Fix Every Sport

[Jerry Hattrick]

Nevermind. I just quoted myself.

[SorceressKnight]

 

 

But not the teams

Right. The leagues might be non-profit, but the teams are not.

My point is the idea that owners shouldn't be holding city's hostage for stadiums and such in one breath then during CBA talk claim to have no money

 

If they're going to do that, then the more natural option:

 

-If a stadium is built using public funds, the owners must repay the money gradually, and cannot try for a new stadium until the old one is paid off...

 

...BUT, if the team in the stadium wins the World Series/Super Bowl/Stanley Cup/NBA Title while money's unpaid for the stadium, then the city must agree to forgive any debt for the stadium still out there.

 

Because really, if you're trying to keep a team in the city with taxpayer money, the city and area's betting that "this team will win the title for our city before the end of this stadium anyway", so just make it all out there. In addition, you make it a premium for the team getting a stadium to give the city a contender [and thus lose hundreds of millions in debt from the record.]

[Brian Fowler]

I take back any nba one I already said, because I forgot my least favorite rule ever.

Get rid of the fucking no charge circle. The rules being different in one spot on the court for no God damn reason is the fucking dumbest rule change in my lifetime in any sport, even worse than the second wild card in baseball.

[EdA]

I take back any nba one I already said, because I forgot my least favorite rule ever.

Get rid of the fucking no charge circle. The rules being different in one spot on the court for no God damn reason is the fucking dumbest rule change in my lifetime in any sport, even worse than the second wild card in baseball.

 

HAH!  Is it OK to admit that I pay no attention to the NBA and have been wondering for the last couple of years what the fuck that circle in the paint was all about?  If not, I don't care.  But thanks for random info, Brian.

[Brian Fowler]

Yeah, if you take a charge inside the circle, it's a blocking call instead. I fucking hate it so much.

[EdA]

In my defense the last time I saw an entire NBA game, Bill Laimbeer was still playing so...yeah.  But wait, the NBA calls fouls now?

 

As for the NFL, I think instead of getting real fancy with OT rules, I'd let them play the OT like any other quarter except...I'd ban punting.  But I assume that would just piss everyone off.

[Technico Support]

NFL: I agree so hard with making everything reviewable, especially penalties.  It'll never happen, though, because they're against anything that might undermine the refs.  Shit, you can't even criticize the refs without getting fined.  So look at replay right now.  Who has final say?  Not some impartial party but the head ref on the field, and it's in his own best interest to make sure his team of refs looks good because your per-game evaluations contribute to whether your team of refs gets to earn some postseason coin. 

 

One rule change I'd LOVE to see, which wouldn't really fix anything but would make me enjoy the game more, would be the addition of unsportsmanlike penalties for players begging for flags.  To me, nothing defines "unsportsmanlike" than crying to a ref after a play.  And when the play is over and a guy comes up yelling at the ref and making a flag throwing motion?  That's just sad.  Be a fucking adult. 

 

I watched the Ravens play the Chargers this year.  On one play, Rivers scrambled for a first down and slid.  The Ravens player going in for the tackle had already engaged.  He reached for him as he slid and ended up gently brushing Rivers' helmet with his hand.  Rivers got up, screaming and indignant, yelling at the ref, demanding more yards on top of the first down he already got.  There was no wrong done to Rivers, no injury or even a risk of injury.  The guy barely touched him.  He was just an asshole trying to some free yardage because of the letter of the law.  Luckily the ref didn't fall for it that time.  I'm sorry, but that shit should be 15 yards back.

[Kuetsar]

 

 

 

But not the teams

Right. The leagues might be non-profit, but the teams are not.

My point is the idea that owners shouldn't be holding city's hostage for stadiums and such in one breath then during CBA talk claim to have no money

 

If they're going to do that, then the more natural option:

 

-If a stadium is built using public funds, the owners must repay the money gradually, and cannot try for a new stadium until the old one is paid off...

 

...BUT, if the team in the stadium wins the World Series/Super Bowl/Stanley Cup/NBA Title while money's unpaid for the stadium, then the city must agree to forgive any debt for the stadium still out there.

 

Because really, if you're trying to keep a team in the city with taxpayer money, the city and area's betting that "this team will win the title for our city before the end of this stadium anyway", so just make it all out there. In addition, you make it a premium for the team getting a stadium to give the city a contender [and thus lose hundreds of millions in debt from the record.]

 

Or, pass a federal law that mandates that all public stadiums get to keep all revenue generated by said stadium. Anything the owner pays for out of pockets they can get the monies for(parking lots, etc. . .) . But make explicit language in there to prevent funny business regarding concessions and the like. . . Yeah I know it will never happen, but as long as we are dreaming. . . 

[evilwaldo]

In my defense the last time I saw an entire NBA game, Bill Laimbeer was still playing so...yeah.  But wait, the NBA calls fouls now?

 

As for the NFL, I think instead of getting real fancy with OT rules, I'd let them play the OT like any other quarter except...I'd ban punting.  But I assume that would just piss everyone off.

 

Fouls are there to break up the flow of the game and ruin the spectator experience.  I love watching a good back and forth game but when you average a foul a minute it causes the game to drag.

[glfpunk]

I don't have a rule change for the NFL...yet. Just a geographic one. Have Carolina in the East and Dallas in the South. Yeah, it changes the rivalry, but if anyone old as dirt, like me, remember. At one point, we had San Francisco, LA Rams, New Orleans, and Atlanta in the NFC West. I really don't think it would kill the purity of the sport if we did a switcheroo with the Cowboys and Panthers.

Pretend the divisions are not named after geographic location. Problem solved.

[Cristobal]

The reason for divisions being geographical are 1) reduce travel costs, and 2) regional rivalries. In the case of the NFL, where teams are only playing once a week, #1 really isn't a factor, so if Cowboys and Redskins fans are rivals, screw it, keep the NFCE the way it is.

On the other hand, boy does the NFCS suck a whole mess of ass this year.

[The Nature Boy]

Anyone else remember that weird time when the Atlanta Braves were in the NL West? 

 

The only sport that I really follow with enough interest to suggest rule changes is baseball and I really don't see anything I'd change. I have no problems with the length of games, but I'm a weirdo.

 

MLB is the one sport that actually does a good job lining up divisions with geographic areas. The AL East is a bit weird though with the big geographic gap between even Baltimore and Tampa Bay. Here are some additions/changes I'd make to the league to fix that:

 

American League

- Create an expansion franchise in Charlotte and place them in the AL East. The AL East is now an all eastern seaboard division, much like the NL East. 

- Move Toronto to an expanded AL Central.

 

National League

- Create an expansion franchise in either Portland or Indianapolis and put them in an expanded NL West or NL Central respectively.

 

These aren't things that I really care about or would actively seek to do however. I do wonder how Toronto fans would feel about losing NY and Boston as rivals and being given Cleveland and Detroit.