It's finally here people. The 2011-12 NFL season is upon us. Looking back at my predictions last year, I regret not having more confidence in the Chiefs (I had them making a Wild Card, not taking the division). My Super Bowl prediction was the Ravens over the Packers, which isn't so bad, until you realize I didn't even have the Steelers making the playoffs. I assure you, that is not the case this season. Oh, and uh... if you were wondering, I'd much prefer to not even discuss last year's Mike Singletary - coach of the year fiasco.
OK. Get your pens out and ready. My predictions are as follows.
Showing posts with label Super Bowl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Super Bowl. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Saturday, February 5, 2011
What If?
In the midst of searching for the much-talked about (and, upon viewing — overhyped) Big Ben piano bar video from earlier this week, I found this. It's a clip from the 2005 NFL Draft, which has been somewhat of a talking-point this Super Bowl week because the draft's first-round was highlighted by projected top-five quarterback, Aaron Rodgers' falling all the way to the Green Bay Packers, 24th overall.
On the forefront, the video doesn't offer much, unless you put any real value on the raw and unfiltered analysis by ESPN's Chris Berman and Mel Kiper, Jr. The interesting part, of course, is while the world-wide leader's "experts" sympathize with and attempt to encourage young Aaron, the Kansas City Chiefs were on the clock, fate to-be-determined, with a soon-to-be star quarterback there for the taking.
It got me thinking, what if?
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Super Bowl In KC: Don't Count On It
In November of 2005, then-NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue announced that Kansas City would be awarded a Super Bowl between 2012 and 2021, contigent upon Arrowhead Stadium being a climate-controlled facility by that time. It was later stated that 2015 was the likely year KC would get the big game.
As most of us remember, the rolling roof proposal on the April 2006 ballot was rejected by Jackson County, Missouri voters, who may have been negatively swayed by the mostly confusing details in the measure, the mere thought of raising taxes for one game, and the fear of the roof being overused during the regular season. The Chiefs later withdrew their request for the game after the proposal failed to even make it on the ballot the following November.
As most of you have heard by now, Tuesday, current NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced the league has awarded the 2014 Super Bowl to the New Meadowlands Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. It will be the first Super Bowl played outdoors in a cold weather region.*
*While risky, I think the cold-weather Super Bowl idea is a good move by the league. I don't think it should be held in a cold weather region every year, though. Goodell should implement a Super Bowl rotation including, but not limited to all cities with NFL teams that are capable of hosting and based upon stadium upkeep and attendance during the season. From the preseason on through the playoffs, every game played outdoors has the possibilty of the elements coming into play, and the Super Bowl should be no different.
Because of the obvious precedent being set here, there has been a buzz among Kansas City fans and talk-show hosts that the city should be reconsidered for the 2015 game, or sometime soon after.
I completely agree. I'm also sure it won't happen.
First of all, after the original announcement, Goodell made it clear that a precedent was not being set, instead citing the uniqueness of the New York/New Jersey area combined with the chance at making history. While the translation of that is not completely known, we are fairly certain it has something to do with the health of his bank account.
Since then, though, Goodell seemed more open to the idea of other cold weather cities hosting the game, saying it would depend on the success of the game in New York. While that makes plenty of sense, it would surely delay any chance for the game to be held in KC until, at the very earliest, 2018, because of the voting process taking place several years in advance.
If Goodell does get serious about allowing more cold weather cities to host, KC faces another series of obstacles. The promise was made to the late Lamar Hunt, and the Chiefs are now run by his son, Clark. There has been no definite indication of whether Clark would even be on board for a Super Bowl in KC, other than his natural support of his father's push for the rolling roof measure to pass in 2006.
Also, when the league promised KC the game, Tagliabue was running things. Goodell has no obligation to follow through on any promises made by the former commissioner, especially considering varying circumstances are involved.
So, naturally there will be plenty of campaiging by some of the other teams and owners for the game to come to their respective cities. Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, has already made it clear he would love for the game to come to the D.C. area.
ESPN Radio host and Sportscenter anchor Mike Greenberg has already suggested, "...the one place they have to play the Super Bowl (is) Lambeau Field."
While you may agree with Greenberg's thoughts on Lambeau, his opinion means little alone. However, as a whole, ESPN has much more influence than anyone east of here would like to admit. The network, with its studios located in Bristol, Connecticut, might as well have been campaigning for the Super Bowl to come to New York, and still hasn't ended its week-long celebration for their wish coming true.*
*There is speculation that the letters E-S-P-N actually stand for Eastcoast Sports Programming Network.
Anyway, with that thought in mind, what makes Kansas Citians believe their city would be considered before Washington, Philadelphia, or even Baltimore? How about Gillette Stadium in New England? Patriots' owner Robert Kraft is a longtime friend of Goodell, and Gillette Stadium is less than ten years old.
The point is, there will be plenty of discussion and persuasion as to where the Super Bowl should go next, and why it makes perfect sense for certain cities. I'm not sure KC would get much support in these such talks, at least among national media outlets.
Really, the timing of the renovations for Arrowhead, which passed on the same ballot the rolling roof question appeared on, could not have been worse for supporters of a KC Super Bowl. The NFL tends to reward teams who renovate or build new stadiums with the game. The original promise by Tagliabue was with the thought of a renovated Arrowhead in mind.
If this trend continues and is combined with the league's openness to cold weather sites, my prediction is KC will be passed up by other cities. The Arrowhead renovations will be more or less forgotten by the league, and bigger cities - located on the east coast or not - with new stadiums will make a better case to the league and its owners.
Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver is less than ten years old. The Broncos have had much more success than the Chiefs in recent years, resulting in a greater league-wide popularity and following for the Donkeys. Also, Denver is more populous than KC. I can't think of one reason why the owners would find KC a better fit for the big game than Denver.
The Vikings are ready to build a new stadium in Minneapolis. All the same reasons apply here as for the Denver comparison. KC is outmatched.
It's also likely that many owners with outdated stadiums will use the New York example to lure their cities' residents into helping pay for new stadiums. The competition for KC would grow even greater, and the likelihood of the Super Bowl happening at Arrowhead would go from somewhat of a longshot to an absolute miracle.
It's ironic, really, that the Super Bowl in New York news is what led to the KC Super Bowl discussions being rehashed, but after looking deeper, it's likely the breakthrough vote has all but killed KC's chances of getting the game.
The odds just don't seem to be in KC's favor, and it's really a shame. The city and its extremely loyal fans have been long-starved of any great news on the professional sports front, and the opportunity to host the Super Bowl could have been the perfect remedy.
As most of us remember, the rolling roof proposal on the April 2006 ballot was rejected by Jackson County, Missouri voters, who may have been negatively swayed by the mostly confusing details in the measure, the mere thought of raising taxes for one game, and the fear of the roof being overused during the regular season. The Chiefs later withdrew their request for the game after the proposal failed to even make it on the ballot the following November.
As most of you have heard by now, Tuesday, current NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced the league has awarded the 2014 Super Bowl to the New Meadowlands Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. It will be the first Super Bowl played outdoors in a cold weather region.*
*While risky, I think the cold-weather Super Bowl idea is a good move by the league. I don't think it should be held in a cold weather region every year, though. Goodell should implement a Super Bowl rotation including, but not limited to all cities with NFL teams that are capable of hosting and based upon stadium upkeep and attendance during the season. From the preseason on through the playoffs, every game played outdoors has the possibilty of the elements coming into play, and the Super Bowl should be no different.
Because of the obvious precedent being set here, there has been a buzz among Kansas City fans and talk-show hosts that the city should be reconsidered for the 2015 game, or sometime soon after.
I completely agree. I'm also sure it won't happen.
First of all, after the original announcement, Goodell made it clear that a precedent was not being set, instead citing the uniqueness of the New York/New Jersey area combined with the chance at making history. While the translation of that is not completely known, we are fairly certain it has something to do with the health of his bank account.
Since then, though, Goodell seemed more open to the idea of other cold weather cities hosting the game, saying it would depend on the success of the game in New York. While that makes plenty of sense, it would surely delay any chance for the game to be held in KC until, at the very earliest, 2018, because of the voting process taking place several years in advance.
If Goodell does get serious about allowing more cold weather cities to host, KC faces another series of obstacles. The promise was made to the late Lamar Hunt, and the Chiefs are now run by his son, Clark. There has been no definite indication of whether Clark would even be on board for a Super Bowl in KC, other than his natural support of his father's push for the rolling roof measure to pass in 2006.
Also, when the league promised KC the game, Tagliabue was running things. Goodell has no obligation to follow through on any promises made by the former commissioner, especially considering varying circumstances are involved.
So, naturally there will be plenty of campaiging by some of the other teams and owners for the game to come to their respective cities. Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, has already made it clear he would love for the game to come to the D.C. area.
ESPN Radio host and Sportscenter anchor Mike Greenberg has already suggested, "...the one place they have to play the Super Bowl (is) Lambeau Field."
While you may agree with Greenberg's thoughts on Lambeau, his opinion means little alone. However, as a whole, ESPN has much more influence than anyone east of here would like to admit. The network, with its studios located in Bristol, Connecticut, might as well have been campaigning for the Super Bowl to come to New York, and still hasn't ended its week-long celebration for their wish coming true.*
*There is speculation that the letters E-S-P-N actually stand for Eastcoast Sports Programming Network.
Anyway, with that thought in mind, what makes Kansas Citians believe their city would be considered before Washington, Philadelphia, or even Baltimore? How about Gillette Stadium in New England? Patriots' owner Robert Kraft is a longtime friend of Goodell, and Gillette Stadium is less than ten years old.
The point is, there will be plenty of discussion and persuasion as to where the Super Bowl should go next, and why it makes perfect sense for certain cities. I'm not sure KC would get much support in these such talks, at least among national media outlets.
Really, the timing of the renovations for Arrowhead, which passed on the same ballot the rolling roof question appeared on, could not have been worse for supporters of a KC Super Bowl. The NFL tends to reward teams who renovate or build new stadiums with the game. The original promise by Tagliabue was with the thought of a renovated Arrowhead in mind.
If this trend continues and is combined with the league's openness to cold weather sites, my prediction is KC will be passed up by other cities. The Arrowhead renovations will be more or less forgotten by the league, and bigger cities - located on the east coast or not - with new stadiums will make a better case to the league and its owners.
Invesco Field at Mile High in Denver is less than ten years old. The Broncos have had much more success than the Chiefs in recent years, resulting in a greater league-wide popularity and following for the Donkeys. Also, Denver is more populous than KC. I can't think of one reason why the owners would find KC a better fit for the big game than Denver.
The Vikings are ready to build a new stadium in Minneapolis. All the same reasons apply here as for the Denver comparison. KC is outmatched.
It's also likely that many owners with outdated stadiums will use the New York example to lure their cities' residents into helping pay for new stadiums. The competition for KC would grow even greater, and the likelihood of the Super Bowl happening at Arrowhead would go from somewhat of a longshot to an absolute miracle.
It's ironic, really, that the Super Bowl in New York news is what led to the KC Super Bowl discussions being rehashed, but after looking deeper, it's likely the breakthrough vote has all but killed KC's chances of getting the game.
The odds just don't seem to be in KC's favor, and it's really a shame. The city and its extremely loyal fans have been long-starved of any great news on the professional sports front, and the opportunity to host the Super Bowl could have been the perfect remedy.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Overtime Change Raises Questions
On Tuesday, the NFL owners voted to alter the rules of overtime during postseason play. Before, like during the regular season, it was a sudden death overtime, meaning the first team to score, whether it be by touchdown, field goal, or even a safety, wins. The new rule gives the team that loses the coin toss a possession if the team that wins the coin toss scores a field goal on the opening possession.
Confused?
Basically, if the team with the ball first makes a field goal on that first possession, the other team will have an opportunity to match it, somewhat like the college overtime setup. But if that first team drives down and scores a touchdown, the game ends, just like before. And if that team doesn't score at all, then last year's overtime rules would apply. Also, if that first team gets a field goal and then the opposing team matches that field goal, then last year's rules would start applying. One other scenario could come, where the first team scores a field goal and the other team, with their opportunity to match it scores a touchdown, then the game would end with the second team winning.
I can't say I like it. First of all, I'm not a fan of rules being changed strictly for playoff games. If you're going to change a rule, be consistent with it all year long. The games that got you to the playoffs are just as important as an overall whole as one playoff game.*
*Let's say this upcoming season, in a dream world, the Chiefs are 9-6 going into their final game of the season and need a victory to secure a playoff spot. For the Chiefs, the game itself is virtually a playoff game. Now let's say the game goes to OT and the Chiefs lose because they lose the toss and the other team gets a field goal on the opening possession. Then a week later, with the Chiefs left out of the playoffs, there's a playoff game that involves a team scoring a field goal on the opening possession, and the opposing team having the opportunity still to win the game. There'd be some unhappy fans in KC, I'd say.
Secondly, I think this new aspect of overtime will take away from the essence of sudden death. I mean, there's a reason it's called sudden death. You have sixty minutes to win a football game. If you're someone who thinks your team got hosed on a first possession overtime loss, maybe you should look further to the original sixty minutes of football for an explanation as to why you lost the game. Fairness is out of the question, as it should be. It's sudden death.
Also, I'm a believer in the thought that if your team deserves to win, then you can depend on your defense to make a stop at the start of overtime. There's eleven guys on EACH side of the football, they're all paid pretty good money to do their job. Let's let them do it.
If we don't believe a field goal on the first possession of OT should win the football game, then maybe we should re-evaluate what a field goal is worth. Or maybe we should just do away with field goals altogether.
Actually, I'm surprised the NFL hasn't already proposed something like this. Think about it. Every time a team had a fourth down inside their opponents' 30-yard line, they'd go for it. No more running kickers (Lin Elliot) out of town for missing kicks at the end of games. I think we'd find an even more entertaining sport with more touchdowns and less punting. And let's face it, this rule change the owners have passed goes along the same lines as my idea. More football, more scoring, etc.
I do like that the owners haven't gone to the college format for OT. In college, each team gets the ball on their opponents' 25-yard line, alternating like extra innings in baseball until a winner is decided. The problem with the college format's transistion to the NFL is the statistical aspect of it. Individual and team stats in overtime games would get completely out of wack. Season and career records would fall easier, and they're already falling at an alarming rate because of the abundance of pro-offensive rule changes the NFL has passed in the last decade or so.*
*Illegal contact after five yards is the most impactful one of these rules. Receivers nowadays can roam virtually free in the secondary, and it's led to ridiculous passing statistics for the Mannings and Bradys of the league.
I do know that I can deal with this rule change. It's the NFL, and I don't think this is going to do any severe damage. But if we're altering the rules as to how we eventually find a Super Bowl champion, are we saying every champion prior to the rule change should have an asterisk next to their name in the history books? There's no debating the absolute possibility that this change, if applied to past seasons, could have resulted in different teams participating in the big game, possibly resulting in a different champion. I don't want to go down that road, either.
It is worth noting that the owners are considering making the rule apply to the regular season games as well, in which case I would be more satisfied with it. Still, why try to fix what's not broken?
Confused?
Basically, if the team with the ball first makes a field goal on that first possession, the other team will have an opportunity to match it, somewhat like the college overtime setup. But if that first team drives down and scores a touchdown, the game ends, just like before. And if that team doesn't score at all, then last year's overtime rules would apply. Also, if that first team gets a field goal and then the opposing team matches that field goal, then last year's rules would start applying. One other scenario could come, where the first team scores a field goal and the other team, with their opportunity to match it scores a touchdown, then the game would end with the second team winning.
I can't say I like it. First of all, I'm not a fan of rules being changed strictly for playoff games. If you're going to change a rule, be consistent with it all year long. The games that got you to the playoffs are just as important as an overall whole as one playoff game.*
*Let's say this upcoming season, in a dream world, the Chiefs are 9-6 going into their final game of the season and need a victory to secure a playoff spot. For the Chiefs, the game itself is virtually a playoff game. Now let's say the game goes to OT and the Chiefs lose because they lose the toss and the other team gets a field goal on the opening possession. Then a week later, with the Chiefs left out of the playoffs, there's a playoff game that involves a team scoring a field goal on the opening possession, and the opposing team having the opportunity still to win the game. There'd be some unhappy fans in KC, I'd say.
Secondly, I think this new aspect of overtime will take away from the essence of sudden death. I mean, there's a reason it's called sudden death. You have sixty minutes to win a football game. If you're someone who thinks your team got hosed on a first possession overtime loss, maybe you should look further to the original sixty minutes of football for an explanation as to why you lost the game. Fairness is out of the question, as it should be. It's sudden death.
Also, I'm a believer in the thought that if your team deserves to win, then you can depend on your defense to make a stop at the start of overtime. There's eleven guys on EACH side of the football, they're all paid pretty good money to do their job. Let's let them do it.
If we don't believe a field goal on the first possession of OT should win the football game, then maybe we should re-evaluate what a field goal is worth. Or maybe we should just do away with field goals altogether.
Actually, I'm surprised the NFL hasn't already proposed something like this. Think about it. Every time a team had a fourth down inside their opponents' 30-yard line, they'd go for it. No more running kickers (Lin Elliot) out of town for missing kicks at the end of games. I think we'd find an even more entertaining sport with more touchdowns and less punting. And let's face it, this rule change the owners have passed goes along the same lines as my idea. More football, more scoring, etc.
I do like that the owners haven't gone to the college format for OT. In college, each team gets the ball on their opponents' 25-yard line, alternating like extra innings in baseball until a winner is decided. The problem with the college format's transistion to the NFL is the statistical aspect of it. Individual and team stats in overtime games would get completely out of wack. Season and career records would fall easier, and they're already falling at an alarming rate because of the abundance of pro-offensive rule changes the NFL has passed in the last decade or so.*
*Illegal contact after five yards is the most impactful one of these rules. Receivers nowadays can roam virtually free in the secondary, and it's led to ridiculous passing statistics for the Mannings and Bradys of the league.
I do know that I can deal with this rule change. It's the NFL, and I don't think this is going to do any severe damage. But if we're altering the rules as to how we eventually find a Super Bowl champion, are we saying every champion prior to the rule change should have an asterisk next to their name in the history books? There's no debating the absolute possibility that this change, if applied to past seasons, could have resulted in different teams participating in the big game, possibly resulting in a different champion. I don't want to go down that road, either.
It is worth noting that the owners are considering making the rule apply to the regular season games as well, in which case I would be more satisfied with it. Still, why try to fix what's not broken?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)