- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
why do some of you think the new rules detracts from our SB?
Posted on 3/26/10 at 5:47 am
Posted on 3/26/10 at 5:47 am
I have seen more than just a few comments here than it "takes away or slights Saints SB, or implications of the same. Such statements are very Rant-like. Folks this rule does nothing of the sort.
8
Posted on 3/26/10 at 6:17 am to LSUTANGERINE
If Brett Favre drives to the 38 yd line for a winning field goal in OT to beat the Saints we would not be having a rule change. Bottom line. What the league( by enacting this rule) is saying is that the best team didnt advance to the Super Bowl.
This post was edited on 3/26/10 at 6:21 am
Posted on 3/26/10 at 6:44 am to pimpshiznit
quote:
What the league( by enacting this rule) is saying is that the best team didnt advance to the Super Bowl.
No it does not. They've been talking about tweaking it for years.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 6:53 am to LSUTANGERINE
I realize theyve been thinking of tweeking it. But its odd how rushed and important it seemed this year. I have no doubt the NFC championship game played the biggest part in it. And im ok with the fans and players taking it as a slight.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 10:10 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
I have seen more than just a few comments here than it "takes away or slights Saints SB, or implications of the same. Such statements are very Rant-like. Folks this rule does nothing of the sort
Tell it to Vilma
Posted on 3/26/10 at 10:12 am to TexasTiger6777
"If you read between the lines, we feel like they're saying well, if Minnesota would have had a possession who knows what would have happened," said Vilma, who lives in Miami and was playing in a friendly tennis match with world number two Caroline Wozniacki on Thursday at the Sony Ericsson Open.
"We don't appreciate that. I don't appreciate it at all."
JV
"We don't appreciate that. I don't appreciate it at all."
JV
Posted on 3/26/10 at 10:19 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
why do some of you think the new rules detracts from our SB?
Because they are the close relative of the ranter, the saintard.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 10:30 am to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
why do some of you think the new rules detracts from our SB?
because of the brett favre cocksucking committee.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 10:47 am to whodatfan
shut. the frick. up.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 11:05 am to LSUTANGERINE
It's just coincidence that there was a huge amount of crying directly after the game that the rule was unfair, Viqueens should have had a shot, they won the game statistically, Farve wasn't protected, blah blah blah.
And then the rule change a month later.
And then the rule change a month later.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 12:07 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:
why do some of you think the new rules detracts from our SB?
If Payton is correct and the rule change was snuck in the back door in an unconventional manner, then I'd say that does lend credence to the idea that the NFL wasn't happy with how the Saints/Vikings game ended. Even if this wasn't about Favre or the Saints but was rather about people being unhappy with overtime in general, it still suggests they feel our specific victory was flawed. Do you really think this gets back doored if the Saints had managed to win in regulation? I don't.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 3:24 pm to liquid rabbit
quote:
they won the game statistically
31-28
Posted on 3/26/10 at 3:40 pm to swagsurfin7
I don't care and if the Saints players are pissed, good, go win again this year and shut the haters up
period
period
Posted on 3/26/10 at 6:20 pm to danfraz
If the Saints hadn't beaten the Colts, then the complaining would (in the media's eyes) seem justified. We beat the Vikings and beat the Colts. Saints didn't just happen to back in to a SB victory.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 7:37 pm to Chrome
I honestly think it has more to do with the fact that it was a conference championship game with a birth in the SB on the line that like 50 million people watched more than a slight against the Saints specifically.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 8:36 pm to TexasTiger6777
quote:
we feel like they're saying <well, if Minnesota would have had a possession who knows what would have happened>," said Vilma
the statement in the < > is 100% accurate.
quote:
"We don't appreciate that. I don't appreciate it at all."
Interpretation of why the rule was passed lies in the eye of the beholder
Posted on 3/26/10 at 8:37 pm to liquid rabbit
quote:
It's just coincidence that there was a huge amount of crying directly after the game that the rule was unfair,
there's crying and whining every year.
Posted on 3/26/10 at 8:39 pm to St Augustine
quote:
honestly think it has more to do with the fact that it was a conference championship game with a birth in the SB on the line that like 50 million people watched more than a slight against the Saints specifically.
much more believable that a slight of the Saints
Posted on 3/26/10 at 9:33 pm to LSUTANGERINE
Longer, more dramatic overtimes = more advertising revenue
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News