"Fixing" the NFL

[purpletide]

This is a video I stumbled upon that talks about how the NFL could be improved (start watching at 6:45 to see where the NFL talk actually starts) which is why I started thinking about the subject. It's a podcast so there's a lot of random junk scattered in between NFL talks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RNRNiEQeOY

They propose kicking up the roster size to 60 or so players with no rules as to how many you can dress (which I am in support of), boosting the season to around 20 weeks with 2 byes and introducing a sort of minor league. They also exercise Harbaugh's and Tuck's idea of getting points from kickoffs, and talk about ways to make the extra point more exciting.

Boosting the roster size would help out to have more of a rotation with players and teams wouldn't have to cut down in one position in order to pad another (for instance, having only 2 QBs to have an extra RB). Also limiting how many players you're allowed to dress in a game doesn't make any sense to me.

Kicking up the season length and adding a bye I don't see the problem with. They proposed converting 2 of the preseason games into regular season games to make the regular season 18 games. Sure it would make season/career stats have to come with an asterisk because players would be playing more games than before, but that's easy to account for. Maybe we could see less commercials in games because of the NFL getting more advertisements in this way, and maybe add a few minutes to half time to further reduce the amount of commercials we see between drives and such. If we introduce minors that's even more revenue, therefore even less commercials hopefully.

A minor league would give players like UDFAs a chance to prove themselves and also give them game experience against NFL-worthy talent. This also gives us more football, which I don't think anybody is against. The NFL could also benefit from them by testing out rules in the minors and sending down refs as a punishment if they have abysmal games. Every NFL team would have their own minor team in their state or an adjacent one. The minors could maybe even play in the spring (it might be better to have the season run alongside NFLs regular season to allow for teams to pull players out when they need them), and I'd love to barely spend any money to see our next big prospects play a game. I see this as an improvement to the practice squad, giving us more players and a more meaningful, competitive experience. We can also pull any players out of the minors rather than just having 10 that we picked, so if we like what we see in a QB we might not need him but he could be a good backup.

The extra point is the most boring play in sports, maybe a mandatory 2 point conversion should be considered. The guys talk about maybe having an option to kick from a few yards closer to the opposite goalpost instead of going for two, and having a touchback go back to maybe the 15 or so yard line to further reward booting the ball as far as you can. Also maybe give returners the option to slide instead of giving their bodies up on a return so we can see teams run it out more instead of just kneeling it to guarantee the 25 yard line, and injuries would be less likely with the slide option.

Just posting to have a conversation about it and see if there's anything I'm missing with yall's opinions. I've really only thought about it while posting, so if I'm mistaken in seeing this as a good thing I'd like to know where I'm wrong.

[BmoreBird22]

2 minutes ago, purpletide said:

The extra point is the most boring play in sports, maybe a mandatory 2 point conversion should be considered.

It may be boring for Ravens fans, but extra points across the league were, I believe, under an 80% conversion rate. They aren't as routine for most teams anymore.

[purpletide]

1 minute ago, BmoreBird22 said:

It may be boring for Ravens fans, but extra points across the league were, I believe, under an 80% conversion rate. They aren't as routine for most teams anymore.

True. I've mostly watched college football, where there's virtually no challenge to the kickers. It also gets blocked way more now due to the further yardage.

[purpletide]

52 minutes ago, BmoreBird22 said:

It may be boring for Ravens fans, but extra points across the league were, I believe, under an 80% conversion rate. They aren't as routine for most teams anymore.

Hail Mr. Automatic.

[RayRayRaven]

2 hours ago, purpletide said:

This is a video I stumbled upon that talks about how the NFL could be improved (start watching at 6:45 to see where the NFL talk actually starts) which is why I started thinking about the subject. It's a podcast so there's a lot of random junk scattered in between NFL talks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RNRNiEQeOY

They propose kicking up the roster size to 60 or so players with no rules as to how many you can dress (which I am in support of), boosting the season to around 20 weeks with 2 byes and introducing a sort of minor league. They also exercise Harbaugh's and Tuck's idea of getting points from kickoffs, and talk about ways to make the extra point more exciting.

Boosting the roster size would help out to have more of a rotation with players and teams wouldn't have to cut down in one position in order to pad another (for instance, having only 2 QBs to have an extra RB). Also limiting how many players you're allowed to dress in a game doesn't make any sense to me.

Kicking up the season length and adding a bye I don't see the problem with. They proposed converting 2 of the preseason games into regular season games to make the regular season 18 games. Sure it would make season/career stats have to come with an asterisk because players would be playing more games than before, but that's easy to account for. Maybe we could see less commercials in games because of the NFL getting more advertisements in this way, and maybe add a few minutes to half time to further reduce the amount of commercials we see between drives and such. If we introduce minors that's even more revenue, therefore even less commercials hopefully.

A minor league would give players like UDFAs a chance to prove themselves and also give them game experience against NFL-worthy talent. This also gives us more football, which I don't think anybody is against. The NFL could also benefit from them by testing out rules in the minors and sending down refs as a punishment if they have abysmal games. Every NFL team would have their own minor team in their state or an adjacent one. The minors could maybe even play in the spring (it might be better to have the season run alongside NFLs regular season to allow for teams to pull players out when they need them), and I'd love to barely spend any money to see our next big prospects play a game. I see this as an improvement to the practice squad, giving us more players and a more meaningful, competitive experience. We can also pull any players out of the minors rather than just having 10 that we picked, so if we like what we see in a QB we might not need him but he could be a good backup.

The extra point is the most boring play in sports, maybe a mandatory 2 point conversion should be considered. The guys talk about maybe having an option to kick from a few yards closer to the opposite goalpost instead of going for two, and having a touchback go back to maybe the 15 or so yard line to further reward booting the ball as far as you can. Also maybe give returners the option to slide instead of giving their bodies up on a return so we can see teams run it out more instead of just kneeling it to guarantee the 25 yard line, and injuries would be less likely with the slide option.

Just posting to have a conversation about it and see if there's anything I'm missing with yall's opinions. I've really only thought about it while posting, so if I'm mistaken in seeing this as a good thing I'd like to know where I'm wrong.

most important ya 60 man rosta shuld be done. to many injurys and hurt guys.  the extra point is not auto any more needs left alone. as far as playin 18 reg season games not a fan. to many injuries already

[ALSKAN RAVEN FAN]

I would like to see the NFL pass interference rules changed to like how the colleges rules are implemented. 15 yards and a first down sounds good to me.

[Tank 92]

45 minutes ago, ALSKAN RAVEN FAN said:

I would like to see the NFL pass interference rules changed to like how the colleges rules are implemented. 15 yards and a first down sounds good to me.

I agree.

[Willbacker]

54 minutes ago, ALSKAN RAVEN FAN said:

I would like to see the NFL pass interference rules changed to like how the colleges rules are implemented. 15 yards and a first down sounds good to me.

Really like this idea but I'd like to see 2 different versions with an incidental and a nonincidental with the nonincidental being the 15.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

I'm with Harbs on replay. By rule everything should be reviewable, specifying the few instances that aren't as opposed to the other way around. 

If we can see a call is wrong sitting on the couch at home, they should have the means to change it and get it right on the field. 

 

Also like the idea of bigger rosters and some sort of developmental league. It would better reward teams who can develop talent and give more incentive into developmental facilities, staff, etc... More players getting opportunities isn't a bad thing and it'd be much easier to find/develop those late bloomers and diamonds in the rough. The PS is just too risky for teams. You can easily lose developmental prospects with almost no recourse for keeping them. 

 

In overtime I'd like to see both teams get a possession no matter what. If the first team scores a TD the second should get a chance to match it. Both offenses and defenses should be challenged in order to win. 

As is now if both defenses keep getting stops the game continues but if one offense scores a TD first it's over?? Makes no sense. Why not then if the first defensive team blanks the offense, forces a 3 and out, or creates a turnover shouldn't the game end?

 

I also like that if you're successful on any challenge you get another one. Essentially you are allowed one failed challenge, but as long as you are continuously successful in your challenges then you should have the ability to keep challenging. 

Teams shouldn't be punished if the refs screw up a lot. Especially if video review proves they were wrong. It shouldn't be capped at 3, and only if you're successful on the 1st two. Start with 2, if you get at least one right you get that 3rd. And if you get the 3rd correct you get another until you're wrong. 

 

I also like the 25 yd line for touch backs, but if the kicker puts it through the up rights it's a 20 yd line TB. Little extra incentive and advantage for teams with great kickers. If over 90% of kickoffs are going to be touch backs anyways, might as well give fans something to watch/cheer for during that kick. 

 

 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

1 hour ago, ALSKAN RAVEN FAN said:

I would like to see the NFL pass interference rules changed to like how the colleges rules are implemented. 15 yards and a first down sounds good to me.

I wouldn't. 

Why not then any time the DB thinks he's giving up a huge completion just haul the WR down?

Edited March 27 by BOLDnPurPnBlacK

[Adreme]

1 hour ago, ALSKAN RAVEN FAN said:

I would like to see the NFL pass interference rules changed to like how the colleges rules are implemented. 15 yards and a first down sounds good to me.

I mean basically in the NFL under this rule anytime you are about to give up a pass of 15 yards or more you are basically going to do all but tackle your guy to the ground.  The thing about college is the WR and QBs are worse so to a reasonable degree there will be mistakes but in the NFL its a disaster waiting to happen.

[ALSKAN RAVEN FAN]

11 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

Really like this idea but I'd like to see 2 different versions with an incidental and a nonincidental with the nonincidental being the 15.

Like it

[ALSKAN RAVEN FAN]

4 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I wouldn't. 

Why not then any time the DB thinks he's giving up a huge completion just haul the WR down?

See at bottom

2 minutes ago, Adreme said:

I mean basically in the NFL under this rule anytime you are about to give up a pass of 15 yards or more you are basically going to do all but tackle your guy to the ground.  The thing about college is the WR and QBs are worse so to a reasonable degree there will be mistakes but in the NFL its a disaster waiting to happen.

see at bottom

13 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

Really like this idea but I'd like to see 2 different versions with an incidental and a nonincidental with the nonincidental being the 15.

This just answered the top 2 guys concerns well put Willbacker.

it is just more fair.

Edited March 27 by ALSKAN RAVEN FAN

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

11 minutes ago, Willbacker said:

Really like this idea but I'd like to see 2 different versions with an incidental and a nonincidental with the nonincidental being the 15.

I don't like the idea as is because you could just tackle a WR any time you're about the give up a huge completion. Take the 15 yd flag over the 60 yd completion. 

This is theory changes that where if it's obviously done on purpose to prevent the big completion the penalty is implemented at the spot of the foul. 

 

Only problem with that is now we're relying on refs in the heat of the moment to determine intent. More judgement calls for refs is never a good thing imo. 

 

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

6 minutes ago, ALSKAN RAVEN FAN said:

See at bottom

see at bottom

This just answered the top 2 guys concerns well put Willbacker.

No it doesn't. 

Bc you're now relying on referees to rule on intent. They cant agree on what a catch is but now it's the perfect solution that they'll know when the PI was done "on purpose" vs "accidental"?

You don't think that players could purposely interfere with a guy and make it look like an accident.... and you trust refs to be able to apply that consistently across all games, every week, among different crews?

 

I mean how many PI calls are already either missed or called when it shouldn't be every week?? Now on top of that issue we want to compound by asking them to also rule the intent of the DB on top of it?

 

intent isn't black and white and can't be reviewed. Adding new rules like that -- never a fan. 

Edited March 27 by BOLDnPurPnBlacK

[ALSKAN RAVEN FAN]

2 minutes ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I don't like the idea as is because you could just tackle a WR any time you're about the give up a huge completion. Take the 15 yd flag over the 60 yd completion. 

This is theory changes that where if it's obviously done on purpose to prevent the big completion the penalty is implemented at the spot of the foul. 

 

Only problem with that is now we're relying on refs in the heat of the moment to determine intent. More judgement calls for refs is never a good thing imo. 

 

2 different versions with an incidental and a nonincidental with the nonincidental being the 15. would fix that and everything is left in the refs hands every single game. Remember the AFC champioship game Patriots Raiders and the Tuck rule? SUCKED TO BE A RAIDERS FAN I'D BET.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

2 minutes ago, ALSKAN RAVEN FAN said:

2 different versions with an incidental and a nonincidental with the nonincidental being the 15. would fix that and everything is left in the refs hands every single game. Remember the AFC champioship game Patriots Raiders and the Tuck rule? SUCKED TO BE A RAIDERS FAN I'D BET.

I understand but why add more rules that require a referees interpretation or judgement call? Just causes more problem. 

PI is already unreviewable, called differently week to week and crew to crew.... why add another element where the effect on teams will vary even more wildly? At least right now it's spot of foul for everyone. 

 

I feel like the only reason you should change rules is to make things more black and white, more objective. Anything that requires another layer of interpretation or determining what another human beings intentions are is just asking for trouble. 

 

I mean why not then have 2 types of every foul? Helmet to helmet on accident is only 5 yds but on purpose is 15.

Late hit on a QB by accident is 5 yds on purpose is 15. Face mask, holding, etc...

I mean you could do it with any of them but they don't bc it's full speed split second decisions and it's impossible for refs to determine intent. So you penalize everything equally.

PI is the one penalty where you can literally stop a huge play.

 

Why should the offense be penalized when the defense commits a foul??

Interfering with the WR is illegal. Whether the contact is accidental or not it's against the rules. If the offense was about to complete an 80 yd pass why should they be penalized by losing 65+ yds when they were done wrong???

makes no sense to me. 

[rossihunter2]

1 minute ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I understand but why add more rules that require a referees interpretation or judgement call? Just causes more problem. 

PI is already unreviewable, called differently week to week and crew to crew.... why add another element where the effect on teams will vary even more wildly? At least right now it's spot of foul for everyone. 

 

I feel like the only reason you should change rules is to make things more black and white, more objective. Anything that requires another layer of interpretation or determining what another human beings intentions are is just asking for trouble. 

 

I mean why not then have 2 types of every foul? Helmet to helmet on accident is only 5 yds but on purpose is 15.

Late hit on a QB by accident is 5 yds on purpose is 15. Face mask, holding, etc...

I mean you could do it with any of them but they don't bc it's full speed split second decisions and it's impossible for refs to determine intent. So you penalize everything equally.

PI is the one penalty where you can literally stop a huge play.

 

Why should the offense be penalized when the defense commits a foul??

Interfering with the WR is illegal. Whether the contact is accidental or not it's against the rules. If the offense was about to complete an 80 yd pass why should they be penalized by losing 65+ yds when they were done wrong???

makes no sense to me. 

I mean there's already kind of a rule like this - if the contact downfield is deemed accidental it's not called a foul at all

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

11 minutes ago, rossihunter2 said:

I mean there's already kind of a rule like this - if the contact downfield is deemed accidental it's not called a foul at all

There are times it's not called just like anything else... but accidental contact is called all the time. 

You see CBs just accidentally get their feet tied up with the WR while running and it gets called PI. 

 

I just think forcing a ref to determine if the contact interferes, and then determine if that contact was done with intent or not is just muddying the waters unnecessarily. 

 

I just dont see justification for a rule that says - yes we have deemed the defenders actions took away your 80 yd play... so we're going to "reward" you 15 yds!! 

Then theres also the issue of -- if you make a distinction between intent and no intent, you have to clearly define in the rule book what constitutes intent. 

 

So how do you define intent? What does that look like?

[Jonah DeVito]

The PI rule should absolutely stay the same. There is no reason to make it a 15 yard penalty instead of calling it at the spot of the foul. That's penalizing the offense for no reason. Also, if you really think we can rely on the refs to determine whether the contact was accidental or not, I honestly don't know what to say to you. Id say their job is hard enough as it is. 

Edited March 27 by Jonah DeVito

[purpletide]

49 minutes ago, Jonah DeVito said:

The PI rule should absolutely stay the same. There is no reason to make it a 15 yard penalty instead of calling it at the spot of the foul. That's penalizing the offense for no reason. Also, if you really think we can rely on the refs to determine whether the content was accidental or not, I honestly don't know what to say to you. Id say their job is hard enough as it is. 

I agree, it's just as much the defender's job to not illegally interfere as it is for them to not get burnt; if you interfere, you didn't do your job and gave up a big play, if you get burnt, you didn't do your job and gave up a big play. I think if we make everything reviewable then it won't matter what intent was anyway, it would clarify whether or not a defender was given an advantage in the way they covered someone (getting tangled with a WR at the line, not turning your head and disallowing the receiver to attempt a catch, etc).

[purpletide]

Honestly I'd love to see a minor league implemented, it helps the NFL in revenue, teams by picking up good prospects with a better alternative to the practice squad, and fans for more football as well as the aforementioned gains from their teams' success. Not sure if other teams should be able to grab players from other minor teams though or in what circumstances they'd be able to do it, but I've thought of possible pathways for this.

[rmw10]

I expect rosters to increase relatively soon but I only see a jump to 55 or so. I wouldn't expect inactive lists to go away though. A big part of the game is strategy - picking who to play and who to try to sneak through waivers. The inactive list is there for fairness in the first place. If you have a team with 10 injuries and another team with 0, that's a 10 player advantage for one team. 

A minor league system sounds great but it's not really feasible. How many leagues have tried and failed already? There's not enough interest in seeing fringe NFL talent for ticket sales and revenues to support a very expensive sport. The league would likely have to be owner supported and funded, and it's hard to imagine businessmen soaking money into something that's not going to make them money. 

[purpletide]

6 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

I expect rosters to increase relatively soon but I only see a jump to 55 or so. I wouldn't expect inactive lists to go away though. A big part of the game is strategy - picking who to play and who to try to sneak through waivers. The inactive list is there for fairness in the first place. If you have a team with 10 injuries and another team with 0, that's a 10 player advantage for one team. 

A minor league system sounds great but it's not really feasible. How many leagues have tried and failed already? There's not enough interest in seeing fringe NFL talent for ticket sales and revenues to support a very expensive sport. The league would likely have to be owner supported and funded, and it's hard to imagine businessmen soaking money into something that's not going to make them money. 

The only reason I would like a roster boost to around 60 is so there could be more of a rotation of players, but as for realism, yeah I see what you're saying. As for how the minor league would be supported maybe I could reference how the MLB handles the minors but I have no idea how they do it, maybe the NFL could absorb a league. Owners might be more enticed to have a minor league because it gives a large pool of potential talent to pull from and improve their teams with, profits from things like ticket sales and merch could help but they won't gain nearly as much as they would with any NFL teams and starting the minors would be costly whereas maintaining them shouldn't be as bad. So I agree with you, but I still think the boost to 60 and minor leagues could work.

[sflegend89]

There's nothing wrong with the game. The roster increase is the only viable suggestion I've really heard, Hearing stuff like "get a point for a kickoff through the uprights" is so dumb to me. The game has been played primarily the same way for decades now, stop infringing on the integrity of the game and trying to fix something that isn't broken. There's nothing wrong with the rules, maybe just decrease the commercial breaks. The whole commercial break after a score followed by a commercial break after the kickoff has to go. Have more original content (analysis, interviews, ect.) to fill the lulls in action and keep people engaged instead of flipping channels when those long breaks occur.

Lengthening the season is also a terrible idea. I've played college ball and I know what that wear and tear feels like even even at a shorter schedule against lesser athletes. It's easy to say make the schedule longer until you've lived it and can empathize with the players, 16 games + playoffs is already pushing it. We are already seeing players retire early, if we want to see our favorite players on the field for more seasons the worst thing you can do is lengthen the season and put their bodies through even more wear on a year-by-year basis.

Edited March 27 by sflegend89

[Halshayeji]

5 hours ago, BOLDnPurPnBlacK said:

I wouldn't. 

Why not then any time the DB thinks he's giving up a huge completion just haul the WR down?

I agree. NFL cbs will abuse that rule

[Halshayeji]

2 hours ago, rmw10 said:

I expect rosters to increase relatively soon but I only see a jump to 55 or so. I wouldn't expect inactive lists to go away though. A big part of the game is strategy - picking who to play and who to try to sneak through waivers. The inactive list is there for fairness in the first place. If you have a team with 10 injuries and another team with 0, that's a 10 player advantage for one team. 

A minor league system sounds great but it's not really feasible. How many leagues have tried and failed already? There's not enough interest in seeing fringe NFL talent for ticket sales and revenues to support a very expensive sport. The league would likely have to be owner supported and funded, and it's hard to imagine businessmen soaking money into something that's not going to make them money. 

Great post!

I agree on the difficulties of scaling a developmental league. I think owners should fund a developmental league because the benefits are undeniable.

If owners really adopted such an idea then it could be watchable. This is all wishful thinking but I'd probably tune in a league with manziel QBing one team and Cutler another. Look around, so many Qbs could use a glorified tryout. I'd also like to see some of the Ravens ps players that wev kept. Maybe play some rookies we draft this year to spice up things.

this could be interesting. It won't be NFL level but the competition would surely be tougher than college where rookies can benefit from the transition.

heck maybe have a mini combine type of workout where vets show up and get measured to see where theyr at this point in their career. 

[Halshayeji]

4 hours ago, Jonah DeVito said:

The PI rule should absolutely stay the same. There is no reason to make it a 15 yard penalty instead of calling it at the spot of the foul. That's penalizing the offense for no reason. Also, if you really think we can rely on the refs to determine whether the contact was accidental or not, I honestly don't know what to say to you. Id say their job is hard enough as it is. 

It's ok you dont have to be so politically correct.....

the refs are HORRIBlE at making judgement calls and would blunder game after game if we put this in their hands lol

Edited March 27 by Halshayeji

[rmw10]

7 hours ago, purpletide said:

The only reason I would like a roster boost to around 60 is so there could be more of a rotation of players, but as for realism, yeah I see what you're saying. As for how the minor league would be supported maybe I could reference how the MLB handles the minors but I have no idea how they do it, maybe the NFL could absorb a league. Owners might be more enticed to have a minor league because it gives a large pool of potential talent to pull from and improve their teams with, profits from things like ticket sales and merch could help but they won't gain nearly as much as they would with any NFL teams and starting the minors would be costly whereas maintaining them shouldn't be as bad. So I agree with you, but I still think the boost to 60 and minor leagues could work.

What's the point of a 60 man roster though?  Just so teams can keep more players?  Rotations sound great but a large majority of teams out there don't rotate strongly unless injuries necessitate it.  So many players active on gamedays only play ST.

Minor leagues aren't going to make money.  The big appeal of minor league baseball is that you get to see top prospects rise through the ranks.  In a proposed football minor league system, you have the guys that can't hack it on any 53 man roster.  What talent is there to go see?  You're looking at a much more expensive sport to fund that really doesn't have much earning potential.  So many attempted minor/feeder leagues have tried and failed, and that's because the product on the field isn't good.  I don't think owners would be enticed by a pool of players to pick from because most of those guys are there because they couldn't make it in the big leagues.  Getting one good player every now and then isn't going to be enough to support the money loss that would inevitably happen.

[Rav'n Maniac]

14 minutes ago, rmw10 said:

What's the point of a 60 man roster though?  Just so teams can keep more players?  Rotations sound great but a large majority of teams out there don't rotate strongly unless injuries necessitate it.  So many players active on gamedays only play ST.

Minor leagues aren't going to make money.  The big appeal of minor league baseball is that you get to see top prospects rise through the ranks.  In a proposed football minor league system, you have the guys that can't hack it on any 53 man roster.  What talent is there to go see?  You're looking at a much more expensive sport to fund that really doesn't have much earning potential.  So many attempted minor/feeder leagues have tried and failed, and that's because the product on the field isn't good.  I don't think owners would be enticed by a pool of players to pick from because most of those guys are there because they couldn't make it in the big leagues.  Getting one good player every now and then isn't going to be enough to support the money loss that would inevitably happen.

Agreed. Not a fan of a 60 man roster unless other things change to accommodate it. The cap would have to increase to be able to have a few additional "playmakers".  Without a sizable cap increase, the additional players would be the same developmental players that already exist on the PS.

In addition, I feel they will need to increase the number of players that are allowed to dress on game day. What's the sense in having additional players if only 45 dress and they can't play in the games.