- Aug 16, 2011
- 128,724
- 24,423
- 2,180
My whole point is that reducing rosters would cause no visible deterioration in the quality of play........
An utterly absurd 'point.'
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My whole point is that reducing rosters would cause no visible deterioration in the quality of play........
Have you ever watched a high school football game, small schools, where most of the players go both ways?
The game is no less competitive in the 4th quarter, eh? Both teams a little tired?
No deterioration in the quality of the competition.
Have you ever watched a high school football game, small schools, where most of the players go both ways?
The game is no less competitive in the 4th quarter, eh? Both teams a little tired?
No deterioration in the quality of the competition.
Look at it this way: In tennis, the major championships are FIVE SET matches. Every knowledgeable tennis fan agrees that this longer match makes it a better test, thus ensuring that the best player will come out on top. Why is a marathon the best test for a distance runner? Endurance is part of athleticism, eh?
The idea that it is necessary to have 30 or so STARTERS on a football team (offense, defense, and special teams) is absolutely ridiculous. You could play a COMPETITIVE game with ELEVEN players, and a couple on the bench for injuries. One of those players would have to be able to PUNT the ball, one would have to be able to KICK OFF. So the punts would only be 40 yards on average and not 45. So what? And the quarterback would have to be an athlete. So what?
Do you fukkers understand the concept of "competitive"? All players facing the same challenges, with the better team coming out on top. That's all it would take for an enjoyable fan experience.