1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NFL meetings set serious tone

Discussion in 'Other NFL' started by sugarcane, Mar 30, 2008.

  1. sugarcane

    sugarcane Member

    USA TODAY analyzes the key issues facing the NFL as the league's owners gather for their annual meeting March 30-April 3. Among the topics that may be tackled by the owners: A cheating policy, the collective bargaining agreement, rookie salaries, playoff seeding, the personal-conduct policy, HGH testing, radio communication for defensive players and the site of the 2012 Super Bowl:



    http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2008-03-28-owners-meetings-primer_N.htm?csp=34
     
    DOLPHAN1 and alen1 like this.
  2. sugarcane

    sugarcane Member

    What anti-cheating measures would you employ?
     
  3. sugarcane

    sugarcane Member

    I say amputate at the neck! :)
     
  4. AZFan

    AZFan Hopeful at Last!

    Lose ALL draft picks & eliminated from the playoffs that year
     
  5. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    Fine 500,000, ban coach for a year and team loses a draft choice.
     
  6. FanMarino

    FanMarino Season Ticket Holder

    2,906
    718
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    2 bricks and a salivating Rotweiller.
     
  7. sugarcane

    sugarcane Member




    I bet Vick could set us up.
     
  8. Firesole

    Firesole Season Ticket Holder

    4,634
    1,660
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    I'm interested to see what they are discussing about playoff seeding.
     
  9. sugarcane

    sugarcane Member

    John Clayton was talking about the if the wild card has a better record they would get home field advantage.
     
  10. Firesole

    Firesole Season Ticket Holder

    4,634
    1,660
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    how is that fair? If Miami won the AFC east with a 9-7 record, and everyone else in the AFC east was 9-7 or 8-8, and let's say Jacksonville was the wild card team at 10-6. Why would it be fair to let Jax have the home field?

    Or am I totally missing the point here?
     
  11. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    That makes no sense imo.
     
  12. sugarcane

    sugarcane Member

    That's about what he was saying tho,and it is only be discussed.
     
  13. Colorado Dolfan

    Colorado Dolfan ...dirty drownin' man?

    Makes total sense to me...

    You forget this is the league in which a team could (not at all likely, but...) win their division and make the playoffs with a 3-13 record... :pointlol:
     
  14. Firesole

    Firesole Season Ticket Holder

    4,634
    1,660
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    and at the same time we went 10-6 and missed the playoffs. Go figure.
     
  15. Roman529

    Roman529 Senior Member

    2,643
    909
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    Colorado Springs, CO
    I just want them to get rid of the hair below the name tags. Tired of seeing these long haired girls out there on the field.
     
  16. Alex44

    Alex44 Boshosaurus Rex

    20,810
    8,965
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Hollywood, Florida

    If we won our division at 9-7 and they were second in theirs at 10-6 they should get home field. We would have finished in third in theirs, possibly not even making the playoffs.

    The team with the better record should have home field.

    Then again just my opinion
     
    Ducken likes this.
  17. Firesole

    Firesole Season Ticket Holder

    4,634
    1,660
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    If a division champ goes 9-7, while playing in a much tougher division and overall had a much tougher schedule than a wild card team at 10-6, I don't see any reason why they wild card team should get the benefit of a home game. Only division champs should be allowed home games in the first rounds.
     
  18. sugarcane

    sugarcane Member

    Unless of course we are the wild card team.

    <snicker>
     
  19. Alex44

    Alex44 Boshosaurus Rex

    20,810
    8,965
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Hollywood, Florida
    Problem is you're just making up a scenario.

    It's possible that at 9-7 we played a tougher schedule, but it's equally as likely we didn't. So when all things are considered over a span of time if there truely is some form of parity, which I believe there is, they will have also played a tougher schedule the same amount of times.

    The team who wins more games should benefit. In the NFL any team can win any game, so even if we had a tougher schedule by a few percentage points it wouldn't make that much of a difference.
     
  20. Firesole

    Firesole Season Ticket Holder

    4,634
    1,660
    113
    Mar 24, 2008
    OK since you think I am making up a scenario, let's place the 2007 scenario into the picture.

    Do you think with this new possible rule that the 07 Giants who finished 10-6 should have hosted the wild card game against the 9-7 TB bucs? Clearly we all know that the Giants had the tougher schedule because they play in the toughest division. Now let's take the Redskins. They play in the same division, and finished 9-7. Should they have had the chance to host the game against the Bucs with this new rule? I mean where do we draw the line?

    The rules are the rules and they should stay as they are. I mean last year's wild card team did pretty well, as have the wild card teams in the past few years.
     
  21. bran

    bran Senior Member

    4,525
    1,505
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    New Hampshire
    i dont know if they should change the seeding rule or not, i mean we went what 10-6 one year and didnt make the playoffs we *****ed but nothing got done t now

    and now that the browns do the same they are thinking about changing it?
     
  22. phineas64

    phineas64 Season Ticket Holder

    The discussion is about how to seed the teams that are in the playoffs, not to change how you get in. And the owners are just discussing it, not necessarily proposing any rules changes, which would have to go through the union too, if i'm not mistaken.
     
    cnc66 likes this.
  23. bran

    bran Senior Member

    4,525
    1,505
    113
    Dec 20, 2007
    New Hampshire
    yeah thats true i got what they were doing and what i read in an article the article mentioned they should change how they get in
     
  24. Dannyg28

    Dannyg28 Say hi to the rings

    1,688
    617
    0
    Jan 4, 2008
    the wild-card team with a better record hosting a division champ is just common sense. just lookg at the bucs and giants game, bucs played in a crappy division and won their division with a 9-7 record while the giants was in possibly the hardest division in the NFL and had a better record of 10-6 and had to travel to tampa. makes no sense.
     
  25. sugarcane

    sugarcane Member

    They're both good arguments,I'm not sure which way I would go but I'm not for a bunch of changes all the time.Look what happened to forward progress. ;)
     
  26. Alex44

    Alex44 Boshosaurus Rex

    20,810
    8,965
    0
    Jan 7, 2008
    Hollywood, Florida
    In the case of the same record it should go to the division winner.

    However if a team wins more games in a league where parity is supposed to rule, IMO they should host.
     
  27. brandon27

    brandon27 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    45,652
    19,304
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
    Windsor, ON. CANADA
    exactly! i agree with this proposed change. if you win your division, you should be entitled a playoff spot, and nothing more. if the wildcard team comes from another division and has a better record, then they should get the homegame based on their record. personally i think it makes perfect sense that way. give the division winners a spot in the playoffs as a reward for winning the division, but seed the games based on records to reward those teams who won. :up:
     
  28. Idahophin

    Idahophin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    2,926
    1,619
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    Snake River Plain
    I would like to see them do something about the rookies high salaries. They are way over payed, until they prove themselves.
     
  29. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    There are arguments for either way, I like the new proposed rule. The goal is to win games, you win less than the other, you shouldn't get to host. Period. Teams that win the division still get in the playoffs. Remember, there is one incentive for this rule, it's to create more meaningful games at the end of the season, less teams resting their starters etc.. That's fine with me.
     
  30. TheMageGandalf

    TheMageGandalf Senior Member

    2,409
    688
    0
    Nov 25, 2007
    FLORIDA
    They need to implement something with HARSH penalties because the integrity of the game is at stake.

    With the Walsh thing hanging over their heads right now it is more important than ever that they step up and make it known that cheating in the NFL will be dealt with severly and not just a wrist slap.
     
    alen1 likes this.
  31. alen1

    alen1 New Member

    52,811
    20,365
    0
    Dec 16, 2007
    Nice post, I agree with it.
     
  32. emocomputerjock

    emocomputerjock Senior Member

    5,649
    1,853
    113
    Nov 23, 2007
    DC
    The rookie salary cap is the part of the talks I find most intriguing and necessary.

    For the longest time, the Dolphins didn't have to worry about it, so I didn't pay much attention to the escalating costs for players picked in the first round until our illustrious 4-12 season. At that point, I became a champ for a rookie salary cap in a hurry. Of course, they'll get to talking about it now that we're on our way to rebuilding with no way to avoid a #1 pick overall salary cap hit.

    It's simple - if the team with the worst record is going to be saddled with the biggest financial burden for a player who has never played in an NFL game, then they need to either implement a cap or come up with a way of having guaranteed contracts become not guaranteed in the case of the top 10.
     

Share This Page