NFL Third Place Game?

[rayzor]

if there's no incentive for players/team to play, then there's no incentive for the game to exist at all.

 

no one wants to be third best.

[Gucci Mane]

ok.. im going to stop repeating myself cause you cant seem to comprehend much.

 

 

[rayzor]

yeah. thats probably it. i couldn't be just because its really not that good of an idea and whatever incentives you dreamed up for this didn't sound all that appealing and wouldn't be worth the effort in pursuing because the cost involved would outweigh any real benefits, esp. for a game that in the big scheme of things would just be a reprise of the original poo bowl.

 

 

[Udogg]

Ok, lets put it this way...a 3rd place game in football makes no sense.  Maybe if it was...

 

A. A fans choice game.  1 game not involving Superbowl Particpants that was voted on by a poll.   I'm probably down for that.

 

B. Arch rival game.  Game involving arch rivals ie.. cowboy redskin, falcons panthers, etc etc.. I would watch. Especially if the losing team has to put the other teams logo on their field for the next home game.  Or maybe like college football some kind of made up trophy like a boot or something.

 

C. Maybe a match up between the last 2 teams out of the playoffs.... kind of a stretch ..however

 

 

I would rather see any of those before a 3rd place "MEANINGLESS" game.    Say I don't know about football, economics, the heart of players, etc ..etc..  IDC.  Would I want to see a game that has teams actually playing rather than going through the motions,  yes definitely.  However, no matter how you spin it, a 3rd place game means nothing in the NFL.  

 

[Razeyfingers]

For so many of you to be saying they wont play because there's no shot at the superbowl. . . the Panthers were playing for no shot at the superbowl last year when we put our FOOT up New Orleans ass in that last game.

 

Can you really tell me that wasnt rewarding?

[Harris Aballah]

Ok this is not exactly panther related but fugg it and fugg yall, im writing this anyway...

I know soccer isn't exactly popular here but i think the NFL should take a page out of their book when it comes to tournaments. What im talking about is the "third place" game that FIFA tournaments have [world cup, confed cup].

Basically, in the NFL playoffs, this would mean that the losers in the NFC/AFC championship game would face off sometime before the Super Bowl [most likely not at a neutral site] and the winner of said game would establish the third best team in the NFL that season.

Benefits include:

-More revenue for the NFL and the participating teams

-More football for us during the lag period before the Super Bowl

-More slots for other players in the Pro Bowl [since the players in the 3rd place game wouldnt go]

-Did i mention an extra game?

Drawbacks:

-none

best thing to do is schedule said teams on opening day of the following season. so maybe the 1st sunday or monday night game of the year would be the match up that wasn't.

[pantherclaw]

Don't think it's a great idea.

My reasoning has already been covered in the first f ew pages.

[Gucci Mane]

For so many of you to be saying they wont play because there's no shot at the superbowl. . . the Panthers were playing for no shot at the superbowl last year when we put our FOOT up New Orleans ass in that last game.

 

Can you really tell me that wasnt rewarding?

 

Exactly..

But I'm sure rayzor will have some excuse like "oh rivera was playing for his job"... which isnt logical in his argument because then that would mean the coaches would be able to coerce the stars of the team to play in these games.

 

Belichick didn't sit anyone during the undefeated run they had a few years ago.. dont give me that momentum crap either. Third place games even without the stars would be watchable, because then it would be like a preseason game but more intense and more meaning. The backups still have something to prove, and they can help their team earn some CASH INCENTIVES FOR THE WINNER OF THE GAME, AS WELL AS ONE CLOSER SPOT IN THE DRAFT [caps for rayzor cause he seems to think we're talking about no rewards for playing the game other than sh!ts and giggles].

[Gucci Mane]

Ok, lets put it this way...a 3rd place game in football makes no sense.  Maybe if it was...

 

A. A fans choice game.  1 game not involving Superbowl Particpants that was voted on by a poll.   I'm probably down for that.

 

B. Arch rival game.  Game involving arch rivals ie.. cowboy redskin, falcons panthers, etc etc.. I would watch. Especially if the losing team has to put the other teams logo on their field for the next home game.  Or maybe like college football some kind of made up trophy like a boot or something.

 

C. Maybe a match up between the last 2 teams out of the playoffs.... kind of a stretch ..however

 

 

I would rather see any of those before a 3rd place "MEANINGLESS" game.    Say I don't know about football, economics, the heart of players, etc ..etc..  IDC.  Would I want to see a game that has teams actually playing rather than going through the motions,  yes definitely.  However, no matter how you spin it, a 3rd place game means nothing in the NFL.  

 

Jesus Christ you people are completely missing the point.. Im not saying its to be a glorified " OH HELL YEA WE WON THE 3rd PLACE GAME BITCHES.. YEAAA SUCKKK IT", its just another game for the league to have during the lag of the time period between the Conf Champs and the superbowl.. If you dont want to watch it, fine, but theres plenty of people that would. Enough people for the NFL to sell sponsor slots to, and make a profit even if they offer cash incentives for participating teams..

 

The third place game in the Confederation Cup on sunday had about a half capacity stadium but enough viewers on ESPN to easily make money on [and the US isn't the biggest soccer supporting country]. Italy didnt play all their stars, Uruguay did because they had pride on the line due to the tourney being in South America. Its not like Italians paraded the streets for winning the game. No one really even talked about it.. It was just there for the interested fans [which is more than people think, and more than enough for the sactioning body].

[rayzor]

lol acting like I'm the only one who thinks this is a bad idea. 

[Gucci Mane]

lol acting like I'm the only one who thinks this is a bad idea. 

 

no you just choose seem to ignore everything and spew the same BS... You, CRA and YOLO should form a group.

[Udogg]

Jesus Christ you people are completely missing the point.. Im not saying its to be a glorified " OH HELL YEA WE WON THE 3rd PLACE GAME BITCHES.. YEAAA SUCKKK IT", its just another game for the league to have during the lag of the time period between the Conf Champs and the superbowl.. If you dont want to watch it, fine, but theres plenty of people that would. Enough people for the NFL to sell sponsor slots to, and make a profit even if they offer cash incentives for participating teams..

 

The third place game in the Confederation Cup on sunday had about a half capacity stadium but enough viewers on ESPN to easily make money on [and the US isn't the biggest soccer supporting country]. Italy didnt play all their stars, Uruguay did because they had pride on the line due to the tourney being in South America. Its not like Italians paraded the streets for winning the game. No one really even talked about it.. It was just there for the interested fans [which is more than people think, and more than enough for the sactioning body].

 

 

So, lets play a meaningless game,  that will probably be missing most if not all of the star players, so that ESPN/NFL can make money.  Also there is a possibility that it won't even be a sell out for the hosting team.  Why? Because more people than I think can watch it on TV?  This is a good idea because it models itself after a sport that's not big in the US.

 

Why would the NFL or anyone associated with it want to dilute the product like that?  I think you are missing the point.

 

 

 

P.S. Soccer sucks.

[Gucci Mane]

So, lets play a meaningless game,  that will probably be missing most if not all of the star players, so that ESPN/NFL can make money.  Also there is a possibility that it won't even be a sell out for the hosting team.  Why? Because more people than I think can watch it on TV?  This is a good idea because it models itself after a sport that's not big in the US.

 

Why would the NFL or anyone associated with it want to dilute the product like that?  I think you are missing the point.

 

 

 

P.S. Soccer sucks.

 

No, so those of us can watch another game thats not the pro bowl.. and the Networks and League making money is justification for them to do it. No one forces you to watch the games bro, so if you dont want to then go make origami or something. Im using soccer as an example because they are the only ones with the concept in major sports.. 

 

it doesnt dilute the product at all, because you missed the point about it not being glorified. in case you didnt read that, you missed the point because its not being glorified. Its not the damn superbowl, its not the damn pro bowl, its not the damn preseason, its another damn game that just happens to take place with two good teams. Playing with or without their stars, its up to them. Incentives would be in place to not make it completely meaningless.

 

Im sure you'll nitpick this comment too and miss the point all over again.

[Udogg]

Ok, I will no longer post in your thread. 

 

In the future however, if you have an idea that you want the write down and not have any comments use a diary or journal(if you are not a teenage girl). 

 

If you want to write an idea down an share with the world without comment, write a blog.

 

However if you putting an idea out on this board you are asking for other peoples opinion.  Don't be upset when you get them.