Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Why Is The Pro Bowl Played Before The Super Bowl?


ReMeDy

Recommended Posts

Obviously, Pro-Bowl players elligible for the Super Bowl would not attend to avoid unncessary injuries and concentrate on game planning their Superbowl opponent, but this also means those same players miss out on a trip to Hawaii to mingle with some of the brightest up and coming athletes. For young Pro Bowl + Superbowl elligible players, this feels like a slap in the face to them.

Why did the top brass want to have the Pro Bowl before the Superbowl? Obviously, the motivation has to be money, but is there really that big of a difference to justify robbing the Superbowl ellgible players a chance to go to Hawaii?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they changed it to a week before the superbowl so the teams in the SB would have more time to rest. Also, I'm sure they changed it to the fact the pro bowl ratings were on a decline due te fact it used to be played after the SB and people weren't as interested in Football due to the season being over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they changed it to a week before the superbowl so the teams in the SB would have more time to rest. Also, I'm sure they changed it to the fact the pro bowl ratings were on a decline due te fact it used to be played after the SB and people weren't as interested in Football due to the season being over.

Bold part is wrong, the rest is correct. Actually the ratings have always been horrid. They used to play at about 1pm EST. A few years back they moved it to primetime, moved it to prior to the SB, and I believe they even moved the event to Miami (?) for one year.

I believe the thinking was that many passive fans tune out the NFL after the season. So the Pro-Bowl fills the void in the two weeks between the conference championships and the SB, supposedly adding to the excitement leading up to the SB.

Personally I hate it. It has been a tradition of mine for many many years to watch the probowl to close out the season.

The games are getting more and more pathetic each year, this year being the worst effort I have ever seen. It was a sham, a scam and a big "#$%* you" to the fans.

I have watched since they first started airing the PB, I will never watch another one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The year it was played in Miami....gosh that sucked. Last night wasn't much better, but hey it was a reward for the players and their families, and returning to Hawaii gives a nice boost to the local economy (trust me, Hawaii has suffered along with the rest of the US in these tough times...been there several times and consider it my 2nd home of sorts)

I don't like it before the SB b/c the SB players don't play in it....and yes the effort was terrible until the 4th quarter when the money was on the line....the line play was a joke; looked like a walkthrough. Put it back after the SB, it's gonna get bad ratings anyway, and it's terrible football but it's SOMETHING to watch...until Daytona 500 and March Madness get going

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold part is wrong, the rest is correct. Actually the ratings have always been horrid. They used to play at about 1pm EST. A few years back they moved it to primetime, moved it to prior to the SB, and I believe they even moved the event to Miami (?) for one year.

I believe the thinking was that many passive fans tune out the NFL after the season. So the Pro-Bowl fills the void in the two weeks between the conference championships and the SB, supposedly adding to the excitement leading up to the SB.

Personally I hate it. It has been a tradition of mine for many many years to watch the probowl to close out the season.

The games are getting more and more pathetic each year, this year being the worst effort I have ever seen. It was a sham, a scam and a big "#$%* you" to the fans.

I have watched since they first started airing the PB, I will never watch another one.

yeah I'd rather see it after the SB. Its a meaningless game so let it be the last.

Also the SB players dont participate do they? which is another reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah I'd rather see it after the SB. Its a meaningless game so let it be the last.

Also the SB players dont participate do they? which is another reason.

Nope. Which is funny how that works. The best teams often have the best players. The best teams often make the SB. The PB is supposed to feature the best players.......so WTH?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Honestly, it wouldn't shock me to see Edgerrin Cooper drafted on Day 1.  He is one of those players that has the "it factor" enough for a team to draft on Day 1.  Each year we see it happen and so-called professionals nowhere close to all those mock drafts.  
    • That's fair.   So, let's say AR pans out - are we serious Super Bowl contenders then? As the roster is right now, with a high-level AR?   I don't think so. I think our roster - disregarding the QB - is a ways behind other contenders. And even worse, I think the roster is just built wrong. This year Ballard has spent a lot of money making sure our defense can defend the run while everyone else are building to stop the passing game. Everything Ballard does is just contradictory to what works in the modern NFL.   So what about the other 9 guys I mentioned?   Wilkins would've been a Buckner level DT to seriously improve the pass rush up the middle. Huff had at least 28% more pressures than ANY of our guys (Buckner highest) while playing 161 FEWER pass rush snaps. And he was signed for a hair over $17m/year and you have "no idea why I'd think Ballard should have considered the 4 big name players who Ballard didn’t pursue"?   Do you think Geno Stone and Frankie Luvu are "bright lights"? I think they are affordable players who would improve this roster in areas of weakness. Same with the other 7 affordable guys I mentioned. The times the McLeod signings work out are so far between it's laughable, but the few who do workout somehow always make people forget the tens of 1 year jags he signs that don't.   We do know, but we also all see the results and that's what people want to see change.   I respect your opinion on this and I don't want to come off as harsh towards you (or anyone else). 👍  But I very much disagree that what Ballard is doing is working.
    • Kind of my own assessment as well with this year's RB Class.  What one lacks another has and so on. Not one complete back and maybe one worthy of being drafted on Day 2, none on Day 1. 
    • I think this is probably deserving of it's own thread, but I'll leave this initial response here. I'm happy to continue the conversation in another thread.   There are a couple of pertinent details that I don't think you're considering.   First, signing bonuses are due upon signing. They aren't necessarily paid upon signing. This article suggests signing bonuses can be paid over the course of 12-18 months. Some signing bonuses are paid in installments. So just because a player contract includes a $20m signing bonus doesn't mean the team is paying the player $20m the day he signs; the player might not receive that $20m for several months, a year, or longer. The pay dates for signing bonuses are almost never reported.   Second, a more comprehensive look at the contracts you mentioned would include roster bonuses. For example, while Buckner's contract did not include a signing bonus, it did include an $11m roster bonus. Spotrac shows the roster bonus was due to be paid on 3/20/2020, which was four days after Buckner's contract was signed. For cash flow purposes, there isn't necessarily a difference. (Ryan Kelly, $10m roster bonus; Kenny Moore, $8m; Mo Alie-Cox, $5.1m.)   Take a closer look at this. Buckner signed a four year extension for $84m, on top of his 5th year option, for a total value of five years, $96.4m. No signing bonus, but the $11m roster bonus, plus a base salary of $12.4m in 2020. The total cash paid to Buckner in the first year was $23.4m. The same day the Colts signed Buckner, the Niners signed Arik Armstead. His contract was five years, $85m, and included a $17.5m signing bonus (no details on the pay dates of the signing bonus). His base salary in 2020 was $2.5m. So the cash paid to Armstead in the first year was $20m, and that's assuming all of his signing bonus was paid out in 2020. In both cases, the Year 1 cash was about 24% of the total value of the contract.   Another example from the same year: Myles Garrett signed for five years, $125m, and his signing bonus and salary totaled $22m, less than 18% of the total value. The previous year, Frank Clark signed with the Chiefs for five years, $104m, with a $19m signing bonus, and a salary + incentives of $1.3m, totaling $20.3m in Year 1 cash, less than 20% of the total value.    There's also the funding rule, which requires that deferred money and fully guaranteed money is placed in escrow when the contract is signed, minus $15m. So if the Colts were offsetting lower signing bonuses with a higher percentage of guaranteed money, they would still need to fund the guaranteed money upfront. So there's really no cash flow benefit to the team; in fact, it would potentially cost the team more to fund the larger guarantees.    All of this put together, I don't think that the Colts are avoiding signing bonuses for cash flow reasons. I'm sure Irsay doesn't have the cash flow of the Rams or Broncos, etc., but I don't think the Colts are using contract structure to help cash flow. 
    • Nothing contradicts anything.   J’Ville if bad reckless spending and it got them one year of success out of 10.   No contradictions here.     As for Ballard, as he said at his year ender, the problem hasn’t been the FA spending or the roster.   The problem has been not being to get the quarterback right.  If Wentz had worked out, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.      I have no idea why you’d think Ballard should have considered the 4 big name players who Ballard didn’t pursue.   They went for HUGE money.   Ballard has zero interest in those guys.  As a fan who follows football closer than most I had zero interest in any of them.   And I had zero interest BEFORE they signed and it was expected they’d go for less.   I didn’t want them at most any price they would’ve wanted.    Of your longer list….  Frankie Luvu had some interest for me.  Maybe Geno stone.  Otherwise I believe there’s a list of safeties who are still available.   Remember Rodney McCloud?   Ballard signed him and he had perhaps the best year of his career.  Graded in the low 80’s for 1.7 mill.   That’s a Ballard signing.   People forget them.   They want bright lights and shiny new toys.     We should all know by now that’s not Ballard’s way.  
  • Members

    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 20,793

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Solid84

      Solid84 6,065

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • OhioColt

      OhioColt 385

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 6

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Zoltan

      Zoltan 3,102

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Superman

      Superman 20,075

      Moderators
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...