Thread: Owner's meetings conclude

[size=13pt]OWNER'S MEETINGS CONCLUDE[/size]

MARCH 30, 2007

Author: Mike Wobschall, vikings.com

[quote]A proposal to move the overtime kickoff spot from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line was tabled and will likely be addressed in May. The proposal was brought about by the Competition Committee in an attempt to curb a trend [b]where teams that win the coin toss in overtime go on to win more than 60 percent of the games[b]. After the committee concluded that they didn't have the votes to pass the proposal, they decided to table the measure and try to drum up more support for it before meetings in May.[/quote}

What's wrong with that?

"BadlandsViking" wrote:

A proposal to move the overtime kickoff spot from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line was tabled and will likely be addressed in May. The proposal was brought about by the Competition Committee in an attempt to curb a trend [b]where teams that win the coin toss in overtime go on to win more than 60 percent of the games[b]. After the committee concluded that they didn't have the votes to pass the proposal, they decided to table the measure and try to drum up more support for it before meetings in May.

What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with what?
???

The expected rejection, or the attempt to pursue it later?
:

OK, since you were vague, or I perceived you to be vague, I'll answer both possibilities....

'realizing it will result in rejection': the games will remain shorter than if the rules were fairer to both teams.
That's 'wrong' in the eyes of commercial advertisers who want to sell more beer, razor blades, fast food, and ED drugs.
Longer games are needed if OT occurs, and moving the kickoff up 5 yds may help.

'pursue it later': owners are executives of large corporations who are accustomed to making big decisions.
The current perspective is that OT kickoff placement is ok as is.
The tradeoffs to be debated are: a. possibly more commercials to generate more revenue, due to an elongated OT vs. b. greater risk of injury to weary players in OT.

"Purplexing" wrote:

"BadlandsViking" wrote:

A proposal to move the overtime kickoff spot from the 30-yard line to the 35-yard line was tabled and will likely be addressed in May. The proposal was brought about by the Competition Committee in an attempt to curb a trend [b]where teams that win the coin toss in overtime go on to win more than 60 percent of the games[b]. After the committee concluded that they didn't have the votes to pass the proposal, they decided to table the measure and try to drum up more support for it before meetings in May.

What's wrong with that?

What's wrong with what?

???

The expected rejection, or the attempt to pursue it later?

:

OK, since you were vague, or I perceived you to be vague, I'll answer both possibilities....

'realizing it will result in rejection': the games will remain shorter than if the rules were fairer to both teams.
That's 'wrong' in the eyes of commercial advertisers who want to sell more beer, razor blades, fast food, and ED drugs.
Longer games are needed if OT occurs, and moving the kickoff up 5 yds may help.

'pursue it later': owners are executives of large corporations who are accustomed to making big decisions.
The current perspective is that OT kickoff placement is ok as is.
The tradeoffs to be debated are: a. possibly more commercials to generate more revenue, due to an elongated OT vs. b. greater risk of injury to weary players in OT.

Ok here's what I should have said.
Ok all the players want to win, but how many actually want to go into overtime when they are exhausted after already getting run over for two hours?
So being worried about who wins in overtime is stupid, prevent injuries and get it over with.
So as I said.
"what's wrong with that?"

OK, with your clarification, it is even more perplexing.
??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Why would injuries be the overriding concern in OT, but not in the regulation period?
??? ??? ???

For example, when the fourth qtr clock starts, if the game is tied, a new rule designed to prevent injuries in the last qtr would provide that the team with possession of the ball can advance it up to 50 yds, but no farther than their opponent's 1 yd line, so as to provide an advantage and help break the tie in the
regulation period...

IMHO, 'fairness' should be sought in OT to the extent that ALL other rules are enforced in 'regulation time' so as to make the game fair to both teams.