chan@hpfcla.UUCP (chan) (08/09/85)
From another base note (I wanted to avoid massive drift): > ... the CFL rules which are generally acknowledged to result in a more > exciting game. Generally acknowledged by whom?! Why does everyone think that more passing makes the game more exciting? Since the NFL changed their rules to encourage the pass, the game has gotten more boring. The clock stops so often that they're trying to come up with newer rules to get the games back under 3 hrs. What do you say...? Is everyone psyched for the season? -- Chan Benson {ihnp4 | hplabs}!hpfcla!chan Hewlett-Packard Company Fort Collins, CO (303) 226-3800 x3892 As usual, HP has nothing to do with what I say here.
bbaker@cadsys.UUCP (William Baker) (08/22/85)
> > From another base note (I wanted to avoid massive drift): > > > ... the CFL rules which are generally acknowledged to result in a more > > exciting game. > > Generally acknowledged by whom?! Why does everyone think that more passing > makes the game more exciting? Since the NFL changed their rules to encourage > the pass, the game has gotten more boring. The clock stops so often that > they're trying to come up with newer rules to get the games back under > 3 hrs. > I second this. NFL games have gotten to be dull because of all the dead time. Sure, on average a passing play is more exicting than a running play, but all the time in between passes is tedious. It seems that the NFL is changing back the rules that opened up the pass-happy era, which is good. The pass interference rules were really bad. There is one thing we might borrow from the CFL, though: The wider field. A wider field might open up the productivity of running offenses. With the excellent speed of modern linebackers, sweeps seem to be a thing of the past. Since modern atheletes are faster and bigger than the people who originally started the game, they should be playing on a bigger field. Given the increasing range of placekickers, it might be worthwhile to make it longer, too. If nothing else, making the field wider will make thousands of American rugby players happy. We're damned tired of playing on those narrow football fields. Bill Baker intelca!cadsys!bbaker
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (08/28/85)
> A wider field might open up the > productivity of running offenses. With the excellent speed of > modern linebackers, sweeps seem to be a thing of the past. Since > modern atheletes are faster and bigger than the people who > originally started the game, they should be playing on a bigger > field. Given the increasing range of placekickers, it might be > worthwhile to make it longer, too. The major problem with this idea (although in principle I agree) is that many stadiums would have to undergo major (read: expensive) modifications to accomodate a bigger field. There may even be some cases where it would be impossible (read: structurally unsound) to make such modifications. A nice idea, though... --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "Comes a time, when a blind man takes your hand, says don't you see..."