Make the Pro Bowl great... er, maybe just worth caring about... again

[sturt]

Preface: Baseball made the impact of their All-Star Game too significant to the outcome of the World Series by designating that the 4th game advantage goes to the league that wins the July contest***. But the core idea made/makes sense--for the league that demonstrates itself to be superior by virtue of their best defeating the other league's best, let that league enjoy some very slight... slight... advantage. And thus, give the all-star participants something to play for that is more tangible than league pride.

So here's my proposal concisely put:

Pro Bowl winner = Super Bowl coin toss winner

So if the NFC wins, ATL gets to receive or to defer... if AFC wins, NE gets to receive or to defer.

You still have the midfield ceremony, you just don't have an actual coin flip, because one team has to tell the refs what they actually want to do. And so you still have team captains shaking hands, and all of that. You can even still keep that honoree who ordinarily would be doing the flip... just have that person be quietly informed by the decision-making team what they're going to do, and let him/her announce it.

Why would this work, whereas the baseball idea never seemed to really catch-on as meaningful (even though, it actually was)?

First, whereas the baseball advantage only comes into play if there is a 7th game, this would always come into play. But maybe even more striking is the immediacy... in the midst of all of the Super Bowl hype going full-throttle, and with the teams benefiting already being known, I think it would generate a lot more interest in the Pro Bowl. Also, let's play the Pro Bowl in the same city as the Super Bowl, getting it that much more steeped in the Super Bowl lead-up.

How bout it?


_________________________________________________________________________________
***I'll go a step further and say, if you ask me, this is where both professional baseball and basketball both end up tilting the playing field too far in their championships, but it's one of those "we've always done it this way, and it's accepted" kind-of things. Rather, there should be a neutral site game (probably the first) so that both teams get an equal number of home games.

[macdaddy]

Honetly i think the Pro Bowl should be a Softball game.   "Friendly" football games are just dumb.   

[Guest]

1 minute ago, macdaddy said:

Honetly i think the Pro Bowl should be a Softball game.   "Friendly" football games are just dumb.   

Why can't they just move the damn date to after the Super Bowl ...it's the one all star game in the 3 sports that I've rarely watched for 35 years.

[Thomas]

2 hours ago, Spud2Nique said:

Why can't they just move the damn date to after the Super Bowl ...it's the one all star game in the 3 sports that I've rarely watched for 35 years.

Yeah, you have at a minimum double digit All Pros not playing in the Pro Bowl every year. Seems lackluster and a less than stellar representation of the years best in their sport.  

[lethalweapon3]

I'd also rather they just do it after the Draft Combine. It's not like scouts need to watch anyway.

~lw3

[AUhawksfan]

On 1/23/2017 at 2:56 PM, macdaddy said:

Honetly i think the Pro Bowl should be a Softball game.   "Friendly" football games are just dumb.   

This. Pro Bowl just a bad idea altogether and it's not going to change. Friendly football isn't fun and making it more competitive is a risky move in a league that favors avoiding injury. I mean, look at all the backlash Cousins got for chasing Talib down and stripping the ball. 

It is what it is. 

[sturt]

If I may... I grew up in a time when All-Star Games felt important. And I really liked that. I liked the idea of supporting my team, but also my team's conference or league whenever it came time for the sport's all-star game. It wasn't the Super Bowl, but the Pro Bowl still was something I looked forward to watching, and in a sense, I looked forward even more than the Super Bowl because these were all the guys who were celebrated all year, coming together in one game, and I wanted my conference's team to show it was the best. If the Cowboys weren't in the Super Bowl, it was, at least some consolation, no kidding, that the NFC won in those years that they did.

So I naturally ask myself why it took all those decades to get where we are today--why weren't players back-when nearly so concerned about injury, and even seemingly played those Pro Bowls with some conviction and pride.

Sorry, I'm just a traditionalist on this particular thing.

I want to see us get back to that.

I mean this is the gathering of the very best the NFL has to offer... all things being equal, it should be right there with the Super Bowl as a great game to watch.... and even more consistently a great game to watch since the SB sometimes ends up with a decidedly lesser team as one of the opponents.

So, if you disagree with that premise, then we just live on different planets where this issue is concerned.

To those who live on my planet, though, I think it's helpful for the game to mean something--to have tangible consequences for the winner and loser.

I start with this small but potentially meaningful way that it can serve the purposes of the conference winner in the Super Bowl--i.e., the winning conference's SB team is made the coin toss winner.

I also agree with Richard Sherman's assertion the other day that players should collect an extra game's paycheck as reward for playing. It's really only right that they would, actually.

But moreover, I like this idea that the NFL have each player and the coaches individually claim a charity for whom they are playing the game and have some significant amount of money--conceivably, an amount for each player equal to yet another game check--going to the winners, and perhaps some standard $25K or something that goes to each of the losing players' chosen charities.

Then, there just has to be some greater recognition of the winning team as representing the best conference for that year... something that builds some intangible pride behind being affiliated with the NFC over the AFC (or vice versa).

On that one, it may be less about finding that one lever that moves the needle, and more about finding and moving several smaller levers that all point toward that purpose.

[macdaddy]

On 2/5/2017 at 2:26 PM, sturt said:

If I may... I grew up in a time when All-Star Games felt important. And I really liked that. I liked the idea of supporting my team, but also my team's conference or league whenever it came time for the sport's all-star game. It wasn't the Super Bowl, but the Pro Bowl still was something I looked forward to watching, and in a sense, I looked forward even more than the Super Bowl because these were all the guys who were celebrated all year, coming together in one game, and I wanted my conference's team to show it was the best. If the Cowboys weren't in the Super Bowl, it was, at least some consolation, no kidding, that the NFC won in those years that they did.

So I naturally ask myself why it took all those decades to get where we are today--why weren't players back-when nearly so concerned about injury, and even seemingly played those Pro Bowls with some conviction and pride.

Sorry, I'm just a traditionalist on this particular thing.

I want to see us get back to that.

I mean this is the gathering of the very best the NFL has to offer... all things being equal, it should be right there with the Super Bowl as a great game to watch.... and even more consistently a great game to watch since the SB sometimes ends up with a decidedly lesser team as one of the opponents.

So, if you disagree with that premise, then we just live on different planets where this issue is concerned.

To those who live on my planet, though, I think it's helpful for the game to mean something--to have tangible consequences for the winner and loser.

I start with this small but potentially meaningful way that it can serve the purposes of the conference winner in the Super Bowl--i.e., the winning conference's SB team is made the coin toss winner.

I also agree with Richard Sherman's assertion the other day that players should collect an extra game's paycheck as reward for playing. It's really only right that they would, actually.

But moreover, I like this idea that the NFL have each player and the coaches individually claim a charity for whom they are playing the game and have some significant amount of money--conceivably, an amount for each player equal to yet another game check--going to the winners, and perhaps some standard $25K or something that goes to each of the losing players' chosen charities.

Then, there just has to be some greater recognition of the winning team as representing the best conference for that year... something that builds some intangible pride behind being affiliated with the NFC over the AFC (or vice versa).

On that one, it may be less about finding that one lever that moves the needle, and more about finding and moving several smaller levers that all point toward that purpose.

 

The consequences of injury are too huge.   There are significant injuries in pretty much every single pro football game.   NFL contracts aren't guaranteed the way other sports are either.   So to put your lively hood, and what most players have staked their futures on, on the line for an all star exhibition just seems dumb.   You are seeing college players skip bowl games now for fear injury.   If I was an nfl player there is no way i'd play in the pro bowl.   

To me this is unique to football.  The high chance of injury isn't there in the other sports.   

 

 

 

 

[sturt]

Okay, how bout we play with that premise, which I read as essentially, "Out of concern for injury, I will choose to play in a minimum number of games to preserve my football career."

All things being equal, how does that same principle line up with the idea of playing beyond the regular season--which is, of course, made up of the actual specific games that players' contracts actually pay them for.

Some quick math based on last year's Pro Bowl participants and a related article on OverTheCap.com suggests that the average Pro Bowl player's contract was about $8.2m, or about $485,000 received per week (17) of the regular season.

How does that compare to what a player can make in the post season?

 

Quote

 

Since player salaries are generally doled out until Week 17 of the regular season, the NFL uses a standardized share system to pay players that appear in postseason games. Postseason shares increase in value as teams advance through the playoffs.

For this weekend’s opening round, players on teams that won divisions, such as the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers, will earn slightly more ($27,000) than players on Wild Card teams ($24,000), like the Miami Dolphins or Detroit Lions.

In the Divisional Round, players on every team will receive equal shares of $27,000. That number jumps to $49,000 for the Conference Championship round. Players on this year’s Super Bowl team winner will earn a double share of $107,000, compared to $53,000 for the losing team.

The most money any player can earn during this season’s NFL playoffs is $210,000, for a division-winning team that plays through all three initial rounds and wins the Super Bowl.

The New England Patriots, Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Falcons and Dallas Cowboys each clinched bye week, meaning they’ll get an automatic pass to the Divisional Round, but players will miss out on the $27,000 postseason share.

For players like Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers or Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman, postseason shares are a significant downgrade from their regular-season paychecks. The minimum salary for first-year NFL players this season was $450,000, or $26,470 per week – roughly in line with pay for all players in the first two rounds of the playoffs.

 

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/01/06/heres-how-much-nfl-players-earn-in-playoffs.html

 

Hmmm...

Okay, so how about the rest of the year? You know, training camp, and preseason games... no bonuses at all on that front.... so what the hell are these guys doing showing up then?... don't they realize how risky that is?... for many of them, they can more than afford those fines that automatically get imposed for missing days in July and August, so why don't they?

I'm being ridiculous, yes, but seeing through that ridiculousness, I suppose my point is this...

They do play for more than money in a vacuum. There are reasons that compel a person to make a choice beyond what is the most immediate economic self-interest. In any given game, yes, there may be a injury of some significance that occurs, but in the bigger picture, you're also not playing again the next week or the week after that. Vast majority of the injuries that occur do not keep a player out of action more than a week or two in the first place... season-ending injuries are that much less likely.

So, the logic to me anyway doesn't bear out that this is a lost cause... or at least, not on the basis of economic self-preservation. With sufficient compensation, whether financial or in terms of recognition or both, there could be a formula that breathes new life into the game.

History, too, suggests that that's a valid conclusion.

[Guest]

When you are playing in the post season, that's why you play in the regular season - to get the Lombardi.  That's why Alex Mack will play with a fractured tibia in the Superbowl but not in a regular season game let alone a probowl.

[sturt]

Of course, I get that... but I think you might be suggesting there is no way to recreate enough motivation beyond the team's receiving that trophy. History says differently. I'll agree that the Super Bowl is the maximum motivation, certainly, but that doesn't in turn exclude the possibility that a lesser incentive could still be successful for the vast majority. Heck, just as it is now, you have players who will still show up and will still play the game. If it were an all-out rejection, there would be no game, or at most, it would be flag football. So, obviously, already  there is something motivating players to participate at a certain level. The point here is to say what is the recipe that would raise that participation to the way the game was played more like a generation ago (?).

Put another way, sure, it's popular now to say "it can't be done," but that it once was done seems good evidence that it can be done.

[Thomas]

Getting kinda thick so maybe just play the fracking Pea Bowl two weeks after the Super Bowl and call it a day. If the cats don't want to participate its their deal. No David Stern telling Barkley he really, really, really needs to participate in the slam dunk gig in this case. 

[AHF]

I'd kill the pro bowl.  Agree on injury risk and unwatchability of this type of non-competitive format (unlike NBA where the crazy, no-D play results in some entertaining displays of offense).  Also, the only reason people are as interested in other sports as much as they are is that they are midseason games when fans are engaged.  Doing it after the season just makes it that much more worthless for the NFL - particularly since the biggest stars in the biggest games don't participate.  All these factors to me mean the pro bowl will continue to suck without change.  I haven't watched more than a few minutes of it in years and regret wasting that much time.

[sturt]

Okay, let me just throw this out there.

Raise your cyber-hand if you are among the congregation gathered here who remember a time when the Pro Bowl was taken seriously by the players, and too, you were among those who made a point to watch....?

Curious to know.

[macdaddy]

 

I was about this age.   But isn't it likely that the last time you cared about the pro bowl was when you were a kid and it seemed like a big deal?   I can't remember ever caring as an adult or ever even knowing another adult who wanted to watch the pro bowl. 

[sturt]

So, "not since just before I first learned to talk"... right?

Who else... anyone?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, sturt said:

So, "not since just before I first learned to talk"... right?

Who else... anyone?

You're on your buddy, lol.

[macdaddy]

13 minutes ago, sturt said:

So, "not since just before I first learned to talk"... right?

Who else... anyone?

In all seriousness i'd say i was 13.   There again this was much more entertaining.

 

[sturt]

I'll grant it's never been a particularly entertaining game--defense has such an advantage over offenses when there's only one week to prepare, after all.

And yeah, I was a fan of Superstars, too. On a slightly different note, I've always thought there would be money to be made if the PGA were to have some kind of pro-am event in which all of the ams are all-stars from other sports.