Football Fundamentalism
Published December 21, 2004
Then, I went further, because I had to — Green Bay was stomping the Rams and I desperately needed an excuse not to work on a paper for graduate school. The field, I thought — why not make it bigger? When there's a breakaway for a touchdown, we want to see some serious running, not this namby-pamby 80-yarder stuff. Let's make the field 150-yards long, and increase the width to 75-yards for good measure (from the current 50). Now, there's some action for you.
Now, on a slightly more serious note — the time between plays in a football game kills me. Sure, some games have tons of action and are engaging from start to finish, but many are grind-it-out snoozers. In fact, some teams are built as Ball Control Teams... which means their entire raison d'etre is to sit on the ball between plays as the game clock winds down. Keep Away ball, in other words. Boring.
Currently, the "play clock" runs about 40 seconds, which means the offensive team has that amount of time to snap a new play after the previous one is whistled. If someone runs out of bounds with the ball, if there is an incomplete pass, a scoring play, or a time-out called, then the "game clock" stops. However, if the ball stays in bounds — both clocks run. Therefore, you get dozens of plays in every game where both teams stand around for 30 seconds or more with precious seconds of the game — perhaps the one you waited all week to see while alphabetizing crap and making new and pretty piles of crap at your crappy job — melt and melt away.
This is silly. These guys are professionals, and can handle more plays, more action. I know all of us can, too. The solution? The clock always stops after a play. No matter what. No more ball control. More action. I can dig that.
Going even further, I realized that the field goal's time has come and gone. Sure, it employs a few skinny soccer players from Europe, but is that a reason to keep it? One way to perhaps dilute the relative power of the field goal would be to allow it to continue to score three points from, say, forty yards and beyond, but decrease its value to two points from twenty to forty yards, and a paltry one inside the twenty.
Of course, this would drive coaches that are trying to stage a comeback nuts in figuring out strategy, but most coaches are nuts anyway. More importantly, the emphasis would shift where it should rightly be: on touchdowns... people want action, baby!
I think that we should get a petition ready for the next lame "X-treme" football league that comes to fruition — these rule changes could be the key to keeping one of them around.
Maybe all of these ideas for rules changes merely indicate that I'm crazy.
Maybe it even makes me a fan. Who knows?
For more on this and on every other topic under the sun, check out:
Dumpster Bust: Manufacturing Miracles from Mind Trash, Since 2003
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.