New NFL Rule?

Alright, so I need to write a paper that would change a rule in a sport.

Of course I'm doing the NFL but I have no idea what to do it about.

Some of the examples my teacher gave me were looking at implementing some of the CFL rules into the NFL (maybe Hurp could help me there) only allowing 2 punts a game, MUST return kickoffs out of the endzone.

I thought maybe one of you guys would have a good idea.

My first thought was reducing the # of eligible receivers from 5-4 to adapt to the new style of offense first NFL.

Remember the force out rule. Where if a receiver was in the air and was going to land in bounds however the DB pushed him out in mid air he would be ruled in. Yeah bring that back.

Lets see another one could be getting rid of defenseless receiver/player rule. That might be the dumbest thing in history of life. You could easily write a paper on that.

OH maybe a change to an NCAA rule.

Couple random ideas... Reducing goalie pad size...

Put a clock on pitching, speeding up the game and reducing the time the pitcher has to play with his balls and pick the wedgie out of his ass.

require knee pads in football even if you think you don't need them cause you are just the greatest thing to touch the field.

make it so that when you are busted for flopping in hockey or seen on tape by the league after a post game review (heard this on 98.5 the sport hub today) the league requires each team to post a list of known floppers in the home, visiting and refs locker room before every game. I like that one.

or maybe if you get a personal foul in the NFL you are forced to sit out that series (or until the next first down, score, or turnover). That will cut down on assholes who always late hit ect...

MaddMatter wrote:Alright, so I need to write a paper that would change a rule in a sport.

Of course I'm doing the NFL but I have no idea what to do it about.

Some of the examples my teacher gave me were looking at implementing some of the CFL rules into the NFL (maybe Hurp could help me there) only allowing 2 punts a game, MUST return kickoffs out of the endzone.

I thought maybe one of you guys would have a good idea.

My first thought was reducing the # of eligible receivers from 5-4 to adapt to the new style of offense first NFL.

The CFL doesn't have a rule where you're only allowed 2 punts a game. And the rule to force people to return out of the endzone is like the CFL rule where if you don't get it out, you give up a point

You could do the NHL's stupid point system. A team shouldnt gain a point in the standings just for making it to overtime

I think I'm going to do something with college football.

Bring back the "freshmen aren't allowed to play" rule. But add some new things like:
You are only allowed to play freshmen if you had less then 5 wins.

or something like that.

MaddMatter wrote:I think I'm going to do something with college football.

Bring back the "freshmen aren't allowed to play" rule. But add some new things like:
You are only allowed to play freshmen if you had less then 5 wins.

or something like that.

HOW ABOUT THIS... I'll do you one better.

if your freshmen class was preceded by 2 losing seasons and have a losing season their sophomore year, they gain an extra year of elagability with out having to sit out. Increase parody in the NCAA

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:I think I'm going to do something with college football.

Bring back the "freshmen aren't allowed to play" rule. But add some new things like:
You are only allowed to play freshmen if you had less then 5 wins.

or something like that.

HOW ABOUT THIS... I'll do you one better.

if your freshmen class was preceded by 2 losing seasons and have a losing season their sophomore year, they gain an extra year of elagability with out having to sit out. Increase parody in the NCAA

I think we're on something here, we want parody in the NCAA. And recruiting is the way to start it.

MaddMatter wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:I think I'm going to do something with college football.

Bring back the "freshmen aren't allowed to play" rule. But add some new things like:
You are only allowed to play freshmen if you had less then 5 wins.

or something like that.

HOW ABOUT THIS... I'll do you one better.

if your freshmen class was preceded by 2 losing seasons and have a losing season their sophomore year, they gain an extra year of elagability with out having to sit out. Increase parody in the NCAA

I think we're on something here, we want parody in the NCAA. And recruiting is the way to start it.

like the 85 scholarship shit per team helps. why not talk about for teams that break rules in recruiting lose full scholarships of all their players. as in it isnt the death penalty, the players just have to apply for student loans and shit.

I went with "You must have an athlete graduate with a degree before you can use a scholarship on another player."

If that makes sense. It puts the focus back on getting an education and should create parody in the NCAA. With players going to smaller schools to get the grades they need to graduate.

MaddMatter wrote:I went with "You must have an athlete graduate with a degree before you can use a scholarship on another player."

If that makes sense. It puts the focus back on getting an education and should create parody in the NCAA. With players going to smaller schools to get the grades they need to graduate.

to clarify...

hypothetical with a junior or redshirt sophomore who leaves early for the NFL or drops out of school for what ever reason. that scholarship is gone until that guy gets a degree? gone until he would have scheduled to have graduated? gone forever?

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:I went with "You must have an athlete graduate with a degree before you can use a scholarship on another player."

If that makes sense. It puts the focus back on getting an education and should create parody in the NCAA. With players going to smaller schools to get the grades they need to graduate.

to clarify...

hypothetical with a junior or redshirt sophomore who leaves early for the NFL or drops out of school for what ever reason. that scholarship is gone until that guy gets a degree? gone until he would have scheduled to have graduated? gone forever?

I still have to give that more thought, maybe they lose the scholarship for 5 years if the player drops out, or 2 years if the player goes pro.

MaddMatter wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:I went with "You must have an athlete graduate with a degree before you can use a scholarship on another player."

If that makes sense. It puts the focus back on getting an education and should create parody in the NCAA. With players going to smaller schools to get the grades they need to graduate.

to clarify...

hypothetical with a junior or redshirt sophomore who leaves early for the NFL or drops out of school for what ever reason. that scholarship is gone until that guy gets a degree? gone until he would have scheduled to have graduated? gone forever?

I still have to give that more thought, maybe they lose the scholarship for 5 years if the player drops out, or 2 years if the player goes pro.

I would have it like this. if a guy goes pro, the school keeps the scholarship if he (leaving player) pays off what the amount spent on his time at the school would be. If he leaves and doesnt pay, the school loses the scholarship for 3 years, and if a guy drops out or is kicked off the team the scholarship is removed for 5 years.

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:I went with "You must have an athlete graduate with a degree before you can use a scholarship on another player."

If that makes sense. It puts the focus back on getting an education and should create parody in the NCAA. With players going to smaller schools to get the grades they need to graduate.

to clarify...

hypothetical with a junior or redshirt sophomore who leaves early for the NFL or drops out of school for what ever reason. that scholarship is gone until that guy gets a degree? gone until he would have scheduled to have graduated? gone forever?

I still have to give that more thought, maybe they lose the scholarship for 5 years if the player drops out, or 2 years if the player goes pro.

I would have it like this. if a guy goes pro, the school keeps the scholarship if he (leaving player) pays off what the amount spent on his time at the school would be. If he leaves and doesnt pay, the school loses the scholarship for 3 years, and if a guy drops out or is kicked off the team the scholarship is removed for 5 years.

That's a damn good idea. This paper is gonna be EASY. It only needs to be 2 pages lmfao

MaddMatter wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:I went with "You must have an athlete graduate with a degree before you can use a scholarship on another player."

If that makes sense. It puts the focus back on getting an education and should create parody in the NCAA. With players going to smaller schools to get the grades they need to graduate.

to clarify...

hypothetical with a junior or redshirt sophomore who leaves early for the NFL or drops out of school for what ever reason. that scholarship is gone until that guy gets a degree? gone until he would have scheduled to have graduated? gone forever?

I still have to give that more thought, maybe they lose the scholarship for 5 years if the player drops out, or 2 years if the player goes pro.

I would have it like this. if a guy goes pro, the school keeps the scholarship if he (leaving player) pays off what the amount spent on his time at the school would be. If he leaves and doesnt pay, the school loses the scholarship for 3 years, and if a guy drops out or is kicked off the team the scholarship is removed for 5 years.

That's a damn good idea. This paper is gonna be EASY. It only needs to be 2 pages lmfao

let me know what grade you get and please cite me as professor eccles

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:

MaddMatter wrote:I went with "You must have an athlete graduate with a degree before you can use a scholarship on another player."

If that makes sense. It puts the focus back on getting an education and should create parody in the NCAA. With players going to smaller schools to get the grades they need to graduate.

to clarify...

hypothetical with a junior or redshirt sophomore who leaves early for the NFL or drops out of school for what ever reason. that scholarship is gone until that guy gets a degree? gone until he would have scheduled to have graduated? gone forever?

I still have to give that more thought, maybe they lose the scholarship for 5 years if the player drops out, or 2 years if the player goes pro.

I would have it like this. if a guy goes pro, the school keeps the scholarship if he (leaving player) pays off what the amount spent on his time at the school would be. If he leaves and doesnt pay, the school loses the scholarship for 3 years, and if a guy drops out or is kicked off the team the scholarship is removed for 5 years.

that would be messed up though.
schools would take less chances on troubled kids which also would make it harder for those to get a chance at a better life.

the declare early and pay it back is good though.
it should stop some players for leaving early.

but kicked out or dropped is removed for 5years will screw others who could have use that scholarship in those 5 years.

well troubled kids dont have to play D1 ball, they can play the lower levels where you dont see full ride scholarships, places like d2 monmoth where you see kids get some money to play, other through aide and loans. or d3 with no athletic money what so ever.

EPICx69 wrote:well troubled kids dont have to play D1 ball, they can play the lower levels where you dont see full ride scholarships, places like d2 monmoth where you see kids get some money to play, other through aide and loans. or d3 with no athletic money what so ever.

but at D1 they have a better chance to go from troubled to not troubled anymore.

especially if they have the talent.

TRU11 wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:well troubled kids dont have to play D1 ball, they can play the lower levels where you dont see full ride scholarships, places like d2 monmoth where you see kids get some money to play, other through aide and loans. or d3 with no athletic money what so ever.

but at D1 they have a better chance to go from troubled to not troubled anymore.

especially if they have the talent.

you mean where they are pampered and put in a diapers instead of having to spend money on themselves to see and learn responsibilities and gain an education through hard work? no yea, by all means they would be not troubled. only reason why the honeybadger and those other LSU players were smoking pot in the 1st place is because they didn't have to buy their own books.

EPICx69 wrote:

TRU11 wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:well troubled kids dont have to play D1 ball, they can play the lower levels where you dont see full ride scholarships, places like d2 monmoth where you see kids get some money to play, other through aide and loans. or d3 with no athletic money what so ever.

but at D1 they have a better chance to go from troubled to not troubled anymore.

especially if they have the talent.

you mean where they are pampered and put in a diapers instead of having to spend money on themselves to see and learn responsibilities and gain an education through hard work? no yea, by all means they would be not troubled. only reason why the honeybadger and those other LSU players were smoking pot in the 1st place is because they didn't have to buy their own books.

you whole fking culture is about pampering athletes and stars of all kind of bussiness lol.

like they wont get pamperd at lesser schools.

if you have talent you will get a good treatment regardless of where you end up as long as someone sees the the talent.

TRU11 wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:

TRU11 wrote:

EPICx69 wrote:well troubled kids dont have to play D1 ball, they can play the lower levels where you dont see full ride scholarships, places like d2 monmoth where you see kids get some money to play, other through aide and loans. or d3 with no athletic money what so ever.

but at D1 they have a better chance to go from troubled to not troubled anymore.

especially if they have the talent.

you mean where they are pampered and put in a diapers instead of having to spend money on themselves to see and learn responsibilities and gain an education through hard work? no yea, by all means they would be not troubled. only reason why the honeybadger and those other LSU players were smoking pot in the 1st place is because they didn't have to buy their own books.

you whole fking culture is about pampering athletes and stars of all kind of bussiness lol.

like they wont get pamperd at lesser schools.

if you have talent you will get a good treatment regardless of where you end up as long as someone sees the the talent.

at a d3 school? no, they would get recognition and shit but d3 schools have nothing to lose by discipline athletes because there is no athletic scholarships