Well, in my experience, if anyone can handle higher mathematics, it’s the American sports fan.
I’ve never a seen a group of people so obsessed with, and knowledgeable about sport statistics. RBI, ERA, PIM, YAC, TDs, Int., Pts, Ass., Reb. - you name it and some American fan will be able to tell you how it works, where it fits in, why it’s important, and who has the best one. Compared to some of the arcane facts and figures that they deal with every season, a fairly straightforward system like that used in English football should be a snap.
It’s interesting that your humorous response included the term “Commie.” There are actually a few social and political critics in the US (including, for example, Noam Chomsky) who adopt a rather Marxist argument regarding the role of sport in this country. These commentators tend to put sport in the place that Marx reserved for religion, seeing it as an “opiate of the masses,” something that distracts people from paying attention to important political and economic issues. While there may be a certain amount of truth to this, i tend to think it’s a little more complicated, and that most people, even ardent sports fans, know that sports isn’t such a big deal and that other issues deserve more sustained attention.
Ya know, an undercurrent in this whole debate is that the NFL, along with a lot of America, seems to hate tie games. The most vehement extension of that argument I’ve ever seen was in Allen Barra’s That’s Not the Way it Was, which suggested that “any team playing for a tie” should “refund the spectators’ money”–after all, he claims, they paid to see a winner and a loser. I respect most of the stuff you write, Allen, but that’s bullshit. You pay to see a game, not a winner. It’s not printed on your tickets “A Winner Guaranteed!”
Hockey fans don’t seem to scream bloody murder when there’s a tie, but every anti-soccer diatribe I’ve ever seen in the States seems to include a rant about there being too many tie games (hey, they’re draws anyway).
I don’t understand the bias against ties. If two teams are of equal ability, or if two teams play an equally good game, why not let them both come away with something? Life isn’t always “winner take all,” why should sports be?
I held back in posting to this thread; I was upset about the Steelers’ elimination from the playoffs. For all of you who asked so nicely, I’m over it. There’s always next year.
Now, the OT system: No one has addressed the problem unique to football- the fact that the longer the players are on the field, the more the chance of an injury.
The NFL has been good in producing marquee players, and the fans pay to see the players make big plays. They don’t pay to see marquee players get carted off by the medics. Longer playing time means a good chance that one of these players may end up out for several games, the season, maybe life.
This should be enough of a reason to make sure games do not drag on- and it’s also the enemy of parity in the league (back to the OP.) If you lose your best players, you don’t have much of a chance to win games. So get the game over with as fast as possible.
One more agreement with the OP: Yeah, quit your whining. There’s nothing that can be done now, except watching Oakland hold the Titans one foot short.
Even though i’m a Ravens fan, i still felt for the Steelers last weekend. I don’t particularly have anything against the Titans, but i do think that their coach is a fuckwad, and i love to see him lose. Also, i like Hines Ward a lot - great player.
I’m surprised, given your eagerness for shorter games, that you don’t support my outstanding (if i may say so :)) idea of doing away with OT altogether during the regular season.
Where exactly do you get the idea that longer time on the field making for a higher chance of injury is unique to football? Surely this applies, purely as a matter of probabilty, to any sport? Anyway, the number of injuries that occur in regulation time, as well as in seemingly innocuous settings like the training field during the week, suggest that it’s not OT that is the big cause of NFL injuries. Mountain out of molehill, if i may say so. But, hey, that’s what SDMB is all about.
Yes, you’re correct. I should have said that injuries are more prevalent in football, because of the nature of the game. At least serious injuries are more prevalent.
OT is not the cause of injuries; it is the longer time on the field that adds to the chance of injury of a marquee player. My point was that this is not a position in which a coach wants to find his team. So he should avoid OT like the plague.
Instead, there is a tendency to do “just enough” to get to OT, not to win the game in regulation by taking a chance which may result in loss.
My previous post may have sounded like hyperbole; thanks for helping me clear up my point.
Do you think that the “prevent” defense has any bearing on teams reaching OT? Rushing 3 and dropping the other eight players into coverage seems to be a recipe for comebacks.
How about the networks’ desire for close games? The announcers get so bored-sounding during one-sided games, and the network switches coverage to a close game at the end of the shorter regional games. No matter what game you are watching, at the end you get to see a close game elsewhere if it’s still in progress. Why does this game often cut into the coverage of the 4pm game?
All of this is moot until next season, but I’m sure that it will be discussed by the owners.
I think the biggest resistance to your plan would be that it’s a major change. Tradition is important to football teams and owners; it’s just too different, even if it makes sense.
