Daily Archives: March 1, 2010

UFL Moving Two Franchises

I wouldn’t normally care about the UFL, let alone write a post about it, but they announced that the California Redwoods, who played last season in San Francisco, will move to Sacramento for the upcoming season. The New York franchise is also moving to Hartford, CT. Both teams struggled with attendance last season, and the UFL as a whole lost somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million. This move is notable because it comes at a time when Sacramento’s viability as a pro sports town is in question. The Kings have long been the only major sports franchise in town, but their issues have been well documented. While the team sold out almost every game for its first 15+ seasons in Sacramento, the fan base got spoiled, and has recently lost interest with the poor results and lack of direction of the team. Fortunately, with the arrival and quick progression Tyreke Evans, along with other young pieces like Omri Casspi, Donte Greene, and the recent addition of Carl Landry, things are looking up for the Kings. A new arena remains the primary issue regarding the long term sustainability of the team in Sacramento.

The city recently lost the WNBA’s Monarchs, due to the Maloofs letting the team go. While Sacramento will never challenge San Jose as the boutique sport capital of California, inheriting the UFL franchise can be considered a step in the right direction. With the Raiders and 49ers playing just down I-80, NFL football has always been accessible to local fans. It’ll be interesting to see how the Redwoods fare at Sacramento State’s Hornet Stadium. I don’t see it being an overwhelming success, but hopefully they can draw more fans than San Francisco did, thus helping the case for the Kings’ new arena. In addition to the Kings mostly successful run in Sacramento, the Oakland A’s minor league affiliate, the Sacramento River Cats, has been a huge success in the 10 seasons they’ve been here, leading the minor leagues in overall attendance in each of the first 9 seasons. I can’t say I’ll be purchasing season tickets to watch Doug Gabriel and the Redwoods take the field week in and week out, but it’s definitely something to check out. I’ll at least have to catch a game to watch Denny Green roaming the sidelines and see if the UFL really is who we thought they were.


NFL Needs to Change the OT Rules, but Not to This!

The NFL announced today that they are looking into changing the rules for overtime. It’s a good thing as far as I’m concerned, since we have nearly all the game decided by opening coin toss, and the team that gets the ball winning about 99% of the time. There definitely should be a more fair way to do things in deciding critical games. The proposed plan would give only playoffs games the following scenario in a tie score at the end of regulation.

Team A receives the ball. If they score a TD, they win the game. If they are held to a FG, then team B is given the ball, and has one chance to either tie or win the game.

I think it’s a start, but I have a few problems with the proposed solution. One, this will give team B the knowledge that they will be going for it every 4th down thus changing offensive strategy. It just feels like the NFL is putting a band-aid on the problem instead of fixing the debate completely. I guess giving both teams the opportunity to have the ball will appease the masses, but shouldn’t we get an overtime that will will get everyone excited about. I understand some owners won’t want all the those extra chances that one of their players can get hurt on, but who cares if it improves the game, right!?!

In my mind the NFL should change OT to one of these two possible solutions.

1)      They change it to the same as the NCAA, but I’d like to see teams start from midfield in the pros at a mimimum, so it’s truly a scoring drive.

2)      They add one extra period that ranges from 8-10 minutes, and is more like basketball. Whoever is winning at the end of the OT is the winner. This would give both teams at least enough time one drive each.

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to make a rule change. Especially a rule that has caught a ton of flack over the years for being supremely outdated and unfair. I mean you can argue that the defense of team B should stop the other team, but on the same token defenses are pretty winded by the time OT rolls around.


Moving Ramp = Disaster

I know that this clip is pretty old, a lot of times when I hurt myself I revisit this clip, and think, well at least I didn’t do something this stupid… When this stunt was thought up, I’m not sure why they thought it was a good idea. Jumping over the car would be cool in itself without the ramp moving.