The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

It is typical in a lot of international events  (World cup, Olympics, Commonwealth games etc) but rare in American sports to have a game to determine 3rd place/bronze metal. 

My youth soccer league had such games also some of the sports at summer camp did. 

As Masterfins pointed out at the World cup 3rd place game was more exciting than the actual final.

And who wouldn't have watched a matchup between Denver and the 49rs if it had been played the day before the superbowl.  I bet much of talk radio and TV would be talking about how that was the "real" superbowl. 

While the 3rd place game would not be as popular as the Super bowl, I am willing to bet it would get a larger audience than most regular season prime time games and maybe some of the wildcard and divisional playoff games.  And certainly would be more interesting than any probowl game. 

There would need to be some heavy incentives to avoid it becoming flag football.  For example: take 75% of all ticket sales and what the NFL gets from selling the TV rights and divide it among the 53 players of the winning team with the losing team getting only a $1000 each.   

 

I voted no.  The NFL carries too much risk for injury to be worth playing an extra game.  Presuming that you meant the Rams (who lost the NFCCG) instead of the 49ers, Matt Stafford would have almost no incentive to risk injury in a game that pays him less than a game check; same goes for Pat Surtain II.  And that's before you consider that winning this game guarantees that you pick 30th instead of 29th, in every round.

HOWEVER

If the third-place team instead got something like the third pick in the upcoming draft, then teams would be HIGHLY incentivized to play this game for real.  But that's obviously not going to happen.  Maybe, instead, the third-place team gets an extra pick at the end of the first round (pick #33) before the second round "starts" at pick #34?  (essentially, the third-place winner would get picks #30 and #33) That would be plenty of motivation.

I'd love to see a third place game in place of the Pro Bowl.  The Pro Bowl needs to die out.   It's become a sideshow and nobody really watches anymore.  Just name your All Pro Team and be done with it.

No, no and hell no.

Yeah, I meant the Rams. 

By my guesstimate the winner would get the equivalent of 4 or 5 game checks and the loser would get nothing.  So quite a bit of incentive. 

As for rewarding the team with better draft picks, the problem with that is that the best aspect of the NFL that it is designed to help bad teams at the expense of good teams.  So giving a third overall pick to a top 3 team would be a bad idea.  I could see giving them the first compensatory pick at the end of the 3rd round.  Or have 3rd place get #29, sb loser 30, sb winner 31 and 4th place get 32.  Effectively losing the game costs you 3 draft slots. 

There are two problems with the money incentive.

The minor problem is that the best players are going to find this money less impactful relative to their salary, which means the players with the strongest incentive are those making the least money (usually: the least accomplished players).  I don't think money incentives for team success really work.

The major problem:


Why would the owners agree to accept only 25% of revenue for this game?  It sets a terrible precedent (for them), and the owners care a lot more about precedents than they do about dollars.

P.S.
NBCU paid $100M (https://www.linkedin.com/news/story/peacocks-100m-nfl-playoff-gamble-6550002/) for the 2023 Dolphins-Chiefs playoff game.

$100M x 75% = $75M, divided by 61 (53 man roster + 8 man practice squad) = $1.23M each.
Stafford just signed a 1yr/$55M deal, but we'll use his last deal which was $42M/yr.  $42M / 18 weeks = $2.33M/wk.
In order for Stafford to make the equivalent of his previous contract, this third place game would need to go for at LEAST $190M.  
(And that's presuming all the coaches and support staff are working for free!)

Draft position is a much better incentive than cash.

The first compensatory pick at the end of the third round makes a lot of sense.   Especially seeing that the teams that reach their conference title games usually see their players and assistant coaches poached in the offseason.

Third place game winner gets pick 97.  Super Bowl loser 98, Super Bowl winner 99 and third place game loser 100 before anyone else gets compensatory picks in that round.

No.

There are too many teams in the NFL playoffs as it is that rewards mediocrity, and a third place game just adds to it.

Lets just take a step back and think that the reason all of this crap is happening is because of extra games, extra broadcasting and sponsorship money.

It's pure greed based on people getting a brief dopamine hit from winning something, anything, as opposed to achieving the ultimate goal. Do you really think winning a bronze at this FIFA World Cup meant a lot to England or their fans? It's pretty easy to guess no.

Ps. Before you mention it, I do consider the Olympics a different deal, because it is a genuinely international event (and particularly for individual events) to get a medal you have to be better than around 8.3 billion people to get one of any color. Plus it's only every four years, which means a far more limited window to achieve this.

Yes the USA is an easy target for this rant (look at the ever growing list of College Bowl games) but the rest of the world isn't immune from it either. Eventually that dopamine hit will stop and people will switch off when they realize it really means a whole lot of not much.  

You are assuming each player is being paid the same amount.  I would prorate it based on salary. 

Nah. This makes more sense for Tournaments which is what the World Cup is, not so much for end of season playoffs.