| OCR Text |
Show f7c TDne.Cfflit's m by Randy Hanskat What's wrong with the NFL? This seems to be the year when everyone is asking, "What's wrong with the NFL?" Although game attendance is up, television ratings are down as much as 14 percent. These symptoms, along with others, indicate a lack of interest in a portion of the NFL audience. And the television ratings in particular, mostly because they will decrease the NFL's bargaining power in future television contracts, have lots of people scared. Now that the season is into the playoffs, now that everyone has had his say about the reasons behind the problems, I thought I'd give it a shot. Here's what I think is wrong with the NFL. Of course, the most obvious problem has been created by the presence of spring football in the USFL. Even if few people watch the USFL games, it still puts football in the nightly sportscasts and on the pages of - the newspapers. As a result, football fans have a feeling of saturation by the time the NFL gets cranking. A solid year of football is too much. Also, there may be a feeling in the back of the mind of the average football fan that the USFL's talent snaring has brought down the level of play in the NFL That point is debatable, but it still could keep fans away, at least in the early part of the NFL season. I think the saturation caused by the USFL will go away with the bankruptcy of the new league within two years. , There are other problems, however, which should be ' looked at by the NFL before they grow into cancer. First, the NFL Rules Committee has gone overboard in trying to put more offense in the game. The approach over the past few years has been that the more scoring there is, the higher the fan interest. That is probably true, to a certain extent, but . . . Offense has become too easy. It seems that no game is ever decided, even if a team gets the ball at its own three yard line, with only three seconds left. You might call that excitement, but I call it boredom a glut of scoring. There is a certain hollow feeling when your team goes ahead after a long drive which results in a score late in the game, only to have the opponents move the ball back down the field in about half a minute. It used to be that teams were hardpressed to score in the final two minutes, hence the "two minute drill." Now teams can score in only tens of seconds. When it's your team doing the late scoring, you may have no problem with it. The problem is that in the next game some lowly team may do the same thing to your team. The game is becoming a contest of whoever has the ball last wins, since almost every possession results in a score. There are two rule culprits for this offensive melee. The worst of the rule changes was the removal of legal bumping by the defensive backs after a receiver is five yards from the line of scrimmage. Without the bumping (before the ball is in the air), defensive backs have to be superhuman to do their job wihtout getting burned. Receivers used to have to work to get open ; now all they have to do is get past that five-yard barrier. Also, the interpretation of defensive pass interference bas been overdeveloped by the officials. I implore you to remember a game this season which hasn't had a questionable pass interference penalty called on a helpless defensive back. The officials are giving the total advantage to the receivers, an advantage they already have due to the "no bump" rule. The Rules Committee needs to put the bump back in. Offenses should work for their yardage. Officials need also to be more balanced in deciding pass interference both players, offensive and defensive, have the equal right to the ball. The second recent rule change has, in effect, legalized holding by offensive linemen. The new rule allows linemen to extend their arms when blocking, instead of keeping them tucked in. Because of this, it can now look as if an offensive lineman is legally blocking while both hands are gripping the jersey of the defensive player. And as if that weren't enough, another recent rule change has decreased the penalty for holding to 10 yards rather than 15! But, you say, there have been a huge number of sacks this year in the NFL True, but examine just how many of those sacks are from linebackers. Defenses are forced to blitz more linebackers because the defensive linemen can't get past the holding offensive line. But what happens when you blitz? Offensive receivers . have an even easier time getting open. Now don't think I am against offense. I simply think the yardage needs to be earned, not given. If you look at popular teams of the past decade, teams like Miami, Pittsburgh, and Oakland (now LA.), you'll see that all those teams were known for bruising defenses, coupled with spectacular offense. They didn't live by offense alone. There are other questionable rule changes. The new rules governing blocking on kickoffs and punts are taking those plays out of the game. Virtually every return is brought back by a flag for blocking below the waist (not clipping), or some other oddity. The concern for safety behind those rule changes is good, but in this case the old clipping rules did the job. Too many penalties. Extensive substitution is also a no-no. Football is a game where players are supposed to do more than one thing. Defensive linemen are supposed to be able to both rush the passer and stop the run, not one or the other. Extensive substitutions make the game more impersonal for the fans. I don't like the "in the grasp of" rule for sacking quarterbacks, either. Quarterbacks should be tackled just like everyone else, not be called down when they get touched by a defender. The change was made to protect quarterbacks, but this year as many were injured as I can ever remember, despite the rule. Defenders shouldn't have to let up on the quarterback when going after him. By the same token, quarterbacks shouldn't be called down when they still have a good chance of getting away. The key to most of these rule changes is violence. The changes have taken much of the violence out of football, and that is a mistake. Football is a violent sport, is based in violence, is boring without it. If a guy wants to watch a non-violent sport he can turn to a baseball game. Baseball may be fine in the summer, when one can go outside and work out his or her frustrations. But in the winter many people don't go out and do much exercise, so they rely on football for a part of that release. For television, I have another suggestion: cut down the number or regional telecasts make room for more national broadcasts. Regional telecasts are fine, if you have a good team to watch in your area. Otherwise, you'll probably turn off the set. In this area, for instance, last season the Denver Broncos were shown almost every week, and they were miserable. More national broadcasts would show the better teams to more fans, and thereby heighten interest. ( But even with the rule changes" and the competitior ) from the USFL, interest has grown as the NFL season has progressed. At the beginning of the season I was disinterested, but each week I have gotten more into it. So has the rest of the NFL audience. Last Monday night's game pitting the Dolphins against the Cowboys was the highest rated Monday Night Football broadcast in history. That statistic suggests the USFL was the major culprit in the decreased interest in the NFL during the early part of the season. Fortunately for the NFL the USFL problem will go away as soon as the new league decides to play its games in the fall, competing for audiences directly against the NFL One season of that foolishness and the USFL will be down the tubes, and it will be back to normal for the NFL |
