Football Fundamentalism
Published December 21, 2004
My father once called those who enjoy sporting contests "fans," which in his book was short for fan-atics: maniacs, crazy people. This, coming from a man who rarely missed a New York Jets game and never failed to scour the sports section over his morning coffee (or tomatoes covered in salad dressing, a peculiar predilection of his).
Maybe that's why I've always been a little bit neurotic about my own enthusiasm for sports. I enjoy sports — especially football and basketball — but I've never wanted to be accused of being like my brother, who would carry a crappy portable radio about town (or down to the pool, or to the tennis courts, and on and on) to listen to New York Mets games and bang his fists against the fake wood panel on the wall of our basement on Sundays, yelling J-E-T-S: jets-Jets-JETS!
All of this is strange prelude to a few ideas that came to me a few weeks ago while watching Brett Favre (Fav-reh to all you There's Something About Mary fans out there) in his 200th start for the Green Bay Packers on Monday Night Football. Fun stuff: Favre at Lambeau Field, turning the Rams into his plaything, John Madden gushing over him in that unique and enthusiasm-inspiring way of his (say what you want about Madden, but the Michaels/Madden pairing in the broadcaster's booth makes MNF seem like MNF again).
But was I focusing on all of that? Kinda, but not really. I was thinking up some new rules that would really spice up the game. Maybe that's what makes me me. Or strange. Probably a little bit of both.
I started thinking about the two-point conversion, which was instituted about five years back. It's an interesting edition to the game: after a touchdown (6 points) the scoring team has the option of going for the 1-point kick, which has been around forever, or the 2-point "conversion," a one-play chance to score from the two-and-a-half yard line. Statistics will prove out that 1-point extra points — an easy chip-shot kick — score upwards of 95% of the time, while two-point conversion are successful about 50% of the time. The two-point conversion makes close games more exciting as a team has more options when trying to catch up with the opposition.
All well and good. However, I started to think: if the 1-pointer is so easy, why have it at all? Why not just eliminate it and leave the two-pointer as your option. The 1-pointer is almost automatic, therefore it's boring and irrelevant. Can it, right?
Okay, now we have the two-pointer. Let's go further. How about instituting a second option, worth an additional four points. After you score, you get the option of the two-point conversion, or you get the ball at the opposition's forty-yard line. You get four plays to score and that's it — no first downs or anything (except by defensive penalty). There's no clock — just four plays, forty yards. I think that would be pretty exciting, and make a blowout much more interesting. For example, a team losing by 20 points with five minutes to go would have a chance to win.
Eric Berlin is the Executive Producer of Blogcritics.org and publisher of Online Media Cultist. He's also prone to referring to himself in the third person in author bios in an attempt to make it look like someone Less Important wrote it for him.
Contact: dumpsterbust@gmail.com
- Football Fundamentalism
- Published: December 21, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Sports
- Writer: Eric Berlin
- Eric Berlin's BC Writer page
- Eric Berlin's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
The major thrust of my yearning is for more action, really, and not necessarily for more touchdowns, though the lengthening of the field suggestion is among my most tongue-in-cheek.
I'm actually a defense guy. I grew up watching the New York Giants in the 80s with Lawrence Taylor and Phil Simms and Bill Parcells -- it was Ball Control all the way.
You were actually allowed to watch the Giants in a Jets household?
Strangely enough, I was. Even stranger, I managed to became a Yankee fan in a Mets household. We all managed to rally around the Knicks, though in those days, pre-Ewing and Riley, there wasn't very much to rally around.
One of the disappointments of living in California is that people don't seem to have nearly the same passion for team sports that they do in the East. However, the fact that it's about 73 degrees out as I write this helps wash away the pain a good bit.
I remember when the Knicks were one of the best...back in the days of Earl the pearl, Clyde Frazier and Bradley and DeBushere, with Reed in the middle. I don't think I've watched basketball since those days!
Clyde Frazier turned himself into one of the best sports broadcasters out there on WFAN radio, renowned for his rhyme-heavy analysis... "sliding and gliding, slashing and dashing!"
Unfortunately, the Knicks last won a championship before I was born, so I have to rely on memories of the relative glory days of Ewing, Charles Oakley, John Starks, Anthony Mason, and so on. They made a few good runs and two finals appearances, but never put one over-the-top.
I always thought that Starks and Mason should have changed last names...because Starks was much better at throwing up bricks than Mason ever was...the last name would have fit him better!
Well Andy, they were both immortalized by The Beastie Boys' "Ill Communication," so I for one would never disparage either Hero of Knicks History.
"Got a heart like John Starks..."
That being said, that Game 7 at Houston was brutal. A half-decent game there and you've got an entirely re-written history...
I realize it was tongue-in-cheek, but I couldn't help pointing out the conflict anyway.
But seriously, if you want more action, in terms of scoring, try the AFL. I don't watch it myself, because I very much enjoy the defensive aspects of the NFL, although I enjoy watching the Colts do their thing too. It's a fair amount of mixture of both, not too much, not too little. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as the saying goes.
Then again, the only minor gripe might be the overtime system, but eh, that's another debate on which I'm not sure which side I'd take.
Yes, the AFL is action-packed, but I'm an NFL fan at heart (I don't follow the college game at all).
My most sincere suggestion would be to stop the clock after every play. Sitting on the ball cuts down severely on the action and drama in a game. It will probably never happen, which led to all of these wild flights of fancy.
I wouldn't mind seeing the field goal rules changed to see a four-point field goal for, say, 50+ yards, and a five-point field goal for 55+ or 60+. Having the 3-point goal in basketball rewarded that skill. It might take away some punts and turn them into long field goal attempts.
I feel completely the opposite on that one. While I respect a great field goal kicker, it's one of the weaker aspects of the game. What I mean by that is that a last second field goal in which a game is on the line is both suspenseful yet disappointing. It almost seems silly, after 60 minutes of hard-fought battle, to let a skinny (by football standards) dude trot out onto the field to give it a go. It's almost like flipping a coin.
That being said, watching Scott Norwood's miss in the 1990 (maybe '91?) Super Bowl to allow the Giants to win is one of my more special sports memories. (Note: if you're a football fan and enjoy off-beat films, do NOT pass up Buffalo '66 on a what-should-we-rent video night... trust me.)
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/23491)
Wait, correct me if I'm wrong, but you want more touchdowns, yet you want to stretch the field longer so teams have to drive longer to score? If you want more touchdowns, watch the AFL, they have no sidelines too.