not like he's breaking Jerry Rice's playoff records, or having a significantly better game than Kittle.
"I wouldn't have like seeing SF get the mulligan."
What an absurd notion. KC played the game according to the rules, came back fro 10 down to tie the game at the end, and played OT according to the rules, and did so better than SF. Maybe they should have ignored the turnover on the punt, too. That's a stupid rule.
Speaking of stupid rules. The touch back on a fumble that goes into the end zone as opposed to out of bounds across a side line is a really stupid rule. Yet, there was minimal whining about that call.
IMO, I'd argue that IF there must be a change of possession, then it should take place at the spot of the fumble, or that out of bounds across the sideline also is a change of possession. The notion that the fumbling player can push the ball out of bounds and get possession where it went out seems problematic to me, but I'm not whining about it.
"It's irrelevant in any case,"
You're right, knowing the rules for the Super Bowl is irrelevant. They did have a plan, but their plan was based on scoring, assuming KC scored the same as they did, then playing for the win on the third possession.
"They "did it" by a rules change which awarded them an opportunity they didn't deserve due to their poor play."
"poor play" meaning that they played the "better" team to a tie in regulation? This "rules change" was a result of KC winning under the OLD OT rules, it's clear that they could care less which rules they play under. SF was up by 10 at half, yet their "poor play" prevented them from stopping KC from tying the game up at the end of regulation. If your going to bitch, shouldn't you be bitching that SF's "poor play" cost them the win in regulation? Hell, the turnover on the punt probably cost them the game, not the OOT rule.
"Good for them, but they had a crappy year."
Wow, coming from a Bears fan, calling 11-6 and an eighth straight AFC West win, the third seed in the playoffs, being an underdog in all four playoff wins, beating both #1's and the AFC #2 on the road. If that's a crappy year, I'll take it every single year. Much crappier than 7-10, 4th in the NFC North, and missing the playoffs.
"Crappy years don't matter if a crappy team makes it to the playoffs."
I think your definition of "crappy" is the problem. The Chargers, Panthers, Bengals, Jags, were "crappy" last year. The Chiefs had a bit of an off year, there's a difference.
"If not for stupid offensive penalties, KC would have had a larger hurdle to overcome. Thanks to those penalties, the score was never out of hand. Maybe you should have watched the game."
Ohhhhhh, blame the refs. That's a good strategy. Maybe you should have watched the whole season.
"Total: 12 accepted penalties, 95 yards, 13 flags
#SanFrancisco: 6 pen, 40 yards, 7 flags
#KansasCity: 6 pen, 55 yards, 6 flags"
Strange, KC gave up more penalty yards than SF.
"No. But I wasn't putting them up as the best team, was I?"
1. The strategy change I was referring to was their decision to abandon the run which you claimed was working incredibly well.
2. Since all you've done is bitch about how KC won on a technicality, and how the "better" team lost, I'm confused as to who you think the "better" team was.
"An OT TD they wouldn't have been allowed to even attempt were it not for the whiny and unjustified rule change. What a brilliant rejoinder to my point."
Ok Skip Bayless. If you have to live in the "what if" world, enjoy yourself. By all means ignore KC's second half and chalk it up to SF abandoning the run. Obviously pointing out what happened in the entirety of the game isn't "brilliant", but it is acknowledging reality. The point you miss is that ALL SF had to do was to stop ONE measly scoring drive, just one, in regulation and they'd have won. They didn't, and the entire game turned on playing OT under the rules. Good take, actually brilliant.
"It's no mystery. They were able to win because the whine induced rule change gave them a mulligan. Geez!"
You're right. SF's failure to stop just ONE 2nd half scoring drive had nothing to do with it. Mahomes ability to lead comebacks, not a factor. Just a 5 year old rule change that 50+% of NFL teams voted for.
Who should I trust, Scripture or Dan? The majority of NFL teams, or Art? Look if you want to bitch and while, aim at Buffalo, they're the ones who pushed the change.
" They gave away three games they had in the bag"
You and Skip with your "if" takes.
"Spoken like someone who doesn't watch the NFC North."
Yeah, because the NFC north games are never broadcast in MN, the local sports media completely ignores the NFC north. Right now, the Lions and Packers are clearly better than the Bears and the Vikings are still a question mark. While we're in "if" land. Let's consider what would have happened had Cousins not been out for the end of the season. Do you really mean to tell me that the Vikings couldn't have pulled of two more wins had Cousins stayed healthy? Maybe 3? I'd have to dig for box scores, but the Bears couldn't finish ahead of the Vikings when the vikings trotted out multiple really bad QB's for over half the season.
" I could tell by the standings and scores that KC wasn't the team they were last year."
Yet they were still 11-6 and won the AFC west for the eighth time. Yet before the season, everyone knew this would be a "down" year. Highest % of WR drops in lord knows how long. Injuries, bad WR play (especially from Moore and MVS), average OT play, whatever. The reality is that they had a better season that all but 3 teams in the AFC and somehow managed a playoff run where they started off as a home underdog (to a warm weather team in really cold weather), and beat three of the top 4 seeds in the NFL. Down year, absolutely. Bad/crappy year, not so much.
"Good receivers help QBs look great."
Mahomes had some of the worst receivers in the NFL and he still looked good enough to get MVP votes.
I get it, the Bears have sucked at developing QB's in a QB dependent league. The organization has made bad choices at coaching and personnel. They're likely to draft a QB #1 with no inkling as to whether or not this coaching staff can develop a QB at all.
"But then, if Caleb Williams is the cat's pajamas the way Mahomes was, it likely won't matter what the coaching staff does. Then, Eberflus will be worshiped like Reid."
1. Go back and look at what was said about Mahomes before he was drafted and before he had the 50/50 season.
2. Go back and look at Mahomes pre-draft projections.
3. Williams is the consessus #1. Everyone but KC was convinced Mahomes was over drafted and would be a failure in the NFL.
McMahon was an average QB with a spectacular supporting cast in '85.
The only thing you've done is whine about a rule change that is several years old, and that was voted in by more than 50% of NFL teams, pretending that it was only that rule change that resulted in SF losing. Lots of "if only" and blame the refs whining as well.
Weed is legal, but I can't speak to the quality.
Given the past history, the last 5 years has been lots of fun. Especially getting one in a down year.
"Where exactly is this in the NFL rules? I've been watching football for decades, one of my kids played college ball, and I've never heard this, ever."
Why should it have to be for it to be the case in reality? Consider it in the context in which I presented it, not apart from it.
"If you say so. Although, IF your hypothetical played out through all 4 quarters with a 0-0 tie, then it'd go to OT under the current rules. If under your hypothetical, one team scored more than the other in regulation, they'd win."
Once again, as was made quite clear at the outset, my hypothetical focused on the notion of a team being given the opportunity to score in OT if the other team scored first. The opportunity always existed already, with the OT situation merely being the need for the coin toss loser to prevent the winner from advancing the ball into the end zone. Succeeding in this endeavor, they then have made for themselves the opportunity those who like this rule change pretend didn't exist. It's the same opportunity they had throughout regulation. The rule change provides a mulligan for failure to deny the toss winner the success of scoring first.
"But why bother with a hypothetical when we actually have OT, with rules that apply to both teams and everything."
That was true under the old rules. They applied equally. Each team had an equal chance to win or lose the coin toss and respond accordingly with either superior offensive or defensive play as the case may be.
"What an interesting contention. The notion that the "better team" is solely determined by one drive in OT."
Yes. The obvious can indeed be interesting. The notion that the better team is solely determined by the one drive that broke a tie either before regulation ran out or after OT began. Success in that endeavor makes one's team the better of the two.
"Well, I guess I'll take your word for it against virtually every football professional ever. That's why the OC and the DC are in charge of the kicking and punting units and why teams have players on their rosters who almost exclusively play special teams."
An offense has the job of advancing the ball toward and hopefully over the goal line. The defense has the job of preventing that from happening. The kick return and punt return teams have the job of advancing the ball toward and hopefully over the goal line. The kick and punt teams have the job of preventing that from happening. Kick/punt and return teams are different facets of offense and defense. The fact that they have different players than to what's more commonly recognized as offense and defensive groups doesn't mean they aren't also offensive and defensive in nature and purpose. Ask a football professional and see if they can argue against what I've said intelligently.
"Well, because you're whining about the outcome of the SB even though both teams played by the same set of rules, and the result was correct under the current rules."
I don't care that KC won, nor would I have cared if they didn't, so I wasn't "whining" about the outcome of the game. If I was "whining" about anything, it was as I clearly and unambiguously asserted, that the rules were changed because of whining. But then, I wasn't whining about that, either. I was making an objective argument based on the facts. But hey...if need to believe I'm whining, I won't deny your determination to whine that I am.
"...that's the entire point of the game. To score "enough" points that your score at the end is higher than the other team."
Correct. Then we move to determining a winner when regulation ends in a tie. The last moments of regulation was a drive to break the tie. That's the point of OT. To break the tie. Each team has equal opportunity to do that. Again, with a rule change to another period of any length, it goes back to scoring more than the other team before the extra period of play expires as was the case in regulation. But a tie might be the result and we're back to trying to break the tie ad infinitum. Sudden Death gets right to it. Sudden Death is best.
" If it's merely a continuation, why start over with a coin toss?"
The same reason they toss under the new rules. They treat it like a new game. It's just a matter of how the new game is played and this is what is under discussion here. The previous rule is best.
"Not really. I've though the both this OT rule, and the old rule sucked, I just never complained about them because they were the rules."
Again with the "whining" crap. Get over yourself. Are you saying you never express any opinion ever about any rule change ever? Really? I'm not buying it, Craig. You're just protecting your team here.
"FYI, even though Buffalo was the team that pushed the rule change, it still took a majority of teams to vote for it."
Irrelevant. What's relevant is the change was proposed by whining, not because it's actually better than the original.
"Let's make a rule that bans the broadcast from showing ALL wives, girlfriends, parents, siblings, and celebrities who might be attending the game."
Now THAT'S a great idea! Do you tune in to look at any of those people, or to watch a football game?
Time out! Dinner's ready!
"What an absurd notion. KC played the game according to the rules, came back fro 10 down to tie the game at the end, and played OT according to the rules, and did so better than SF. Maybe they should have ignored the turnover on the punt, too. That's a stupid rule."
Naw...nothing at all wrong with the touch rule. That would mean anyone on the kick/punt team can pick up the ball and run with it. The ball making contact with any return team player puts it up for grabs, just as if the return man fumbled without it having been forced. I'd say that was a nice try on your part...except it wasn't.
I'm well aware KC played according to the rules. That's irrelevant given the fact this discussion concerns rules having been changed from Sudden Death to this.
"Speaking of stupid rules. The touch back on a fumble that goes into the end zone as opposed to out of bounds across a side line is a really stupid rule. Yet, there was minimal whining about that call."
Don't recall the details surrounding that change. Nice deflection, though.
"IMO, I'd argue that IF there must be a change of possession, then it should take place at the spot of the fumble, or that out of bounds across the sideline also is a change of possession. The notion that the fumbling player can push the ball out of bounds and get possession where it went out seems problematic to me, but I'm not whining about it."
Well, aren't YOU the big boy! I'm not even sure what situation you're referencing, but this discussion is about the OT rule change. Seems you're whining about me pointing out the obvious flaws of the change and the whining which brought it about. Like Vinny, you seem to think that doing means a review of every rule change is necessary. That's not the case, though. I do, however, have a post about sports things I hate. Such off topic points about other rules might be better of there.
"You're right, knowing the rules for the Super Bowl is irrelevant."
I believe you spoke of SF plyers being unaware. I responded to that and it's the same. It's irrelevant that some player (likely only one said it, but I won't belabor the point) was unaware. All he or any other player needs to do is play until the coach says it's over. The players don't game plan. Coaches do.
" "poor play" meaning that they played the "better" team to a tie in regulation?"
Yeah...as opposed to "beating" the better team in regulation and then not preventing them from kicking a field goal in OT after the coin toss. This is all basic stuff. The concept here, as regards to stupid rule change and your concern you Chiefs might not be regarded as the "better team" is similar to what we see in basketball, in that if you give a known good shooter enough opportunities, he's going to score. Not even bad teams intend to "give" opportunities. This OT rule forces the acceptance of an opportunity the other team never deserved under the old rules. It's wussy stuff. Had they prevented SF from scoring that field goal, they then would have earned the opportunity...SF would have given them that opportunity by failing to score first. Far better than this new rule.
" This "rules change" was a result of KC winning under the OLD OT rules, it's clear that they could care less which rules they play under."
Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that the rule was changed due to whining about how horribly unfair the old rule was because they couldn't stop the coin toss winner from scoring immediately. Thus, it was a result of the whining of the losers under the old rule.
It's not a matter of caring what the rules are when one hasn't the power to change it. Yeah, any time of the day or night, by whatever rules...let's play. That's not the same as having an actual opinion on a given rule or what that opinion might be. So that was more irrelevance.
Gotta go. Bulls are tipping off.
I'll leave it at this.
1. The majority of NFL teams voted to change the rule, to benefit themselves.
2. OT is most definitely not merely a continuation of q4 play. It's a new period, with new time outs, new challenges, new rules and a new coin flip. It's clearly, and always has been as completely separate thing.
3. If it was merely a continuation of q4 play, then that continuation severely penalizes the team who had the ball when the time expires. Worst case they lose possession entirely, best case they have to start over after a kickoff.
4. You disliking a rule change in a sport, does not automatically mean that those (including the majority of NFL teams) who disagree with you are whining or wrong.
5. Under your hypothetical, the best option for OT (as a continuation of regulation time) would be to play a full 5th quarter under the exact same rules as the other 4, with the possession that ended Q4 picking up where it left off.
6. No other major sport I'm aware of goes immediately to a complete and drastic change of the rules under which the rest of the game is played. It's probably a conspiracy of whiners or something, but unlike baseball (which has always played until someone loses), every other major sport plays at least one extra period under the same rules as the rest of the game. Even sports that eventually go to a shoot out don't make the shoot out sudden death.
7. Seriously, get over yourself. Your opinions are like everyone else's, which are like assholes. Everyone has them, and they all stink.
"That was true under the old rules. They applied equally. Each team had an equal chance to win or lose the coin toss and respond accordingly with either superior offensive or defensive play as the case may be."
My point exactly. Under the new rules both teams have exactly the same thing. An equal chance to do what is necessary to win the game.
"Success in that endeavor makes one's team the better of the two."
Hypothetically, Team X wins the coin toss in OT (a matter of random chance not skill or ability), and chooses to receive the ball. They get the kick, and the return guy fumbles without being touched leading to a score by the kicking team. How is that a demonstration that the winning team is objectively "better"?
" Each team has equal opportunity to do that"
Under the new rules this is a correct, and accurate statement. Under the old rules, the "equality" was based entirely on the random chance of the coin flip. Under the old rules, it wasn't equal at all. The team that loses the random coin flip, is required to first prevent the other team from scoring at all, then is required to score themselves. Which means that the kicking team is required to play defense, special teams, then offense, while the receiving team is only required to play offense. But if 3 is equal to 2, then cool.
"The last moments of regulation was a drive to break the tie."
The above statement is literally not True.
"That's the point of OT. To break the tie."
That;s True, but (as we see in other sports) there is no one best way to accomplish this result. It seems to me that giving each team an actual equal opportunity to score more points is the better option. Of course, there are multiple ways to accomplish that end.
"The same reason they toss under the new rules. They treat it like a new game."
Make up your mind. Is it a "continuation of the play in regulation, or is it a new game? If it's a new game, why would you play the new game under a radically different set of rules, especially one that favors the winner of the coin toss? (an event which requires zero skill and is completely random)
"Are you saying you never express any opinion ever about any rule change ever? Really?"
Not at all. I am saying that I understand that me expressing my opinion about NFL rules is simply that and nothing else. I don't accuse those who disagree with me of whining or anything, it's just my opinion. I also don't use my problem with rules or enforcement of rules to bitch about the results of a specific game. It's a pointless waste of time to do so. Both teams play under the same rules, and they knew the rules going in. The NFL has a policy for changing rules, and those changes can be made after the fact. I've been clear that I'm not a fan of either the old or the new OT rules. But I'm not bitching about the results of games played under those rules, I accept the results and move on. I'm also not getting worked up because the NFL switched from (IMO) one bad OT rule to another (IMO) bad OT rule. I can also understand the difference between discussing the rules, without bitching about the outcome of a specific game played under a consistent set of rules known and agreed on by both teams before the game started.
Am I appalled at the level of inconsistency of officiating across the board in recent years, yes. Do I think that the NFL should re think accountability for officials, yes. Do I think that any sport played at the highest level deserves to have the same level of quality from the officials as from the players, yes. Do I bitch about losing games because of bad calls, no. Do I support the NFL looking at bad calls and taking action based on that review, maybe. But I still don't play the blame the refs game. It's a waste of time.
"not because it's actually better than the original."
Strangely enough, you seem to be saying that the NFL teams intentionally voted for a rule that was objectively worse then the previous rule. That is quite the claim there. I suspect you meant to say that in your personal, subjective opinion, you preferred the old rule to the new rule. Better is an objective term, your personal values on this are subjective.
"Now THAT'S a great idea! Do you tune in to look at any of those people, or to watch a football game?"
I tune in to watch the game, yet my enjoyment of the game is not affected in the least if the broadcast chooses to show, wives, girlfriends, parents, siblings, or celebrities during the frequent time periods when there is nothing happening on the field. It's better then more commercials, and better than Buck or Romo spouting bullshit. By all means, let's just stop showing all fan reactions to the play on the field. Let's hermetically seal the playing surface so as to not interrupt the pauses between the action with any extraneous bullshit.
Have you ever watched a game replay on NFL network, or a D3 college game? The NFL network edits out everything but the actual plays, and it cuts the games down significantly, it's why I DVR any KC Super Bowl on the NFL network reply, not the actual network broadcast. D3 games rarely go much over 2 hours for regulation, it's so much more fun to watch than an NFL game. Hell, while we're eliminating anything not related to the game play, let's get rid of halftime as well. If you're going to get this worked up over @40 seconds of screen time in a 4+ hour broadcast, I don't know if I can help you. I guess you're on the No Fun League bandwagon.
"Don't recall the details surrounding that change. Nice deflection, though."
No deflection at all. I'm pointing out a rule that makes literally no sense, but that actually affects the outcome of games. The fact that you seem unfamiliar with the rules of out of bounds fumbles makes me wonder if it's all bad rules or just the OT because you don't like it.
"Well, aren't YOU the big boy! I'm not even sure what situation you're referencing, but this discussion is about the OT rule change."
Because pointing out other rules that could be changed is clearly irrelevant to this discussion of NFL rules. My point is that it's possible to look at rules and needed/wanted changes dispassionately and advocate for change without complaining about a specific game result.
" I believe you spoke of SF plyers being unaware."
Isn't part of game planning covering a situation where the rules change drastically and the reasons why the game plan is what it is? If the coaches make a bad game plan (as seems to have happened here) doesn't that call into question their status as the "better" team? Isn't coaching and game planning for all foreseeable outcomes part and parcel of preparing for a significant game? Isn't making the wrong decision about the OT coin flip just one more way that SF failed to win the game? Obviously failing to stop one KC scoring drive and protect their 10 point lead was another. Especially given KC's documented ability to come back from 10 points down at halftime.
"Had they prevented SF from scoring that field goal, ..." back to playing the "if only" game. BUt let's do that. "If only" SF had continued to use their dominant (though scoreless) running game, they would have won. "If only, SF had maintained their 10 point lead, they'd have won. "If only SF hadn't turned over the ball because a player touched the punted ball, they would have won. "If only, SF had chosen to receive in OT...". You can play these games all you want, the bottom line is that is SF was the "better" team, they had ample chances to win in regulation without even getting to OT. They also had the chance to choose differently in OT, and didn't. To pretend that the result of the game is all about the OT rule (that's been in effect for years), is simply foolish.
Bitch about the OT rule all you want, I could care less. But this notion that KC ONLY won because Buffalo whined a few years ago because KC beat them under the old rules, is absurd. If you like OT being decided by the (completely random) coin toss and think that the "winner" of the coin toss should be given an advantage in OT, make that argument on it's own merits.
So, if the Bulls end regulation tied, they should do a coin toss, give the ball to the "winner" of that random event, and play sudden death from there?
I'm not buying it, Craig. You're just protecting your team here.
"Wow, coming from a Bears fan, calling 11-6 and an eighth straight AFC West win, the third seed in the playoffs, being an underdog in all four playoff wins, beating both #1's and the AFC #2 on the road. If that's a crappy year, I'll take it every single year. Much crappier than 7-10, 4th in the NFC North, and missing the playoffs."
Yeah, dude. Crappy by KC standards? Absolutely. Was the Bears 7-10 good based on recent Bears play? Yeah. You really need to step back from your KC worship just a bit and focus on the points I've been making.
"Mahomes had some of the worst receivers in the NFL and he still looked good enough to get MVP votes."
Yeah...and he looks so much better with better receivers. He looks great when throwing to Kelce, doesn't he? One of the things I like about Darnell Mooney is that he seemed to catch anything which came anywhere near him, catches many would miss. Don't know exactly why they didn't use him as much this past season, but the point here is when the passes thrown to him weren't perfect, he caught them anyway which made for a better QB rating. See how this works? Even the best QBs look better with better receivers.
I believe it could have been Trubisky's last year as a Bears starter, or maybe the one prior, I recall the announcer talking about how many drops were committed by Bears receivers. One I recall was notable for how freaking wide open the receiver was, within 15-20 yards of the end zone. He could have walked it in without the defender catching up. Perfectly thrown ball and the dude dropped it. Another similar great pass was called back due to a weak hands to the face penalty by an O-lineman. That, too, comes off the stats for the QB. While poor Mitch wasn't the dude he should have been given he was drafted before your guy, he was better at this point than he was when they got him, but how much was distorted by poor play of the team.
So yeah...good receivers make for a better QB. Basic stuff.
"I get it, the Bears have sucked ...etc."
I'm not about to defend the Bears. Rest assured I absolutely have more criticisms than you could have about them. That's a different post topic and has no relevance to this one.
"The only thing you've done is whine about a rule change that is several years old, and that was voted in by more than 50% of NFL teams, pretending that it was only that rule change that resulted in SF losing. Lots of "if only" and blame the refs whining as well."
It could possibly be the only thing if I was actually whining. Expressing criticism for an unnecessary rule change brought about by whining is in itself whining. Whining that all I've done is whine is whining. In the meantime, you haven't actually made a good counter argument in favor of the change. In the case of this SB, it certainly was why SF lost if you consider how the rule change made a difference. That's not whining, but pointing out a clear and unmistakable fact.
Games often ebb and flow unless one team is simply dominant. One expects more of that in the SB where ostensibly the combatants are more evenly matched (wasn't the case with the Bears' '85 win). This one ebbed and flowed with bad play more than good play, but the point here is that under the old rule, SF would be considered the fair haired dudes and only KC fans would disagree. Clearly, they failed according to the new rules, but it was only the new rules which saved KC. Give an opponent enough opportunities and they'll get it done. Even the Pats scored a TD in '85. Geez! It's tough talking to homers!
"Weed is legal, but I can't speak to the quality."
Judging by your comments, I need to get some of it.
"Given the past history, the last 5 years has been lots of fun. Especially getting one in a down year."
No doubt. I'd be thrilled. Dynasties are great if your team is enjoying one. As a Bulls fan, I can dig it.
"1. The majority of NFL teams voted to change the rule, to benefit themselves."
We'll call them, "the whiners".
"2. OT is most definitely not merely a continuation of q4 play. It's a new period, with new time outs, new challenges, new rules and a new coin flip. It's clearly, and always has been as completely separate thing."
You're being way too technical. Except for the benefit of the fans who poured out big bucks to pay these whiny kids already paid great sums to play, it's a continuation because the game is meant to be decided within the parameters of the established length of the game...four quarters. If by the end of the fourth that hasn't happened, they extend the game with the OT period, the rules of which were just fine prior to changing it to what we have now.
"3. If it was merely a continuation of q4 play, then that continuation severely penalizes the team who had the ball when the time expires. Worst case they lose possession entirely, best case they have to start over after a kickoff."
Again, you're being too needlessly technical by focusing on the words I use to express myself in response to your whiny rejoinders. The game's supposed to end at the end of the 4th quarter, is it not? Then if there's a tie, the game, specifically the 4th quarter as it's the last of the game, is extended by OT play. Your "arguments" actually bring up other possible options for rule changes. I'm simply comparing what was to what now is. Because KC won under what is, you're whining about my even daring to bring up criticisms of that change. Calm down.
"4. You disliking a rule change in a sport, does not automatically mean that those (including the majority of NFL teams) who disagree with you are whining or wrong."
Except that it was changed because of whining by teams who lost under those rules as if they were deprived of the chance to score, which was never the case. The chance to score first had always been determined by one of two things: winning the coin toss and electing to receive, then drive the ball to some form of scoring, OR, denying the ability of the coin toss winner to do just that and then taking possession to score yourself. Simple stuff.
"5. Under your hypothetical, the best option for OT (as a continuation of regulation time) would be to play a full 5th quarter under the exact same rules as the other 4, with the possession that ended Q4 picking up where it left off."
Not at all, because again, my hypothetical dealt with only regulation play in response to the notion of "the opportunity to score". It always exists and it can hypothetically (as my hypothetical clearly illustrated) can be totally denied. So the "opportunity" angle was a whine. The opportunity had always existed as described in point 4.
"6. No other major sport I'm aware of goes immediately to a complete and drastic change of the rules under which the rest of the game is played."
So what? Are they all required to operate the same way? Even with my alternate option, it's not exactly the same as other sports except in a general way. An irrelevant point.
"It's probably a conspiracy of whiners or something, but unlike baseball (which has always played until someone loses), every other major sport plays at least one extra period under the same rules as the rest of the game."
Shortened, but true otherwise. That's better, but in football, during the regular season, they don't keep playing until someone wins and teams can have ties on their win/loss record. The NBA always plays until someone wins. What's more, it's important to concede the difference there is in using the same players for offense and defense, as in baseball and basketball, as oppose to having basically two different sets of players for each. In OT, that makes a difference as nothing much changes as regards personnel and their ability as a team. In football OT, one must have or overcome a superior offense or have or overcome a superior defense depending on whether or not one wins or loses the OT coin toss.
"Even sports that eventually go to a shoot out don't make the shoot out sudden death."
So what? Most sports don't have as high a potential for actual sudden death of a player. Apples and oranges is not a winning path for this discussion, which was only whether or not the rule change was necessary or just. It was neither as it was compelled by a whiny argument.
"7. Seriously, get over yourself. Your opinions are like everyone else's, which are like assholes. Everyone has them, and they all stink."
Get over MYself? All I did was express my opinion in criticizing the obvious. The length of this exchange was due to YOU and your inability to provide a legit reason why it was a good change. You could have rested on not giving a crap one way or the other, but chose to whine about me disliking the change. I dislike the change. I think it should be rescinded. I think it serves the loser right to have failed to overcome. That's true regardless of which rule is in place. I've never not accepted that. I just found the old rule more compelling as a fan of the game. For each team, it could be a matter of one chance to either score immediately or to prevent the other team from scoring immediately. It's the ultimate win or go home.
"My point exactly. Under the new rules both teams have exactly the same thing. An equal chance to do what is necessary to win the game."
So why are you giving me a hard time if the new rules provide "exactly the same thing...an equal chance to do what is necessary to win the game"? That was my point from the beginning. The old rules deprived no one of anything.
"How is that a demonstration that the winning team is objectively "better"?"
The winning team didn't fumble the ball, but capitalized on the fumble by the losing team. As we saw in the SB, the INT thrown by Mahomes did not result in SF scoring. They failed to capitalize on that mistake. Yet, KC didn't capitalize on SF mistakes enough to win in regulation. Then, SF capitalized on the chance winning of the coin toss. Under the old rules, they're the better team.
"Under the new rules this is a correct, and accurate statement. Under the old rules, the "equality" was based entirely on the random chance of the coin flip. Under the old rules, it wasn't equal at all. The team that loses the random coin flip, is required to first prevent the other team from scoring at all, then is required to score themselves. Which means that the kicking team is required to play defense, special teams, then offense, while the receiving team is only required to play offense. But if 3 is equal to 2, then cool."
The coin toss is inconsequential. If one's team is better, they could toss a coin themselves to determine how they'd respond to the official coin toss and win regardless of whether or not they'd choose to kick or receive.
The "equality" of the coin toss is that either team has the same chance of winning the toss.
There was a time when many of the same players played both sides of the ball, including "special teams". The "special teams" became a "special" set of players long after the game was invented. You put too much stock in the special teams. But just the same, it's all a matter of better sets of players to the degree that the truly better team wins because of the better play of all their players, better starters on offense, defense and special teams, and better back up players to fill holes opened by injury or ejection.
So regardless of whether or not one's team wins the coin toss, it still depends on the quality of the players to deal with whatever the result of that toss is. It's only harder to defend against the offensive play of the coin toss winner if one's defense is inferior to that offense. It's not like the defense then plays offense these days. There's a whole 'nother team for that.
The whiny rule change presumes the offense will always be superior to any defense. Teams like the '85 SB winners proved that wasn't true.
" The above statement is literally not True. "
Really?? Are you suggesting either team wanted a tie by the end of the 4th? I thought the point was to win the game by the end of the 4th! I can't believe I've had that wrong all this time.
"That;s True, but (as we see in other sports) there is no one best way to accomplish this result. It seems to me that giving each team an actual equal opportunity to score more points is the better option. Of course, there are multiple ways to accomplish that end."
Well that's the point of the whole discussion...which is the better rule: the old or the new. I argued for the old. You prefer to regard my argument as a whine. The old rule provided equal opportunity to winto both teams. The new rule provides more opportunity for career ending injury...to someone such as maybe Patrick Mahomes. While the old rule can result in a full OT period with no one scoring to break the tie left from regulation play, it's still a matter of getting the tie breaking field goal or touchdown to end the game. Getting in on the first possession reduces opportunities for injuries.
All in all, you're not really proving equal opportunity didn't exist under the old rule. I made arguments for why that's not the case.
"Make up your mind. Is it a "continuation of the play in regulation, or is it a new game?"
I've not been the least bit inconsistent. It is a continuation, since the point is to win the game/break the tie. That they treat it like a new game is not ME being inconsistent. And BTW, the rules aren't "radically" different under the old OT rule. It's the exact same rules but that the first to score and break the tie is the winner of the game. Don't overstate it.
"You're being way too technical."
So pointing out the reality, which you acknowledged, that OT is NOT a continuation of regulation, but an entirely different game played under significantly different rules is "too technical". I'm sorry to let reality intrude.
"it's a continuation because the game is meant to be decided within the parameters of the established length of the game...four quarters."
If this is True, then why is there OT at all. Why even make the allowance for it. If 4 regulation quarters are the intended limit of the game, then that's it. You can't have it both ways. Especially since it's obviously NOT merely a continuation of regulation. If it was simply a continuation, then OT would start where Q4 left off. It doesn't it's a complete reset.
"If by the end of the fourth that hasn't happened, they extend the game with the OT period, the rules of which were just fine prior to changing it to what we have now."
Yes, that's your opinion, which you are entitled to have. What you're not entitled to do is act like your opinion is objectively True.
"Again, you're being too needlessly technical by focusing on the words I use to express myself in response to your whiny rejoinders."
Blaming me for the words you choose to express yourself is not new (Dan does it all the time), but I'm merely trying to understand what you mean by the words you choose to use. Maybe the problem is the words you choose.
"The game's supposed to end at the end of the 4th quarter, is it not?"
Not if there's a tie. Again the rules anticipate this situation and specifically allow for an OT as a distinct entity from regulation, new rules, new start, and all that entails.
"Your "arguments" actually bring up other possible options for rule changes."
Well, obviously some of my points could be used for that. Unfortunately, my main point still stands. Regardless of your subjective opinion about the rule, and your preference for one team to be significantly advantaged by the randomness of a coin flip, I'm dealing in the reality of the current rules. The fact that I've also offered several alternatives that I would subjectively prefer, is unrelated to the outcome of this particular game. I'm not interested in wasting time about whether or not your subjective opinion about OT is objectively correct or not. It's irrelevant and immaterial.
"Because KC won under what is, you're whining about my even daring to bring up criticisms of that change. Calm down."
KC won and lost under the old OT rules, they've won and lost under the new OT rules. They've demonstrated the ability to make improbable comebacks in both regulation and OT. What particular rule they win or lose under is immaterial. Your insistence on ignoring the multiple places where SF "lost" in regulation isn't really helping you very much.
I am calm. I'm not the one bitching. I'm disagreeing with your subjective opinion, or is that not allowed here, just like at Dan's?
"Not at all. I am saying that I understand that me expressing my opinion about NFL rules is simply that and nothing else."
Exactly what I did.
"I don't accuse those who disagree with me of whining or anything, it's just my opinion."
Good for you, except that whining was what compelled the rule change, so it was relevant to my criticism. As I've clearly explained without an actual counter argument from you, there was no other legit motivation for the change...unless extending the presentation for the benefit of more advertising dollars came into play, which is also illegitimate.
"I also don't use my problem with rules or enforcement of rules to bitch about the results of a specific game. It's a pointless waste of time to do so."
Yeah...good thing my criticism has absolutely anything to do with who won this particular game. I'm not a fan of either team. My criticism has to do with the rule change spoiling the integrity of the game and the spirit of sportsmanship...given it was compelled by whining.
"I can also understand the difference between discussing the rules, without bitching about the outcome of a specific game played under a consistent set of rules known and agreed on by both teams before the game started."
Dismissing the blah, blah, blah between the last quote and this one, I can't understand being accuse of "bitching" and "whining" when all I sought was to express my opinion on changing from an equitable rule to a change compelled by bitching and whining about the old one and discussing why one is better than the other. You say you don't like either, so I guess you felt it was better to attack me as bitching and whining? Seems a simple "I don't care one way or the other" was in order and this would have been a much, much shorter comment thread. (Not as much fun, but much shorter)
"Do I bitch about losing games because of bad calls, no."
It's a legit bitch, and some rules have been changed (poorly in some cases) to overcome bad officiating. The replay rule, for example, was for that purpose. I was content with the human element despite preferring better quality in the officials.
But better play on the part of the teams overcomes bad calls. While I might "bitch" about a bad call resulting in an unfair outcome, I'm always more adamant that such calls shouldn't be made the reason why a team lost. They lost because they didn't play well enough to overcome the bad call.
"Strangely enough, you seem to be saying that the NFL teams intentionally voted for a rule that was objectively worse then the previous rule."
Given it was compelled by whining, that's not at all a stretch. But clearly, it was a subjective opinion that the new rule is better than the old or even better for the game. It isn't. At best, it's just different. My opinion is subjective to KC fans who don't want to hear anything other than abject praise for the team, but it's based on solid arguments...far, far more solid than the whining which compelled the change. You've provided nothing to rebut that. Except for whining that I'm whining.
"We'll call them, "the whiners""
I prefer to call them the majority of NFL teams, who (unlike you) want to increase their chances of winning in OT. Who don't want to place a significant advantage on the team that "wins" (what skill or athletic ability does it take to parrot the coaches instructions regarding heads or tails?) the random coin toss. You know, equal playing field and all that nonsense.
FYI, you seem to be assuming that the team that gave up the tying score and was unable to score themselves is the team that should "win" the toss and gain the significant advantage in OT. All because they failed to prevent the tying score, and failed to score in the remaining time in regulation.
"Except that it was changed because of whining by teams who lost under those rules as if they were deprived of the chance to score, which was never the case."
1. This is simply factually wrong.
2. It was changed by a majority vote of the competition committee, then a second majority vote of the rest of the NFL. The fact that the change was initiated by the Bills, is immaterial. Further, of course they were denied the ability to possess the ball on offense. The old rules virtually guaranteed that the "winner" of the totally random and skilless coin flip would win OT.
"The chance to score first had always been determined by one of two things: winning the coin toss and electing to receive, then drive the ball to some form of scoring, OR, denying the ability of the coin toss winner to do just that and then taking possession to score yourself. Simple stuff."
Just like it is now, although the prohibitive advantage that "winning" the toss confers is now eliminated.
"So what? Are they all required to operate the same way?"
No, it's simply an interesting thing to note that all other sports agree that OT should at least give both teams the opportunity to decide the game on the same rules as regulation, with each team being given a reasonably equal opportunity to win. Only in the old NFL did the notion of tossing a coin for a significant advantage for one team based on random chance (not on anything previous in the game) was a good way to operate.
This also gets to what the point of the NFL is. The point and primary purpose of the NFL is to make money for it's member teams. Given that, why would they pass up the opportunity of an extended OT as a way to increase income?
"Even with my alternate option, it's not exactly the same as other sports except in a general way"
Which is also beside the point. Under the current rule, it's at least closer to other sports, rather than further away from them.
"Most sports don't have as high a potential for actual sudden death of a player."
Really? When was the last in game death of an NFL player from any cause? When was the last in game death of a professional hockey player from a cause that was totally preventable by rule, but wasn't? Then one can assume that your concern for player safety extends to wanting to eliminate the extra game in the regular season and more pre season games? Maybe we should place more limits on physical contact in games as well? What about mandating that all teams play indoors and on prescribed turf to eliminate the risks from weather. Surely forcing players to play on a 130 degree field in Miami early in the year should be eliminated, right? How about the fact that in Miami they intentionally constructed the stadium so that the home team would be in the shade and therefore cooler, while the visitor was in full sun and significantly hotter?
I'm all for player safety, but there are a whole lot of bigger concerns than playing an extra quarter or two in a post season game every once and a while.
"So why are you giving me a hard time if the new rules provide "exactly the same thing...an equal chance to do what is necessary to win the game"? That was my point from the beginning. The old rules deprived no one of anything."
Because I think that the notion of allowing both teams the opportunity to possess the ball, or not to require one team (based totally on random chance) to have to prevail on defense and offense, while requiring the other team to only prevail on offense, makes sense. As demonstrated by every other professional sport that I'm aware of. Because your opinion on OT rules is not factually, objectively correct, because your assumption that nothing could be better than deciding a game by random chance is acceptable.
"I tune in to watch the game, yet my enjoyment of the game is not affected in the least if the broadcast chooses to show, wives, girlfriends, parents, siblings, or celebrities during the frequent time periods when there is nothing happening on the field."
This is totally contradictory as well as making no sense. I tune in to watch the game, not superfluous fluff which doesn't at all enhance that experience. As it's superfluous fluff, it necessarily detracts from it. Thus, my enjoyment is negatively impacted, regardless of whatever degree that is true. That it's true is undeniable. Commercials are what TV is for. Entertainment is what gets people to see the ads meant to draw consumer patronage. They won't ever go away on the current platforms presenting the game.
(I watch the Bulls on an IPTV platform (and I need to find a better one). I have a few different options for doing so through this service. I seek to find the same NBC affiliate which was available in the Chicago market. Sometimes, I have to seek out a different avenue for viewing. In last night's game against the Pelicans, I had to watch a New Orleans offering, as the Chicago station I prefer was distorted and annoying. Despite listening to announcers who were Pel fans, they didn't break away to regular commercials, but showed the time out festivities of that particular stadium. There's a way to see that from the United Center, too. At first I thought it was kinda cool...almost "like you're actually at the stadium". It's almost like someone said, "Let's hermetically seal the playing surface so as to not interrupt the pauses between the action with any extraneous bullshit." and then they did it!)
"Have you ever watched a game replay on NFL network, or a D3 college game?"
No, but I used to DVR the games all the time before I moved and had to deal with finding out of market games without needing a loan to pay for them. I'm not sure I can even do that now with this IPTV service. I can't see how I could set it up to record without me being there to monitor it, so I can't see any point to a DVR set up. Still figuring out this retirement thing and how to enjoy life without spending all my dough.
"If you're going to get this worked up over @40 seconds of screen time in a 4+ hour broadcast, I don't know if I can help you. I guess you're on the No Fun League bandwagon."
Way to overstate my comments, Chuckles. I'm quite certain I'm not the only person who isn't happy having Taylor Swift being shown so often as if we'd be surprised she'd celebrate a play made by MR. Taylor Swift. Who would've thought THAT would happen! If seeing her is what the Fun League is all about, then yeah...I'm on the OTHER bandwagon. In the meantime, I'm happy it gives you such a warm feeling. That's so precious.
"Under the old rules, they're the better team."
By what objective metric? As far as I'm aware the only objective metric that matters is the one on the scoreboard. All the rest is you assigning blame after the fact. The fact remains that KC overcame a 10 point deficit at the half, and ended regulation tied. All the rest is just subjective bullshit. Especially your notion that correctly guessing heads/tails somehow makes one team "better". The coin toss does not determine who the "better" team is, it's literally incapable of making that determination. Had KC won the toss, I can't imagine they'd magically have become the "better" team based on your subjective criteria. SF and only SF controlled the fact that they pissed away a 10 point advantage, they also controlled their failure to score more early.
"The coin toss is inconsequential. If one's team is better, they could toss a coin themselves to determine how they'd respond to the official coin toss and win regardless of whether or not they'd choose to kick or receive."
Do you realize how foolish this is. The coin toss is pivotal to the outcome in OT, especially under the sudden death rule. But hell, why bother to play the first 4 quarters. Just come out toss the coin, and play sudden death, that'd be much better for player safety wouldn't it?
"The "equality" of the coin toss is that either team has the same chance of winning the toss."
That might be True if a coin toss was an actual 50/50 proposition. Unfortunately, it's not.
"The whiny rule change presumes the offense will always be superior to any defense. Teams like the '85 SB winners proved that wasn't true."
1. The NFL has significantly changed since 1985.
2. It's never a good idea to based a rule on one outcome.
3. You mean, like KC just proved in the SB? They won because their defense stopped the SF offense from scoring a TD. But that's just inconvenient.
" I thought the point was to win the game by the end of the 4th! I can't believe I've had that wrong all this time."
No, the point is to win the game at the end of the game. The fact that OT exists indicates that the game isn't over at the end of Q4. It's over when the final whistle blows. You may have noticed that some teams choose to play for a tie in regulation, so as to take their chances on a fresh start in OT. Maybe they're whiners or cowards or somehow not quite manly enough for you. end of regulation does not automatically mean the end of the game. The official NFL rules provide regulations for the first 4 quarters of play and regulations for OT. If you think that teams don't go into games planning for OT, I think you don't pay enough attention.
"there was no other legit motivation for the change...unless extending the presentation for the benefit of more advertising dollars came into play, which is also illegitimate."
1. Equal playing field. competitive balance, fairness, are all "legitimate" arguments. Your dislike of them doesn't make them illegitimate>
2. Likewise the NFL maximizing it's revenue is also totally legitimate, it's literally why they exist. It's what sets the salary cap, it's what allows teams like the Bears to try to buy enough FA's to contend in the north. It's called capitalism.
Look, if your big rationale for uncomplaining about a settled rules issue is to ignore reality and blame it 100% on whining, then be prepared to take some of your own medicine.
"They lost because they didn't play well enough to overcome the bad call."
Interesting. I've never considered the notion that the officials are adversaries as well as the other team. The notion that a team must overcome both the opposing team AND the supposedly neutral officials is something new.
"Given it was compelled by whining, that's not at all a stretch."
Interesting notion. Dismissing the entire NFL rule's change process because you perceive that "whining" might have played a role.
"But clearly, it was a subjective opinion that the new rule is better than the old or even better for the game."
Yes, it's subjective. Unfortunately, you can't stop acting like it's objective.
"It isn't. At best, it's just different."
Exactly, the new rule is just different from the old. It's neither better or worse, it's just different.
"My opinion is subjective to KC fans who don't want to hear anything other than abject praise for the team, but it's based on solid arguments...far, far more solid than the whining which compelled the change."
Actually, my team affiliation has nothing to do with pointing out that your opinion is subjective. As I've noted, KC is the f'ing team that "caused" the change by winning under the old rules. Now they've demonstrated that they can play well enough on defense and offense to win under the new rules. I think you may be having problems with the notion of "subjective", the assertion that this rule is "better" than the old rule is subjective and is equally subjective regardless of who one roots for.
"You've provided nothing to rebut that. Except for whining that I'm whining."
You dismissing things is not the same as me not providing things. In this case, I'm not trying to prove objectively that I know what's better. I've provide some options I prefer, but I'm not arguing that those are objectively better, just my preferences. Pointing out that you're doing what you accuse others of doing is just a free service I provide.
It's interesting. At NHL games the crowd reaction to a tie late in the 3rd period is that they shout for "Free hockey". They want the extra period, they see it as a positive. They even want the score to remain tied and force a shoot out.
But here's Art all by himself complaining that OT is too long. Let's just dispatch this game as quickly and with as little effort as possible.
As a KC fan, I would have loved a full extra quarter of what had turned into an interesting offensive game, regardless of the outcome. Obviously, I'd prefer KC winning, and was happy with a legitimate win under existing rules, but it wasn't what I wanted.
"No deflection at all. I'm pointing out a rule that makes literally no sense, but that actually affects the outcome of games."
Again, with no details, I don't see the relevance to the point I'm making about this rule change being unnecessary. As such, you are indeed deflecting from that point.
"The fact that you seem unfamiliar with the rules of out of bounds fumbles makes me wonder if it's all bad rules or just the OT because you don't like it."
I'm familiar with the current rules regarding out of bounds fumbles. I just don't recall what was previously the rule regarding them. Seems you're not either or you would have enlightened me. That you wonder at all is curious since it's clear I'm ONLY speaking about ONE SPECIFIC RULE CHANGE and whether or not is was a good idea or in any way necessary. There's a LOT of bad rules. Do you really want to go through them one by one? Do you really think doing so matters to a discussion regarding ONE SPECIFIC RULE CHANGE? If so, how so?
And what's most curious is that my expression of this opinion is not based on the outcome of this particular game and the threat to your beloved Chiefs of ruining their dynasty by one SB loss had the rule not been changed. GEEZ!
"Because pointing out other rules that could be changed is clearly irrelevant to this discussion of NFL rules."
It is. And to correct you, it's this discussion of THIS SPECIFIC RULE CHANGE. Why other rules were changed has no bearing as to why this rule was changed.
"My point is that it's possible to look at rules and needed/wanted changes dispassionately and advocate for change without complaining about a specific game result."
How nice. But once again, because you seem to somehow have missed it the other times I said it, I don't given a flying rat's ass who won this game. Who won has no bearing on my criticism of this rule change. The fact the rule played a role in the outcome of this game only brought to the light the rule change once again. Had the game been decided before the end of regulation, someone would have had to have brought up the rule change for me to have expressed my opinion at this time.
"Isn't part of game planning covering a situation where the rules change drastically and the reasons why the game plan is what it is?"
Going back to the quote to which this is in response, it isn't connected. You made the comment that a player or players didn't know the OT rules, but you keep talking about game planning, which is the coach's jurisdiction.
And you seem to be making too much of the game plan. Losing doesn't mean the game plan was a bad one. Good execution can make up for a bad game plan or play call. Moreover, I don't particularly give crap about how either team game planned. What makes the better team is who won. The point here is that KC one because of the rule change. That's cool. They were able to get a win because of that change. It doesn't matter as to whether or not the rule change was a good one or compelled by a good argument...neither of which is the case. Thus, game planning by either team is neither here nor there.
"To pretend that the result of the game is all about the OT rule (that's been in effect for years), is simply foolish."
I'm not even making that case, nor have I concerned myself with KC benefiting by the rule change. You clearly feel some psychotic need to make it about your precious Chiefs as if I'm "whining" about a team about whom I have no care having lost.
At the same time, you can't say KC didn't benefit by the rule and without it, had SF done just what they'd done under the old rules, they'd have won the game. So yeah, since you brought it up in an attempt to pretend otherwise, the new rule is why KC won. How can it not be, given without the rule having changed they wouldn't have? Good freakin' gosh!! Are ALL Chiefs fans this goofy?
"If you like OT being decided by the (completely random) coin toss and think that the "winner" of the coin toss should be given an advantage in OT, make that argument on it's own merits."
No game is won by the coin toss. Sports enthusiasm being what it is, I know there are those who keep track of who games after having won the coin toss, be it the opening toss or the toss at the start of OT. But only homers pretend winning and losing isn't solely the result the quality of play. The coin toss has absolutely nothing to do with it or they wouldn't freakin' play the game!
"So, if the Bulls end regulation tied, they should do a coin toss, give the ball to the "winner" of that random event, and play sudden death from there?"
Why would I? It's not the NFL. But if the NFL was to adopt a full or partial extra period, that would make far more sense than what they do now, which is a perversion of the Sudden Death rule anyway. I prefer the old rule over the new, and the old rule over adopting time limited OT because of the higher potential for career or life ending injury a contact sport like football has more potential for delivering than any of the other major sports. That potential has remained higher even with all the rule changes meant to reduce it. Sudden Death reduces that potential as well as decides the game. If you lose the toss and want to win, prevent the toss winner from scoring and score yourself. The most perfect way to run OT in football so far devised.
"This is totally contradictory as well as making no sense."
Not at all. My pointing out that the televised NFL experience is more than just the instances of action on the field makes perfect sense. When I've gone to NFL games, part of the experience is the part beyond the actual game play. Now you personally might not like those extras, but that's not justification to remove them from those who do. Or for that matter from those of us who don't care. If you object to all the extra stuff, are you really saying that you DVR every game and fast forward through the commercials and "extra" stuff? Do you only watch the edited replays on the NFL network?
Seriously, if you're so butthurt that the family members and girlfriends of players go to the games and that the broadcast takes a few seconds to show their reactions, I can't help you. That's cold hearted. What's next, cut immediately away from end zone celebrations, or ban them all together? Cut ALL crowd reaction shots? Seriously do you understand how ridiculous you sound bitching that CBS or Fox took 45 seconds out of a 3-4 hour game (without interrupting any of the action) to show family/girlfriends reacting and celebrating, talk about whining. "Ohhhhhhhhh Noooooooo! The TV showed me some people having fun cheering for their family/boyfriend, how could they. they've wasted broadcast time that could be used for ads or Buck/Romo pontificating.
So, your problem is that you choose not to pay for the available options that would get you the best possible coverage of your out of market games, nor will you go to someplace else where you could see the games, and that's why you object to any extraneous bullshit on an NFL broadcast.
"I'm quite certain I'm not the only person who isn't happy having Taylor Swift being shown so often as if we'd be surprised she'd celebrate a play made by MR. Taylor Swift."
Again, @40 seconds out of a 3-4 hour broadcast really gets you this pissed off. Or is it just focused on one couple. You're OK watching Goff's girlfriend in her body suit, Eminem and Taylor Lautner, Simone Biles and Rihanna. and all the rest of the clelebrity/WAG crowd, you just object to @40 seconds of one specific person. I get it.
But yes, seeing the WAG's and families celebrate is part of the game. Even Brittany and Jackson, despite how annoying they are, are perfectly fine.
It's not a matter of warm feelings, it's the fact that NFL games are not played in a vacuum, and that some people can accept that as part of the experience without letting @40 seconds ruin a 3-4 hour game. It's about not trying to curate the entire experience based on my preferences. You absolutely have the ability to watch an NFL game sanitized of any of the intrusive cheering and reactions of WAG's and families. You just choose not to do so because you don't want to spend the money. Totally legitimate choice, but don't complain about things you can control but choose not to. Geeze, lighten up Francis.
Seriously, I'm done with this idiocy. If having your subjective opinion win this by any means necessary, then you win. If you can't simply say that you prefer the old OT rules based on your subjective opinions and biases against anyone you label a "whiner", just say so and stop insisting that your subjective opinion is anything else.
"Not if there's a tie. Again the rules anticipate this situation and specifically allow for an OT as a distinct entity from regulation, new rules, new start, and all that entails."
No!!! REALLY???? The point remains: The game is intended to run for four quarters. Exceptions to the rule don't change that. Geez!
"Regardless of your subjective opinion about the rule, and your preference for one team to be significantly advantaged by the randomness of a coin flip, I'm dealing in the reality of the current rules."
Then it would serve you better to stick to the current rules and how they're "better" than Sudden Death. Also, it would serve you to stop pretending a team is advantaged by any coin toss, and worse, that I prefer that fiction.
"I'm not interested in wasting time about whether or not your subjective opinion about OT is objectively correct or not. It's irrelevant and immaterial."
Your posting of so many comments belies that claim. But of course MY personal opinion is irrelevant and immaterial to how the NFL does a damned thing, especially given they've never bothered to ask me.
"Your insistence on ignoring the multiple places where SF "lost" in regulation isn't really helping you very much."
That's indeed my bad for responding to your off topic comments which provoked those responses. The multiple places where SF "lost" in regulation don't matter to the point that the Sudden Death rule was superior to what replaced it. I shouldn't have entertained your deflections and distractions. Again...my bad.
"I am calm. I'm not the one bitching. I'm disagreeing with your subjective opinion..."
Naw...you're actually bitching and whining about it, as demonstrated by having brought no decent counter argument to my stating my preference for the Sudden Death rule. You'd rather pretend I'm "bitching" and "whining".
"I prefer to call them the majority of NFL teams, who (unlike you) want to increase their chances of winning in OT."
Yeah. Like I said..."whiners".
"Who don't want to place a significant advantage on the team that "wins"...the random coin toss. You know, equal playing field and all that nonsense."
There is no such advantage.
"FYI, you seem to be assuming that the team that gave up the tying score and was unable to score themselves is the team that should "win" the toss and gain the significant advantage in OT. All because they failed to prevent the tying score, and failed to score in the remaining time in regulation."
I'm not assuming, nor have I given the slightest hint that I feel that way. You're certainly projecting that assumption upon me. As you say, the coin toss is random. The only thing which isn't is the quality of play. If my team loses the toss, I still expect them to overcome what follows and win the game. Period. If they lose, I don't blame the coin toss because it's irrelevant.
" 1. This is simply factually wrong.
2. It was changed by a majority vote of the competition committee, then a second majority vote of the rest of the NFL."
So, you're suggesting they just decide for no particular reason to change a rule? They do it "just because"? No, something compels a discussion to change a rule. And as your next sentence indicates, it was whining.
"The old rules virtually guaranteed that the "winner" of the totally random and skilless coin flip would win OT."
No. This is how they choose to frame it. It's the "after loss whine". The only thing which determines a winner is quality of play.
"Just like it is now, although the prohibitive advantage that "winning" the toss confers is now eliminated."
Winning the toss confers no advantage. Playing better than the other team does.
"This also gets to what the point of the NFL is. The point and primary purpose of the NFL is to make money for it's member teams. Given that, why would they pass up the opportunity of an extended OT as a way to increase income?"
Ah! So it is whining! I thought it was simply because they weren't good enough to win in OT if they didn't win the coin toss. I still believe that, but now you add another whine, that they weren't making enough money!
The whining was worse than I thought!
"Which is also beside the point. Under the current rule, it's at least closer to other sports, rather than further away from them."
I was unaware there was some requirement that the NFL must do things the way other sports do things. I'm learning so much!
"Really? When was the last in game death of an NFL player from any cause?"
Irrelevant to matters of potential. Your desperation is showing.
"Then one can assume that your concern for player safety extends to wanting to eliminate the extra game in the regular season and more pre season games?"
I did oppose the change, but now that you mention it, four pre-season games has proved to be more advantageous for all teams by making sure they're ready for regular season play. Some of the first games were quite sloppy. But unlike OT in a SB, intensity isn't as high in the beginning of the year as it is when playoff appearances and all the extra bucks which go along with it are on the line. How much more so in a SB OT period? Thanks for helping me make the case.
"I'm all for player safety, but there are a whole lot of bigger concerns than playing an extra quarter or two in a post season game every once and a while."
Such as...
"Because I think that the notion of allowing both teams the opportunity to possess the ball, or not to require one team (based totally on random chance) to have to prevail on defense and offense, while requiring the other team to only prevail on offense, makes sense."
I seem to recall that after SF made the field goal in OT, they were then tasked with prevailing on defense. What am I missing? And keep in mind the fact that the offensive players aren't playing when their defense is preventing the coin toss winner from scoring. And if SF didn't make the field goal, then nothing would change for KC. They'd still have to score and SF would have to prevent them from succeeding.
"By what objective metric? As far as I'm aware the only objective metric that matters is the one on the scoreboard."
And under the old rules, which is what I mentioned before you asked about what metric would make SF the better team, they would have had the winning score on the scoreboard. Obviously, under the current rules, that would be KC. You're not supposed to move the goalposts in football, but here you are...
"All the rest is you assigning blame after the fact."
Really? Where am I assigning any blame except to those whiners who provoked the rule change?
"All the rest is just subjective bullshit."
I thought all the rest was me assigning blame after the fact. The only thing I've said which truly resembles "subjective" is my preference for the Sudden Death rule...which this new rule simply moves further into the OT period than it has already been. You can tell this is true given this particular SB didn't go to the end of the OT period.
Here's another way you can tell: The "equal opportunity" only lasts for one possession each. If after each side takes their chance yet the game is still then tied, the next score in any form ends the game regardless of how much time is left on the OT clock. So that's OK, but a straight up Sudden Death isn't? If after both teams score in OT so that there's a tie the next team breaks, why aren't you giving the other team and "equal opportunity"? Eventually, you end up with a "regulation-type" ending, of either one team having more points than the other, or a second OT because of a tie.
"Especially your notion that correctly guessing heads/tails somehow makes one team "better". "
That's not my notion. I've not come within a universe of so much as hinting at such a thing.
"The coin toss does not determine who the "better" team is, it's literally incapable of making that determination."
Fortunately for me, I've not come within a universe of so much as hinting at such a thing.
"Had KC won the toss, I can't imagine they'd magically have become the "better" team based on your subjective criteria."
That's not my "criteria" for determining the better team. In fact, I've not come within a universe of so much as hinting at such a thing. Are you beginning to see a trend here?
"SF and only SF controlled the fact that they pissed away a 10 point advantage, they also controlled their failure to score more early."
KC and only KC controlled the fact that they pissed away the chance at preventing SF from scoring a field goal after the OT coin toss. Good thing for KC some whiners got the rule changed!
"Do you realize how foolish this is. The coin toss is pivotal to the outcome in OT, especially under the sudden death rule."
Only if your team sucks. A good team can prevent the toss winner from scoring. If the coin toss is so pivotal, what's the point in playing afterwards? The toss winner will win the game, by your logic. But that's not true at all. Only the quality of play matters as to who wins. And your team can suck all day long but manage a tie and then win in OT regardless of who wins the toss. That's an absurd position to take and doesn't say much about your confidence in the Chiefs. Must have been dumb luck the lost the toss and won anyway, not their ability when it mattered most. With fans like you...
"But hell, why bother to play the first 4 quarters. Just come out toss the coin, and play sudden death, that'd be much better for player safety wouldn't it?"
Now you're just being a dick. My position concerns OT rules only. Why not avoid further embarrassing yourself and just admit you don't have a decent criticism of my objection to the rule change. ...unless you think the Roger Goodell is reading this exchange!
"That might be True if a coin toss was an actual 50/50 proposition. Unfortunately, it's not."
Only true if the one calling sees the coin before it is flipped. If it can't be determined which side is facing up, then it's 50/50 because the percentage is in the guess, not the dynamics of the toss itself. However, it's close enough to 50/50 that whining about it not being so simply means choosing a different method of who gets to choose kick or receive. But that's a pretty desperate argument you're making anyway, to presume the coin toss is "pivotal". That's laughable, actually.
"1. The NFL has significantly changed since 1985."
Ya think?
"2. It's never a good idea to based a rule on one outcome."
It's never a good idea to suggest a single example was given as a basis for establishing or changing any rules.
"3. You mean, like KC just proved in the SB? They won because their defense stopped the SF offense from scoring a TD. But that's just inconvenient."
Under the current rules, they indeed backed me up on that point. But under the old rules, they failed. You've moved the goalposts again. In the meantime, I've been remarkably consistent.
"No, the point is to win the game at the end of the game. The fact that OT exists indicates that the game isn't over at the end of Q4."
The game is four quarters. The point is to win the game within that period of time. The OT exists because there's the possibility of a tie at the end of the game. No one plays to tie within the four quarters of the game. They play to tie if there's a chance they can't surpass the total against them. That is, it's a fall back plan, not the point of playing the game. You're desperation is showing again. Who the f**k plays for OT? OT is because nobody won the game. Nobody wants to go to OT.
And while you want to denigrate SF for failing to put KC away, you ignore the fact that KC wasn't good enough to put SF away in regulation, or to keep SF from ever having a lead. It cuts both ways, unless one is a homer for the Chiefs.
"If you think that teams don't go into games planning for OT, I think you don't pay enough attention."
You're argument is getting stupider and stupider. NO team plays for OT. They play to win by the time regulation concludes...because that's the point. Having a plan for OT doesn't mean they're looking forward to ever having to use it.
"1. Equal playing field. competitive balance, fairness, are all "legitimate" arguments. Your dislike of them doesn't make them illegitimate"
Except that none of that was ever lacking under the Sudden Death rule. Proponents of the new rule just assert such was the case...because they're whiners.
"2. Likewise the NFL maximizing it's revenue is also totally legitimate, it's literally why they exist. It's what sets the salary cap, it's what allows teams like the Bears to try to buy enough FA's to contend in the north. It's called capitalism."
How nice, except that my criticism relates to the game itself, not the business.
"Look, if your big rationale for uncomplaining about a settled rules issue is to ignore reality and blame it 100% on whining, then be prepared to take some of your own medicine."
Huh?? What does this mean? Are you on again about me whining simply because I'm defending my position against the rule change than you are defending the rule...which by the way was "settled" in 2022.
"Interesting. I've never considered the notion that the officials are adversaries as well as the other team. The notion that a team must overcome both the opposing team AND the supposedly neutral officials is something new."
I thought you were into football! Of COURSE bad officiating can cost a game and teams must be good enough so that bad calls aren't a factor. This goes back to when they began using officials who are supposed to be neutral. Rules were established regarding what constitutes a catch when after an official ruled against a catch where it mattered in that particular game (it wasn't all that long ago, either). I'll tell you what...I hate when players on my teams bitch about calls. Play better and the calls won't matter.
"Interesting notion. Dismissing the entire NFL rule's change process because you perceive that "whining" might have played a role."
You're right. Let's have more whining so that we can have a better chance of winning without having to improve our play. Whining did play a role in this rule change, Craig. You even acknowledge that it came about after the Bills loss to the Chiefs in '22. Did KC bring it up after feeling badly for winning according to the rules at that time, or did the Bills bring it up because they lost without "having a chance to try to score, boo-hoo"? And given that the current rule can still result in one team having one less chance to score than the other means it didn't improve the game of football. It just, as I said earlier, moved the Sudden Death aspect deeper into the OT period.
"Yes, it's subjective. Unfortunately, you can't stop acting like it's objective."
Again either contradicting yourself, moving the goal posts or just pretending you've made a compelling argument against my criticism of the new rule (which actually made me laugh when I read it). My criticism is based on sound reasoning. The rule change isn't. Worse, your attempt to find fault in my criticism is based on how it might've impacted KC had the rule not changed.
"Exactly, the new rule is just different from the old. It's neither better or worse, it's just different."
You're being a dick again because this isn't an argument I've made. I stated that it was changed as if it was better, when the best THEY (or you) can say is that it's just different. But it's not "just different". I maintain the new rule isn't at all better for the sound reasons I've presented without any counter sound reasoning to suggest otherwise.
"Actually, my team affiliation has nothing to do with pointing out that your opinion is subjective."
I'm not at all convinced and your responses to me clearly say otherwise.
"I think you may be having problems with the notion of "subjective", the assertion that this rule is "better" than the old rule is subjective and is equally subjective regardless of who one roots for."
Not given my sound reasoning. I've explained quite well why the old rule is better.
"You're OK watching Goff's girlfriend in her body suit, Eminem and Taylor Lautner, Simone Biles and Rihanna. and all the rest of the clelebrity/WAG crowd, you just object to @40 seconds of one specific person. I get it."
You do? Explain it to me because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about! Were these people at the game? Was the network showing them, too? Which player goes out with any of them? You need to get a grip.
"It's not a matter of warm feelings, it's the fact that NFL games are not played in a vacuum, and that some people can accept that as part of the experience without letting @40 seconds ruin a 3-4 hour game."
Oh, showing Swift for forty seconds didn't ruin the game. The poor play by both teams did. However, I was quite geeked about the one kicker breaking the record only to have the other kicker break his a short time later. That was way cool. Indeed, the only cool part of the game.
" It's about not trying to curate the entire experience based on my preferences."
You're so gracious!
"You absolutely have the ability to watch an NFL game sanitized of any of the intrusive cheering and reactions of WAG's and families."
Thanks, Craig. I wasn't sure that was OK with you. I still don't know what a "WAG" is.
" You just choose not to do so because you don't want to spend the money. Totally legitimate choice, but don't complain about things you can control but choose not to."
You're making insanely more of this than I am. It's not like I'm kicking the cat over it. I guess I'm wrong to prefer less gratuitous showings of one single celebrity as if we don't know who her boyfriend is after boring us with that info over and over again. Somehow I don't think you'd be so...what's the word?....uh...OH YEAH!...."BUTTHURT!"....Somehow I don't think you'd be so butthurt over my insignificant objection if Taylor Swift was dating George Kittle. But NOOOO! Don't speak ill of Craig's Travis Kelce!! And you dare tell ME to lighten up! That's hilarious!
"Seriously, I'm done with this idiocy."
The idiocy is all yours, my friend. And it all flows from being a homer for the Chiefs...not from any rational objection to my objection.
"If having your subjective opinion win this by any means necessary, then you win."
More idiocy. Given your manner of refuting my position, it's clear you had the "any means necessary" gun firing.
"If you can't simply say that you prefer the old OT rules based on your subjective opinions and biases against anyone you label a "whiner", just say so and stop insisting that your subjective opinion is anything else."
To "simply say" what you think I ought wouldn't be honest. My opinion may be subjective, but it is not based on mere bias or "against anyone you label a 'whiner'. (What the hell is THAT?) I don't call anyone a whiner because they changed the rule. They changed the rule because people were whining about the previous rule. My "subjective opinion" is rational, logical and soundly reasoned. Your problem with my preference is not.
But thanks for playing! I had a great time.
Now I'm going to see if there's any more of your responses sitting in the queue.
Post a Comment