Gridiron
I watch less and less professional football because I'm disgusted with the continuous, pervasive, ridiculous displays of infantile, narcissistic self promotion. But enough about the commercials, the players do it too. Some of that exists in college ball, but certainly not as much, and I think the college game is just more exciting to watch. Most of the kids are playing for the sheer love of the game, and on Monday they have to be back in class while the pros are sitting around the pool on sacks of money talking on cell phones to their agents about how they're not appreciated. The first thing I want to look at is very much influenced by big money, and that's the length of the games. Three and a half hours is too long for any contest except the one to see how many commercials a network can squeeze into one. I'm going to fix that right now. The first thing I'm going to do is let the clock run after an incomplete pass. You heard me, what earthly reason is there to stop it? It seems totally pointless to me, let it go. Maybe it was necessary in the middle ages, when they played with a pig's head and there was only one, and an incomplete pass would wind up lost in the forest or the moor or be carried off by wolves, but not anymore. They start every game with 500 balls, all as hard as a rock and slick as glass, there's no need to wait. There's a play clock, which I would keep at thirty seconds, whether the previous play was a run or a pass attempt, let the game clock run. In a game where each team throws twenty four passes and completes half, there are twenty four total incompletions that stop the clock for a minimum of thirty seconds. That's twelve minutes right there, probably more like fifteen in actual practice. In a game where each team throws the ball forty times, I'll bet it would save twenty five minutes, keep every game without OT under three hours and put the average game around two hours and forty-five minutes or less. Second, let the clock run during change of possession. The only reason to stop it is to let the network run 1,100 commercials, the exact same ones we just saw on the last break. Come on, those guys can't wait to get back on the field, give 'em sixty seconds. The only exception would be after a score, when even the fans need a break to gloat or grouse and get another beer. And I recognize the sponsors are paying for all of this, they need some chance to squeeze us. Let's give 'em one minute. I'll bet the game is now under two and a half hours. Fourth, make time outs (times out?) one minute. Who needs two minutes? It just gives the coaches time to change their minds and get themselves into trouble. Between two teams and two minute warnings we could pick up another eight minutes here alone, even more in the pros if we throw out the two minute warning altogether. I'd also let the clock run in college games while the chains are being moved. Let's keep it moving, guys. It doesn't save much time, but it's another step in the right direction and it's one less detail to keep track of. Finally, I'd eliminate the mystery time out. You know, your team is driving, it's third and four, neither team calls a time out, and suddenly everyone is stops playing and you're diving for the remote to hit the mute button before you're sonically assaulted again by that freaking talking duck. (Please, vow right now to never buy that product!) What happened? The network called the time out so they can ring up another five minutes of commercial revenue. No no no no no. I like this. If you want to stop the clock, you have to score, call a time out, or get out of bounds. We have an action packed, rock'em sock'em two hour game . I could watch two games on Saturday and not need intravenous fluids. The only down side I can see is that this would reduce the number of total plays and might lower scoring. I'm a guy who loves to watch good offensive football and I'm hoping for a track meet every time I tune in, so you have to understand this would be a real sacrifice for me. But it might be worth it, especially if you want to watch half as many truck commercials and witless dufi who prefer "lite" beer to beautiful women. On the other hand, it might generate a sense of urgency that would lead to offensive risks that are exciting to watch. Throw it deep, throw it deep! I'm on a roll. What else can I screw with? OK, a safety should be worth three points. It's a lot harder to get than a field goal and I think it should have as much impact on the game. No free kick, regular kickoff. Next, I don't see any reason why a missed, short field goal attempt should bring the ball out to the twenty. If you miss from the thirty-five, they don't spot the ball at the twenty, let's be consistent, a team should get credit for every yard they advance the ball. If you miss from the five, you don't get any points, fine, but you earned your way to the five, the other team should have to earn its way out of there. This would have a big effect on field position and I think it would lead to more scoring, which, of course, is good for me. Same thing with penalties near the goal line. Look at personal fouls marked off from the one yard line. An offensive foul would be fifteen yards. That's a drive killer. A defensive foul would be eighteen-inches. How is that fair? If defensive fouls are marked off half the distance to the goal line, offensive penalties should be marked off half the distance away from the goal line. I'm not sure I really care how many guys are on the line of scrimmage. All these receivers taking a step up, a step back, who's eligible, who's not, it's an unnecessary complication for the players and the refs to keep track of on the off chance one team once a year wants to squeeze in a tackle-eligible play. Let's keep it simple. As long as they're behind the line of scrimmage, who cares? Let'em line up wherever they want. Of course this would have a dramatic impact on the game and change it more than most people would be comfortable with, so let's be anal and officious and say five guys, center, guards, and tackles, have to be on the line, none of them eligible receivers. Everybody else can catch the ball and line up anywhere. If you want a tackle eligible, put a third one in there. While we're at it, let's mix it up! You've seen four or five wide receiver sets? Try four tight ends. Put three on one side, then set the other one in motion. Now pull the tackles. That's basically six tackles with a head of steam. Let those safeties shit their pants. Hey, split them out and let 'em crack back on the linebackers, make them pay for those sack dances. Hell, make 'em think about retirement. I'd like to say I think the refs do a pretty good job in a thankless role. No matter what decision they make, hundreds or thousands or millions of people are going to hate them. But they're essential to the game, and as many calls as they miss, they make fewer mistakes than the players or the coaches, and most of the heat they take is because the average fan is clueless about the rules let alone how they are required to be interpreted. And if your child plays a recreational sport and the refs suck, keep in mind they're making squat or nothing for this and you should be thankful anybody is willing to do it at all in order for your kids to have a chance to play organized sports and have some fun. If you think you can do a better job you're probably wrong but get off your ass and get out there because they are probably crying for volunteers. So I'm OK with the referee situation, but I'd like to say one thing about the way the game is called. I'd like to see more ejections. A flagrant personal foul should result in an immediate heave-ho and review by the league for any additional consequences. Any two personal fouls by the same player in one game should have the same result. How about this: a player who is ejected can't be replaced. The duration could be a play, a series, or a game. Hey, hockey and soccer players are tough enough to play short handed, whatsamatta, you guys a bunch a sissies? Come on, a FB power play could be fun to watch. Now a word about the word football. First of all, it's not a ball. A ball is a sphere. Basketball uses a ball. Baseball uses a ball. Soccer uses a ball. Golf uses a ball. Ballroom dancing uses a ball , even though the ball in ballroom means something completely different. Football uses something that is only ball shaped in cross-section. Second, this ovoid object, whatever it is, only rarely comes into contact with the foot, and the players whose feet initiate this contact are traditionally looked upon with suspicion and regarded as vestigial appendages like team appendixes by the other players who only use their feet to push against the Earth to accelerate their bodies against the bodies of members of the other team in often successful attempts to break their ribs and collapse their lungs. While we're talking about the "ball", why is the damn thing hard as a rock and slick as glass? I guess the idea is to promote turnovers. I don't get it, they used to make them out of leather, which is a great surface to grip. They still make them out of leather, but you couldn't tell by grabbing one, since they're coated with a mixture of titanium and teflon. I say Wilson should throw a team of chemists on the job of finding a surface with the best possible gripping properties. Football follies are great, but week in and week out I'd rather see what happens when the greatest QBs in the game get accustomed to a "ball" that never slips out of their hands. Yeah, I hear you guys in the secondary swearing at me. How about the word "football"? It actually represents the game in which two teams kick a real, round ball around a very large playing field and try to direct the ball into a big net without touching it with their hands. Unfortunately, except for penalty kicks, this doesn't happen very often, which leaves five billion devoted fans perpetually frustrated. The players and coaches of the unrelated American game we have been discussing, who want no association with the international game of football, recognize this incongruity and have already effectively abandoned use of the word in its traditional form and initiated a secret campaign to gradually transform the old word into a new one in the same way they changed the word de fense into the word de fense, that is, to employ a proprietary pronunciation scheme. Personally, I would have favored using a name so different as to defy any ambiguity, such as Gridiron, (my first choice) however nobody asked me, and it's too late now, the change has already occurred, we may as well stop pretending nothing has happened and get on with the process of finding a spelling to represent the name of the game as it now exists. If you haven't noticed what I'm talking about, just tune in to any press conference and listen to the way the players and coaches say it, while they are constantly using the phrase, "on the fuh-baw field", as if we might accidentally have forgotten which sport we are watching. That's right: Fuh-baw. No tee, no ells. There are some spelling options, of course. Fuh-baugh would work, and contain a kind of sonic homage to Sammy Baugh. Fo'bah? Nah. Just because the game has more and more complex rules than all other team sports combined times ten doesn't mean it's ready for apostrophes or hyphens. I think we should keep it simple: Fubaw. Everybody knows there's a break between syllables, we don't need to rub it in. NCAA College Fubaw. The National Fubaw League. We're already there.
|
