PDA

View Full Version : Neutral Sites for Conference title games?


I-Want-Troy's-Hair
03-30-2009, 05:47 PM
WTF - What a bunch of crap is this.....God-ell is a freaking idiot....don't like the weather in Jan/Feb....bite me - :mad:

Neutral Sites For Conference Title Games?
Posted by Mike Florio on March 30, 2009, 10:24 a.m.

With the NFL possibly expanding the regular season and with the NFL not inclined to start the regular season earlier than it already does, the conference championship games could be moved deeper into each new year.

As Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reports, there’s a chance that the AFC and NFC title games could land in February, during one of the all-important ratings “sweeps” periods.

(As we’ve previously pointed out, the Super Bowl also could end up being played on President’s Day weekend, giving many football fans the ability to stay up late and/or get snookered without having to worry about getting up for work the next day. Reports surfaced last week that such a move likely would prompt NASCAR to move the Daytona 500, which historically occurs that same day.)

Given that the weather only gets worse in cities like Green Bay and Chicago and New York and Foxborough and Pittsburgh and Buffalo as January gives way to early February, Mullen points out that the championship games could be moved to a neutral site.

We don’t like this possibility. Not one bit. Especially since the teams that regularly play in the potential neutral sites would potential have an unfair advantage, if they qualify for one of the games.

The only way to avoid such an outcome would be to send the AFC game to stadiums in which an NFC team normally plays its home games, and to send the NFC game to an AFC stadium.

Even then, it might be a challenge to sell the games out in a neutral location — and it would be grossly unfair to the fans of the team that secures the right to host the championship game.

Besides, winter is football weather. And if anyone thinks that freezing conditions create an unfair advantage for the home team, ask Packers fans what they got in exchange for free-drying their cajones for three-plus hours in January 2008.

PFT Planet, feel free to chime in on this one. (As if you ever need an invitation to do so.)

profootballtalk.com

KeiselPower99
03-30-2009, 06:12 PM
That is complete crap. I dont want a longer regular season I dont want neutral sites for conference title games. This is football. You hit each other you play in cold weather. This commish has got to go.

PisnNapalm
03-30-2009, 06:12 PM
OH HELL NO!!!

tony hipchest
03-30-2009, 06:47 PM
pretty c0cky for the NFL to shit all ove NASCARs "superbowl" like that. i mean who the hell do they think they are? just start the regular season 2 weeks earlier. :dang:

and the neutral site idea is bogus too. if it actually comes down to it i guess they could give LA 2 games a year and finally forget moving (wasting) a franchise out there.

Steeler in Carolina
03-30-2009, 07:15 PM
Who cares about President Day weekend as the Super Bowl. Most of America still works that day. Heck, even school was in session in my town.

RoethlisBURGHer
03-30-2009, 08:05 PM
OH HELL NO.

The top seed remaining earns the right to play the conference championship game in their home stadium.

If a team doesn't like playing in the cold and snow, they should have played better to get a top seed.

How fair would it be for the Steelers to have to play a team that's very finesse as the home team in say, Houston...where playing it Pittsburgh weather would be an advantage to the Steelers.

I wouldn't be very happy with that at all.

nojobny
03-30-2009, 09:46 PM
He's just lost his mind. Those owners better knock some sense into him - FAST!

lilyoder6
03-30-2009, 10:33 PM
that would completely be stupid if that happened... then there would be no sense for seeding in the playoffs...

BrandonCarr39
03-31-2009, 12:28 AM
I read somewhere that only about 1/2 of the teams that hosted the CC games won.

I mean really-HFA didn't really matter THAT much in the CC games, so why would neutral sites make any more of a difference?

pittsburghp8baller
03-31-2009, 01:46 AM
yea im pretty sure this gets laughed at when brought up.

HughC
03-31-2009, 02:17 AM
The thing we're forgetting is that if - and it is a big if - the season gets extended to 17 or 18 games, then it is not only a possibility, but a probability. Steelers adapting to weather in Miami in January or February is no problem; the reverse is not true. Besides Miami not liking the current format, the NFL competition commitee is going to get involved. And the NFL already makes a bundle by getting cities to bid against each other for the Super Bowl; why wouldn't they do the same thing for the playoffs? Especially if they're not going to end - I mean start - until February.

Galax Steeler
03-31-2009, 03:47 AM
That would just plain suck. The only thing I can say is that a team should play well enough to have the home field advantage. This is what the teams play for during the season. Someone has lost there minds.

xfl2001fan
03-31-2009, 06:04 AM
I read somewhere that only about 1/2 of the teams that hosted the CC games won.

I mean really-HFA didn't really matter THAT much in the CC games, so why would neutral sites make any more of a difference?

Let's thake this past year as an example.

Pittsburgh had the best seeding in the conference game, right? They should have home field advantage.

Imagine if, say, the Pittsburgh game was moved out of Pittsburgh and into...Houston. The City of Pittsburgh just lost a ton of money (and it's money they'll never have a chance it in the future either) because they are a "cold weather team" that doesn't play in a dome. How is that fair? Suddenly, because they prefer to play football the way it was meant to be played (who cares about weather conditions, let's just go play)...they aren't entitled to the monies/royalties of hosting a playoff game?

It's bad enough Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Buffalo have no shot at hosting a Superbowl...but this is even more rediculous.

KeiselPower99
03-31-2009, 08:25 AM
Let's thake this past year as an example.

Pittsburgh had the best seeding in the conference game, right? They should have home field advantage.

Imagine if, say, the Pittsburgh game was moved out of Pittsburgh and into...Houston. The City of Pittsburgh just lost a ton of money (and it's money they'll never have a chance it in the future either) because they are a "cold weather team" that doesn't play in a dome. How is that fair? Suddenly, because they prefer to play football the way it was meant to be played (who cares about weather conditions, let's just go play)...they aren't entitled to the monies/royalties of hosting a playoff game?

It's bad enough Pittsburgh/Cleveland/Buffalo have no shot at hosting a Superbowl...but this is even more rediculous.

He is wanting to make cities more money but cities that are cold weather are gonna lose money because of this. Warm weather cities have year round tourism where say Pittsburgh Green Bay New England and Cleveland tourism would be down during the winter. Having the chance to hot NFL playoff games is a boost for the local economy. The greatest game of all time is known as the Ice Bowl. Do yall know why?? Exactley the weather. Playing for HFA is important if you dont wanna go up north in the playoffs. He is changing the game for the wrong reasons.

CanadianSteel
03-31-2009, 09:12 AM
Ya I heard this nonsense being discussed on the radio the other day.... complete rubbish....why play to win your division and for a bye only to have the champs game taken away... friggin joke...

fansince'76
03-31-2009, 10:28 AM
Don't like it, but I haven't agreed with much, if anything, that the current commissioner has done or proposed. I've become so accustomed to vehemently disagreeing with everything the bozo says and does that I'm to the point that I don't really even get mad anymore. I've resigned myself to the fact that for whatever reason he's hell-bent on destroying the league with his stupidity and greed.

steelreserve
03-31-2009, 03:17 PM
I think the only fair thing to do is to move the AFC title to a neutral site if anyone is supposed to host it except New England. In fact, why wait for them to expand the season to 18 games -- they should do it now!

Muppet13
03-31-2009, 06:24 PM
:banging::pissed::hmmph:

SteelShooter
03-31-2009, 06:45 PM
PPPPPPFFFFfffffffffffffffffffffffttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would that not give an advantage then to a "warm weather Team?"