The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Adam Schefter reporting.....starting this year the Pro Bowl will have NO Kickoffs and teams will automatically "change possession" at the end of each quarter. And it will no longer be AFC vs NFC. Jerry Rice and Deion Sanders will hold a "fantasy draft" each as a "team captain" of all the players who will play in the pro bowl and split the teams up that way.

Just get rid of this friggin game and stop making it a bigger joke than it already is! Now you can have guys on the same team tackling each other. If one lets say SF defensive guy is drafted to one team and another SF offensive guy is drafted on another. Hey Patrick Willis go tackle Vernon Davis! Have fun. First time that happens and there is an injury watch all hell break lose!

This is stupid and unnecessary.  They're making it farther from a real football game and more into a side show joke.

There was significance when fans got to vote on the best players in each conference.  It meant something for a player to get selected to a Pro Bowl.  But now, its a total joke.

I'm actually kinda OK with this.  The game is a joke, so make it a joke.  If you're going to have it, make it a glorified FF mockery.  It damn sure didn't work to pretend that it was a real game.

Zero impact on me.  I didn't watch it b4.  And I won't be watching the new format. 

Just go ahead and give them little belts with brightly colored flags dangling. In five years, the Pro Bowl will be Jerry and Deion playing Madden '18 with the voted all star rosters.

Pussification of the game has taken another step

The NHL did this fantasy draft thing last year for their all star game.  I thought it was unique but also didn't like the format much.  I can't see this going over well in the NFL.

It will go over like a turd, but at least they're going for spectacle and not pretending that it's a real game.

Reports are the "NO Kickoffs" and "change of possession" thing at the end of each quarter are being used as a "trial run" in the pro bowl and if it works well in the Pro Bowl then it could possibly be added to real games

Also, since its no longer AFC vs NFC...you could have all 6 QB's in the game be from the same conference lets say. They are just counting votes now.  People with the most votes go.

Are these "reports" or "rumors"  Reports as in sources within in the NFL or rumors as in your drinking buddies or bleacher reports?

I like the idea of change of possession every quarter instead of every half.  The 4 best mins of the game are the last 2 min of the first half, and the last 2 mins of the game (assuming the game is close).  This will double that. 

As for ending kick off.  They are pretty much pointless as many teams have a kicker who can boot it out of the end zone.   

This is the worst possible outcome.

I don't understand the need to change possession at the end of the quarter.  What's the point of that?

This is probably just one more step towards the Pro Bowl game eventually just going away.  Won't really make much difference to me since I don't watch it or care about it anyway.  Although I like the concept of a game played by the "best of the best", I can understand the players not wanting to suffer a career ending injury and either not playing at all or half assing it in the game which essentially nullifies the whole "best of the best" concept anyway.  When I was a kid, I would get pretty jazzed up for the "all star" games in all of the sports.  But as a middle aged adult, I don't really make an effort to watch any of the all star games anymore, regardless of the sport.

Teams frequently only decide to play real offense at the end of each half.  IMO, if they want to increase those scenarios and reduce the occurrence of Field Position Battling Via Punters, it helps the game.

Do you find the two min drill at the end of the half to be more exciting than other parts of the game?

If yes, that is the point.

If you don't find it any more exciting -- well then there wouldn't be a point. 

It would make sense to turn the ball over with seconds left to go in the quarter.

I think you're misunderstanding how the rule would work.  It's just like halftime.  There's no incentive to fumble right before the half.  Teams simply take turns starting out with each new quarter.

So basically it would encourage you to go all out at the end of the quarter? That would be interesting. considering the end of the half is where most timeouts are used I wonder how this would have an effect to the ending of quarters 1 and 3?

I imagine its like the NBA where possession alternates by quarter.  So even if you have the ball and you're driving, you'd have to go back and start over at the start of the next quarter.

Personally, I hate that idea.  I don't think 15 minutes is long enough to get anything meaningful going.  And, I like the role and strategy that punters play in the game regarding field position.

I think timeouts are used at the end of the half because that's when they are replenished.  You might see a team using a TO if they are right on the cusp of scoring before the end of a quarter.

Timeouts are imperative to the 2 minute offense and handicap it when you don't have them. If you are not running the 2 minute offense for whatever reason then chances are you are not using timeouts. I could absolutely see using them at the end of the 1st or 3rd in that scenario.

Not really, since teams that are behind unwaveringly use their timeouts on defense at the the end of the game, yet are still able to run two minute offenses.

Let me predict the next change then if these go in. 

2 min warning at the end of the 1st and 3rd Qs. 

I think they did add that to this years pro bowl. I vaguely remember reading that someplace. Not 100% sure though

Potential problem with this.....game length. 

Everyone was worried how much longer games went with replay reviews, turns out not much.

This could lengthen the game significantly.  First off, 2 extra 2 min warning automatically lengthens the game.  Plus the 2 min offense takes a lot longer than than normal plays.  Spiking the ball, running out of bounds, etc. 

Again, this is why I hope they confine these silly rules only to the Pro Bowl and don't start implementing them in regular season games.

They are all coming to the "regular game" .....just a matter of WHEN and not IF anymore. Player safety and all the concussion issues ...the NFL needs to stay ahead of the curve and look out for player safety. Especially with that giant lawsuit the former players have against them. If the NFL doesn't show they are changing their ways then next thing ya know congress will be involved and that's the last thing the league wants.  They do need to make the game safer. Removing kickoffs is a big first step. Making the game more wide open to encourage passing by tweaking the rules is another way. I don't agree or like these rule changes at all, but I see there point of view and I understand why they want to start moving in this direction.

The 2 things Fans hate the most are the thought of these rule changes that drastically change the game and a Super Bowl being played in London or overseas. BOTH are going to happen in time and unfortunately fans are going to be pissed! But the NFL is a drug and fans can stomp there feet and be mad but they will keep coming back to get there "fix."

I don't see a snowball's chance in hell of SB being moved outside the US in the next couple of decades.

^^^ Agree completely...and would even stretch it from "the next couple of decades" to "in my lifetime," whichever lasts longer.

Yeah, and we would never see a Super Bowl played outside in the cold in a northern city either...oh wait!!!! It's a matter of  "when" and not "if". You have owners like Kraft, York, and Irsay banging the table for it to happen. They know its a cash cow like never before that would bring in so much money its insane. The league is now playing 2 games overseas each year for the foreseeable future. The plan within the next couple years is to have 1 game a week played outside of US soil I have read. It's a growing market on the other side of the pond and the NFL is looking for every avenue possible to expand revenues. A Super Bowl in London will happen. I would bet a large sum of money on that.

John York the Chair of the NFL International Committe: “There is easily enough of a fan base over here to stage two games a
season. I think eventually there will be a Super Bowl outside the U.S. I
couldn’t tell you when that would be. I can see it both ways. I’m not
sure what will be first, a Super Bowl over here or an NFL team, but they
both seem likely to happen.”

How is an overseas Super Bowl a "cash cow"?  Please explain.

The domestic Super Bowls are already extremely lucrative; people swarm from around the nation, even to places like Jacksonville or Indy.  And you have the added expense of abandoning your domestic infrastructure to go overseas for the biggest event of your league.

Furthermore, unless you want to have a London SB that kicks off at midnight local time, whatever you are gaining in UK eyeballs, you are losing in U.S. West Coast eyeballs.  People are not going to have casual SB parties for a 10 AM kickoff.

It's a cash cow because its a market that hasn't been tapped yet for a super bowl. The 2 week build up in London for the game will bring in NFL fans from all of Europe. People who don't get much if any NFL action and they now get the biggest game of the year for 1 year. They will eat up and buy up everything and anything NFL. Plus since its the 1st Super Bowl there the price the league can charge for everything (let alone tickets) would be up there. It's an absolute cash cow.

And the kickoff would of course be earlier than the 6pm eastern US time. For a one-time deal I think that would be ok and not a deal breaker or a big issue at all. What are people gonna forget what time the Super Bowl starts in the United States?! Are they not gonna have a Super Bowl party at 2pm or 3pm or whatever? Please.

Spider, I agree with Mike on this.   If they play the game at 9 pm in London, that would be a 4 pm start on the East Coast and 1 pm on the West Coast.  That sounds doable to me.

I'm pretty sure that there are millions more NFL fans in the U.S. than in all of Europe combined.  And U.S. fans already eat up and buy up everything and anything NFL, so there is nothing to be gained there.

They can do exactly the same thing in America any time they want!  And they will have millions more here clamoring to throw their money at them.

West Coast SB parties are already at "2pm or 3pm," since kickoff here is 3:30pm.

Suppose they start the game at 9pm GMT, which is the same as a normal 4pm EST/1pm PST kickoff.  Fine.  How many people are going to show up to the stadium to watch a game of American football that ends at 1-1:30am (on a Monday) local time?  They've never sold out the UK game as is.

It isn't going to happen, but I certainly can't begrudge anyone their God-given right to run around screaming "the sky is falling!"

-They have NEVER sold out the UK game.....might want to check your facts!!! They sold out BOTH games this year http://www.nfluk.com/opinions/articles/nfl-commissioner-confirms-both-london-games-are-sold-out

If there is "NOTHING TO BE GAINED" why does the league keep going there every year? Why do they keep adding games there every year? Why does the NFL have an "International Committee" set up? Why do you have teams like the Rams and Jags who have explored moving there full time? You are totally lost on the "business aspect" of the NFL and where the money is. Why do you have multiple owners who are clamoring to get a team in London full time (Irsay, York, Kraft just to name 3 off the top of my head who are very vocal about it). You have owners who feel the US market is tapped out and there is not much more money to be gained here in the states who are looking overseas for the next big boom and influx of money. I suggest you read up on this topic you might learn a couple things.

Yep, for a 1 time thing it is doable! Wouldn't be every year but for a 1-time thing it wouldn't be a big deal to start the game a couple hours earlier. Just like doing the game outside in the cold with possible snow is a 1-time thing they are rolling the dice on. I mean if there is a blizzard this year you will see a super bowl played in a stadium with a bunch of empty seats and certain people won't sit outside in those conditions. It's a roll of the dice and a 1-time thing to see how it goes. The NFL has shown they are willing to take a risk!

Yep, just like a Super Bowl outside in the cold "isn't going to happen" or regular season games in London, Berlin would never happen. Yep, keep your head in the sand and ignoring the obvious!

Huge difference between the two.

1) NYC hosts an NFL team.  In fact two.  It is the largest football market on the planet.  It just built a new NFL stadium.  And the reward for building a new stadium is a superbowl even if the location is less than desirable.  I would rather visit NYC than Detriot or Indy but those cities got a SB when they built a new stadium too. London has not built a new NFL stadium. 

2) The change of start time would not be popular with the TV network that covers the SB, which would lower bid price by the network costing the NFL money.

3) A team going to London starts planning for the trip a year in advance, making sure all of the players apply for a passport as part of training camp.  This means all 32 teams are going to have to require all of their players get passports. 

4) The fans that attend the superbowl are Americans with a significant portion coming from the two respective cities.  There is ample domestic air flights to handle this.  There are NOT enough international flights to accommodate this.   This would drive up significantly the cost of attending a game to the point of deflating ticket prices.  While the games in London have sold out, soccer fans aren't going to spend $1,200 to see the novelty of seeing an American football game like they will if the tickets are around $100. 

5) This would piss off most Americans, to the point it would gain political favor for politicians to hold congressional hearings and threaten take favorable anti-trust exemptions and tax advantages.   Yes, some fans are pissed about the cold weather games but the folks in NYC are thrilled with the tourism revenue.  Americans aren't going to be happy with this much money being shipped overseas. 

ha ha, #5 is laughable on every level. #3 shouldn't be an issue I think a billion dollar entity could work out the passport issue also laughable. And the change in start time really is so minor. What is a network NOT going to want to carry a Super Bowl over that? Advertisers aren't going to want to advertise on the Super Bowl because of thsi? I mean come on you can't be serious.

You people can believe what you want. Time will tell and prove me correct on this. It's gonna happen, London already has a Super Bowl committee put together and is working on this, the league owners want it and have gone on the record stating so, ...its a matter of WHEN and not IF!

#3 is more serious of an issue than you realize.  If players have criminal records, are under prosecution for a crime, or are delinquent on child support payments, they will not be able to get a passport.

Please find ANY statement I've ever made that there would never be a cold weather Super Bowl, or regular season game in London or Berlin (two cities where I've made my residence in the past). You won't find anything of the sort.

However, I AM saying that there will not be a Super Bowl played outside the United States in my lifetime. Until that happens, please kindly insert cork into your designated cork hole.

The sky is not falling, Chicken Little...that shit is all in your head.

The "Sky is falling" comment doesn't even make sense! It really doesn't. Who says anything about about a super bowl overseas being good or bad? Because 1 Super Bowl may happen overseas it means the sky is falling. I'm not saying its a bad or good thing, I'm just saying it will happen. So your "sky is falling" statement makes little sense at all in reality

You can say there won't be a super bowl overseas. You are entitled to be wrong and hold that opinion. And you are so gung-ho against it happening YOU ARE THE ONE (if either of us) with the "sky is falling" attitude!! lol

Lighten up and have a civil debate without the constant name calling and bad jokes!  ::)

Yet every year 2 teams go overseas over 100 players and this hasn't been an issue. This year 4 teams will go overseas, not an issue as those arrangements have already been made.

With the 800lb Gorilla NFL behind these games passports/working visas are not an issue at all.

Looks like we've got some pregame entertainment.  A pissing contest between SunstroEK and Mike O

My mistake... after 6 tries, they've finally managed to get a sellout.

Because they love to send the worst performing teams in the league, who have nowhere to go but in revenue?  Do you think it's a coincidence that the Bills are playing home games in Toronto, that the Rams were scheduled to play home games in London (until Fisher took over), then they replaced the Rams with the Jaguars?

You know what I would love to read?

Some actual evidence to support this idle speculation.  And when I say "evidence," I don't mean unnamed some owners that are supposedly "considering" it.  I mean, a real, named person of consequence attaching his name to the quote that he would like to see the Super Bowl moved out of the country.

^^^^ yeah I gave you York quote and he is co-owner/chairman of SF (well passed it off to his kid on paper but he still is involved in ownership) who is also the Chair of the NFL International Committee who said its going to happen. Funny how you ignored that quote since it blows up your entire argument. Funny how you skipped over that.

Direct quote from York:  "I think eventually there will be a Super Bowl outside the U.S."

I'm sorry, does that sound like an explicit endorsement of a London Super Bowl to you?  Not only is he NOT saying that he's actually in favor of it (which I specifically asked for; instead, he just says that he thinks it'll eventually happen), but his statement could just as easily be applied to Toronto.. . which would be much easier, as it has more regional gridiron football support, and faces none of the timezone challenges.

Way to cherry pick the quote and actually misrepresent what he said by taking out one sentence and ignoring the rest. Why not show the rest of it when he was talking about London........ "“There is easily enough of a fan base over here to stage two games a season. I think eventually there will be a Super Bowl outside the U.S. I couldn’t tell you when that would be. I can see it both ways. I’m not sure what will be first, a Super Bowl over here or an NFL team, but they both seem likely to happen.”


Either learn to read or stop twisting a quote to say what you want it to say instead of what it is saying! The "over here" is London...no place else!

He still didn't actually endorse the idea, just expressed generalities about it "eventually" happening (before the end of time?), which is not at all the same thing.

If no one will even attach their name and take ownership of it, it isn't a serious prospect.  It's like an owner saying that a woman will eventually play in the NBA.

^^ http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/04/24/nfl-confirms-talks-to-hold-super-bowl-in-london/

This is from a couple years ago but pretty much tells you where the owners and league are on this issue and have been for a while now.

If you don't want to believe this will happen or that the owners want it to happen I don't know what to tell you and you can stay inside your bubble

I just finished reading that article, and while I admit that the NFL has talked to folks in London about the possibility. there really is nothing in that Fox News piece (or anywhere else) that has "anything" even remotely concrete.

In other ambiguous news, I'm currently engaged in "serious talks" with "sources close to" Mila Kunis, and we're "confident that the groundwork has been laid" for "exploring the possibility" of her coming to my place to suck my johnson "at some point in the future." I figure that I have the facilities to host her, I do have a functioning johnson, and according to reports, Mila does possess the capability to generate oral suction.

I'm thinking this is a done deal...

Again, more "There is a lot of interest in the possibility of blahblah" non-statements.

Call me when an actual NFL person-of-consequence says, "I am working to bring the Super Bowl to London."  I eagerly await the first time that the actual candidates for a specific, numbered Super Bowl are two American cities and London; the amount of flag-waving you will see from the politicians of those two cities will be stupefying and the NFL will quickly knuckle under.

^^^ Can I still count on Mila Kunis at least? ;)