http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk3WTXl5dY8 seems appropriate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDSfCqFUS7k

No. It's a safety issue WRT proper hydration.

MMA: Allow knees to the head of a grounded opponent.

Depends on your definition of exciting.

Silva/Sonnen
Shogun/Machida I
Rampage/Griffin
Couture/Rizzo I
Couture/Rodriguez

Sylvia/Couture was exciting, but for completely different reasons.

There aren't a ton of championship fights that go the distance. We're looking at a pretty small sample size.

I think that PI calls should be able to be reviewed, but only at full speed.

you're going back 10 years and have come up with 5 matches. i'm gonna guess that at least 50 matches have gone 5 rounds between ufc, wec and strikeforce in that time but i'm just pulling that number out of my ass. i could definitely list more than 5 matches where the fifth round was awful though.
it's not just a safety issue. it would also result in more boring matches.

those two statements in the same post are pretty funny tho

Isn't this American indoor soccee

why man why
part of the game

I wasn't considering WEC or SF. There was 33 in the UFC since 2001. Some good ones I forgot:

Hughes/Newton
Jackson/Henderson
Couture/Ortiz

Outside the UFC, just off the top of my head:

Diaz/Noons II
Brown/Faber II

And what makes the fifth round "awful" to you? Is Penn/Sanchez "awful" because Penn beat him down for 5 rounds? Same with GSP/Fitch? Aldo/Faber? Is GSP/Hardy awful because of GSP's tactics? Same with the Alves fight?

but then where do you draw the line on what is/isn't reviewed? imagine the *****torm if they didn't review a questionable play.

I'd like to see in future years some kind of instantaneous polling of everyone watching on TV to determine stuff like this. I do think the mass public would get most things right if put to a vote. And it would be cool as **** interactive and democratic.

Cricket - All games must end within 3 months after the first pitch.

Jai Alai - Let left handed people play.

Wrestling - Be more consistent on the 10 count for leaving the ring.

I don't understand why hockey NEEDS fighting when all these more-violent sports can handle their **** without it. Makes no sense. And it takes jobs from actually hockey players--kids who worked on their hockey skills--and gives them to Bald Bull and King Hippo.

In college football, lets get rid of this nonsense where you're down if you hit the ground even though a player from the other team hasn't made contact w/ that player.

I'd much prefer a 3/2/1/0 scoring system so that every game would count for the same points.

3 points for a regulation win
2 points for an OT/SO win
1 point for an OT/SO loss
0 points for a regulation loss

All games worth 3 points.

because baseball players don't commonly hit each other with their bats. fighting in an unfortunate mechanism that is needed for discipline. post-game fines/suspensions just won't do it, so the threat of violence must exist to keep people in line.

removing fighting to the extent they have via the instigator rule has probably caused more injuries and serious incidents than it has prevented. you know, save for all the goons that have punched themselves out of the game... (but that's their choice, amirite?)

I think the major reason fighting is tolerated (if not encouraged) in the NHL is that the ice/lack of traction of the players makes it very unlikely that serious injuries will result from fighting.

I could never figure out why they let 192 lb guys fight in the 175 lb class?

They should make them weigh in 10 and 4 days before the fight as well as fight day. At no time during those weigh-ins can they be more that what the weight class limitation is (e.g. 175 lbs).

Guys do a lot of weight cutting via dehydration and gain it back really quickly. If you had weigh-ins on the day of the fight some yahoos would try to speed up that process and get themselves killed in the ring

They improved soccer a few years ago when they stopped allowing goalies to handle the ball with their hands when it was passed back to them by a teammate. They should extend that to not allowing them to catch the ball outside the goal box. Change the rule so they can punch the ball out or deflect a shot, but they can't catch it and hold it. This would increase scoring opportunities by preventing a goalie from catching a ball and dropkicking it to midfield to eliminate the field position advantage the offense had. In hockey, when the goalie grabs the puck, the ref blows the whistle and the faceoff is still in the offensive end. The goalie isn't allowed to hold it forever and then shoot it the center ice.

I'd make Title IX apply only to sports that don't turn a profit.
Men's non-revenue college sports have been ****ing gutted while women are getting scholarships for **** that is barely a sport (bowling? really?).

in soccer I think offside is necessary, but I wonder if some slack would be better, offside trap feels like such a weak way to play defense oh look we stepped up 1m lol at you, you don't want cherry-picking but maybe a ~1m slack range would be good, most of the 1/2 step offside plays seem like they should stand and the game would be more interesting, at min you'd actually have to defend

Eliminate harness racing and replace with chariot racing.

make gareth bale run backwards

(just to level the playing field... some)

no more kneel downs to run out the clock

No. There's no reason to increase the chances of injury.