Your take on the current state of the game

[BernardB]

Well....despite all the ridiculous numbers, scoring has changed very little. Sure, it's crept up slightly the last couple years, but I think the late 1940s was still higher. And while passer rating has evolved (gotten higher) over the years, YPA hasn't, at least not materially. Strong organizations still win, and weak organizations don't. In that regard, nothing's really changed from a competitive standpoint. The details have changed, but the essence of the product hasn't.

Scoring has changed very little? Including this season, 4 of the 7 highest scoring seasons in NFL history have occurred in the last 4 seasons. I'd say that's a pretty significant change. From 1950-2015, the 9 of the top 10 highest net yards per pass attempt seasons have been 2015, 2014, 2011, 2010, 2013, 2012, etc....the lone exception being the 1962 season. To think that the NFL product hasn't changed in the last few seasons flies in the face of all quantifiable evidence.

I already made my thoughts known in the "integrity of the game" thread, but to sum up, the NFL has become too sterile for my taste. I find myself watching more football on Saturdays than Sundays now. If I feel the need to watch night football, I usually tune in to some midweek Bowling Green-Toledo MACtion as opposed to watching the terrible production known as Thursday Night NFL Football.

Pro-Football Reference has a page on NFL season by season scoring summary (sorry do not know how to embed web pages) which, from my perspective, bears out what mwald said. For all intents I gave up watching football five years ago, read about it but almost never watch. Only partly due to how the game is played; more to do with not willing to spend 6-8 hours every weekend in front of the TV.

Will float a tentative hypothesis using the 1999 Rams and the 2000 Ravens as templates: the NFL leadership decided in the early 2000's that the NFL would be more popular if the game was somehow shifted to look a little more like the Rams than the Ravens.

One minor reason might be that great defensive teams play with an angry chip on their shoulders which can alienate opposing team's fan base. This was true of the 2000 Ravens. A great defensive team will beat down opposing teams whereas a great offensive team will merely outscore them. Of course, a good hate can generate TV ratings, but, my guess, is that the NFL leadership prefers warm and fuzzy offensive football, wins through the air rather than angry beat downs.

[Bryan]

Pro-Football Reference has a page on NFL season by season scoring summary (sorry do not know how to embed web pages) which, from my perspective, bears out what mwald said. .

From 1966-2010, the NFL never had a season where the team ppg average was greater than 22.0. In the last five seasons, the NFL has yet to have a season where the team ppg average WASN'T greater than 22.0. So you have something that never happened in the first 45 years of the Super Bowl era, then it happens every time in the next five years. Again, I'd say those statistics can be used to show "change". Perhaps I am looking at the wrong statistics, and the numbers on Pro-Football Reference say otherwise.

[MarbleEye]

One would like to see a rival league started but that seems very unlikely because of the cost of running a football league and the safety worries.

The only way that there would be a rival league is if the existing NFL was forced to break up into smaller units by a judgment in an antitrust lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. And given that mergers like ExxonMobil merger took place even during a very liberal presidential administration, I think the chances of an antitrust suit against the NFL range from "unlikely" to "never gonna happen". There will never be another independent challenger to the National Football League; the USFL had it relatively easy compared to what it would take now. Mere millionaires are no longer able to try their hand at this.

The key to a new league is scale. No one says (I don't even want) a new league has to operate on the same scale as the NFL does right out of the gate. If a cable network with high carry rates would televise the games (not of course for NFL type TV $$) a league could get a foothold if it offered a superior product. (Which in my view would be ridiculously easy. Just think of NFL TD -commercial -XP -commercial - KO - commercial and there's an area for superior presentation right there) Think 1 announcer per booth. Think revised timing rules. Think no TV timeouts. (Ads to be presented in natural stoppages of play.) Think instead of 11-17 minutes of action embedded in a 60 min game embedded in 3-1/2 hours of fluff, maybe we cut that way back.

What if we didn't stop the clock on incomplete passes? (Referees don't have to chase down the one football at the game anymore on errant or long throws as they probably did in 1910. New ball quickly in from sidelines and on we go.) What if there was no spiking the football, which is essentially legalized intentional grounding? (I still recall when QB's had to throw the ball over the head of a sideline receiver to get the legal stoppage of clock.) I could go on forever about all the things the pro and college do wrong that are opportunities for a new league to improve upon... these mentions are a mere fraction. A fumble would be a fumble if the carrier didn't have the ball period. Forget using a micrometer on knees above the ground. The whole replay review process on TO's and catches has come to make me sick. Simplify the definitions on catches and fumbles and be done with the whole booth process.

Anyway... the WFL tried some novel things and so did the USFL. (We'd still have the USFL if it wasn't for Trump, I believe, and more is the pity he ever got involved. ) A new league can fix the excesses of the NFL in a lot of ways.

And as for who plays.... well... NCAA D III has very entertaining games on TV when the playoffs are on. So does D II. So does D1-AA. Point being, there are a lot of players out there that can and would play entertaining football a helluva lot cheaper than NFL players would dream of. I am willing to watch them on TV. You could even put in a requirement that each player must be a college graduate. That would be an effort to de-thug & de-criminalize the game and rosters of the new league. The league could and should make its own stars, not compete with the NFL for the high dollar (and often low results) player.

To wrap this up for now... a new league shouldn't be structured along the lines of NFL. It should be structured along the line of independent non-Organized Ball professional baseball. The Northern League back in 1993 was a big success and independent ball is still with us today. It doesn't try to compete with MLB and has (IMHO) a superior and less expensive product. This is what a new league ought to strive for.

[BernardB]

Pro-Football Reference has a page on NFL season by season scoring summary (sorry do not know how to embed web pages) which, from my perspective, bears out what mwald said. .

From 1966-2010, the NFL never had a season where the team ppg average was greater than 22.0. In the last five seasons, the NFL has yet to have a season where the team ppg average WASN'T greater than 22.0. So you have something that never happened in the first 45 years of the Super Bowl era, then it happens every time in the next five years. Again, I'd say those statistics can be used to show "change". Perhaps I am looking at the wrong statistics, and the numbers on Pro-Football Reference say otherwise.

You are right, there are a lot of ways to define change in points scored. Another way would be to look at the percentage increase. So if one uses 21 points as the base (yes this is an arbitrary line I have drawn) going up to 23 points is an increase of 8.7%. 21 to 24 is 12.5%, 21 to 25 is 16.0%, 21 to 26 is 19.3%. Using this perspective points would have to move close to 24 just to cross the 10% threshold. Granted if one chooses 20 points as the base the change looks more dramatic.

[MIKEBENNIDICT]

I'm 43 and have watched the NFL since before age 5 and have never really noticed as much as strange as it seems.


Perhaps I'm one of those fans who has never paid as close attention as some. But I've read some history and learned some stuff.

One claimed the turf that's being used.

One thing I've learned that there was a time when there was no such thing as an indoor stadium. Let alone the fact the NFL didn't start expanding into the south and west till the Post WWII era.


Some weeks back marked the 75th anniversary of the 1940 NFL Championship between The Bears & Redskins.

Bears beat them 73-0. I never heard of any NFL team in my lifetime score that high. Why's that?


I've read on some message boards that there are too many teams. Of course back in the late 50's the NFL had only 14 teams with no intention of expanding.

That was until the AFL came around.

Considering up until the 70's players didn't make the millions they do now and had either daytime or off season jobs.

I'm not gonna think about whether or not they're paid too much though I'm glad they're paid enough so they don't have to had another job.


I guess my point is that we're all entitled to how we feel about football and some arguments are probably understandable.

But then again we gotta remember many changes have occurred with the league in its 95 years of existence and have to consider all of those other things.

[TodMaher]

Pro-Football Reference has a page on NFL season by season scoring summary (sorry do not know how to embed web pages) which, from my perspective, bears out what mwald said. .

From 1966-2010, the NFL never had a season where the team ppg average was greater than 22.0. In the last five seasons, the NFL has yet to have a season where the team ppg average WASN'T greater than 22.0. So you have something that never happened in the first 45 years of the Super Bowl era, then it happens every time in the next five years. Again, I'd say those statistics can be used to show "change". Perhaps I am looking at the wrong statistics, and the numbers on Pro-Football Reference say otherwise.

You are right, there are a lot of ways to define change in points scored. Another way would be to look at the percentage increase. So if one uses 21 points as the base (yes this is an arbitrary line I have drawn) going up to 23 points is an increase of 8.7%. 21 to 24 is 12.5%, 21 to 25 is 16.0%, 21 to 26 is 19.3%. Using this perspective points would have to move close to 24 just to cross the 10% threshold. Granted if one chooses 20 points as the base the change looks more dramatic.

Ugh! More scoring does NOT equal better football.

[Mark L. Ford]

The key to a new league is scale. No one says (I don't even want) a new league has to operate on the same scale as the NFL does right out of the gate. If a cable network with high carry rates would televise the games (not of course for NFL type TV $$) a league could get a foothold if it offered a superior product. (Which in my view would be ridiculously easy. Just think of NFL TD -commercial -XP -commercial - KO - commercial and there's an area for superior presentation right there) Think 1 announcer per booth. Think revised timing rules. Think no TV timeouts. (Ads to be presented in natural stoppages of play.) Think instead of 11-17 minutes of action embedded in a 60 min game embedded in 3-1/2 hours of fluff, maybe we cut that way back.

What if we didn't stop the clock on incomplete passes? (Referees don't have to chase down the one football at the game anymore on errant or long throws as they probably did in 1910. New ball quickly in from sidelines and on we go.) What if there was no spiking the football, which is essentially legalized intentional grounding? (I still recall when QB's had to throw the ball over the head of a sideline receiver to get the legal stoppage of clock.) I could go on forever about all the things the pro and college do wrong that are opportunities for a new league to improve upon... these mentions are a mere fraction. A fumble would be a fumble if the carrier didn't have the ball period. Forget using a micrometer on knees above the ground. The whole replay review process on TO's and catches has come to make me sick. Simplify the definitions on catches and fumbles and be done with the whole booth process.

Anyway... the WFL tried some novel things and so did the USFL. (We'd still have the USFL if it wasn't for Trump, I believe, and more is the pity he ever got involved. ) A new league can fix the excesses of the NFL in a lot of ways.

And as for who plays.... well... NCAA D III has very entertaining games on TV when the playoffs are on. So does D II. So does D1-AA. Point being, there are a lot of players out there that can and would play entertaining football a helluva lot cheaper than NFL players would dream of. I am willing to watch them on TV. You could even put in a requirement that each player must be a college graduate. That would be an effort to de-thug & de-criminalize the game and rosters of the new league. The league could and should make its own stars, not compete with the NFL for the high dollar (and often low results) player.

To wrap this up for now... a new league shouldn't be structured along the lines of NFL. It should be structured along the line of independent non-Organized Ball professional baseball. The Northern League back in 1993 was a big success and independent ball is still with us today. It doesn't try to compete with MLB and has (IMHO) a superior and less expensive product. This is what a new league ought to strive for.

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.

[7DnBrnc53]

Ugh! More scoring does NOT equal better football.

I wonder if it was Tex Schramm that started that in the late-70's. I think that he was saying that polls indicated that fans wanted more scoring, and Dr. Z (Paul Zimmerman) disagreed, and said that fans just want to see their teams win.

[Bryan]

A tidbit that kind of relates to the current state of the game...here we are in Week 15 of the 2015 season, and the Steelers-Broncos game is the only matchup of the 16 scheduled games that has two teams with winning records playing each other. I find that to be equal parts fascinating and revolting. Its like the second week of the college football season, where every game is LSU vs. McNeese State.

[rhickok1109]

Ugh! More scoring does NOT equal better football.

I wonder if it was Tex Schramm that started that in the late-70's. I think that he was saying that polls indicated that fans wanted more scoring, and Dr. Z (Paul Zimmerman) disagreed, and said that fans just want to see their teams win.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive. I certainly want the Packers to win, but I'd rather see them win 38-0 than 3-0. And I watch three or four other games in which the Packers are not involved; I'd rather see a 35-31 score than 13-10 in those games.