changing draft??15 to 10?
Moderator: bwgood77
changing draft??15 to 10?
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 18,480
- And1: 4,051
- Joined: Sep 20, 2004
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
changing draft??15 to 10?
I for one am all for it!! I think the draft takes to long and most of the time they just waste time..i say move it to 10 mins and second round to 7 mins. i think it will get better ratings. what does everyone think???
-
- Senior
- Posts: 668
- And1: 31
- Joined: May 13, 2006
- Location: ONTARIO, CA
-
They need 2 do something. I've thought of that before. Maybe trimming the minutes of the 1st round to 12 minutes. I know that sometimes the team knows who they gonna draft & still wait the whole 15 minutes to select. Just pick the player & speed up the draft.
And its not because I reside in a fast paced state eihter..CA
This year's draft was considered the longest 1st day draft ever.
And its not because I reside in a fast paced state eihter..CA
This year's draft was considered the longest 1st day draft ever.
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 19,810
- And1: 6
- Joined: Jul 20, 2005
-
- NFL Analyst
- Posts: 16,964
- And1: 129
- Joined: Apr 30, 2001
- Location: Back in the 616
- Contact:
-
I just wish that teams who knew exactly what they were going to do didn't exhaust their entire alloted time. Like this year with the Bucs--once they were on the clock their phone rang once, and it was Atlanta calling to tell them they were no longer interested in trading for the pick. End the suspense and make your freaking picks!
Another thing that came out of potential draft revisions is to have the draft in different locales every year, which would be cool IMO. I went in 2000 and it was dreafully long, boring, and uncomfortable, yet at the same time pretty neat and intriguing. I'm not going back to NYC but I'd be willing to go to Chicago or Detroit or Indy (all ~3 hour drives) to see it.
Another thing that came out of potential draft revisions is to have the draft in different locales every year, which would be cool IMO. I went in 2000 and it was dreafully long, boring, and uncomfortable, yet at the same time pretty neat and intriguing. I'm not going back to NYC but I'd be willing to go to Chicago or Detroit or Indy (all ~3 hour drives) to see it.
-
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 10,689
- And1: 23
- Joined: Jan 12, 2003
- Location: Washington D.C.
Icness wrote:I just wish that teams who knew exactly what they were going to do didn't exhaust their entire alloted time. Like this year with the Bucs--once they were on the clock their phone rang once, and it was Atlanta calling to tell them they were no longer interested in trading for the pick. End the suspense and make your freaking picks!
Another thing that came out of potential draft revisions is to have the draft in different locales every year, which would be cool IMO. I went in 2000 and it was dreafully long, boring, and uncomfortable, yet at the same time pretty neat and intriguing. I'm not going back to NYC but I'd be willing to go to Chicago or Detroit or Indy (all ~3 hour drives) to see it.
Couldn't this be used as a relatively cheap barometer to see what Football interest is like in certain cities? I.E. London or Toronto?
-
- NFL Analyst
- Posts: 16,964
- And1: 129
- Joined: Apr 30, 2001
- Location: Back in the 616
- Contact:
-
J.Kim wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Couldn't this be used as a relatively cheap barometer to see what Football interest is like in certain cities? I.E. London or Toronto?
Hmm, I hadn't thought of that angle. I don't think it would work too well unless there is an established rooting interest. Toronto might work because of all the Bills fans, maybe. Plus I think the travel expense would rule out overseas locales. Teams have several hundreds of thousands of dollars of tcom equipment and personnel on site at the draft--just this past draft the Falcons had 47 officially credentialed people at the draft itself, plus another 20 or so back in ATL.
I like the suggestion from Jim Miller on Sirius NFL radio--hold it in LA as a bigger giant middle finger to the fans there.
- Pierce 4 3
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,710
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 09, 2007
- Location: Wherever there is money to steal
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,901
- And1: 14
- Joined: Aug 02, 2005
J.Kim wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Couldn't this be used as a relatively cheap barometer to see what Football interest is like in certain cities? I.E. London or Toronto?
The NFL have known for a while that Toronto could support a team but do not want to move to Canada yet. I only want a team in Toronto if Buffalo moves because there are too many teams in the NFL already.
- Elway=GOAT
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,475
- And1: 1
- Joined: Jul 01, 2003
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
Im all for, moving up from 15 to 10. That would spead things up a bit.
Id rather keep it in NYC. Its fine the way it is. Why the hell move it to Canada? Nobody cares about Canada here(No offense canadians,its blunt but honest imo), and the NFL obvioualy isnt moving any teams anytime soon there. They dont need to anyways.
Id rather keep it in NYC. Its fine the way it is. Why the hell move it to Canada? Nobody cares about Canada here(No offense canadians,its blunt but honest imo), and the NFL obvioualy isnt moving any teams anytime soon there. They dont need to anyways.
Return to The General NFL Board