Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

The agenda:

1. Reseeding the playoffs: Division winners get spots, wildcards remain at two. Top two teams get byes. The rest are reseeded by win/loss. This could mean a wildcard with a better record hosts a division winner.

2. Increasing the roster from 80 to 86 players: Pre-season roster count. More players means lower chance of starters playing in pre-season.

3. Allowing defensive players to wear radio devices in their helmets: Two defenders can have radio receivers, though only one can be on the field at any time.

4. Including specific field-goal attempt replays: Review certain field goals because of that goofy Browns kick from last year.

I like the ideas. The only one I think could need more debate is the playoff seed idea.

Pass em all in a quick vote then it's off to the bar!

The first one I don't really care for, because it somehow de-emphasizes winning your division.

Sure, you'd get a home game for having a good record, but you still need to win your division, and I saw the home playoff game as a reward for that. In that sense (and this is really stupid), you could just throw teams in by conference.

It's not that extreme, but you shouldn't be penalized for the level of competition in your division.

And if you can review certain penalties, you should be able to review FGs.

They're also talking about getting the ball in the second half if you decide to go on defense when winning the coin toss

PFT calls it the "Madden rule". I never knew the team that lost the coin toss got to choose at the start of the half.

Stupid Madden logic.

The first one I don't really care for, because it somehow de-emphasizes winning your division.

It does, on some level, but should a really good team have to travel because they are in a better division when a 9-7 or 10-6 teams gets a home game because their division is slop?

I didn't think it was bad the way it was and i don't mind the change, either.

I didn't think it was bad the way it was and i don't mind the change, either.

Way to take a stand.

Call me old fashioned, but I don't like the reseeding. There needs to be a reward for winning the division, otherwise why bother with divisions?

HA! I'm not trying to take a stand.

I'm just saying I didn't mind the way it was being done and I don't mind the change, either.

It's fucking wallpaper to me.

Ahem. Whatever you want to do to wallpaper belongs in the Concourse.

If a division winner has a 10-6 record, it doesn't necessarily mean they are worse than an 11-5 wild card team. A division could be pretty good, and the teams could beat up on each other all year long with the 10-6 coming out on top, while the 11-5 wildcard team could play in a division with two weak teams and one very good one (the division winner).

Home-field advantage is incredibly overrated in the playoffs unless you're a dome team or from Miami.

You want the straight dope? It's for Vegas.

With that home spot up for grabs, you'll have more meaningful games at the end of the season (fewer starters resting) and there will be more action.

Well, it's about time the NFL made a decision based on gambling...

How about a "shorten the stupid pre-season to two games" proposal, and add two regular season games... one extra game annually for regional rivalries (Ravens-Redskins, Eagles-Steelers, Jets-Giants) and another similar to what college hoops does with "Bracket-Buster Day"-- pair up teams in the next-to-last week of the season who are close in the standings for a showdown.

There's talk about adding another regular season game, but that's because the NFL wants more games overseas,so no teams would lose their 8 home games.

League passes the defensive radio helmet thing.

Voting against the measure were Seattle (Mike Holmgren), Tampa Bay (Jon Gruden), Oakland (Lane Kiffin), Philadelphia (Andy Reid), St. Louis (Scott Linehan), Washington (Jim Zorn) and Green Bay (Mike McCarthy).

Lotta West Coast Offense "genius" types that don't want it.

What would be the reasoning for voting against it?

Because, now, it would be even easier to make real-time adjustments to Reid's diabolical mischief on offense.

I think the only thing it might help with is the no-huddle offense because the radios will get shut down with probably 15 seconds left on the play clock.

If that was even the case, wouldn't the Colts vote against it?

Reid says that his reasoning is because it will be too difficult to determine which defensive player(s) would wear the radio.

Takin' more control away from the Don...

I think Andy is just assuming every other team in the league rotates their LB's like crazy

NFL teams approved several rules changes at the league meeting today, most of which were an effort to make the rules easier to understand and enforce.

The biggest change is that the force out rule no longer exists. In the past, if a receiver jumped to catch a ball and was pushed out of bounds while he was in the air, officials had to make a judgment call to determine whether he would have come down in bounds. That rule, which many observers felt was enforced inconsistently, has been eliminated, and now it’s simple: If the receiver didn’t touch two feet or one of any other body part in bounds, it’s an incomplete pass.

Five-yard facemask penalties have also been eliminated. Serious face masks involving grabbing or twisting the player’s helmet will remain 15-yard penalties, and minor face masks involving a player accidentally grabbing the mask and immediately letting go will not be flagged at all.

Another rules change involves the opening coin toss, where the NFL will now adopt the college rule that allows the coach to defer his choice of kicking or receiving until the second half.

The league also made field goals on which the ball bounces off the goal post reviewable by instant replay. Last year Browns kicker Phil Dawson made a field goal that passed over the crossbar, bounced off the support post and went back into the field of play. The officials initially ruled the kick no good before correctly ruling it good. Last year they were not permitted to use replay to determine whether the kick was good; in the future they will be able to use it on such field goals.

The league also has changed two rules regarding fumbles: A legal forward handoff that is dropped is now a fumble, as is a direct snap from center that hits the ground before it is touched by the quarterback. In the past, the forward handoff would have been an incomplete pass and the botched snap would have been a false start.

I like all that

Reid says that his reasoning is because it will be too difficult to determine which defensive player(s) would wear the radio.

Great. This is exactly what we need-- complex in-game questions for Reid to ponder.

I smell a litany of burned timeouts on defense.

LOVE the elimination of the force out rule. I've always thought that was stupid. They were essentially saying the WR would have caught the ball in bounds if the defender didn't prevent him from doing so. But isn't the defender's job to prevent the WR from catching the ball? It also gave the officials an opportunity to make a tough judgment called that they shouldn't have had to make. Love, love, love that change and it should create interesting drama during 2 minute drives since the sidelines won't be a safe haven.

All the other changes are good, but that's my favorite.

If they made a force out legal they should have made it one foot only

Why?

1  2