well I hate the idea of expansion but I know his thinking. It is money. More from tv and more at the gate. The first and second place teams that are now getting a bye are certainly teams that will sell out those games.

So much for player safety being paramount.

A couple of interesting things could happen. The bye teams won't get that 2 week lull (assuming most clinch rest their starters in week 17 plus the normal playoff bye week.) so they will have a better chance of winning their opening and second round games. The flip side would be a pretty good team that struggled be it injury or just unlucky breaks would make the playoffs and maybe they would get hot and roll in the championship game or even SB. Luck would prob be a huge factor for a 7th or 8th seed to knock off a 1 or 2 seed.

but I still hate it. This ain't the NHL or NBA.

The contradictions that are the Commish.

Player safety and reducing the impacts of hits is vital to the game.

vs.

Lets add more games, thus more hits along the way, to the league.


It isn't about fan value, it isn't that the fans are screaming we need more. It is the concept that the owners think they can squeeze more green blood from the stone.

Never mind they are neutering the game in the process of the current slate of games. Creating rule to promote more scoring; and when the defenses adjust.. add more layers of rules to promote scoring. Making the hit zone an unrealistic target more and more by the week because they are getting bent over backwards in litigation.

Yet, adding more games to the slate seems to be the importance?

Reality is... the owners know they are going to get spanked in court very soon and don't want a dip in the bottom line of their cash flow, so why not take more off the backs of fans and the TV networks.

Considering all the talk about how teams often come out flat after the bye, I could stand to see it go away especially since it's meant as a reward for the top two seeds in each conference, not a punishment. But we don't need more teams in the playoffs.

The Peter Principle lives.

Not exactly true, and irrelevant on this topic. The Commish does not make these rules changes.

If it comes to dispute between a player and team, or between two teams, the commish is to be impartial and according the the leagues rules and by laws. But in this case and most of the cases where he gets the blame, he doesn't have the power.

Like the player and officials lockouts. The commish could not prevent, or resolve them, even though he was blamed for them happening. It was his job to negotiate for the Owners. Not to be impartial. He could negotiate a perfect set of conditions, but he doesn't get a vote to approve the agreement. Rules changes, he doesn't make them. That is the competition committe and ownership. Sure he gives his opinion, but doesn't get a vote. When they pass a rule that says, a QB can't be hit in the head, it is the commishes job to make sure the rules are enforced.

Tagliabue's decision was PR. I suspect he thinks the commish went to far in punishment, but also that punishment was warranted. But it was not Goodells job to be impartial, it was his job to act in what he thought was the best interest of the game

I personally think he has gone to far with fines as of late, and with his punishment of bountygate. And will criticize him for that. But not for something he doesn't control just because he is the face in front of the mic.

The changes are made by the Owners, however, the commissioner presents many possible solutions or changes. Therefore the commissioner is NOT absolved of accountability in HIS outlandish suggestions that are made public.

There is no mistake about it, he, the commissioner wants to put HIS stamp on the NFL and changes.

Okay.. yes the thread title is bouncing it.


But I concur with your statement of facts, but it is not perception.

Now, on the fines and hits being fined. The rule is no helmet to helmet contact, but it is under his watch that they are inconsistently enforcing that rule. It is under his watch that they are determining which hits are being subject to discipline, including the threat of suspension to Ed Reed early this season.

So no, he cannot be absolved of that, while he might not be directly associated with the rulings.. it is upon his watch with input decided by partially of people appointed by him.