Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Conference-less Superbowl


Proudiddy

Recommended Posts

I was just thinking after last night's debacle with only one team showing up to play, don't you think if we had the two best teams end up in the Superbowl, regardless of conference, that it almost ensures we wouldn't have this crap happen again?

With all the tweaking Goodell wants to make to the format, why not get rid of conferences? I'm venturing out of my comfort zone here in this discussion, but I suppose you could still keep divisions for incentive and to help determine seeding, but after that, anyone can play anyone because they're not divided by conference.

What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the two best teams did play in the super bowl last night, problem was, only one of them showed up.

 

 

I honestly don't think so, the Niners would have been equally suited to beat the Broncos and even our Panthers would have been in a good position. 

 

Broncos could not get past a team that pressured Manning. 

 

9ers beat us fairly though. NFC Championship was the Superbowl. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see the seeding. Something like the four division winners with best records get the bye week, the two with the best records getting homefield advantage. The remaining four division winners host the wildcard games. The four teams with the best records without winning their divisions are the wildcards. Keep tie breakers as similar as possible to now. Seeding is determined as 1-12 with lowest traveling to highest.

I can see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A blowout in the Superbowl is rare.  The last one I can think of was 11 years ago - Bucs vs Raiders.  I don't think anything needs to change because most of the time the Superbowl is a close game.  I feel like Brady and the Patriots would have put up more of a fight though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...