Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekchips.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!tektronix!tekchips!stevev
From: stevev@tekchips.UUCP (Steve Vegdahl)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: rule changes
Message-ID: <471@tekchips.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Dec-83 16:46:49 EST
Article-I.D.: tekchips.471
Posted: Mon Dec 12 16:46:49 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Dec-83 01:42:36 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 62

One rule that I'd like to see is a change in the method of applying
penalties when close to the goal line.  The "half the distance to
the goal rule" sometimes is effectively no penalty at all.  I would
prefer giving the non-offending team the option of either
	1. half the distance to the goal, as is done now
    or
	2. applying the penalty yardage to the first down markers
	    (in the opposite direction, of course)

If the offense has first and 10 at their own 8, and commits a major penalty,
giving them first and 25 at the 8 seems more appropropriate, than first and
14 at the 4.  Similarly, if the defense commits a foul that would have given
the offense a first down, but does not because they are too close to the
goal line, it makes sense that they deserve the option of getting the first
down rather than a small amount of yardage.

On another subject, I've talked to no one who likes the current NFL
tiebreakers scheme.  The Baltimore/New-England situation back in '77 (?)
showed up one of its shortcomings; even more bizarre scenarios are
possible, such as a team, on the final day of the season being in a
situation in which it makes the playoffs if it loses by 40 or more points,
but misses the playoffs if it loses by less than 40 points.

Two particularly bogus features (in my opinion) of the current system are
	1.  Nontransitivity.  E.g., Team A can wins the tiebreaker over Team B
	    who wins it over Team C who wins it over team A.
	2.  That it allows circumstances in which teams are encouraged
	    (or required) to run up huge scores if they want to reach the
	    playoffs.  Aside from the fact that I detest games in which
	    the score is intentionally run up, it also seems to imply
	    that a 48-30 victory is "more significant" than a 17-0 one.
I can think of a couple of tiebreaker schemes that I would find more
aesthetically pleasing than the current one.
	1.  At the beginning of the season, order the teams (randomly,
	    or according reverse order of finish, according to some fixed
	    rotation, etc.) so that the each team knows where it stands
	    with respect to tiebreakers throughout the season.  This is
	    equivalent to coin-flipping, except that it is done at the
	    beginning of the season.
	2.  Win/promotion and loss demotion.  In this scheme any teams tied
	    at the end of the regular season have their records modified in
	    the following iterative manner until the tie is broken.
	        Step 0.  Demote overtime wins to ties, and promote overtime
			losses to ties.
		Step 1.  Demote 1-point wins to ties, and promote 1-point
			losses to ties.
		Step 2.  Demote 2-point wins to ties, and promote 2-point
			losses to ties.
		 ...
	    In practice (with a 16-game schedule) ties will be broken by
	    this scheme after a very few steps, typically by the time
	    3-point games are considered.  This has the effect that games
	    won by, say, over 3 points count as "full victories", while
	    games won by just a point or two *might* hurt you in the
	    tiebreakers (There are analagous statements for losses.)
	    This scheme therefore does not encourage Cornhuskerization of
	    the scoreboard.  It is also transitive.

Well, enough rambling for now.

		Steve Vegdahl
		Tektronix, Inc.