The Frankish Reich

You have a point. But at the risk of going all amateur social theorist on you - maybe both statements are true. The actual entertainment of the game itself is negatively impacted by all the reviews/stoppages/seemingly arbitrary decisions. But you're right: we're now in kind of a "meta" entertainment world, where enjoying the event itself seems to be less important, or at least less interesting to people, than arguing about what it all means and how history could have been changed. I will likely remember nothing about this year's Academy Awards, but I will remember that Kevin Hart was disinvited, or disinvited himself. Or that last year, or a couple years ago, it was all about "#OscarsSoWhite." That stuff we can still chew on long after the event is over. There's no topic posted here on the nature of, "Find Words to Describe the Brilliance of Mahomes Getting the Ball Around a Defender By Throwing Sidearm." Yet there's multiple topics about the game being rigged, about the OT rules needing changing, about what referee was assigned to the game, etc, etc. -- all "meta" topics. Maybe it's generational, and I know I'm on the wrong (well, older) side of the split, but I really think just making the call on the field and then moving on makes for a better real-time game experience. But the NFL, like everything else, is all about the "meta" level now, and they are masters of manipulating it. See the Great NFL Cycle of Life: Super Bowl -> Combine -> Free Agent Period -> Draft -> "Optional" Preseason Workouts -> Training Camp -> Roster Cuts -> Regular Season -> Playoffs/Super Bowl. All beautifully staggered to keep the talk and controversy flowing ....

Dude, regulation ended 31-31. The average points per game this year was 23.3. And yet someone will always say "defense wins." EDIT: and if you want to prove your point that defense wins, shouldn't the Chiefs get the ball so the Pats can have a chance to show how superior their defense is? How does giving one team the ball prove anything about the superiority of that same team's defense?

No. My solution - in the playoffs! - is to simply play football for an additional 15 minutes. After that point, maybe it's time to start thinking about player fatigue and all that and to go to a more arbitrary mechanism of deciding a winner. In other words, soccer or NHL style. Because let's face facts: anything other than an extension of the normal game under the normal rules is an attempt to "force" a result that has a winner.

The second team has an advantage because they know what the goal is. First team scores a TD? Then the second team knows they need a TD. The strategic advantage results in the second team winning a disproportionate number of times, although (as with the NFL) it isn't a gigantic advantage. Nevertheless, the coin flip seems to have a larger effect than most fans are comfortable with. NFL kickers are so good (and right now, offenses so dominant) that I'd go all the way back to the 50. Start on the opponent's 40 and it's a 57 yard field goal.

Hey, 7-on-7, just like the country high schools too small to field a full team. I like it.

Shoulda drafted Tre White last year and passed on Mahomes! 😀

https://www.theringer.com/2017/2/6/16042116/nfl-overtime-rules-super-bowl-li-patriots-falcons-62316a6f8e3c Now almost 2 years old, but this study showed that ever since the NFL's new OT system was introduced, the team winning the OT coin toss wins the game 54.8 percent of the time. That's not terrible, but it still probably gives more of an advantage to a random event than most of us would like to see. And I suspect it's getting worse - as offenses become more dominant, the percentage of drives resulting in a touchdown (and hence a sudden death) is going up. So it's time to revisit the rule. And while I'm not happy it benefited the Pats (again) today (as it did in the Super Bowl a couple years ago), this is not about sour grapes. It's about trying to ensure as even a playing field as possible.

I really don't see any reason why - in the playoffs - we don't simply play it NBA or soccer style and add on a normal 15 minute period. The chances of a tie after the additional period are low enough that it would probably resolve 80-90% of ties without anyone whining about "fairness." It can't be unfair because it's just a continuation of the same game with the same rules, not based on something random like which side a coin lands on. If it's tied after the additional period, well, that's when some other rule more arbitrary rule can come into play.

Agreed. Maybe not in the regular season, but definitely in the playoffs. The new rule was created in a lower scoring environment out of concern that the winner of the coin toss would have too great an advantage because new era kickers could easily hit a 55 yarder: take possession at the 25, gain 37 yards, kick a FG, game over. Now that offenses score - and score touchdowns - at a significantly greater rate than even a few years ago, the coin toss is again becoming too great a factor.

I think the NFL is actually a worse entertainment product today then before replay was created. Replay does little to ensure that the game isn't decided by a bad call; it simply shifts the types of bad calls that decide games. Today it was a non-call on a (nonreviewable) penalty. It also destroys a lot of the exciting plays - I'm not sure MLB will ever recover from the damage done by super slo-mo on stolen bases where it would defy the rules of physics for a player to remain in contact with the bad for every split second after the "successful" steal is completed.

Agreed. Besides, wouldn't the Saints be a more appealing national story than the Rams? Personally, I've had it with replay. If you have to look at a play for 5 minutes from every possible angle, freeze framing it till it's as grainy as the Zapruder film, and then come back and say it was "clear and obvious" that the call on the field was wrong, well, then I don't know what "obvious" means. I know replay isn't going away for good, but instead of all the "no challenge needed" replays (scoring plays, inside 2 minutes, etc) I'd limit each coach to 2 a game, and I'd make literally everything reviewable, including whether a penalty was committed (the Robey-Coleman play). At least the pace of the game would improve, and coaches would be very judicious about using their challenges.

I miss the days of manly men of the NFL, when CB Lester Hayes literally had to coat his hands with glue to get the same effect.

I've gone skiing on a few Super Bowl Sundays. I usually get back (Mountain Time) just after kickoff. But something weird happened last year - lift lines were longer than on previous Super Bowls, traffic was heavier. Patriots fatigue? Everyone caught onto my idea and ruined a good thing?

No doubt Lynch is prudent with his money. Good for him. But watch his segment and tell me whether you saw an intelligent/informed individual capable of convincing others of the merits of his argument. Again, for me the kicker was this: when asked about CTE and long-term health, he responded - with no indication that he was kidding - that he believes he has avoided this by always hitting the other guy with his helmet first. Really. He said that.

Hey, thanks for looking that up. So I guess we could say Brad Smith was infrequently used, but reasonably effective when he was. I stand corrected. Curious that Chan didn't get a chance to develop an offense around a running QB here, especially given that that's what he did (out of an emergency) with Thigpen in KC. They did give him a chubby and rusty Vince Young, but I guess that's not what he had in mind. There were guys out there to build a more college concept offense around, but maybe that short stretch of FitzMagic ruined all that? I'd love to be able to turn back the clock and see what Chan could've done with a different type of QB.