Mark, I love this idea. There is no sponsor currently for the new stadium so this theoretically could work. Every season the Jets and the Giants would not only battle for the Super Bowl, but for "Meadowlands Stadium" naming rights as well.Imagine this season where the Giants went into the last game of the season with no shot at making the playoffs. They basically laid down and let the Vikings run all over them in the final game. Truthfully, other than pride, they had no incentive to go all out in this game. Actually, they had a disincentive to win the game because of draft pick ordering.
But if the Giants were playing for stadium naming rights for this year, it would actually give them some incentive (albeit, not as much as the draft pick) to play hard. They may still not have gotten the naming rights (if the Jets won like they did, it would come down to NFL tiebreaking rules and I'm not sure who would have gotten it), but at least they would have had a chance.
In the end, this distinction is probably along the lines of "This One Counts" for the MLB All Star Game (where it determines home-field advantage for the World Series), but I think this gimmick could actually work to entice teams to play a little harder for the chance to play in a stadium with their name on it the next year. And I guarantee you if the Giants were playing in "Jets Stadium" next year, they'd have plenty incentive to get that name back for 2011.
Posts
Interesting idea, but here's one problem with it. What happens when you have years like 2006-08, when the AFC East was a joke outside New England and the NFC East was, well, a beast. Theoretically, the Giants could have fielded a much better 8-8 team than the Jets, who got to 9-7 courtesy of a couple cheap wins over Buffalo and Miami. I just feel there's nothing to account for strength of schedule, so giving the naming rights to the team with the best straight-up record could be unfair.
ReplyDeleteWhat about making an annual Jets/Giants preseason game always the last preseason game, and having that determine the naming rights for the upcoming season? I wouldn't want the teams to press and risk injury, but since the last preseason game is the most full-speed one, it could work. People are always clamoring for the preseason to be more "lifelike" anyway, and besides, it's just naming rights we're talking about, so who cares if we let it ride on an exhibition game. It would certainly force a sellout!
Actually Jay, the final pre-season game is normally a joke. The teams play the hardest in the third, and starters rarely play in the final week because they are already in game shape and don't wanna risk injury
ReplyDeleteJay, I think the problem you described is the problem with all tiebreakers. Teams from different divisions do not play the same schedules and the strength of opponent. Why would this be so different?
ReplyDeleteAnd making it a preseason battle is a bad idea in my opinion. Giants fans all remember Jason Sehorn getting hurt returning a kick against the Jets in the preseason--I would not want to see the Gmen going for it all when it didn't count and risking injury right before the season.
Andrew, how is the preseason any different from the Giants playing to win naming rights in Week 17 vs. Minnesota when they had already been eliminated?
ReplyDeleteIt's not. You're proposing playing for something -- stadium naming rights -- in an otherwise meaningless game. Which necessarily involves playing hard despite the risk of a Sehorn-like injury.
And Ari, is doesn't matter which game it is. My point was to move it to the preseason game in which the teams are playing their hardest, regardless of whether it's the 3rd or 4th game.
But yes, the strength of schedule and tiebreaker issues are, in my opinion, the reason why this wouldn't be fair.
Jay, the last game against Minnesota, though meaningless in the standings to the Giants, was still a regular season game. I'm sure the NFL would wholeheartedly support their decision as they try to stop teams from just laying down in games that don't mean anything for them.
ReplyDeleteI see your point about making a meaningless game meaningful...but you think Rex Ryan or Tom Coughlin would risk getting Manning or Sanchez hurt by playing them a full game right before the regular season starts? More likely they'll play them in Week 17 with the whole offseason in front of them.
I think it could go either way. And I agree that Manning and Sanchez will not play a whole game in the preseason. But hear me out.
ReplyDeleteWeek 17 will be sold out because it's a regular season game. Yet preseason games are always unpopular, and here we have a way to boost its popularity. Maybe the starters won't play an entire game in preseason, but even if the backups are in there, who cares? They're still wearing Giants and Jets uniforms (wasn't it Rex Ryan who said that Painter might not be Peyton but he's still wearing a Colt uniform in Week 16?).
Even if naming rights are halfway decided by the second string, I'd still rather having the stadium naming rights battle take place *directly* face to face than have it come down to two completely strength of schedules and tiebreaker formulas.
So, if we're debating between which meaningless game will be the deciding factor, I vote for a head-to-head preseason matchup...even if it features David Carr vs. Kellen Clemens.
ummm guys - don't you remember Giants LB Danny Clarke wrecking Pennington's shoulder in the preseason a few years back? That was just bad news bears.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I cannot get behind this idea that a preseason game should determine anything at all. They are meaningless, often useless exhibition contests. They shouldn't even HAVE a 4th preseason game, to be honest. It's ridiculous. NFL season is brutal on the human body, they'd be much better off just cutting out week 4 of preseason and having the Super Bown in January again.
ReplyDeleteAs for the naming of the Stadium being "unfair" because of unbalanced schedules and divisions, I am similarly unmoved. It has been Giants Stadium for years. Why? Because the Giants were the NFL team and the Jets were the AFL team, I guess. I honestly don't know. It just is. It'd be more fair to at least give the Jets a chance. The team that has their name on the building should earn it. If you watch Mad Men, you understand that it WAS Sterling & Cooper, but then Draper became the man and it became Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Price. It was Giants Stadium but now the Jets are competitive (I'd call AFC Championship game competitive), they deserve a chance to have it be Jets Stadium next year. If that pisses off the Giants so much, try winning some G** DAMN GAMES this year. This is New York (ish) -- we can't complain about "oh my division was so hard we couldn't win any games waah waah waah." That's some weak Tampa/Toronto/B'more shit. The Jets have to play the Patriots and Dolphins, the Giants have to play the Cowboys and Eagles. Who cares which team is actually better? In a results based society and a results based league with a fanbase that demands results you can't say "it was too hard for us to win as many games as the Jets." The Jets had a rookie head coach and a rookie QB. If they had gone 4-12 I wouldn't be saying "poor Jets, they had rookies at kep positions, they couldn't possibly win under those awful circumstances." I'd say "too bad, Jet fan, another year in Giants Stadium for you sir!"
Earn it. A friendly rivalry in New York won't hurt anyone. Whichever team drafts second (of the two) gets their name on the building, bright and bold for all to see, for one calendar year. That's a key adjustment to the original plan because, if, for example, G-men go 11-5 and get bounced in their first playoff game, but Jets go 10-6 and win the Super Bowl, then the Jets should obviously get their name on the building.
Hope that makes sense. If you're with me, retweet me on Twitter or something so that we can spread the word and make it happen.
How about they call it Meadowlands Stadium and keep the team name out of it?
ReplyDelete