What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Cutting quarter length? (1 Viewer)

snellman

Footballguy
Here is an interesting story I came across this morning, I was going to put it in the CBA thread, but decided to start a new one as I am interested in thoughts.

Something different

Unfortunately it is an insider article, so you have to have a membership to read it, but here are the cliff notes:

Marc Lillibridge who is a former player and currently an agent came up with a solution for the league's want of an "enhanced" schedule of 18 reg season games. Play an 18 game schedule, but reduce the quarters from 15 min to 12. It would actually result in less total minutes for the season, but more games, therefore less hits for players. You would have a total of 864 minutes as opposed to the current 960 minutes in a season, but would have 18 games.



Thoughts?

 
Here is an interesting story I came across this morning, I was going to put it in the CBA thread, but decided to start a new one as I am interested in thoughts.

Something different

Unfortunately it is an insider article, so you have to have a membership to read it, but here are the cliff notes:

Marc Lillibridge who is a former player and currently an agent came up with a solution for the league's want of an "enhanced" schedule of 18 reg season games. Play an 18 game schedule, but reduce the quarters from 15 min to 12. It would actually result in less total minutes for the season, but more games, therefore less hits for players. You would have a total of 864 minutes as opposed to the current 960 minutes in a season, but would have 18 games.



Thoughts?
If I was the league and willing to cut the quarter length, I would cut it down to 13 minute quarters. That still would only be 936 minutes in a 18 game season. So still less then what they play now currently but only cutting 2 minutes per quarter or 8 minutes per game.
 
Still think 18 is too many. The last 2 games of the year now only have playoff meaning to half the league. With 18. There will be 4-5 weeks of games that have no meaningfull impact to playoffs.

 
They keep the clock running all the time now. Whats next, each team gets the ball once a quarter. Every time a player gets tackled out of bounds the friggin ref comes flying in giving the arm helicopter to keep the clock running. Coaches script the first 15 plays of the game, that should get them to the forth quarter now. Remember when the Vikings had the motto "40 for 60", now its "60 for 40". Bring back real football.

 
Still think 18 is too many. The last 2 games of the year now only have playoff meaning to half the league. With 18. There will be 4-5 weeks of games that have no meaningfull impact to playoffs.
Is there a way that they can add more teams to the playoffs in some way that would help solve this problem. I think the only way they could is get of the byes for first place teams, but that makes finishing first less valuable.
 
1) Reducing the number of minutes by 20% would not reduce the number of plays by 20%, nor would it reduce the length of the game by 20%. FWIW, shorter games mean more parity, as you have fewer opportunities to use your skill advantage, and a lucky bounce early in the game has a much bigger impact on a shorter game. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Sports bettors probably see it as a bad thing.

2) 18 games does not mean 4-5 weeks of meaningless games. It would mean that a seemingly talented team that got off to a miserable start like the Vikings or Cowboys would not be out of it at 0-5 or 1-4, and would still be fighting harder earlier in the season. It would mean that a 12-2 team would not have locked up a first round bye or home field. It would mean that a bunch of 9-7 and 10-6 teams would still be fighting for the last two games of the season. It would also mean a lower likelihood of a 0, 1 or 2 win team getting the #1 overall pick, so a winless team would still be trying to play spoiler late in the season, as they should.

Look at the NFC this year. A 10-6 Bucs team that won its last two games missed the playoffs, while a 10-6 Eagles team that lost its last two games won their division. That might not seem like a big deal, but a 10-6 Packers team that won its last two games won the Superbowl. A short season makes it more possible that we don't get to see the best team in football make the playoffs, and that's bad for football. Two years earlier, an 11-5 Patriots team missed the playoffs. A longer season would have given us more time to watch that playoff race unfold. There's a lot of good stuff that would come from a longer regular season.

And that's before we talk about the value of getting rid of preseason games which give us nothing but injuries and jacked up season ticket prices as the owners charge people for a ticket that clearly isn't as valuable as a regular season game. Preseason football is a crappy product that's bad for the fans, and bad for the sport.

 
Is there a way that they can add more teams to the playoffs in some way that would help solve this problem. I think the only way they could is get of the byes for first place teams, but that makes finishing first less valuable.
I don't think you need extra teams just because you have an 18 game schedule, but if you do, here's my proposal:Sixteen teams make the playoffs, but only play four games a week, giving every team a bye week in the first two weeks of the playoffs. The top two teams from each conference play the bottom two teams the first week, and the middle four play the second week. A team that had rested its players in week 18 could use that rest for their first round playoff opponent, then use that second round bye as an extra week before their division round opponent. That would be pretty nice. And if the underdog beat them, they'd get a week off to prepare for their next opponent, so we'd really get to their best football, instead of just seeing a lucky bad team get crushed. Still, there would be a huge advantage to jockeying from seventh to sixth - you'd get an extra week's rest to prepare for your first round playoff game, and you'd dodge the top teams in the conference. So there's be a lot fewer meaningless football games in week 18. The bye week would also give us better football (or at least better rested players) after an 18 week season. It would also give the owners and TV stations more ad revenue, because they'd get an extra week of four-games-a-week playoff football. That's a lot better than trying to squeeze eight games into one weekend somehow.
 
Shorter games means fewer commercials. No go.
I don't know. You'd still switch to another game after the end of your game, and shorter quarters would lead to more overtimes and possibly more close games, so there'd be plenty of interesting highlights to work with between the end of the 1pm games and the start of the 4pms even if no game went late. And while I'm sure the networks would want to work in more TV timeouts, but in a shorter game, that's not nearly as painful for the fan.
 
Shorter games means fewer commercials. No go.
I don't know. You'd still switch to another game after the end of your game, and shorter quarters would lead to more overtimes and possibly more close games, so there'd be plenty of interesting highlights to work with between the end of the 1pm games and the start of the 4pms even if no game went late. And while I'm sure the networks would want to work in more TV timeouts, but in a shorter game, that's not nearly as painful for the fan.
:no:
 
t

Interesting.

The oft-heard complaint of games running too long (not by me) would be helped as well.
Really? I can't recall a single time in my life that I've ever heard someone say NFL games are too long. The "games are too long" complaint is pretty much unique to baseball.
Or just play 16 games and keep it how it is.
:goodposting:
I don't know what to say to you about that. I personally hear that a lot.And IIRC, the NFL has changed rules (ie how/when the game clock is started) in order to address the length of games. My memory may fail me on this though.

 
t

Interesting.

The oft-heard complaint of games running too long (not by me) would be helped as well.
Really? I can't recall a single time in my life that I've ever heard someone say NFL games are too long. The "games are too long" complaint is pretty much unique to baseball.
Or just play 16 games and keep it how it is.
:goodposting:
I don't know what to say to you about that. I personally hear that a lot.And IIRC, the NFL has changed rules (ie how/when the game clock is started) in order to address the length of games. My memory may fail me on this though.
The quickest way to fix the "too long", is stop doing the TD (XP) commercial, kickoff, commercial etc. There is no reason other than $$ for that break right after a break. Get rid of that and the game will feel "faster"
 
t

Interesting.

The oft-heard complaint of games running too long (not by me) would be helped as well.
Really? I can't recall a single time in my life that I've ever heard someone say NFL games are too long. The "games are too long" complaint is pretty much unique to baseball.
Or just play 16 games and keep it how it is.
:goodposting:
I don't know what to say to you about that. I personally hear that a lot.And IIRC, the NFL has changed rules (ie how/when the game clock is started) in order to address the length of games. My memory may fail me on this though.
The quickest way to fix the "too long", is stop doing the TD (XP) commercial, kickoff, commercial etc. There is no reason other than $$ for that break right after a break. Get rid of that and the game will feel "faster"
Presuming the TV networks want to make money and the best way to do that is advertisements, I don't see this as a problem. Gives me a chance to hit the bathroom, get a drink, etc. If you really want to shorten games, go the futbol route of a non-stop clock.

 
t

Interesting.

The oft-heard complaint of games running too long (not by me) would be helped as well.
Really? I can't recall a single time in my life that I've ever heard someone say NFL games are too long. The "games are too long" complaint is pretty much unique to baseball.
Or just play 16 games and keep it how it is.
:goodposting:
I don't know what to say to you about that. I personally hear that a lot.And IIRC, the NFL has changed rules (ie how/when the game clock is started) in order to address the length of games. My memory may fail me on this though.
The quickest way to fix the "too long", is stop doing the TD (XP) commercial, kickoff, commercial etc. There is no reason other than $$ for that break right after a break. Get rid of that and the game will feel "faster"
Presuming the TV networks want to make money and the best way to do that is advertisements, I don't see this as a problem. Gives me a chance to hit the bathroom, get a drink, etc. If you really want to shorten games, go the futbol route of a non-stop clock.

 
I never hear the too long complaint except from non-NFL fans. Regardless, for the players, it's a nice counter argument to the 18 games proposal.

 
Still think 18 is too many. The last 2 games of the year now only have playoff meaning to half the league. With 18. There will be 4-5 weeks of games that have no meaningfull impact to playoffs.
I've heard this before but don't think it's true. With 16 games now teams would be out in week 14 if they're 2 or more games behind a playoff team. If it went to 18 games, and a team is behind by 2 games in week 14, they're still not out of it because there are now 4 more games they have to catch up.This is a very simplified example, but I think it gets the point across. Is there something I'm missing?
 
Cut the quarter length to 3 minutes. Then run the clock only when the ball is in motion on a play.

Should be about right.

 
'identikit said:
I don't know what to say to you about that. I personally hear that a lot.And IIRC, the NFL has changed rules (ie how/when the game clock is started) in order to address the length of games. My memory may fail me on this though.
The NFL has changed rules to fit in more advertisements. I would rather have fewer games, played at full length.
 
Shorter games means fewer commercials. No go.
I don't know. You'd still switch to another game after the end of your game, and shorter quarters would lead to more overtimes and possibly more close games, so there'd be plenty of interesting highlights to work with between the end of the 1pm games and the start of the 4pms even if no game went late. And while I'm sure the networks would want to work in more TV timeouts, but in a shorter game, that's not nearly as painful for the fan.
:no:
I really disagree. In a hypothetical game where each team only got one possession, there would be a lot more overtimes because you'd get more 3-3, 0-0 and 7-7 games (like a college overtime). In a hypothetical game where each team only got two possessions, there would be a lot more 14-14 games, and so on. But more importantly, there would be a lot more one-score drives to end the game, with scores like 14-7, 10-3, 10-7, 7-7, 7-3, 3-3, 3-0, and 0-0 all being very common. The longer you make the quarters, the more time there is for the better team to exercise its skill advantage, and the more you emphasize different styles of play.

A running team with a good defense shortens the game for exactly this reason - they want to limit their opponents' number of offensive possessions and maximize their skill advantage on defense. A top passing team tends to want a defense that creates turnovers so they can get the most offensive possessions possible and maximize their skill advantage on offense. Longer games favor offense and big scores, shorter games favor defense and close games.

 
Shorter games means fewer commercials. No go.
Shorter games would probably translate to more commercials. The league could opt to keep the same 3 hour block for a shorter game and have more commercials in there, longer halftime, etc.I also can't remember how many times i watched the Giants run out an entire quarter last year with the run game, with shorter quarters they could run out 1.5 or even 2 quarters with one drive and proper management.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good stuff here.

There are only two sports (that come to mind) that play based on time limit: football and soccer.

The drama in football comes from close games and individual "big play" achievements but mostly from close games with teams that are locked in the "coming down to the wire." The decisions and happenings in "crunch time" define the close games, hench define the terms of the drama.

Witness PIT throwing the bomb against BAL in the 2011 divisional playoffs: locked in 24-24 tie with 2:07 in the 4th, PIT calls for the bomb on 3rd and 19. It's a brilliant call, the rational being that the worse that can happen is an INT (same as a punt), the best is a reception or pass INF. This is a game and season defining moment with only the clock to blame.

The point here is that a shorter contest, lesser snap/game idea, doesn't change the drama aspect in CLOSE GAMES.

It's a different story in season ending meaning-less games between bottom feeders, and in blow out games, in games that are not "good games." There are multiple effects in these contests:

1) Reduced fan interest to attend in person => local blackouts come into play.

2) More meaning-less season ending games result in more stars riding pine to avoid injury (that's the impact on our sport).

3) Intuitively, I suspect that the talent gap between teams is made greater, that the stronger teams get stronger and

the weaker teams get weaker as the gap in total roster talent/depth is magnified. I can't prove that statement but I think/feel that it's true.

More games = more meanling-less games. More meaning-less games = greater talent gap. Greater talent gap = reduced drama. Reduced drama = reduced fan interest. Reduced fan interest = golden goose lays large egg.

I'm just wondering how long this BILLIONS OF DOLLARS pie is going to last as the drama literally "plays it's self out." If there's fewer shots at drama, when will the public quit gobbling up the product? Will that breaking point come when the divisional races are decided with three games remaining in the expanded "regular season"? When our fantasy rosters are reduced to shambles by the mathematical uncertainty of two bye weeks and our stars are sitting in the playoffs?

When will we know we're being had? When we we realize that it's a manipulated drama that no longer occures (actually, occures with less frequency) and is no longer worth paying for?

:tumbleweed:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting.The oft-heard complaint of games running too long (not by me) would be helped as well.
you are fooling yourself if you think that this would shorten the games.12 fewer minutes per game = 12 more minutes to run commercials. A typical game would still run 3 hours.
 
If they stop selling beer in the 3rd quarter, we're talking about 6-9 minutes of lost drinking time (consumer) and beer sales (revenue). That dog doesn't hunt.

I really don't mind an 18 game season. Swap 2 preseason for 2 real games and increase the active roster to lessen the wear and tear on players.

 
Here is an opinion article from a Minnesota beat writer and I have to say that I agree with a lot of the points he is making.

18-game schedule would be greed gone too far

In case there was any confusion about the strength of the NFL Players Association's stance against an 18-game schedule, SI.com reported that NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith has said the issue is off the negotiating table.As someone who thinks an 18-game schedule is the prime example of how greed can ruin a great game, that's good to hear.

Here are reasons I'm against the longer regular season:

. I want more of the best players in the world staying healthy long enough to participate down the stretch and into the playoffs. More games means more elite players get hurt before the best part of the season -- the postseason -- arrives. You can talk about expanding the rosters to offset injuries all you want, but I'm not interested in watching sixth-stringers play postseason games. If I want to watch sixth-string NFL players, I'll watch the UFL.

. I want the meaningless games in August, not December and January. People already complain when coaches pull starters when they've clinched playoff spots with a week or two left in the regular season. What happens when teams clinch with a MONTH left in the regular season? Nope, I'd rather endure a month of preseason football than more meaningless games at the end of the regular season. Don't worry. You'll live with four preseason games instead of two.

. Please. Let's stop pretending that four preseason games and 16 regular season games are the same as two preseason and 18 regular season game. The NFL wants you to believe it's the same because in the end it's still 20 weeks. Does the league honestly think we're that stupid? The stars who make the league great don't play four preseason games. They play parts of three and sit out the fourth. If you jam the preseason into two weeks, chances are they'll have to play part of one and most of the other, and then play 18 more games.

. Please. Let's also stop pretending that fewer OTAs in the offseason would help the players hold up through two more regular season games. You're still adding 140 or so plays in which large, fast men will smash into each other.

. What happens to the bottom third of the roster if coaches can't evaluate those players in so-called "meaningless" preseason games? Taking away two preseason games means coaches won't be able to properly evaluate backups. And everybody who watched the Packers win the Super Bowl last month knows the value of properly evaluating backups. Backups become key starters in a hurry in this league. So while we all whine about boring preseason games, let's try to keep in mind their value to building a team for the regular season.

. What about all the bad teams? How awful would it have been in Week 17 last year if the Vikings still had two more games to play? Same goes for the Bills, Panthers, 49ers, Bengals, Browns, etc. If the NFL went to 18 games, you'd see a lot more empty seats in a lot more stadiums at the end of seasons.

. The commish, Roger Goodell, says the league wants to do this because the fans want it. It should also be noted that two more games would mean another half-billion dollars. But let's say Goodell really does have the fans' wishes at heart. Since when does the average fan have the best interests of the NFL in mind? If it were up to the average fan, the league would play twice a week all year long.

Let's hope the league doesn't push the 18-game idea. Personally, I think if the two sides can agree on how to divy up the $9 billion, these other issues will be resolved easily. The two sides reportedly have already agreed on a rookie wage scale, so progress is being made.

If the 18-game schedule idea is struck down, it will be considered a victory for the union and the players. It will be good for the owners, too. They're just too money hungry to realize it.
 
Here is an opinion article from a Minnesota beat writer and I have to say that I agree with a lot of the points he is making.

18-game schedule would be greed gone too far

In case there was any confusion about the strength of the NFL Players Association's stance against an 18-game schedule, SI.com reported that NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith has said the issue is off the negotiating table.As someone who thinks an 18-game schedule is the prime example of how greed can ruin a great game, that's good to hear.

Here are reasons I'm against the longer regular season:

. I want more of the best players in the world staying healthy long enough to participate down the stretch and into the playoffs. More games means more elite players get hurt before the best part of the season -- the postseason -- arrives. You can talk about expanding the rosters to offset injuries all you want, but I'm not interested in watching sixth-stringers play postseason games. If I want to watch sixth-string NFL players, I'll watch the UFL.

. I want the meaningless games in August, not December and January. People already complain when coaches pull starters when they've clinched playoff spots with a week or two left in the regular season. What happens when teams clinch with a MONTH left in the regular season? Nope, I'd rather endure a month of preseason football than more meaningless games at the end of the regular season. Don't worry. You'll live with four preseason games instead of two.

. Please. Let's stop pretending that four preseason games and 16 regular season games are the same as two preseason and 18 regular season game. The NFL wants you to believe it's the same because in the end it's still 20 weeks. Does the league honestly think we're that stupid? The stars who make the league great don't play four preseason games. They play parts of three and sit out the fourth. If you jam the preseason into two weeks, chances are they'll have to play part of one and most of the other, and then play 18 more games.

. Please. Let's also stop pretending that fewer OTAs in the offseason would help the players hold up through two more regular season games. You're still adding 140 or so plays in which large, fast men will smash into each other.

. What happens to the bottom third of the roster if coaches can't evaluate those players in so-called "meaningless" preseason games? Taking away two preseason games means coaches won't be able to properly evaluate backups. And everybody who watched the Packers win the Super Bowl last month knows the value of properly evaluating backups. Backups become key starters in a hurry in this league. So while we all whine about boring preseason games, let's try to keep in mind their value to building a team for the regular season.

. What about all the bad teams? How awful would it have been in Week 17 last year if the Vikings still had two more games to play? Same goes for the Bills, Panthers, 49ers, Bengals, Browns, etc. If the NFL went to 18 games, you'd see a lot more empty seats in a lot more stadiums at the end of seasons.

. The commish, Roger Goodell, says the league wants to do this because the fans want it. It should also be noted that two more games would mean another half-billion dollars. But let's say Goodell really does have the fans' wishes at heart. Since when does the average fan have the best interests of the NFL in mind? If it were up to the average fan, the league would play twice a week all year long.

Let's hope the league doesn't push the 18-game idea. Personally, I think if the two sides can agree on how to divy up the $9 billion, these other issues will be resolved easily. The two sides reportedly have already agreed on a rookie wage scale, so progress is being made.

If the 18-game schedule idea is struck down, it will be considered a victory for the union and the players. It will be good for the owners, too. They're just too money hungry to realize it.
A bit extreme in his points... 6th stringers? Probably not... but maybe we wouldn't see starting WRs returning punts either.18 games is a lot. I can see valid arguments either way. But the points above apply to the long seasons of the other major sports too. There are teams out of contention - and holding fire sales - long before October rolls around. The NFL doesn't have a monopoly on greed.

My biggest problem is the preseason. Four glorified scrimmages shouldn't be hoisted upon the fans who are, to a certain degree, strong armed into overpaying for a lesser product.

 
The argument that teams would clinch earlier is nonsense. Here's a list of the standings in week 16 of the NFL this year (after 15 games had been played). The bolded teams were eliminated from division contention in week 15 but would still have been alive in an 18 week season:

Patriots 13-2

Jets 10-5

Steelers 11-4

Ravens 11-4

Colts 9-6

Jaguars 8-7

Titans 6-9

Chiefs 9-6

Chargers 9-6

Raiders 8-7

Eagles 10-5

Giants 9-6

Bears 11-4

Packers 9-6

Falcons 12-3

Saints 11-4

Bucs 9-6

Rams 7-8

Seahawks 6-9

49ers 5-10

Cardinals 5-10

That's 21 teams still in it in week 15. And teams like Dallas and the Vikings that got off to terrible starts might have been in it by the end of the season because they wouldn't have fallen apart after a bad start to the season.

 
. I want more of the best players in the world staying healthy long enough to participate down the stretch and into the playoffs. More games means more elite players get hurt before the best part of the season -- the postseason -- arrives. You can talk about expanding the rosters to offset injuries all you want, but I'm not interested in watching sixth-stringers play postseason games. If I want to watch sixth-string NFL players, I'll watch the UFL.
Why is 16 games a magical number? Why doesn't he want 14 games, or 10? If fewer games means better postseason football, and two more games means "sixth stringers", then let's just skip the regular season.
. I want the meaningless games in August, not December and January. People already complain when coaches pull starters when they've clinched playoff spots with a week or two left in the regular season. What happens when teams clinch with a MONTH left in the regular season? Nope, I'd rather endure a month of preseason football than more meaningless games at the end of the regular season. Don't worry. You'll live with four preseason games instead of two.
This is nonsense, as I posted above. He's ignoring the fact that more games in the season means it's harder to clinch - and that teams will last a lot further into the season before they give up.
. Please. Let's stop pretending that four preseason games and 16 regular season games are the same as two preseason and 18 regular season game. The NFL wants you to believe it's the same because in the end it's still 20 weeks. Does the league honestly think we're that stupid? The stars who make the league great don't play four preseason games. They play parts of three and sit out the fourth. If you jam the preseason into two weeks, chances are they'll have to play part of one and most of the other, and then play 18 more games.
Of course it's not the same thing. Preseason games suck. The stars don't play. This is not an argument for preseason games. Yes, more guys will get hurt. But it won't be a 1/8 increase, either.
. What happens to the bottom third of the roster if coaches can't evaluate those players in so-called "meaningless" preseason games? Taking away two preseason games means coaches won't be able to properly evaluate backups. And everybody who watched the Packers win the Super Bowl last month knows the value of properly evaluating backups. Backups become key starters in a hurry in this league. So while we all whine about boring preseason games, let's try to keep in mind their value to building a team for the regular season.
Why is four preseason games a magic number? Plenty of coaches have complained that there are too many preseason games, for a lot longer than this offseason.
. What about all the bad teams? How awful would it have been in Week 17 last year if the Vikings still had two more games to play? Same goes for the Bills, Panthers, 49ers, Bengals, Browns, etc. If the NFL went to 18 games, you'd see a lot more empty seats in a lot more stadiums at the end of seasons.
If the Vikings had two more games to play, maybe Favre lasts a little longer. Maybe the team doesn't give up after a bad start. Teams wouldn't quit after an 0-4 start.
 
The argument that teams would clinch earlier is nonsense. Here's a list of the standings in week 16 of the NFL this year (after 15 games had been played). The bolded teams were eliminated from division contention in week 15 but would still have been alive in an 18 week season:

Patriots 13-2

Jets 10-5

Steelers 11-4

Ravens 11-4

Colts 9-6

Jaguars 8-7

Titans 6-9

Chiefs 9-6

Chargers 9-6

Raiders 8-7

Eagles 10-5

Giants 9-6

Bears 11-4

Packers 9-6

Falcons 12-3

Saints 11-4

Bucs 9-6

Rams 7-8

Seahawks 6-9

49ers 5-10

Cardinals 5-10

That's 21 teams still in it in week 15. And teams like Dallas and the Vikings that got off to terrible starts might have been in it by the end of the season because they wouldn't have fallen apart after a bad start to the season.
:goodposting: I'm getting tired of hearing that argument...

 
My biggest problem is the preseason. Four glorified scrimmages shouldn't be hoisted upon the fans who are, to a certain degree, strong armed into overpaying for a lesser product.
If preseason games weren't included with season tickets and other packages, would people complain about them so much?
 
If the players are worried about injuries, they could come to a gentlemen's agreement such as on a kickoff, the receiving team catches the ball and stands in place for 3 minutes, while the kicking team waits at the 50 for 3 minutes. When the 3 minutes are up, continue as normal.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top