|
Post by Jaws the Shark on May 17, 2021 17:45:45 GMT -5
Cricket - All matches, minus test matches, are T20 I was once a proponent of this too because it always felt like it was in format purgatory, neither one nor the other, but I've grown to appreciate fifty-over cricket a little more.
I would love to see it rejiggered a bit at domestic level though, so the old C&G/NatWest Trophy format comes back and it's knockouts with the minor counties involved too. And played in whites with a red ball, like it used to be.
|
|
Zone Was Wrong
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Currently living off the high that AEW brings every Wednesday and Friday
Posts: 16,064
|
Post by Zone Was Wrong on May 17, 2021 18:32:40 GMT -5
Permanently eradicate the "designated hitter" rule. Counter point, make the designated hitter universal. Watching pitchers bat is painful to watch. Carlos Martinez looks like he's going to hurt himself with each swing.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on May 19, 2021 4:33:22 GMT -5
Permanently eradicate the "designated hitter" rule. Counter point, make the designated hitter universal. Watching pitchers bat is painful to watch. Carlos Martinez looks like he's going to hurt himself with each swing. Only if it’s the “double hook” DH: you get to have a DH only as long as your starting pitcher is in the game. After that, you have to manage like it’s a current NL game.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,021
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on May 19, 2021 10:22:27 GMT -5
yeah good luck getting players to agree to that especially in Baseball where those players make a ton of money The players wouldn't go for it, but the owners FOR SURE wouldn't go for it. Imagine paying some insane franchise fee or franchise valuation only to not be in the majors after 5 or 10 years. This is a what would you change, not what could actually change thread. Assuming godlike powers, put it on, and you're bottom of the league, the best AAA team replaces you. Players don't like it? Should have played better. Owners don't? Should have managed your team better, tough. Hell, these things work themselves out. Ok, so one guy bought a big franchise and it tanked, someone else buys a AA one cheaper, through good recruiting and management they turn it into a major league one, that's the story and romance of the game. In 10 years, 7/20 teams are different in the Premier League, you have your big teams that are always there, but you get to play different teams, different parts of the country, build something from the ground up. Plus it spreads the game, instead of a number of fixed locations, you can have a pyramid where your local team might be in the 2nd, 3rd tier, but if they put it together and get to the top.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on May 19, 2021 11:05:11 GMT -5
The players wouldn't go for it, but the owners FOR SURE wouldn't go for it. Imagine paying some insane franchise fee or franchise valuation only to not be in the majors after 5 or 10 years. This is a what would you change, not what could actually change thread. Assuming godlike powers, put it on, and you're bottom of the league, the best AAA team replaces you. Players don't like it? Should have played better. Owners don't? Should have managed your team better, tough. Hell, these things work themselves out. Ok, so one guy bought a big franchise and it tanked, someone else buys a AA one cheaper, through good recruiting and management they turn it into a major league one, that's the story and romance of the game. In 10 years, 7/20 teams are different in the Premier League, you have your big teams that are always there, but you get to play different teams, different parts of the country, build something from the ground up. Plus it spreads the game, instead of a number of fixed locations, you can have a pyramid where your local team might be in the 2nd, 3rd tier, but if they put it together and get to the top. I mean, it's just not feasible. NA sports, for the most part, simply do not work like that. You could go all sorts of ways if we wanted to know what people would like to see that would never work. I would love to see an all-linemen football league: the BBFL, it'd be hilarious. Linemen as QBs, linemen as CBs, linemen as referees. But that doesn't preclude me from thinking that it is a dumb and unrealistic idea. If you think the A's and Rays don't have money to extend their talented players, do you really expect ACTUAL minor league owners to give someone $100+ million dollars when that's lets say 50x their operating budget for a year? I think the idea is coming up with rules that would improve the leagues. This is ambitious (at best) to improve, but would absolutely fail spectacularly. It's like the people that want a March Madness style tournament for college football because you enjoy that more; seemingly not realizing the giant change in dynamic being worse for the sport because it simply isn't that sport you like more. It lacks self-awareness. You'd essentially be replacing the bottom MLB teams with worse, more hamstrung teams and owners, while making the Pirates sell tickets to them playing against a Triple A team, a somehow even less appealing idea than going to their games now. The only way that it would "sort itself out" is over a very long period of time, while needing a lot more millionaires to invest a lot more in what people already think may be a dying sport. Higher end Triple A teams would need large investors, which if that's the ask, why not just say these these underspending or perennial underachieving franchises need new ownership/more stable markets? We've seen how much Premier League fans love having NA owners and their leverage tactics, why would anyone think another exchange in the sports world is needed?
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,021
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on May 19, 2021 11:38:45 GMT -5
This is a what would you change, not what could actually change thread. Assuming godlike powers, put it on, and you're bottom of the league, the best AAA team replaces you. Players don't like it? Should have played better. Owners don't? Should have managed your team better, tough. Hell, these things work themselves out. Ok, so one guy bought a big franchise and it tanked, someone else buys a AA one cheaper, through good recruiting and management they turn it into a major league one, that's the story and romance of the game. In 10 years, 7/20 teams are different in the Premier League, you have your big teams that are always there, but you get to play different teams, different parts of the country, build something from the ground up. Plus it spreads the game, instead of a number of fixed locations, you can have a pyramid where your local team might be in the 2nd, 3rd tier, but if they put it together and get to the top. I mean, it's just not feasible. NA sports, for the most part, simply do not work like that. You could go all sorts of ways if we wanted to know what people would like to see that would never work. I would love to see an all-linemen football league: the BBFL, it'd be hilarious. Linemen as QBs, linemen as CBs, linemen as referees. But that doesn't preclude me from thinking that it is a dumb and unrealistic idea. If you think the A's and Rays don't have money to extend their talented players, do you really expect ACTUAL minor league owners to give someone $100+ million dollars when that's lets say 50x their operating budget for a year? I think the idea is coming up with rules that would improve the leagues. This is ambitious (at best) to improve, but would absolutely fail spectacularly. It's like the people that want a March Madness style tournament for college football because you enjoy that more; seemingly not realizing the giant change in dynamic being worse for the sport because it simply isn't that sport you like more. It lacks self-awareness. You'd essentially be replacing the bottom MLB teams with worse, more hamstrung teams and owners, while making the Pirates sell tickets to them playing against a Triple A team, a somehow even less appealing idea than going to their games now. The only way that it would "sort itself out" is over a very long period of time, while needing a lot more millionaires to invest a lot more in what people already think may be a dying sport. Higher end Triple A teams would need large investors, which if that's the ask, why not just say these these underspending or perennial underachieving franchises need new ownership/more stable markets? We've seen how much Premier League fans love having NA owners and their leverage tactics, why would anyone think another exchange in the sports world is needed? Oh reality it'd never work, the systems are too entrenched, there's too much money involved, but again, this is about what people would change, not what will, because 99% of anything in this thread will never happen. It'd take decades to change mindsets, but things like those lower teams with no money, well, if their games actually mattered, might spark interest, bring in more people. Why support a local team that will never get anywhere because it's locked out of the club. But a local team where there's the potential for growth, and the potential for heartbreak, sounds a bit more appealing to me.
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,277
|
Post by Push R Truth on May 19, 2021 12:33:36 GMT -5
NBA and Flopping:
Because I don't want to see every game grinding to a halt because of replaying flops, I'd like to see the NBA have a central office that reviews potential flops during the game. If determine a player flopped: the next dead ball in the game, any foul called on the determined flop is reversed (the foul is taken from the flopping victim and given to the flopper AND an additional technical foul is assessed to the flopper).
Once a player is assessed 3 flops in a season, they have to wear a neon pink jersey that says "FLOPPER", refs are encouraged to whistle them for flopping now without the replay... and they lose the benefit of drawing a charge.
98% of all flopping would disappear within 1 season.
********* Additionally if you take a jump shot and kick your feet into the defender to draw a foul, that's a kicking foul. Every time you do it you gain a counter. When you have a counter, Defenders have the right to level you when you take a shot. When you hit the floor, a counter is removed.
|
|
|
Post by sfvega on May 19, 2021 13:41:20 GMT -5
I mean, it's just not feasible. NA sports, for the most part, simply do not work like that. You could go all sorts of ways if we wanted to know what people would like to see that would never work. I would love to see an all-linemen football league: the BBFL, it'd be hilarious. Linemen as QBs, linemen as CBs, linemen as referees. But that doesn't preclude me from thinking that it is a dumb and unrealistic idea. If you think the A's and Rays don't have money to extend their talented players, do you really expect ACTUAL minor league owners to give someone $100+ million dollars when that's lets say 50x their operating budget for a year? I think the idea is coming up with rules that would improve the leagues. This is ambitious (at best) to improve, but would absolutely fail spectacularly. It's like the people that want a March Madness style tournament for college football because you enjoy that more; seemingly not realizing the giant change in dynamic being worse for the sport because it simply isn't that sport you like more. It lacks self-awareness. You'd essentially be replacing the bottom MLB teams with worse, more hamstrung teams and owners, while making the Pirates sell tickets to them playing against a Triple A team, a somehow even less appealing idea than going to their games now. The only way that it would "sort itself out" is over a very long period of time, while needing a lot more millionaires to invest a lot more in what people already think may be a dying sport. Higher end Triple A teams would need large investors, which if that's the ask, why not just say these these underspending or perennial underachieving franchises need new ownership/more stable markets? We've seen how much Premier League fans love having NA owners and their leverage tactics, why would anyone think another exchange in the sports world is needed? Oh reality it'd never work, the systems are too entrenched, there's too much money involved, but again, this is about what people would change, not what will, because 99% of anything in this thread will never happen. It'd take decades to change mindsets, but things like those lower teams with no money, well, if their games actually mattered, might spark interest, bring in more people. Why support a local team that will never get anywhere because it's locked out of the club. But a local team where there's the potential for growth, and the potential for heartbreak, sounds a bit more appealing to me. I mean, even getting past the money, which is the hangup for most of these ideas (top 4 NBA conference playoffs, singular belt boxing, etc) this is an unequivocally bad idea. Universal DH was and maybe still is an unpopular idea, but it would obviously replace some very bad baseball with better baseball, which I think is the idea for this moreso than wild, wacky ways to imagine sports. Spider said unpopular, but ultimately better. This falls under both unpopular and a net negative. Would it make a great Angels in the Outfield style Disney movie about a small town team playing in the bigs with surrrrprising results? Yeah, sure. Is it anywhere near a positive idea for the sport? Easily no.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on May 20, 2021 8:19:55 GMT -5
NBA and Flopping: Because I don't want to see every game grinding to a halt because of replaying flops, I'd like to see the NBA have a central office that reviews potential flops during the game. If determine a player flopped: the next dead ball in the game, any foul called on the determined flop is reversed (the foul is taken from the flopping victim and given to the flopper AND an additional technical foul is assessed to the flopper). Once a player is assessed 3 flops in a season, they have to wear a neon pink jersey that says "FLOPPER", refs are encouraged to whistle them for flopping now without the replay... and they lose the benefit of drawing a charge. 98% of all flopping would disappear within 1 season. ********* Additionally if you take a jump shot and kick your feet into the defender to draw a foul, that's a kicking foul. Every time you do it you gain a counter. When you have a counter, Defenders have the right to level you when you take a shot. When you hit the floor, a counter is removed. I was just reading a discussing about changes to baseball, which includes a talk about how the NBA has evolved over the years. It was interesting seeing people older than me talking about how the late 80s/early 90s Pistons and 90s Knicks "ruined" the game for them with the aggressive defensive play that was allowed then, yet that's the type of ball I remember actually enjoying when I was growing up. When I try to watch the NBA now I just get annoyed at how any and everything is a foul against whichever team is shooting at that moment and find myself wishing they'd make it harder to nail 3-pointers; I see people saying "it's opened the game up/it's more exciting", and it's probably true, but I actually enjoyed the defensive style back when I was a kid...probably because it led to the Knicks being involved in multiple blood-feuds stemming from all the physicality, which just made some of those games more entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by RI Richmark on May 20, 2021 23:16:14 GMT -5
The players wouldn't go for it, but the owners FOR SURE wouldn't go for it. Imagine paying some insane franchise fee or franchise valuation only to not be in the majors after 5 or 10 years. This is a what would you change, not what could actually change thread. Assuming godlike powers, put it on, and you're bottom of the league, the best AAA team replaces you. Players don't like it? Should have played better. Owners don't? Should have managed your team better, tough. Hell, these things work themselves out. Ok, so one guy bought a big franchise and it tanked, someone else buys a AA one cheaper, through good recruiting and management they turn it into a major league one, that's the story and romance of the game. In 10 years, 7/20 teams are different in the Premier League, you have your big teams that are always there, but you get to play different teams, different parts of the country, build something from the ground up. Plus it spreads the game, instead of a number of fixed locations, you can have a pyramid where your local team might be in the 2nd, 3rd tier, but if they put it together and get to the top. Just curious, how would the draft work?
|
|
|
Post by RI Richmark on May 20, 2021 23:31:52 GMT -5
NBA and Flopping: Because I don't want to see every game grinding to a halt because of replaying flops, I'd like to see the NBA have a central office that reviews potential flops during the game. If determine a player flopped: the next dead ball in the game, any foul called on the determined flop is reversed (the foul is taken from the flopping victim and given to the flopper AND an additional technical foul is assessed to the flopper). Once a player is assessed 3 flops in a season, they have to wear a neon pink jersey that says "FLOPPER", refs are encouraged to whistle them for flopping now without the replay... and they lose the benefit of drawing a charge. 98% of all flopping would disappear within 1 season. Nice idea but it would never be fairly enforced. The league would never embarrass LeBron, Chris Paul or any other all star by having them in a pink jersey. ********* Additionally if you take a jump shot and kick your feet into the defender to draw a foul, that's a kicking foul. Every time you do it you gain a counter. When you have a counter, Defenders have the right to level you when you take a shot. When you hit the floor, a counter is removed. Just curious, why not just give the kicker an offensive foul?
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,021
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on May 21, 2021 4:29:19 GMT -5
This is a what would you change, not what could actually change thread. Assuming godlike powers, put it on, and you're bottom of the league, the best AAA team replaces you. Players don't like it? Should have played better. Owners don't? Should have managed your team better, tough. Hell, these things work themselves out. Ok, so one guy bought a big franchise and it tanked, someone else buys a AA one cheaper, through good recruiting and management they turn it into a major league one, that's the story and romance of the game. In 10 years, 7/20 teams are different in the Premier League, you have your big teams that are always there, but you get to play different teams, different parts of the country, build something from the ground up. Plus it spreads the game, instead of a number of fixed locations, you can have a pyramid where your local team might be in the 2nd, 3rd tier, but if they put it together and get to the top. Just curious, how would the draft work? That would need to be worked out, since we don't have drafts. Players are just hired by clubs, young players tend to come through their own academies, a number of smaller clubs basically make their money by investing lots in youth, then profiting when a bigger club pays them for it, there are loans of players between clubs so a hot prospect can be sent to a lower team to get game time and learn rather than sitting on the bench behind a superstar. There are some agreements between clubs where the bigger one basically gets first pick in exchange for certain benefits, money, support, being the place those hot prospects get sent. I know college sports are their own industry in the States, so this is another aspect that makes this unrealistic. There are (unlikely) options, since teams do have under 21, under 18 levels etc. Colleges could enter those leagues, playing against the main teams' junior levels, hell some teams came out of universities when sports were started here, colleges could make their own pro teams, hold onto their players as pros after graduation then pocket the fees when they're sold off. That would also help expand the league in terms of team numbers and areas, those places that only have a college team, well now they have a pro one and if they can hold onto their players they could build something, not need to wait for an owner to decide to bring a pro team there. But yeah, no way this happens in reality lol
|
|
Spider2024
Patti Mayonnaise
Dedicated 6,666th post to Irontyger
I believe in Joe Hendry.
Posts: 39,200
|
Post by Spider2024 on May 21, 2021 5:42:08 GMT -5
I would give each team a full possession regardless of scoring the first touchdown in overtime. Essentially NCAA rules but full length of field Yes, yes, yes. I've said before here on this forum how bad the current NFL overtime structure is, especially when they changed the OT period to 10 minutes. Even though each side is "guaranteed" one full possession in OT, there have been multiple instances where that didn't quite happen. One team would finally get the ball with like 3 minutes left to go, and they were basically SOL due to time constraints. Stupidly short-sighted (pun intended). I'd change it to basically your idea (which would keep the spirit of the "overtime is basically the game starting all over again" ideal that the league & officials always bring up, while at the same time airing on the side of player safety as well as "getting the game done already") but as a completely untimed quarter. You get the ball once, you score whatever you can score in one possession. Turn it over? Too bad, just hope your D can stop their O and settle for the tie game.
|
|
|
Post by The Barber on May 21, 2021 7:22:24 GMT -5
I'd make hockey have four quarters instead of three. {Spoiler} I'm not a hockey fan, but found it weird that they play three quarters instead of four.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on May 21, 2021 7:35:36 GMT -5
A rule I would love in the NHL is the winning team has to kill off all penalty time if it could result in a team tying the game up. If I'm up a goal with 30 seconds left really how much of a deterrent is it to tackle the guy that would have a shot in front of the net if I just have to kill off 30 seconds of the penalty? That or a penalty shot if the penalty prevents an offensive chance with less then x time remaining.
|
|
Doctor Of Style
King Koopa
Well, first they love me, and then they don't. Sometimes they do it, and sometimes they won't.
Posts: 12,104
|
Post by Doctor Of Style on May 21, 2021 11:28:40 GMT -5
NBA and Flopping: Because I don't want to see every game grinding to a halt because of replaying flops, I'd like to see the NBA have a central office that reviews potential flops during the game. If determine a player flopped: the next dead ball in the game, any foul called on the determined flop is reversed (the foul is taken from the flopping victim and given to the flopper AND an additional technical foul is assessed to the flopper). Once a player is assessed 3 flops in a season, they have to wear a neon pink jersey that says "FLOPPER", refs are encouraged to whistle them for flopping now without the replay... and they lose the benefit of drawing a charge. 98% of all flopping would disappear within 1 season. ********* Additionally if you take a jump shot and kick your feet into the defender to draw a foul, that's a kicking foul. Every time you do it you gain a counter. When you have a counter, Defenders have the right to level you when you take a shot. When you hit the floor, a counter is removed. I was just reading a discussing about changes to baseball, which includes a talk about how the NBA has evolved over the years. It was interesting seeing people older than me talking about how the late 80s/early 90s Pistons and 90s Knicks "ruined" the game for them with the aggressive defensive play that was allowed then, yet that's the type of ball I remember actually enjoying when I was growing up. When I try to watch the NBA now I just get annoyed at how any and everything is a foul against whichever team is shooting at that moment and find myself wishing they'd make it harder to nail 3-pointers; I see people saying "it's opened the game up/it's more exciting", and it's probably true, but I actually enjoyed the defensive style back when I was a kid...probably because it led to the Knicks being involved in multiple blood-feuds stemming from all the physicality, which just made some of those games more entertaining. I agree, the NBA was a lot more fun to watch when it was a physical game. I liked guys fighting it out for a rebound. Today's game with no hand checking is just soft. I don't care anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Triangle Lancer on May 21, 2021 11:56:25 GMT -5
A rule I would love in the NHL is the winning team has to kill off all penalty time if it could result in a team tying the game up. If I'm up a goal with 30 seconds left really how much of a deterrent is it to tackle the guy that would have a shot in front of the net if I just have to kill off 30 seconds of the penalty? That or a penalty shot if the penalty prevents an offensive chance with less then x time remaining. I like that.
|
|
chrom
Backup Wench
Master of the rare undecuple post
Posts: 84,568
Member is Online
|
Post by chrom on May 21, 2021 17:53:05 GMT -5
I was just reading a discussing about changes to baseball, which includes a talk about how the NBA has evolved over the years. It was interesting seeing people older than me talking about how the late 80s/early 90s Pistons and 90s Knicks "ruined" the game for them with the aggressive defensive play that was allowed then, yet that's the type of ball I remember actually enjoying when I was growing up. When I try to watch the NBA now I just get annoyed at how any and everything is a foul against whichever team is shooting at that moment and find myself wishing they'd make it harder to nail 3-pointers; I see people saying "it's opened the game up/it's more exciting", and it's probably true, but I actually enjoyed the defensive style back when I was a kid...probably because it led to the Knicks being involved in multiple blood-feuds stemming from all the physicality, which just made some of those games more entertaining. I agree, the NBA was a lot more fun to watch when it was a physical game. I liked guys fighting it out for a rebound. Today's game with no hand checking is just soft. I don't care anymore. Players today wouldn't last a quarter in the gameplay style the 90s had and if they tried their theatrics the refs during that time would throw them out of the arena.
You'd get the feeling watching the NBA back then that opposing teams hated each other and were geniunely out for blood.
|
|
Doctor Of Style
King Koopa
Well, first they love me, and then they don't. Sometimes they do it, and sometimes they won't.
Posts: 12,104
|
Post by Doctor Of Style on May 22, 2021 11:14:27 GMT -5
Back then,guys were fighting it out. It was a lot more entertaing physical league.
|
|
chrom
Backup Wench
Master of the rare undecuple post
Posts: 84,568
Member is Online
|
Post by chrom on May 23, 2021 13:41:53 GMT -5
Back then,guys were fighting it out. It was a lot more entertaing physical league. If you dunked on someone, you didn't get a high five from them, you'd get body slammed the next time you tried it
|
|