+162 The Super Bowl should be a series of 3 games to determine a winner. amirite?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Football is too hard on the athletes. They can already only play one game a week. Playoff games are more intense, so they get an extra week off before the final to recover. Nobody wants to drag out the championship game for a month and a half.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

There's a reason it's so difficult to win back to back super bowls, players can't recover as much in the offseason. Adding on an extra two weeks would be brutal

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Harder than hockey?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Seems to be. Hockey players play several games a week.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Yes, definitely. Hockey players get hit maybe 4-5 times per game at most. The majority of a football team collides into each other intentionally every play. I would argue that the big hits would mostly likely be similarly hard on the body, but for the football layers they are taking a many, many more smaller hits in between each of the big ones.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Is this Rodger Goodell?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Noooo?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

NO. You already get 2 weeks to get healthy and strategize. Thats plenty of time.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Nobody would survive the series.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I disagree, I like that there's only one game to decide the winner, makes the stakes higher and feels more novel. Plus, players need at least 5 days, optimally at least a week to recover between games, so it would take too long.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The general feeling is (I think) that football is too punishing of a sport for the players. That's why baseball plays 162 games a season but football plays only 17. Even hockey, also a rough sport, plays 82 games, so football is *especially* punishing. Football players need several days to simply recover between games in a regular season. A three-game series for football would have to be played over a three-week span, or risk damaging players that are worth millions. The famous saying of "any given Sunday" means it's *possible* that any NFL team can beat any other NFL team on any given game day. Baseball seasons have so many games that the differences between the winning qualities of the teams have lots of "data points." With football, there's always a lot of luck involved - ask the Jets. No other sport has such detailed injury reports as a regular feature. The Super Bowl has *never* been won by the team with the best record in the league. That should tell you something.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

In football, the players are so vulnerable to injury that multi game series would probably be decided by injuries rather than anything else.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

How would this be any different than them playing every weekend for 17 wks?

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Teams typically don't play each other more than once a season and if they do, not back to back. So the benefit of injuring opposing team's players is not worth the retribution of the league.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

the best team is whoever wins that one game. I've never really understood why most american sports like to make it into a multi game final

by Anonymous 1 year ago

A multi game final makes it less likely that one team wins because of a lucky break or a good/bad day. Also, in a sport like baseball, you want to get deeper into the pitching rotation than just each team's best starter, and it takes more than one game to establish which team is best because good teams aren't as dominant on any given day.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Sometimes the worse team gets the win and that's okay. Pats fan here lol

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Cuz if team A beats team B 90% of the time, team B could win off that 10% day

by Anonymous 1 year ago

> the best team is whoever wins that one game. > > This is objectively incorrect.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I can guarantee the NFL and the team owners would be into it. The players union would be, rightfully so, against it without some heavy compensation to do so.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

What would be the point, may as well just have a full league and declare the winner the champion. It is all about one occasion same as any big final.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The players would never agree to that. Also, who tf wants to watch 3 weeks for a super bowl. One game does in fact t show us who the beta team is because they would have had to win week in amd week out to make it there.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

"You get an injury! And you get an injury! Everyone gets an injurrrryyyyyy!!!"

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Football is the most popular game amongst Americans in no small part because it keeps the number of games low and by extension raises the stakes of every game. We love the "one and done" format. That's also why March Madness gets better ratings than the NBA playoffs. People like the randomness of single elimination. Who really cares if the champ is objectively the best team of that year? They were the best team in the moments that mattered.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Nice try, NFL. Trying to sneakily pitch feelers for a three game superbowl to increase your profits on the most valuable game of the season, threefold. I'm on to you.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

How many games you need to determine the best team satisfactorily usually comes down to how confident the audience is that the better team wins a game. People generally accept that the better team in football wins often enough--it's not uncommon for a good team to have an 85-95% winning percentage--for a one-game playoff to be a good barometer of the better team. In baseball on the other hand, a season winning percentage above 65% is rare, so a single game play-off would feel like a fluke; NHL and NBA winning percentages are somewhere in between but closer to MLB. There's not really much of a point in extending the Super Bowl--and in fact, doing so would change what constitutes a "better team" because then the winner becomes about depth, injury luck, stamina and long-term tactical adjustments rather than peak performance when there's "one chance." (Also, a football game is pretty long and there is an opportunity to strategize and reorganize at the half--and even in the game--which good teams do.)

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Lmao no

by Anonymous 1 year ago

That is definitely an unpopular opinion.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Part of its appeal is that the worse team has a legitimate chance, which becomes much lower with a series (and increases the chance of a decisive injury.)

by Anonymous 1 year ago

This will get implemented and the Bills will win "game 1" and you know what happens in 2 and 3.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

There would be a lot of injuries

by Anonymous 1 year ago

lol absolutely not. American football is way too physically demanding for athletes to do that. They already have weeks to prepare for the game.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

"Best team" doesn't matter. Being the champion or last one standing matters. Even if it were 4/7, that doesn't mean the "best team" will win. Maybe a couple bounces or a ref decision swing their way enough times that an underdog could win. And thats before injuries pile up.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

They do...it's called the Playoffs.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Those aren't the same teams, though. Other sports have the playoffs as well, but even the games before the Stanley Cup, NBA Finals, or World Series are played in a series of games. OP means that the championship for the NFL should be decided in a multiple game series, just like other sports.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Idiot.. lol

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I like when sports are more gamified. Otherwise the favorites win so often its boring. Making the most talented team also be up against randomness increases my enjoyment. 3 games would eliminate too much randomness in football whereas baseball doesn't lose much randomness at all by having 7 game series.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I support just because knowing Murica they'll make it a national holiday long weekend

by Anonymous 1 year ago

It would be 3 weeks long or more

by Anonymous 1 year ago

On the one hand, more Football is lame, on the other hand, having a series is best because a single game is an awful indicator of the better team.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The Super Bowl makes more money in one night than other championships do over the course of their series. By making it one night, people make it more of a priority to tune in because they know this is *the* game, and they won't be able to catch another game the next day.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

The fact that it's one game makes it much more popular for international audiences as well.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

I agree with best of three. The players are freaks and paid like one. Gimme more football.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

Yeah no. That would be too hard on the players. And I think it's more exciting that it comes down to one game. Do or die. All the excitement is in one single game. I wouldn't feel as excited and pumped up if there were multiple games. This is the biggest reason why Football is my favorite professional sport and the only one I seriously follow. Because the rest have too many games! Especially baseball. I like it much better this way. With multiple games, you have more than one chance. And it doesn't give me the adrenaline of knowing it's do or die.

by Anonymous 1 year ago

This is an opinion that is wrong. It ignores the limits of the human body. Also football is dumb.

by Anonymous 1 year ago