Your players are putting themselves at risk everyday they go on a football field. It's part of the job description. More often than not, it's serious risk in the NFL.Originally Posted by WrongVerb
You refer to winning and losing as "personal wants"?
Chip R (05-26-2017)
When you're only a fan, and the outcome of a game involving your arbitrarily chosen tribal representatives has no bearing whatsoever on your life, then yeah, their winning is a personal wants.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. -- Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot)
Competition is where their paychecks come from. They're gladiators in a sense. They enjoy very cushy lifestyles from all of this. They deserve safeguards but I don't see any evidence that OT periods are extraoridinarily dangerous.
In every sport you run the risk of injury that may increase as the game goes longer. They get tired and may not react as quickly as they did in the first part of the game. Even if you use the college and HS version of OT those players are going to be out there tired as anything from playing four quarters. Even a non-contact sport like baseball may suffer. A high and inside pitch may hit you on the helmet in the 14th inning where in the 3rd inning you could have got out of the way. OT is part of the game no matter if it's five or 15 minutes.
In related news, Calvin Johnson said he believes he had a "fair share" of concussions even though he was never diagnosed with one. Although I believe the NFL's response to concussions has been lacking, I have said before that it is incumbent on the players to notify the medical staff if they believe they have got their bell rung. But, of course, a player's instinct is to want to keep playing. If he has to hide symptoms or not report them, then so be it. It's perfectly understandable. They want to contribute and one player at 75% may be better than his backup at 100%. Then there's peer pressure too.
https://sports.yahoo.com/news/calvin...001155446.html
WrongVerb (05-26-2017)
Ok I gave up the Bengals, the Raiders whom I adopted are moving, so I need a new team.
What team should I choose?
Championships for MY teams in my lifetime:
Cincinnati Reds - 75, 76, 90
Chicago Blackhawks - 10, 13, 15
University of Kentucky - 78, 96, 98, 12
Chicago Bulls - 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98
“Everything that happens before Death is what counts.”
― Ray Bradbury, Something Wicked This Way Comes
Seahawks
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. -- Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot)
Joseph (05-27-2017)
Since you don't live around Oakland and your loyalty isn't to the area, is it just the "I don't like teams moving" principle of the thing that's making you drop the Raiders?
I'm guessing you've ruled out the local-ish Titans, if they haven't grown on you by now, they probably never will. If you like being a contrarian, you could try one of their division rivals. Otherwise, maybe try an NFC team for a change of pace.
Reading comprehension is not just an ability, it's a choice
I love ties in Football. Too much is put on the line for the game to be dicided by some silly OT rules just so a"W" can be posted in the standings. Football is the closest sport to real military strategy and battles. You don't tell Napolean ans Wellington that their efforts weren't good enough today and that you can't take home a modicum of success, which a tie is, because the Kings want a winner and a loser. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a tie in football (or soccer or hockey, either). I like 'em.
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
Obviously, Da' Bears.
"One problem with people who have no vices is that they're pretty sure to have some annoying virtues."
Joseph (05-27-2017)
Maybe if they were to go with ties, they could come up with some point system to determine standings. Spit balling, how about one point per number of opponent victories? Beat a team with 6 victories and get six points. Tie the same team and get three. Something like that.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. -- Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot)
Oakland was part of the reason I chose the Raiders, the Las Vegas Raiders don't have the same pizzazz. So yeah I don't have loyalty to the town, but that mystique from my youth was all part of the package.
The Bears are on the shortlist, and the Seahawks too, love both those cities, so I may go the NFC route indeed this time.
Championships for MY teams in my lifetime:
Cincinnati Reds - 75, 76, 90
Chicago Blackhawks - 10, 13, 15
University of Kentucky - 78, 96, 98, 12
Chicago Bulls - 91, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98
“Everything that happens before Death is what counts.”
― Ray Bradbury, Something Wicked This Way Comes
Are you talking about on a weekly basis? Or waiting until the end of the season to see how many points you get for a particular win? It couldn't possibly be on a weekly basis. That might be interesting if all the teams that you beat won on the last day of the season. And all of the teams, of the team that you were fighting for a playoff spot with, lost on the day of the season.
Last edited by texasdave; 05-27-2017 at 10:32 AM.
Yes going week to week. This isn't a serious suggestion, btw. More like a fun thought experiment.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. -- Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot)
I understand that is was just something fun to think about. I wasn't trying to be negative. And, so, I did think about it. Just a couple of things that popped into my mostly empty head.
The first week of the season would not not do anyone any good. Any team you beat would have zero wins. 1 x 0 = 0. So, it wouldn't matter if you won or lost.
When you played a team would be of paramount importance. Say the Bengals beat New England in Week 2 when the Patriots were 1-0. The Bengals would get one point. If Pittsburgh beat them in the last game of the season, and say the Patriots were 12-3 at the time, the Steelers would get 12 points for beating the same team.
Now, if you waited until the end of the season to award points on that basis, that might be interesting.
Hmmmm yeah I can see what you're getting aft and that makes sense. Maybe current standings could be based on the win total of all the opponents at that moment in time.
For instance if the Bengals played the Jets, Patriots, and Ravens the first three weeks and beat them all, then each team went on to win their best two games, that would give the Bengals 6 points. That solves the first week issue, too.
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. -- Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot)
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
