You're going to have to be a bit more specific than that. How does coming in the bottom 3 impact a team financially compared to coming mid-table?


From what I can tell the only real impact is you get first choice next season on new signings, which is a clear reward for failure. I'm sure you don't sell as many t-shirts as if you had won the superbowl, but I can't imagine there's much of a difference in shirt revenue between a so-so season and a bottom season.


Is there some other mechanism? Because from what I understand there are financial parity rules that make it so you can't outspend your rivals. Is it just profit to the shareholders?

This statement is 100% illogical. More injuries means more potential impact when considering all of the teams. One team can get hit very hard by the injury bug.


There is also just the nature of the game. The passing game requires a group of people working together to really click. The game takes a high level of precission so an injury can seriously hurt that precission.


The season is not that long. It is not baseball with a ton of games where injuries have a chance of evening out.


On defense there is also a need for leadership. You lose your defensive leader and it can be very hard to recover. The QB is the leader on O but many teams rely on a leader on D. Brian Urlacher on the Bears for example.


Your injury angle is illogical and ignorant. I have explained this to you already but you are deaf to reason. Your mind is made up so you are stuck on stupid.


This is just one issue out of many that make football a horrible choice for the system you talked about. I am all for a minor league for football though. There is definitely a need for one in large part due to the fact that non starters don't get enough game time. If anything a minor league system could be used to help deal with those injury issues. It is hard to know how good your backup QB is when they only face real competition in the preseason or when the starter is hurt.


Bottom line is that I could create a big long post telling you why you are wrong or I can just point and laugh. Either way you are obviously wrong and not changing.


I am even open to the idea for other sports. Soccer, baseball, even basketball has some potential. The major problem is that the system kind of implies a lack of parity built into the system. The strength of the NFL is the parity of their system and they should try and make it even more even IMO.

 

-----signature-----

No I'm not.

 

-----signature-----

But if there are more injuries, that is true for all teams and all positions. If you know you have a 50% chance of loosing 1, 2 or 3 key players you are going to want to have strong back up players for those positions.

If there are less injuries and you are looking at a 5% chance of needing 1 or 2 back up players for key positions - then you aren't going to spend the money to make sure all key positions have strong back up players. It just isn't finally a good decision because all those strong back up players are going to spend 95% of their time riding pine.


Failing to understand this basic concept aside - I am not sure what it has to do with the relegation argument.


Over all relegation will never work in the US because the overhaul needed to make it succeed is too massive. And smaller local teams wouldn't get much support because they aren't getting massive coverage on TV and that's where most Americans learn what they like and don't like.

 

-----signature-----

No, you just arn't making any sense. Soccer is more of a passing game than football, and relegation works fine. I have never seen anyone complain that relegation is unfair because of injuries. It is a novel and from the way you have made it not a very convincing argument.


Injuries being more common leads to less likeliehood of any one injury being decisive over the course of a single season. This is just math. For someone who professes some understanding of statistics you sure don't seem to grasp some basic concepts when they are applied to sports. More injuries may result in greater impact across all the teams but relegations depend on standing between teams not the record of all teams. If everyone is likely to lose a key player or two over the course of an average season that is less likely to dramatically impact the record of any one team than if only one key player in the whole league is likely to get injured.

Football is a game of specialists. Soccer, not so much. Losing a lineman might not make a difference. Losing a key receiver or QB makes a huge difference.

 

-----signature-----

You are still stuck on stupid.


First off to buttercup. More injuries means that mathematically one team can be hit really hard by injuries while another isn't. When 1 in 5 players get hurt then the chance one team gets demolished by injuries is greater than if 1 in 10 are injured. The relatively small amount of games also concentrates the impact of an injury.


You also mention backups. This is a stupid comment for multiple reasons. The most obvious is the QB position. This alone makes your statement laughable but it is not just that. The NFL has a ton of parity which means that most teams have a weakness in their starting line up. The idea that they can have a very deep bench just doesn't work, especially when combined with the nature of the game. Every team will be looking for backups at all of their positions.


Like I already said a minor league will help with this issue because it will give the teams a way to develop second tier talent outside of having players ride the pine.


Another way to look at your stupid claim about injuries is to reverse the logic. Does less injuries in a support make relegation more or less arbitrary and based on injuries?


Yuki, soccer is a game where everyone passes to one another where the defense tends to sit back and doesn't strongly contest passes until they get closer to the goal. Football is a game of one guy passing to others with everyone trying to stop the completion of the pass. Almost half the offense on every play is dedicated to simply keeping the passer standing.


I see Yuki's problem with the math. You are assuming wrongly that the injuries and the impact of them are evenly distributed. They are not. The more injuries the more likely the impact is not evenly distributed.


The fact is if premier teams in soccer were being relegated then they wouldn't have such a system. Soccer relies on the lack of parity in their system to support relegation. This is another reason why football is not a good candidate but baseball is.

 

-----signature-----

That doesn't make sense. The greater the number of injuries per season the more likely injuries are to even out over the course of a season. If you flip a coin 50 times you're more likely to end closer to 50% heads 50% tails than if you flip a coin 5 times.


And defense in football is if anything probably easier to coordinate than soccer if you have to bring in an alternate player. The thing about soccer is you can't stop the play to sort people out. If someone who doesn't normally play in the team is lost and not keeping their defensive shape you can't just give them a talking to 15 seconds later like you can in football. You are stuck with them for 45 minutes. The scores are also higher so one individual mistake is less likely to determine the game. If one player switches off for 5 seconds in soccer and lets a goal in more likely than not the game is going to turn out differently because of it. In football the generally higher scoring makes any one mistake less likely to be decisive.


A lot of your objections only make sense in the context of the current system where teams have no need to fear bad performances and therefore don't prepare for the worst. If there was the threat of relegation teams would work more on all of the objections you raise and things would work themselves out.

 

-----signature-----

This conversation would be easier if you were not so clueless about football.


In terms of massively impactful injuries the NFL is more like the 5 times flip. For example the QB position. The odds of a small number of QB injuries in a given year are pretty good but the majority of teams will survive this fate in any given year. These injuries are not a total death sentence for a team but they can be.


When talking about the high number of injuries in the NFL I am really talking about all players. In this example you have a large number of player (21+) per team and the impact of any given player is not that significant compared to the QB. So large number of players with less significant impact.


In this scenario a small number of injuries, say 30 distributed over 32 teams and 640+ players, would not be a big deal because the impact of any given injury is not that big. In order to have a significant impact you would have to have a team with significantly more injuries than the average where the impact of injuries can be magnified.


In the NFL one team could have 7 more injuries than the average. That can sink a season in many cases. Especially for a team that is not that good in the first place. Plus the league is very competitive so the margin of error is not that big.


So once again, in conclusion the impact of the QB and the frequency of injuries in the NFL make it a bad candidate for relegation.

 

-----signature-----