• You're one step from joining Guitar Discussion Forum - The Fret.
    Create a free account to post, follow threads, and never miss an update.  Sign up free →

It Oughta Be Banned......

Guitar Discussion Forum - The Fret

Help Support TheFret.net:

Commodore 64 said:
I don't disagree, but there is a minor problem with this. Nobody would watch it. Just like nobody watches Aussie football, rugby, or soccer in the US.

I beg to differ with you on this, I would begin to watch again. Get these primadonnas off the damn field (and race track), and let the guys do their job that they are being paid for. I have no actual evidence to back this up, but I think that the percentage of peopel who watch to see the "big-hit" or the "big-wreck" is fairly small, less than 15% I think. Most people that watch sports want to see the game played, they want to see the skilled player make an outsanding play. They want to see 10 or 12 guys going side-by-side around Talladega at close to 200mph. They don't want to see Jimmy Johnson whine about someone taping his bumper on the track or that so-and-so wouldn't move out of the way and let him go by!

You are in Ohio, I am in Colorado, we don't watch Rugby or Ausie Football, or soccer for that matter, because they are niche sports in this country. I don't watch because I like American Football, grew up knowing about it and watching it, seeing guys with skill, like Lynn Swan and Butch Johnson make amazing plays. What, exactly, is wrong with that? why did it "have to change with the times"? Is it not enough to know the rules, have abilities and skill that make you one of 1200 (out of a country of 300,000,000) people to be picked to play, and play clean and honestly?

Botom line (for me), most people watch the game to see one team play better/smarter/luckier football than the other team. Not to see some guy make a devestating (clean or otherwise) hit on the ball carrier. What football needs is 30 head coaches like Tom Landry, Paul Brown, or Vince Lombardi back in the league, not these whimp-asses, like Barry Switzer or Dan Reeves! And, owners that care as much for the integrity of the game as they do for the money it makes them.

Thank you and sorry for the rant. (steps down from his soap-box)
 
sunvalleylaw said:
...
I want to clarify my statement above, that when I say it is hard to change it now, I mean because it would appear (from my very limited exposure to the issues) that those in charge have either no desire, or no will, or both, to change it. As PBP says, it is not impossible to change at all, it just takes doing it. It has become "part of the game" in the pros because that has become the expectation, over time of allowing it to become that way. Expectations can be changed. But I agree that those in charge do not want to risk viewership over attempting such a change.

It is a similar thing with the hits in football, and the bean balls in baseball. Just have clear rules of behavior in sport, and enforce them consistently.

I agree, and the leagues and owner are very short-sighted on this one, as I stated earlier, IMHO, most people want to see the game played, the race raced, etc. Only a small portion only want to see the big fight, big hit, big wreck. I think, most viewers, MORE viewers, would be quite happy and satisfied with a clean, well contested, sporting event. Simple. Face facts, why would a person sit in the stands, in April, in Alabama, with no shade, for 3-5 hours, to see what may never happen (Mark Martin won the May, 1997 race at Talladega, not one caution, green from the first lap to the last!).
 
What I'd hate to see is for the NFL to descend into is something akin to "professional" wrestling with its theater of violence. Unlike wrestling where the violence is mainly faked with the injuries choreographed and staged for the most part (occasionally by mistake someone really gets hurt), in the NFL the injuries are all too real. In other words, I don't want to see the NFL turned into the Roman Colosseum with the league turning the blind eye to (or condoning) the violence so long as the masses are entertained.
 
DeanEVO_Dude said:
What football needs is 30 head coaches like Tom Landry, Paul Brown, or Vince Lombardi back in the league, not these whimp-asses, like Barry Switzer or Dan Reeves!

Reeves hasn't coached in the NFL since leaving the Falcons in 2003, and by my count it's been 13 years since Switzer's last season with the '97 Cowboys. This is not to say that some of today's coaches wouldn't qualify as "whimp-asses" but since I don't know what your criteria were for assigning that label, I couldn't really say. What I can say is that I wouldn't call guys like Rex Ryan or Tom Cable or Jeff Fisher a name like that to their faces unless I knew I was prepared to run for my life.
 
R_of_G said:
What I can say is that I wouldn't call guys like Rex Ryan or Tom Cable or Jeff Fisher a name like that to their faces unless I knew I was prepared to run for my life.

Rex Ryan? You wouldn't have to run very far...:rollover

(I do get your point though, R_of_G)
 
R_of_G said:
Reeves hasn't coached in the NFL since leaving the Falcons in 2003, and by my count it's been 13 years since Switzer's last season with the '97 Cowboys. This is not to say that some of today's coaches wouldn't qualify as "whimp-asses" but since I don't know what your criteria were for assigning that label...

Yes, I know that Reeves and Switzer have not coached in years, my point was that the other three I did mention had no problem benching someone who messed up on or off the field. They also emphasized the fundementals of the game in their coaching. Didn't put up with any s**t! Strict disciplinarians, that is what the NFL needs to go back to.

R_OF_G said:
...What I can say is that I wouldn't call guys like Rex Ryan or Tom Cable or Jeff Fisher a name like that to their faces unless I knew I was prepared to run for my life.

Yeah, I woldn't say it to their faces, either... I'm a lover, not a fighter! LOL
Really, there are some good coaches, you named some of them, but in the NFL, I don't think there is ONE coach that would bench a "star" because he messed up off the field. Greed and Free-agency has had a (IMO) majorly negative effect on the game of pro football, almost to the point of ruin.
 
DeanEVO_Dude said:
I don't think there is ONE coach that would bench a "star" because he messed up off the field. Greed and Free-agency has had a (IMO) majorly negative effect on the game of pro football, almost to the point of ruin.

Seems to me we hear reports all the time about guys that are benched without details being disclosed. Perhaps the coaches aren't making the reasons known to the press to avoid the ridiculous circus that comes along with such things, but the guys are nonetheless losing playing time. Best exampe is Bill Bellichick. I despise the guy but there's no doubt he's a coach that believes in discipline first regardless of the star-power of the player involved.

I agree that money/greed plays a role, but I hesitate to bash free agency. With strict salary-cap regulations (particularly at the rookie level) you can avoid a lot of the ridiculous figures we have now, and still have a workable free-agent market. It's a lot better than the alternative, where these guys go back to being treated like property instead of employees. I understand an entry draft to theoretically provide some form of parity, but after a certain amount of time these guys should have the right to choose where to play.
 
Back
Top