Your take on the current state of the game

[Reaser]

For the state of the game, on the field - I was typing my thoughts and realized last nights game was pretty much a microcosm of today's mindless entertainment style of football.

Bucs wearing clown uniforms running into eachother while the Rams prance through their defense for relatively easy TD's.

A long TD pass off a throw that any competent middle school QB can make, because it's that easy.

One team dominates and is ahead 28-6 but it's the era of oh so 'entertaining' football so here comes the 4 play 98 yard drive like it's nothing.

A late TD and we get an onside kick to see if they have a chance! Amazing, the quality of play couldn't have been higher . . . garbage football.

Rookie QB is wildly inaccurate all game, and when he is on target the receivers can't catch. No matter, 363 yards passing, receiver who runs terrible routes and drops passes brings home 157 receiving and it was 'exciting' and 'entertaining' because the score was 31-23 and stats! 'Awesome' . . .

There's fans of mindless entertainment (big fans of today's style of football) and there's fans of football (know it's a poor quality).

Also, never understood how points = excitement for people? Especially currently when points aren't so much earned as they are handed out for just showing up (rule changes, etc).

Points have little to no determination on whether the game was good or not, and for the purposes of this discussion 31-28 today is different from 31-28 in a previous era.

How points are scored (earned in the course of competing in a sport v. manufactured entertainment) are infinitely more important than the number of points scored, when it comes to quality.

[MarbleEye]

The most interesting idea that I had seen that goes in that direction... i.e., that there a lot of good players who won't make NFL rosters... was that All-American Football League from 2008, the one that proposed to play in locations where there was a big fanbase for college football (Alabama, Michigan, Tennessee, etc.) and put preference on alumni from those schools. One of its ideas was that it would have the players work towards getting their college degrees if they weren't already college graduates. They got as far as a player draft and scheduling a season, but it collapsed for a variety of reasons a few weeks before showtime.

On the specific suggestions you've brought up, how would you balance the opposing goals of less time for television commercials with the need for television revenue? And what would you consider to be "natural" stoppages of play (other than changes of possession).

I disagree with you on clock stoppages for incomplete passes and the legalized intentional grounding (spiking) -- I think that clock management is one of the few things in recent years that has made the game more exciting. Only five of the first 20 Super Bowls were won by a margin of seven points or less; all but two of the last eight have been close games.

Play review has become faster as they moved from the VHS tapes to instant digital clips, but I'd prefer a simplified game, rather than one that has a built-in appeals and review process. I'm curious whether any of the independent baseball leagues play a different version of baseball, or whether they're just an example of being as good as, say, a AA league. However, I stand by my original opinion that there will NEVER again be an independent challenger to the National Football League. If the NFL becomes the opiate of the masses, a newcomer can only aspire to be Extra-strength Tylenol.

Taking your reply para by para:

I believe the AAFL saved themselves a fortune by not going forward. I don't think fans of the Buckeyes or Crimson Tide (to name a just a couple) are ever going to back "alumni football" in any volume of TV viewership or ticket buying sufficient to make money. It just seems like a curiosity or odd-ball novelty to me. I may or may not be wrong but if there was a betting window available for that concept, I'd have bet heavily they weren't going to make it. Going into strongholds of college football seems like the wrong way to go to build a new pro league. You have a powerful and entrenched natural rival in each market (the schools), not a complement; IMHO.

On para two: If the League bought the TV time, it could then sell the advertising at whatever level it deemed necessary. That's a slippery slope & could lead to NFL type abuses of the viewers time & sensibilities. But part of the Marketing Strategy of this league s/b to use TV to sell it's game to the viewers AND to present the game on TV in a superior fashion than the NFL does. You don't need 3-1/2 hours of TV time to televise one real game of football. So right away they can buy less time. Soccer games are televised today in two 45 minute halves that don't have commercials. You could have (fewer) commercials right before kickoff, between quarters & at half and between games end and short post game shows. you could toss in a commercial when a team calls a legitimate time out too. Or when a ref calls a legit official TO for an injury. If Soccer can do it, I feel sure an American Football league could do it also & make money with planning & forethought.

On para three: Those are just two things I thought of that might make it easier to present a complete game in a shorter span of real time. If you wanted you could even play longer quarters with a continuously running clock. I really do believe that stopping the clock on an incomplete pass began because of the playing time lost "back in the day" circa 1913 or so. (Picture the only ref chasing down the only ball on fields that weren't enclosed as well as todays are.) Today with many balls at a game, stopping the clock to me seems like an anachronism. But as you stated, it has also turned into a means of inducing drama into the game. I've never liked spiking, but that's a personal thing. I stated above I can recall when to get that stoppage a team needed to lineup & a QB needed to throw a real incomplete pass. A spike isn't a pass in my mind, no one has ever caught or intercepted one that I know of. Anyway those were just some thoughts or ideas, maybe they wouldn't make it into whatever a new league decided to do or feature in it's game.

On para 4: As far as I know all Independent leagues play straight baseball like the NL and AL do. Double A ball sounds pejorative and it surely isn't the caliber of MLB. But... it is still a VERY high level of competition, played by people only a fraction of the non MLB or AAA level baseball population could ever hope to play as well as. Its entertaining to watch and its much cheaper. The players capable of playing at the AA level are rare and yet plentiful at the same time. Rare enough to be very good, plentiful enough to make low salaries generally. Player talent & it's costs is where almost every challenger to the NFL (save the AFL), has gone awry & blown up financially. Solution: Provide football entertainment at a relatively high level without spending the excessive money that will destroy you. Don't compete with the NFL. Compete for the *entertainment dollar*. (I also think football & its playing rules are a lot more "flexible" & subject to change by a new league. The NFL has been changing them themselves for decades. And there are other codes of football being played like Canadian, Rugby League, Rugby Union & others as well.

Re your original opinion on an independent challenger to the NFL. I agree. We will probably never see one again along the lines of AAFC, AFL, WFL or USFL in our lifetimes unless concussion, CTE & other injury lawsuits explode & the league or the game suddenly take on a totally different image in the National consciousness. I think this could happen, but I am probably too old to ever see it for myself. But imagine a fleet of trial lawyers suing middle schools, High Schools, small colleges... and winning big judgments... you might see an Academic and recreational (organized leagues like Pop Warner etc) retreat from the game. And Moms and parents could also stop giving permission for kids to play organized football. It may be that one day, to save the game there will be radical rules changes and an all out search for a version of the game that is still entertaining to watch and fun to play but is much safer. I have some ideas on that as well, but will close for now.

[Bryan]

Here are the QBs I saw this week/weekend in the televised games for my area....

Thursday: Case Keenum
Saturday: Kellen Moore
Sunday: TJ Yates, Brandon Weeden, Charlie Whitehurst, Blaine Gabbert, AJ McCarron

[JWL]

Here are the QBs I saw this week/weekend in the televised games for my area....

Thursday: Case Keenum
Saturday: Kellen Moore
Sunday: TJ Yates, Brandon Weeden, Charlie Whitehurst, Blaine Gabbert, AJ McCarron

I like most of the rules that are designed to protect quarterbacks so that we don't have to see too many backups play. That said, it is interesting to see backups play. Can the team overcome the injury? Do they have to alter the offense? Do they rally around the backup quarterback? Does the run game get emphasized more?

[BD Sullivan]

Here are the QBs I saw this week/weekend in the televised games for my area....

Thursday: Case Keenum
Saturday: Kellen Moore
Sunday: TJ Yates, Brandon Weeden, Charlie Whitehurst, Blaine Gabbert, AJ McCarron

I like most of the rules that are designed to protect quarterbacks so that we don't have to see too many backups play. That said, it is interesting to see backups play. Can the team overcome the injury? Do they have to alter the offense? Do they rally around the backup quarterback? Does the run game get emphasized more?

Except that when it gets to the third string QB taking over, a team is pretty much screwed.

[luckyshow]

Wasn't there a spike that bounced off a player on the ground and was intercepted. In the last Giants game? Part of how they caught up...

A spike isn't a pass, taking a knee isn't a play. Hey, I don't even see any reason an eligible receiver has to be announced. The opposing team/defense should have to pay attention...

[Mark L. Ford]

A spike isn't a pass, taking a knee isn't a play. Hey, I don't even see any reason an eligible receiver has to be announced. The opposing team/defense should have to pay attention...

Statistically speaking, I believe that a spike is still counted against a quarterback as an incomplete pass, and taking a knee is still counted against his rushing yardage. While it probably shouldn't be that way, since both are actually smart moves rather than blunders. Except for that thing you describe where a quarterback can't even hit the ground below him-- the only way I can see that happening is if he somehow manages to hit the center who had just snapped the ball to him.

[JohnH19]

A spike isn't a pass, taking a knee isn't a play. Hey, I don't even see any reason an eligible receiver has to be announced. The opposing team/defense should have to pay attention...

Statistically speaking, I believe that a spike is still counted against a quarterback as an incomplete pass, and taking a knee is still counted against his rushing yardage. While it probably shouldn't be that way, since both are actually smart moves rather than blunders. Except for that thing you describe where a quarterback can't even hit the ground below him-- the only way I can see that happening is if he somehow manages to hit the center who had just snapped the ball to him.

Reading these posts made me think of Kirk Cousins at the end of the first half last night.

[Todd Pence]

A spike isn't a pass, taking a knee isn't a play. Hey, I don't even see any reason an eligible receiver has to be announced. The opposing team/defense should have to pay attention...

Statistically speaking, I believe that a spike is still counted against a quarterback as an incomplete pass, and taking a knee is still counted against his rushing yardage. While it probably shouldn't be that way, since both are actually smart moves rather than blunders. Except for that thing you describe where a quarterback can't even hit the ground below him-- the only way I can see that happening is if he somehow manages to hit the center who had just snapped the ball to him.

Didn't something like that happen to Bears QB Jack Concannon once?

[BD Sullivan]

A spike isn't a pass, taking a knee isn't a play. Hey, I don't even see any reason an eligible receiver has to be announced. The opposing team/defense should have to pay attention...

Statistically speaking, I believe that a spike is still counted against a quarterback as an incomplete pass, and taking a knee is still counted against his rushing yardage. While it probably shouldn't be that way, since both are actually smart moves rather than blunders. Except for that thing you describe where a quarterback can't even hit the ground below him-- the only way I can see that happening is if he somehow manages to hit the center who had just snapped the ball to him.

Didn't something like that happen to Bears QB Jack Concannon once?

Correct, although not quite in the same fashion: On 9/28/69 at St. Louis, the Bears had the ball at the Cardinal 34. when Concannon got ready to take the snap. For some reason, he tried to call time out and Mike Pyle (the center) snapped the ball into the air. Amazingly, Larry Stallings of the Cardinals caught it before it hit the ground and raced 62 yards for the score. The Cardinals ended up winning 20-17, starting a season of total misery for the Bears. They had won their opener the previous week, but then lost their last 13 games.