Mack’s Proposal to Increase Fan Engagement.

[Mackeyser]

1) Dominant Wins: Right now, there is an unwritten rule that teams should not run up the score on opponents. It’s seen as unprofessional and also against the professional coaches code… My proposal would be that if a team goes up by 50 points, the game ends with a Dominant Win. Why? Well, far too often, as we’ve seen this year, teams will sit their star players if they go up big because HCs don’t want to violate these unwritten rules of coach conduct. However, Dominant Wins (and losses) would mean something for tie breaking purposes. As well, due to less playing time, teams could earn rest that would benefit their season.

a) Dominant wins (and losses) would rank ahead of Strength of Victory with respect to tiebreakers, thus creating a structural impetus to score more points.

Ex: Say the Rams have 2 Dominant Wins and the Packers have 1. All other things being equal, the Rams would win the tiebreaker on the basis of Dominant Wins.

b) Dominant wins (and losses) would work in reverse for draft rankings.

Ex: Say the Rams have 2 Dominant Wins and the Bucs have 3 Dominant Wins and 1Dominant Loss. They would be tied based on the Dominant Wins metric and draft status would be determined by subsequent tiebreakers.

Why? Well, it stops games from becoming that “waiting game” where the dominant team just runs and plays D and the game just grinds to a halt. They switch away from those game to “competitive games”, so why not just give each team a reason to be competitive. As of right now, there’s no benefit for scoring more. This creates more reason to continue playing one’s best with one’s best players. Or… a HC could choose to grind it out for the reps of depth players. But that’s a choice, just like going for 1 or 2 after a TD, whether to kick it deep or onsides or squib kick it on a kick off or going for it on 4th down versus punting the ball away.


Also, both Vegas and Fantasy players would love it because star players would keep racking up stats and there’d be another thing to bet on (will the Rams get a Dominant Win at Houston? Knowing McVay, I wonder what the odds would be. Either way, it’s another thing to bet on.)

2) Simplify the Practice Squad rules to allow greater fluidity between the PS and the Active Roster.

Why? This meta game only complicates the job for HCs and doesn’t help the product on the field, but it can and has hurt the product. Just simplify the rules so that teams can focus more on the play on the field and less about the PS.

3) Remove the QB from the Cap with negotiated adjustments to the overall cap. Create a tiered pay system for QBs. 4 Tiers should be enough… 1) Franchise QB, 2) Game manager QB, 3) Journeyman/backup QB, 4) Rookie QB. This way, there is more focus on team stability and building versus FA movement for no reason beyond QB salaries being a huge impediment to that stability and building.

These are just a few thoughts. I purposefully avoided any changes to referees b/c my bp is kinda high rn and I’m not trying to get myself all riled up.

Hope this sparks some fun conversation. Enjoy.

 

[Merlin]

4. Hand every fan coming in a 12 pack of "D" cell batteries.
~ @Loyal

 

[Loyal]

4. Hand every fan coming in a 12 pack of "D" cell batteries.
~ @Loyal

It's D battery night, every night at SoFi

 

[XXXIVwin]

1) Dominant Wins: Right now, there is an unwritten rule that teams should not run up the score on opponents. It’s seen as unprofessional and also against the professional coaches code… My proposal would be that if a team goes up by 50 points, the game ends with a Dominant Win. Why? Well, far too often, as we’ve seen this year, teams will sit their star players if they go up big because HCs don’t want to violate these unwritten rules of coach conduct. However, Dominant Wins (and losses) would mean something for tie breaking purposes. As well, due to less playing time, teams could earn rest that would benefit their season.

a) Dominant wins (and losses) would rank ahead of Strength of Victory with respect to tiebreakers, thus creating a structural impetus to score more points.

Ex: Say the Rams have 2 Dominant Wins and the Packers have 1. All other things being equal, the Rams would win the tiebreaker on the basis of Dominant Wins.

b) Dominant wins (and losses) would work in reverse for draft rankings.

Ex: Say the Rams have 2 Dominant Wins and the Bucs have 3 Dominant Wins and 1Dominant Loss. They would be tied based on the Dominant Wins metric and draft status would be determined by subsequent tiebreakers.

Why? Well, it stops games from becoming that “waiting game” where the dominant team just runs and plays D and the game just grinds to a halt. They switch away from those game to “competitive games”, so why not just give each team a reason to be competitive. As of right now, there’s no benefit for scoring more. This creates more reason to continue playing one’s best with one’s best players. Or… a HC could choose to grind it out for the reps of depth players. But that’s a choice, just like going for 1 or 2 after a TD, whether to kick it deep or onsides or squib kick it on a kick off or going for it on 4th down versus punting the ball away.


Also, both Vegas and Fantasy players would love it because star players would keep racking up stats and there’d be another thing to bet on (will the Rams get a Dominant Win at Houston? Knowing McVay, I wonder what the odds would be. Either way, it’s another thing to bet on.)

2) Simplify the Practice Squad rules to allow greater fluidity between the PS and the Active Roster.

Why? This meta game only complicates the job for HCs and doesn’t help the product on the field, but it can and has hurt the product. Just simplify the rules so that teams can focus more on the play on the field and less about the PS.

3) Remove the QB from the Cap with negotiated adjustments to the overall cap. Create a tiered pay system for QBs. 4 Tiers should be enough… 1) Franchise QB, 2) Game manager QB, 3) Journeyman/backup QB, 4) Rookie QB. This way, there is more focus on team stability and building versus FA movement for no reason beyond QB salaries being a huge impediment to that stability and building.

These are just a few thoughts. I purposefully avoided any changes to referees b/c my bp is kinda high rn and I’m not trying to get myself all riled up.

Hope this sparks some fun conversation. Enjoy.

I'm a fan of #2, simplifying the PS rules.

Regarding, #3, yeah, I'd be open to that, and I gather that idea has been floated before.

Regarding #1 though, I wouldn't be a fan of that idea. Seems like there would be too many unintended consequences.

For example-- if a team were up by 40 late, there would be every incentive to keep the starters in. But what if a star player got injured while "running up the score"? Fans would certainly howl about that (and coaches wouldn't like that either). Also, Backup players get precious little time to see the field as it is, and the "Dominant win" metric would deprive them of that.

Conversely, if a crappy team is down by 40 and angling for a high draft pick, they'd have more incentive to tank the game and pull starters in an effort to secure the all-important "Dominant Loss" tiebreaker.

And bottom line, I think fans care most about the win or the loss-- not sure fans could learn to be truly invested in the size of the margin of victory.

Just my 2 cents, cheers. Good to have something to distract us while we wait for news about a Rams trade before the deadline...

 

[thirteen28]

Get rid of the stupid-ass inactives thing ... if a guy makes the roster, he should be able to suit up on game day. Even more so now that the season has been extended to 17 games. This might also allow coaches to have a little more leeway in their gameday strategizing, which in turn could make the game more exciting.

I hate the rule that you can only dress 45 of 53 on game day as much as I hate the 49ers, and that is a deep-seated, DNA-level hate.

And more than that, they should probably expand the roster sizes now that there is an extra game..

 

[XXXIVwin]

Get rid of the stupid-ass inactives thing ... if a guy makes the roster, he should be able to suit up on game day. Even more so now that the season has been extended to 17 games. This might also allow coaches to have a little more leeway in their gameday strategizing, which in turn could make the game more exciting.

I hate the rule that you can only dress 45 of 53 on game day as much as I hate the 49ers, and that is a deep-seated, DNA-level hate.

And more than that, they should probably expand the roster sizes now that there is an extra game..

Yeah, the "dress 45 or 48 instead of 53" rule is bizarre and I don't know why it exists. Anyone...?

EDIT:
Ok here's an article about it. But apparently I don't give a sufficient amount of shit about this rule, cuz I ain't gonna read the whole thang....

Why does the NFL have inactive players on game day?

Vocal dislike of the game-day inactive list For years, I’ve been reading comments and occasional articles about the NFL that pomote the idea that every player on the roster should be active on game...

www.google.com

 

[CGI_Ram]

Cool topic.

All interesting ideas, Mack. I see your points with all.

#2 and #3 seem like they will eventually happen… or they should, because its hard to see a downside to those ideas.

#1… Its an interesting thought… but, I am not sure? That one seems to have some consequences tough to get past.

What if you bought a ticket and the game ends before halftime? That would feel sucky, probably.

 

[OnceARam]

The game is turning into basketball so mine as well start bringing in those rules.

 

[Selassie I]

Strippers on the sidelines. Cheerleaders are a tease.

Call the game by the rules. It would eliminate the constant holding and keep the WRs clean.

Allow every team to do whatever it wants with it's uniforms and helmets.

Allow a fan to taze the kicker if he misses a kick. Fans are selected by a lottery in the stadium. Tazer on a lower setting of course unless it's a game winning kick that is missed... that would call for a max setting. Watch kicking %'s go way up.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

1) Dominant Wins: Right now, there is an unwritten rule that teams should not run up the score on opponents. It’s seen as unprofessional and also against the professional coaches code… My proposal would be that if a team goes up by 50 points, the game ends with a Dominant Win. Why? Well, far too often, as we’ve seen this year, teams will sit their star players if they go up big because HCs don’t want to violate these unwritten rules of coach conduct. However, Dominant Wins (and losses) would mean something for tie breaking purposes. As well, due to less playing time, teams could earn rest that would benefit their season.

a) Dominant wins (and losses) would rank ahead of Strength of Victory with respect to tiebreakers, thus creating a structural impetus to score more points.

Ex: Say the Rams have 2 Dominant Wins and the Packers have 1. All other things being equal, the Rams would win the tiebreaker on the basis of Dominant Wins.

b) Dominant wins (and losses) would work in reverse for draft rankings.

Ex: Say the Rams have 2 Dominant Wins and the Bucs have 3 Dominant Wins and 1Dominant Loss. They would be tied based on the Dominant Wins metric and draft status would be determined by subsequent tiebreakers.

Why? Well, it stops games from becoming that “waiting game” where the dominant team just runs and plays D and the game just grinds to a halt. They switch away from those game to “competitive games”, so why not just give each team a reason to be competitive. As of right now, there’s no benefit for scoring more. This creates more reason to continue playing one’s best with one’s best players. Or… a HC could choose to grind it out for the reps of depth players. But that’s a choice, just like going for 1 or 2 after a TD, whether to kick it deep or onsides or squib kick it on a kick off or going for it on 4th down versus punting the ball away.


Also, both Vegas and Fantasy players would love it because star players would keep racking up stats and there’d be another thing to bet on (will the Rams get a Dominant Win at Houston? Knowing McVay, I wonder what the odds would be. Either way, it’s another thing to bet on.)

2) Simplify the Practice Squad rules to allow greater fluidity between the PS and the Active Roster.

Why? This meta game only complicates the job for HCs and doesn’t help the product on the field, but it can and has hurt the product. Just simplify the rules so that teams can focus more on the play on the field and less about the PS.

3) Remove the QB from the Cap with negotiated adjustments to the overall cap. Create a tiered pay system for QBs. 4 Tiers should be enough… 1) Franchise QB, 2) Game manager QB, 3) Journeyman/backup QB, 4) Rookie QB. This way, there is more focus on team stability and building versus FA movement for no reason beyond QB salaries being a huge impediment to that stability and building.

These are just a few thoughts. I purposefully avoided any changes to referees b/c my bp is kinda high rn and I’m not trying to get myself all riled up.

Hope this sparks some fun conversation. Enjoy.

I’m in.

 

[PARAM]

1) Dominant Wins: Right now, there is an unwritten rule that teams should not run up the score on opponents. It’s seen as unprofessional and also against the professional coaches code… My proposal would be that if a team goes up by 50 points, the game ends with a Dominant Win. Why? Well, far too often, as we’ve seen this year, teams will sit their star players if they go up big because HCs don’t want to violate these unwritten rules of coach conduct. However, Dominant Wins (and losses) would mean something for tie breaking purposes. As well, due to less playing time, teams could earn rest that would benefit their season.

a) Dominant wins (and losses) would rank ahead of Strength of Victory with respect to tiebreakers, thus creating a structural impetus to score more points.

Ex: Say the Rams have 2 Dominant Wins and the Packers have 1. All other things being equal, the Rams would win the tiebreaker on the basis of Dominant Wins.

b) Dominant wins (and losses) would work in reverse for draft rankings.

Ex: Say the Rams have 2 Dominant Wins and the Bucs have 3 Dominant Wins and 1Dominant Loss. They would be tied based on the Dominant Wins metric and draft status would be determined by subsequent tiebreakers.

Why? Well, it stops games from becoming that “waiting game” where the dominant team just runs and plays D and the game just grinds to a halt. They switch away from those game to “competitive games”, so why not just give each team a reason to be competitive. As of right now, there’s no benefit for scoring more. This creates more reason to continue playing one’s best with one’s best players. Or… a HC could choose to grind it out for the reps of depth players. But that’s a choice, just like going for 1 or 2 after a TD, whether to kick it deep or onsides or squib kick it on a kick off or going for it on 4th down versus punting the ball away.


Also, both Vegas and Fantasy players would love it because star players would keep racking up stats and there’d be another thing to bet on (will the Rams get a Dominant Win at Houston? Knowing McVay, I wonder what the odds would be. Either way, it’s another thing to bet on.)

Like 36win, I like 2 and 3 but not "dominant wins". Some coaches sit their guys late in games but not because of some unwritten rule. They want to preserve their health. Not only is it welcome but it's smart. The Biscuit Risker runs it up whenever possible. And with a 44 year old QB, that's just dumb. And where's the line for "dominant wins"? 50 pts? 40 pts? 30 pts? Now we're getting into a tough area. Are their levels of dominance regardless of the scoreboard? Sure.

50 point wins rarely happen. 0 so far this year. 40 points is rare too. Twice. Once by New England over the Jets 54-13 and Buffalo over Houston 40-0. Which win was more dominant? I like the 40-zip over 54-13. 30 plus has happened 3 times. Buffalo (again) 35-0 over Miami. TB over Chicago 38-3. Saints over Green Bay 38-3. Were either of those last 2 more dominant? Is beating the Justin Fields-led Bears by 35 as dominant as beating the Rodgers-led Packers by 35?

And what about "time of year"? Week 16 and somebody wins by 40 because the opponent has a ton of injuries to major players is rewarded as much as a win by 40 in week 8, between two eventual playoff teams at full strength? Betting? Sure, why not have "dominant wins" in Vegas, though it's not like there aren't enough options already!!! But tie breakers and draft slots? Not for me.

Not to mention if some top NFL talent gets injured in the 4th quarter of a 54-13 blowout, how is that good for the league? If team A dominates team B, both know it regardless of the score. Fans know it too. We got dominated by Arizona and they only won by 17. In a way, Arizona got dominated by Green Bay on Thursday, all things considered. That was a 3 point game. They trailed twice by 10 in the second half because they couldn't run and they couldn't stop Green Bay's run game. If Green Bay puts it in the endzone twice from inside the 5 instead of only getting 3 points total for both drives, it's a 14 point game. When does a 3 point loss feel like a 14 point loss? When you get dominated.

 

[Mackeyser]

So... um... how are folks feeling about those Dominant Wins now???

We coulda had one today if that was a thing, but instead of putting our dominance on display for the league, we shit the bed with reserves in the 4th quarter giving up over 200 yards and THREE TDS... that's completely unacceptable.

As for questions regarding "what if a star player got injured"? I addressed that as a risk that HCs would have to evaluate. Can they get a Dominant Win and is it worth the chance? HCs make all sorts of those calls every game. This would be no different.

I just know that I'd 10000% rather have a Dominant Win system than this BS of shit football because one team was dominant for 3 quarters...

Just feels to me that this game exactly validated why I was thinking of this.

 

[dieterbrock]

So a team like New England, playing in the worst division in football for about 15 years, would have gotten 6 chances for a "dominant win" while teams like the NFC West this year wouldnt? Seems a bit silly to me.
Personally, I find a shutout to be a more dominant win that a runaway blowout

 

[Mackeyser]

So a team like New England, playing in the worst division in football for about 15 years, would have gotten 6 chances for a "dominant win" while teams like the NFC West this year wouldnt? Seems a bit silly to me.
Personally, I find a shutout to be a more dominant win that a runaway blowout

A shutout likely means the D wasn't sat, that's all.

A 50 point differential means the O wasn't sat.

Fans and the NFL prefer scoring. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but part of getting to that 50 point differential is the D can't be giving up points.

After this game, I'm doubling down on my Dominant Wins idea. We coulda had the game over midway through the 4th quarter and likely preserved the shutout.

 

[dieterbrock]

A shutout likely means the D wasn't sat, that's all.

A 50 point differential means the O wasn't sat.

Fans and the NFL prefer scoring. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but part of getting to that 50 point differential is the D can't be giving up points.

After this game, I'm doubling down on my Dominant Wins idea. We coulda had the game over midway through the 4th quarter and likely preserved the shutout.

I'd rather have Stafford safely tucked away at 38-0 rather than chasing an asterisk
I guess I dont see where the tie breaker hasnt been fair, why any change would be needed much less something so obscure. Imagine the outrage of a backdoor cover when a team up 53 gives up a hail mary at the final whistle?

 

[Mackeyser]

It's not about the tie breaker being fair or unfair.

It's EXACTLY to address games like this. Teams now have ZERO incentive to win by 50 and within the coaching fraternity, it's considered really bad.

Fantasy players who make up the largest percentage of new fans would love it because the star players lose no snaps.
Vegas would love it because it gives another thing to gamble on.

Also, if a team is up 53 under my proposal, the game is OVER. A team wouldn't be able to ruin that with a last minute anything.

As well, it actually is more advantageous for teams in competitive divisions because it is there that often multiple tiebreakers are needed to determine playoff seeding.

Lastly, the NFL coaches and FO live by the "you play to win the game". We saw that with the Jets last year. Fans consider tanking and it happens in the NBA, but rarely in the NFL, so I don't see teams tanking in less than competitive divisions being willing to allow another team to beat them by 50. That's just not a part of the NFL mythos.

 

[dieterbrock]

It's EXACTLY to address games like this. Teams now have ZERO incentive to win by 50 and within the coaching fraternity, it's considered really bad.

Fantasy players who make up the largest percentage of new fans would love it because the star players lose no snaps.
Vegas would love it because it gives another thing to gamble on.

But the game is played by players, not fantasy football bettors.
Seal the win. Keeping starters in a game that has been won in order to run up the score isnt football. Gain an asterisk but lose your QB who gets a cheap shot by a defense who's been humiliated for 3.5 Q? Nah....

Also, if a team is up 53 under my proposal, the game is OVER. A team wouldn't be able to ruin that with a last minute anything.

Games are 60 minutes. Players get game checks. If a game is over after 3Q then why pay the players a full game check? I'm sure advertising dollars paid at a premium for 4th Q wouldnt be just refunded....

Again, I like the creativity, I just dont see where tie-breakers have given unfavorable outcomes and a need to revise it.
Heck, with the advent of the 17th game, I am looking forward to seeing more of the backups getting more game action to try and limit over exposure. Today is a perfect example. I've never thought Wolford was worthy of a backup spot, and if his play this season is more indicative of his potential than the pontificated success from last year, its better for the team

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

Like 36win, I like 2 and 3 but not "dominant wins". Some coaches sit their guys late in games but not because of some unwritten rule. They want to preserve their health. Not only is it welcome but it's smart. The Biscuit Risker runs it up whenever possible. And with a 44 year old QB, that's just dumb. And where's the line for "dominant wins"? 50 pts? 40 pts? 30 pts? Now we're getting into a tough area. Are their levels of dominance regardless of the scoreboard? Sure.

50 point wins rarely happen. 0 so far this year. 40 points is rare too. Twice. Once by New England over the Jets 54-13 and Buffalo over Houston 40-0. Which win was more dominant? I like the 40-zip over 54-13. 30 plus has happened 3 times. Buffalo (again) 35-0 over Miami. TB over Chicago 38-3. Saints over Green Bay 38-3. Were either of those last 2 more dominant? Is beating the Justin Fields-led Bears by 35 as dominant as beating the Rodgers-led Packers by 35?

And what about "time of year"? Week 16 and somebody wins by 40 because the opponent has a ton of injuries to major players is rewarded as much as a win by 40 in week 8, between two eventual playoff teams at full strength? Betting? Sure, why not have "dominant wins" in Vegas, though it's not like there aren't enough options already!!! But tie breakers and draft slots? Not for me.

Not to mention if some top NFL talent gets injured in the 4th quarter of a 54-13 blowout, how is that good for the league? If team A dominates team B, both know it regardless of the score. Fans know it too. We got dominated by Arizona and they only won by 17. In a way, Arizona got dominated by Green Bay on Thursday, all things considered. That was a 3 point game. They trailed twice by 10 in the second half because they couldn't run and they couldn't stop Green Bay's run game. If Green Bay puts it in the endzone twice from inside the 5 instead of only getting 3 points total for both drives, it's a 14 point game. When does a 3 point loss feel like a 14 point loss? When you get dominated.

Good points. I do get bored watching the third and fourth quarter clock grinds, but I guess its a better long term plan.

Maybe we should have Cheerleader strip tease whenever McVay goes vanilla late in games. Just to keep fans engaged of course.

 

[Mackeyser]

So the NFL should go minor league baseball to entertain fans as opposed to… um… I dunno… giving teams a further incentive to play the most exciting sport at the highest level?

I mean… I haven’t seen a good midget race in awhile…

 

[PARAM]

So the NFL should go minor league baseball to entertain fans as opposed to… um… I dunno… giving teams a further incentive to play the most exciting sport at the highest level?

I mean… I haven’t seen a good midget race in awhile…

If it's already the most exciting sport......and I agree, it is........what are fans complaining about? I don't want to see Aaron Donald blow out a knee in a 38-something win. I want to see the backups playing with hopes 1 or 2 can prove reliable and show their talents.