Post by Reignman on Nov 29, 2021 2:07:59 GMT -6
Just make net points a more important tie-breaker. 
Operation: Zimmer's Worst Nightmare
It briefly led to some interesting football back in 1999:
The 4th tie-breaker was net conf points after head to head, conference record, and common opponents. Even with the Panthers leading 45-7, their final 10 plays were all passes. The Packers were similarly aggressive in the 4th as they kept an eye on the scoreboard. The Packers led by 18 net conference points coming into the week, so the Panthers had some ground to make up.
Points are still part of the tie-breaking procedure, but not until the 6th tie-breaker, after strength of victory and strength of schedule, so it really never comes into play. It's based on your conference points rank (rank of your points scored + rank of your points allowed (lower is better)). League points rank is next, then net conference points is the 8th tie-breaker. Even after week 1 when half the league 1-0, it rarely gets to net conference points xD.
A net point tie-breaker would get rid of some of this prevent D nonsense and running out the clock, which makes football difficult to watch sometimes. The final minutes in football aren't nearly as bad as the foul fest in basketball, but I think it could be better. Grinding out the clock and playing prevent D isn't even football IMO. That's why we call it garbage time.
If running up the score is unsportsmanlike, then why doesn't the trailing team just concede? How is it unsportsmanlike to say the other team has to stop trying to score, while you keep trying to score? Just end the game at that point, like a mercy rule.
Why shouldn't points be a tie-breaker though? It would be indicative of how good your team is for 60 minutes over 17 games. The reason we don't think of it like that now is because we've been conditioned to accept how football games are played in the 4th quarter. The team that's ahead is supposed to run out the clock, and running up the score is unsportsmanlike, so we make excuses for why a team only won 28-12 when it probably could have won 35-0. Yeah I'm still not over it.
What would football look like if teams played for a full 60 minutes? Imagine no more stat padding, and no more rushing leads to winning. I remember that week in 1999. It was unique and interesting. Teams had a reason to run up the score. Lets have that all the time. MFGA!!!
Maybe that's something the XFL or AAF should experiment with next. I'd rather watch a team win 49-7 than turn a 35-7 lead to a 35-21 grind with 20 straight runs in the 4th quarter. I wouldn't necessarily expect the NFL to suddenly turn into the arena league or anything, because winning would still be the #1 tie-breaker lol.
Next theory: What if the clock kept running after an incompletion?
Operation: Zimmer's Worst Nightmare
It briefly led to some interesting football back in 1999:
The final spot in the NFC playoffs came down to an exciting final day of the season. The Green Bay Packers and Carolina Panthers were both at 7–8, tied for the last spot in the playoffs with the Dallas Cowboys and tied in other tiebreakers. The Packers/Panthers tie would be broken by best net point differential in conference games. With both the Packers and Panthers playing at 1:00 PM Eastern on January 2, the two teams tried to outscore the other. The Packers beat the Arizona Cardinals 49–24, and the Panthers beat the New Orleans Saints 45–13, with the result that the Packers finished ahead of the Panthers by 11 points. Nevertheless, Dallas defeated the New York Giants later that night to claim the final playoff spot.
Points are still part of the tie-breaking procedure, but not until the 6th tie-breaker, after strength of victory and strength of schedule, so it really never comes into play. It's based on your conference points rank (rank of your points scored + rank of your points allowed (lower is better)). League points rank is next, then net conference points is the 8th tie-breaker. Even after week 1 when half the league 1-0, it rarely gets to net conference points xD.
A net point tie-breaker would get rid of some of this prevent D nonsense and running out the clock, which makes football difficult to watch sometimes. The final minutes in football aren't nearly as bad as the foul fest in basketball, but I think it could be better. Grinding out the clock and playing prevent D isn't even football IMO. That's why we call it garbage time.
If running up the score is unsportsmanlike, then why doesn't the trailing team just concede? How is it unsportsmanlike to say the other team has to stop trying to score, while you keep trying to score? Just end the game at that point, like a mercy rule.
Why shouldn't points be a tie-breaker though? It would be indicative of how good your team is for 60 minutes over 17 games. The reason we don't think of it like that now is because we've been conditioned to accept how football games are played in the 4th quarter. The team that's ahead is supposed to run out the clock, and running up the score is unsportsmanlike, so we make excuses for why a team only won 28-12 when it probably could have won 35-0. Yeah I'm still not over it.
What would football look like if teams played for a full 60 minutes? Imagine no more stat padding, and no more rushing leads to winning. I remember that week in 1999. It was unique and interesting. Teams had a reason to run up the score. Lets have that all the time. MFGA!!!
Maybe that's something the XFL or AAF should experiment with next. I'd rather watch a team win 49-7 than turn a 35-7 lead to a 35-21 grind with 20 straight runs in the 4th quarter. I wouldn't necessarily expect the NFL to suddenly turn into the arena league or anything, because winning would still be the #1 tie-breaker lol.
Next theory: What if the clock kept running after an incompletion?
... and neither is this Chris guy.