I hate to bring up something trivial as sports right now, but maybe this can give us a break. I have a question for anybody out there who would know the answer. I was reading about what College Football, MLB, and the NFL were going to do about losing the games that had been cancelled. The NFL's plan really baffled me. They don't want to have a 15 game season which I can understand. They want to extend the regular season an extra week, but they don't want the playoffs to go an extra week. I don't understand this. The article on espn.go.com said that playing the Super Bowl a week later or the first Sunday in February was not an option. Yet, Paul Tagliabue never gives a reason for this. My question is why is this not an option? Don't tell me because the NFL has to have the Pro Bowl, which is probably the least-watched all-star game of all major sports. Can anybody answer that? It does feel weird that there's nothing on in sports right now. However, I still feel that they did make the right decisions.
No! we need more posts like this Manny. I think it's time to slowly but surely turn the page...Believe me If I was rich I'd send you a dollar for initiating this. I heard the NFL is gonna have the hardest time adjusting out of all the sports right now.
I think the Superbowl date is already set, arrangements made, etc. It's one of those things that just "can't" be moved, apparently. I'm not sure if it's because travel arrangements of fans and such are already set. In other sports, you don't know *where* the final game will take place since it depends on the teams. In the Superbowl and College Football Bowl games, the time and location is pre-determined, so I'm guessing all sorts of other arrangements are in place relating to it. Just my theory.
<B>don't all the teams get a bye-week anyway? just eliminate those</B> Unfortunately, there's an odd number of teams, so someone HAS to be off every week, unless we start playing 3-team games which could be interesting and unique, if nothing else.
The Super Bowl is like a convention. Since it is a known location year in and year out (unlike the other sports), hotel accomodations are made years in advance. An event of its magnitude is hard to reschedule. I think that this year is one of those years without 2 weeks between the conference championships and the Super Bowl as well. If that week were there, then it would be easy to adjust the schedule.
I just realize that I forgot to mention that by extending the regular season an extra week but not the Super Bowl, that it's going to cause the wildcard weekend to get axed. Thus, only 4 teams from each conference will make the playoffs for a grand total of 8 teams for the "Super Bowl" tournament. The article said that it would be the first time since 1981 that only 8 teams would participate in the playoffs; however, that doesn't make sense to me because the NFL went to 2 wildcards per conference in 1978. Therefore starting in 1978 there was 10 teams in the NFL playoffs. What makes this goofy is that they mention that in the article about the NFL going to 2 wildcard teams in 1978. What does this mean? It means that at least two of these teams will be left out of the playoffs - the Titans, Raiders, Broncos, Ravens, Dolphins, and Colts yet they may have an 11-5 record or 12-4 record. Shanna's theory may be right yet you would think that wherever the Super Bowl is being played this year (isn't that awful that I can't remember) could make arrangements and consider the circumstances and make an exception. Oh well, it is going to make the regular season even more important than ever.
Who cares about Arizona anyway? I say cancel this week's games entirely, and Arizona and San Diego have unbalanced schedules. This crap about getting rid of 4 playoff teams is ridiculous.
They said one week of the season is worth about $60 million in ticket revenues, not to mention concessions, TV contracts, etc. I think the NFL cares about that 16th game.
Which leads me to believe that the cancelations this week had more to do with money than anything else. They were probably more concerned with more people watching the coverage of this tragedy than they would watch football, not to mention the people who wouldn't go because they were scared.
What sports agency keeps spreading stuff about Arizona only playing 14 games? They will play 15! The NFL season is 17 weeks long. Each team has a bye week. Arizona had theirs in week 1. That leaves 16 weeks, 16 games. Week 2 was canceled, leaving 15 weeks, 15 games. There is no way they would only play 14 games! None! No offense to anyone, but that stuff has struck a nerve with me for sometime...
<B>Which leads me to believe that the cancelations this week had more to do with money than anything else. They were probably more concerned with more people watching the coverage of this tragedy than they would watch football, not to mention the people who wouldn't go because they were scared.</B> I disagree. One part of it, I believe, was that the players basically said there's no way they were going to play. I read somewhere that the Jets in particular pretty much said they'd have boycotted. That would have caused a bigger mess than just cancelling the games. I'm sure money had something to do with it -- it always does -- but I seriously doubt it was the main reason. Logistics, the players, PR, and a number of other things were involved as well. The NFL owners are not the only group that wants to play a full 16 game season. The players want it as well. Going to 15 games also causes a number of other problems -- such as making San Diego still play a 16 game season? How unfair is that, especially if they turn out to be a playoff team?
I'd say making San Diego, a team that might have a chance to go to the playoffs (but probably not in the tough AFC), play 16 games as opposed to 15 for the rest of the teams is a lot more fair than telling 4 teams who would normally have made the playoffs "sorry, we can't move the Super Bowl or have one team play one extra game". I'll be interested to see the Players Union response to this, if it happens, since many, if not all players, get some sort of playoff bonus.
<B>I'd say making San Diego, a team that might have a chance to go to the playoffs (but probably not in the tough AFC), play 16 games as opposed to 15 for the rest of the teams is a lot more fair than telling 4 teams who would normally have made the playoffs "sorry, we can't move the Super Bowl or have one team play one extra game". </B> I disagree. In one case, every team in under the same rules. In the other, one team is unfairly singled out. How is that fair? <B>I'll be interested to see the Players Union response to this, if it happens, since many, if not all players, get some sort of playoff bonus.</B> From ESPN: http://msn.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/pasquarelli_len/1251294.html <I>Player representatives for several teams told ESPN.com that the sentiment among the rank-and-file favors playing a 16-game schedule and reducing the number of wild-card teams from three per conference to one. The games postponed this weekend would then be made up on Jan. 5-6, which had been scheduled for the first round of playoff games.</I>
Well, according to this article, the money might favor the expanded playoffs: http://www.sportsline.com/b/page/pressbox/0,1328,4303361,00.html Some highlights: <I>The players want to play 16 games, making up this weekend's canceled games. The NFL competition committee is also in favor of the 16-game season, as are a handful of owners. But there are a large number of club-level executives and several other owners who are firmly against rescheduling the canceled games because they don't want to eliminate the two wild-card teams per conference to do so. ... At the time of the 1990 playoff-field expansion, the talk was the move to 12 playoff teams was diluting the playoff field and was only being done to increase the TV revenue. It did help land the league a lucrative television contract with its four networks, which is why the input from television might be greater in this case than any from the players, coaches, fans or owners. ... One reason the teams don't want the games canceled is because it would give some teams a competitive edge. Some would play eight home games, others seven. Some teams would also play more division games than others. </I>
We dont these idiots just freakin play the AFC and NFC Championships a week beofre the Super Bowl instead of two weeks before .
They are playing the Conference Championship Games this year the week before the Super Bowl. Here's a look at the schedule for the NFL before Week 2's cancellation: Week 17 was the weekend of 12-29-01 Wildcard weekend was the weekend of 1-5-02 Divisional Playoffs weekend was the weekend of 1-12-02 Conference Championships were 1-20-02 Super Bowl was to be (and still is) 1-27-02 I still feel that despite the fact that the Super Bowl is considered like a convention event that the city that is hosting it can consider the circumstances and move it back a week. If it was only simple as having a bye week before the Super Bowl this next year. Is it or me or does it seem like the NFL started their season later than usual? I thought that they usually played during Labor Day weekend, something that would not had caused this problem. If I was Tagliabue, I would start every season Labor Day weekend, and I would not have a bye before the Super Bowl game.
ESPN Is reporting that NFL Teams are leaning towards the 16 Game Schedule , with the MLB format of 3 division winners and 1 wild card team per conference making the playoffs , Makes since to me , Only 2 wild card teams have ever won the Super Bowl .
