skinsWill
05-24-2007, 05:26 PM
I wanted to post this in here bc. i looked everywhere and could find a link to prove it. I heard on Total Access that the leauge could be considering playing conf. championship games on neutral sites like the super bowl, taking away any "homefeild advantage". I cant believe they are even CONSIDERING doing this!! I mean its bad enough you take weather out of the superbowl but the Conf championships too? this is rediculous i wanted to make sure that everyone felt this way... I cant even come up with 1 REAL advantage for doing this.
Gmanc711
05-25-2007, 01:09 PM
That would be maybe the worst thing ever. If this is true, for every good thing Godell has done so far, he seems to have another idea that just makes me want to clock him.
Horrible idea if it's true.
ArtMonkDrillz
05-25-2007, 01:17 PM
So that would mean that your reward for ending the regular season with the best record in your conference would be a single home playoff game and a slightly nicer locker room in one of about 6 possible sites for the championship game. Sounds like a really swell plan, Rog.
ArtMonkDrillz
05-25-2007, 01:35 PM
I feel like this rule would probably also favor the NFC in terms of useable sites a bit too much to be fair to the rest of the league.
Assuming that the championship games are played at sites that represent the conference, meaning that you won't have the NFC game in an AFC city, there are more possible sites for the NFC to use. This is also assuming you want to try to eliminate the weather as a factor, like they do with the Super Bowl.
For the NFC the following teams' stadiums could host: Arizona, Atlanta, Dallas (once the new stadium is built), Detroit, Minnesota, New Orleans, St. Louis, and Tampa Bay.
For the AFC you have: San Diego, Indy, Houston, Miami, and Jacksonville.
I don't know if this is a big deal, but I would think that it's something they have to consider.
Of course the new commissioner's office will probably just schedule all playoff games and the Super Bowl in other countries by the year 2014, so then it won't really matter at all.
saden1
05-25-2007, 01:55 PM
In principle this is not a bad idea because home field advantage gives teams such a huge advantage. And if you're approaching the game as a championship game then you should play it on a neutral site. I think you'll most certainly separate the really good teams and those that just get by. The only thing I don't like about it is that the home team fans won't be able to go to the game easily.
EARTHQUAKE2689
05-25-2007, 02:07 PM
That would be maybe the worst thing ever. If this is true, for every good thing Godell has done so far, he seems to have another idea that just makes me want to clock him.
that is bascially what i was thinking
skinsfan_nn
05-25-2007, 02:37 PM
No way! I hope that NEVER happens! Talk about robbin the fans!
Mc2guy
05-25-2007, 02:52 PM
In principle this is not a bad idea because home field advantage gives teams such a huge advantage. And if you're approaching the game as a championship game then you should play it on a neutral site. I think you'll most certainly separate the really good teams and those that just get by. The only thing I don't like about it is that the home team fans won't be able to go to the game easily.
Isn't it the point to get homefield advantage when you have the better record? What incentive does a team have to even show up for games if they have zero incentive to win after clinching their division? Imagine a team from a bad conference who has the division won by week 11 or 12. They would have 4 games with no incentive to play to win outside of pride. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.