The NFL owners are paying Roger Goodell over $40 million.

We have heard the Calvin Johnson rule, and then the Dez Bryant catch not a catch and the NFL has agreed to modify some of the language. There is an easy solution to determining a catch and to make it black and white. The NFL does not want this and this is further evidenced by the lack of following through with Bill Belichick
proposal of adding four cameras in the end zone as to provide more angles for reviews.

I have a lot of respect for Belichick and think he's one of the top head coaches of all time. He irks the media often and that is something I admire quite a bit. And I fully agree with him that more cameras would make more for more accurate decisions on reviews.

The NFL sees value in paying Scapegoat Goodell $40 million to take the heat for their decisions or lack thereof. When it comes to spending cash on improving the accuracy of the game, that's a no no because it means less arguing would means less headlines.

We're in March and still talking about blown calls, that's essentially free publicity for their product. Why spend dollars that could minimize some of those headlines and that attention?

I would not agree to be NFL Commissioner for anything less than $100million per year. That's 3.125 million per team, and they can afford it many times over. Cap be damned, the teams make much more than that .
As for drama, any publicity ,good or bad, is good for business .

:cat:

I was wondering if anyone else caught the fact that one coach wants more cameras, and it just happens to be the coach of spygate lol.

dhazer;308974I was wondering if anyone else caught the fact that one coach wants more cameras, and it just happens to be the coach of spygate lol.

I've heard some suggest that's why teams are voting it down... not because it's a bad idea but because it's Belichick is the one proposing the idea. Well that and the owners as a whole are lazy and cheap.

I think it should also be noted, that it normally takes the NFL years talking about an issue, until they start taking the subject more serious.
Expanding the playoffs for example... about all teams seem to be on board with the idea last year... but still haven't gotten it done.

I have a hard time remembering a time when there were not enough camera angles of a play at or in the endzone or even in the regular field of play.
Typically if something cannot be seen, it is because there are bodies in the way which will happen no matter where the cameras are placed.
What more camera angles would do is give the home team more chance to show angles that don't show anything on the big screens so the opposing coaches have less to go on if they might want to challenge.

What is an easy solution to put in black and white what is a catch or not?
that rule as written has had a small handful of plays where there has been controversy, yet every "solution" I have heard would result in more bad results in the opposite direction. non-catches that really should not be catches being ruled complete which would be far worse for the game.


The number of "bad" calls when looking at the total number of calls that get made each game is incredibly small.

I think it's a slippery slope. I mean, where does it end? Put a camera every 10 yards to make sure a WR got both feet in?
I think it's OK where it is now. And Belichek? To me, he's been caught cheating too many times, so I have a hard time respecting the guy.
He might be a great coach, but the cheating crap over rules that fact in my view.

dhazer;308974I was wondering if anyone else caught the fact that one coach wants more cameras, and it just happens to be the coach of spygate lol.

Maybe that's why he suggested it.
He has a bunch of used cameras just lying around in the equipment shed and he figures if he can get the new rule passed maybe he can unload them.

Zero2Cool;308971The NFL owners are paying Roger Goodell over $40 million.

We have heard the Calvin Johnson rule, and then the Dez Bryant catch not a catch and the NFL has agreed to modify some of the language. There is an easy solution to determining a catch and to make it black and white. The NFL does not want this and this is further evidenced by the lack of following through with Bill Belichick
proposal of adding four cameras in the end zone as to provide more angles for reviews.

I have a lot of respect for Belichick and think he's one of the top head coaches of all time. He irks the media often and that is something I admire quite a bit. And I fully agree with him that more cameras would make more for more accurate decisions on reviews.

The NFL sees value in paying Scapegoat Goodell $40 million to take the heat for their decisions or lack thereof. When it comes to spending cash on improving the accuracy of the game, that's a no no because it means less arguing would means less headlines.

We're in March and still talking about blown calls, that's essentially free publicity for their product. Why spend dollars that could minimize some of those headlines and that attention?

Just curious as to what your easy solution is and how it takes the subjectivity out of it?

Smokey;308972I would not agree to be NFL Commissioner for anything less than $100million per year. That's 3.125 million per team, and they can afford it many times over. Cap be damned, the teams make much more than that .
As for drama, any publicity ,good or bad, is good for business .

:cat:

Hell I'd agree to do it.

But I'd stop changing the game to Madden 2.0 and put it back together like it used to be.

[quote=beast;308976]I've heard some suggest that's why teams are voting it down... not because it's a bad idea but because it's Belichick is the one proposing the idea. Well that and the owners as a whole are lazy and cheap.



You did? and who said this?
your co-workers? Cameras on the goal line should be there. The things greedy bastards don't do.