1- have the cheerleaders wear bikinis when weather is warm, 2- make all kicking field goals worth only 1 point, it would speed up the action in the game
2007-08-30
15:02:28
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Sports
➔ Football (American)
making field goals worth less would make the teams try harder for touchdowns and have longer passes and speed up the game towards the end as they would have to get in end zone more than just settle for getting to 30 yard line. that's common sense, you're an idiot if you can't see that.
2007-08-30
15:15:38 ·
update #1
im talking to you tim.
2007-08-30
15:16:01 ·
update #2
1- Nude, and nothing less than a 36C cup
2 - Points for FG's should be based on distance
2007-08-30 15:12:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by TheOnlyBeldin 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
One problem with making the FG worth only one point is that it inflates the value of the TD. So much so that you may see defenses taking more chances as far as committing penalties. Their success would spoil the enjoyment of watching a good offense (I don't mind good defense, but cheating isn't interesting) and their failure would mean more flags, which slow down the game.
Still, I like the idea of changing the value of the FG. However, I would make it based on distance.
Maybe make it worth 3 points if it were within 27 yards, 2 points if it's within 42 yards, and everything outside that worth 1 point. (Assuming that the holder is 7 yards deep, the 27 yard field goal means the team has reached the 10, and the 42 yard field goal means the team has reached the 25)
By making it worth more points as you get closer, it would encourage teams to go for it on 4th down, and even to take more chances on 3rd (instead of running a conservative play to set up the FG).
One other minor element of strategy it would introduce would be the location of the holder. Now he is almost invariably 7 yards deep...it's done by rote. But what if it's a tight game, and your team is on the 11? If the holder sets up 7 yards deep you get a 2 pointer. If he sets up 6 yards deep, you get a shot at one more point, but you also increase the risk of a block.
2007-08-30 22:16:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by A J 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
That second rule makes absolutely no sense...
First, making it worth only one point would be useless and would render the field goal obsolete..
Second, what proves that it would speed up the game? More teams going for it on 4th down in close range? It would take away from the strategy of the game
As for the cheerleaders, I'm definitely all for it, as long as it doesn't turn into the XFL!
2007-08-30 22:12:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by B-Mac 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Cheerleaders in bikinis do nothing for me. . . My husband likes that rule change, though.
I like the field goals being only 1 point, but let's go further, and state they have to drop kick the field goal attempt. . . I would watch that!!
2007-08-30 22:10:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't like making a 50 yard fg the same point value of a pat. I'm cool with the speed of the game.
2007-08-30 22:20:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Buy Sam a Drink 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
1. Of course the cheerleaders bursting at the seams with team spirit!
2. Your pushing it
2007-08-30 22:09:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no it wouldnt. it doesnt have a dam thing to do with the speed of the game. how the hell can changing the value of a field goal effect the score of the game. what an idiot
2007-08-30 22:08:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by tim 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
1. why not when its cold?? lol great idea
2. Hell no it would speed it up. 1 second lesft down by two on opponests 30 you have to go for td? no that be bad
2007-08-30 22:08:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
those are ok but how about we change it to:
1 cheerleaders naked no matter the weather
2 then who cares how many points for a field goal lol make it half a point!
2007-08-31 00:15:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
1 they are sexy just like they are and i think field goals sre ok like they are .they should give more points for 50 or longer like 4points
2007-08-30 22:24:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋