Anyone else tired of Mullins suggestions?

Like really if its not broken dont fix it, enough with his weird suggestions for the game!

How many suggestions has he made? I only see two, one on the conceded safety, one on the convert.

I disagree with his position on the safety.

I agree with some of the things he says about the convert. In particular, since there's a greater than 99% success rate on the convert, I don't see the point (ha!) of maintaining the status quo.

Well he's got a point you have to admit. . . 99.6 conversion rate. . . why bother?

Were it to be me making a decision, rather than choosing one of the alternatives he suggests, I'd be tempted just to do away with the whole convert thing as a boring waste of time, and make touchdowns worth 7 points. Then you kick off and let's get back to playing the game.

It may be as close to a sure thing as there is in the pros, but let's assume we start awarding teams 7 pts for a TD, what happens when they elect to go for 2 pts following a touchdown - and miss? Or do we now do away with that exciting play altogether? :frowning:

They get 7 points anyway? Do we now award them 9 points if they score the TD and make the "2 point" convert?

There should be some inherent risk with that decision. It seems a bigger gamble with more ramifications in the game if that team only gets 6 points instead of 8.

Keep things the way they are.

The single point convert is really a waste of time. Set it up so its a 50/50 proposition or do away with it and go to he 2 point single down. Teams would be forced to set aside more practice time if they have to go for two more often. You might even see the backup QB be the main weapon for those situations. Lots more strategy than a 99.9 percent single....

I agree with the safety... disagree with the convert.

I believe I was the first on this forum to suggest a 3 point safety over creating special case kickoffs or free kicks from different parts of the field.

I'm all for increasing competitive integrity without over-complicating the game. I feel fans are vehemently opposed to this because we haven't made a major change to the scoring system since the introduction of the 2 point convert in 1975. It has to be pointed out however that the modern game was born out of progressive scoring system changes that reflected evolving strategies and athletic abilities in the early 1900s. At one time, a field goal was worth more than a touchdown.

The convert doesn't need change. Its nearly automatic but a simple part of the game that stems back to rugby and allows for the gamble that is the 2 point convert when needed.

who is mullins??

[url=] ... ame-part-1[/url]

The convert is a waste of time, get rid of it I agree or replace it with a must-do dropkick keeping of course the option of going for 2. I like the 3 pt safety rule actually.

Jim Mullin is the sports director at CKNW in Vancouver and Sports Broadcaster of University Football on the coast.

I don't have a problem with the convert. What I have a problem with is Mullins. Shut up already! Maybe it's just me, but I'm getting tired of the rule changes every off-season. Eventually the game is going to become a novelty.

If it'll greatly impact the game in a positive way, then go for it. Otherwise, who the hell cares. Change for the sake of it.

Besides, didn't we just change the rules last year so that if a team concedes a safety, they have to kick from the 25 instead of the 35? What's wrong with that? Why do we need to make it three points? Field position in the CFL is pretty damn important. I say keep it the way it is.

Yes... I'm tired of mullins.

Look, it's the off season, just food for thought. This Mullins guy doesn't seem to be a bad guy at all, just brain storming ideas in a good way and that's ok in my books. The rules committee will be careful in any adoption of new rules, err on the side of conservatism, as most leauges do.

so why are people in other provinces even aware of his opinions, much less concerned about them??

Some fans don’t think that that particular rule change did enough to deter conceded safeties.

Why do we need to make it three points? Field position in the CFL is pretty damn important. I say keep it the way it is.
Some want to see a game where both field position and scoring are earned through running, throwing, catching, blocking, tackling or kicking and not through running out the back of the end zone or taking a knee.

A 3 point safety would better address that desire as opposed to the current kickoff from the 25.

Modifying the rouge only to count on returnable kicks into the end zone and subsequently scrimmaging closer to the goal line than the current 35 would also further that cause.

his ideas are stupid.

he's not suggesting ways to help make it a little more competitive and exciting, he wants to change things because he has nothing else left to do.

you can't go start making suggestions to change the single point because it's too easy!

the NFL for christ sake has it and they still make it all the time! no difference here except where they place the ball! big whoop!

can somebody please tell this fool to go take a bus somewhere that the population is 0?

Are you going to deny that having the chance for more two-point converts and decreasing the instant chance of a single point would be more entertaining than seeing a one-point convert connect 99% of the time? The guy's making a legitimate suggestion to make the game more exciting. That's all. He isn't proclaiming what he says as though it absolutely MUST be changed.

Football is a sport, and like all sports, it exists for fun, for competition and for entertainment. The CFL's changed rules many times. If you look at the NFL, you can tell that they're wildly different games. In my opinion, too many people are afraid of change. Lack of change brings about stagnation. Changing the single point would be a pretty dramatic change, I'll hand you that, but if we did change it, it could very well make the game better in ways we couldn't even anticipate.

I'm not implying that any rules need to be changed immediately, but I don't think changing the single point could harm the CFL. The OT rule was an experiment, and if you ask me, it was a success. This would be in the same vein, albeit with a greater impact.

This is just light-hearted off-season banter though (as I'm sure you'll agree :stuck_out_tongue: ) and I think people should atleast tolerate Mullin for his suggestions, even if you are completely against them, 'cause, like someone said, Mullin doesn't decide what the rules are: the CFL does.

Lets just say this is the .1% of the time where an extra point is missed lol

This is footage of the New Orleans Saints vs Jacksonville Jaguars and lets just say it came down right to the point. :stuck_out_tongue:

If people think the convert is automatic and therefore too boring, maybe the league should put the hash marks back to where they originally were before they put them closer together in the '70s. The angles would be more extreme the closer you get to the goal posts, so making a convert (or even short FG) wouldn't be automatic. While they're at it, the league ahould put the EZ back to 25 yds (like they were before they changed them in the '80s), then we wouldn't have as many singles going through the EZ without being able to be returned (which is something many people here seem not to like).
I wish the league hadn't started f***ing around with the field in the '70s and '80s and left things they way they were, we wouldn't have as many complaints regarding kicking the ball.
I know the league will never change what's been done, but that's the root of the problems, not the rules themselves.

If it aint broke..dont fix it! Im really sick and tired of constant changing of rules just for the sake of changing.
Honestly his idea about the safety has no merit in my opinion whatsoever.
As far as the convert, who really cares...
You don`t like it, go extend your bathroom break by 30 seconds.

Not sure FootbalYouBet, but maybe the answer lie in thats he post articles on the cfl website or people bring up sports articles on their computers just to keep up with the times? :expressionless: