NFL to end revenue sharing? Is this a bluff?

[Fritz]

It's getting clearer that an 18 game schedule is on the way - and we thought injuries were a problem before!

I think too that the NFL network is going to become a more important option - better, more marquee games will start appearing as pay-per-view, but the networks still offer too much exposure for the NFL to dump them.

What I would like to see, if they're going to go to pay per view, is a menu in which I can select and pay for all the NFL games I want to see. That way, I could pay to see the Packers on television for the whole season.

I think the longer season is going to hurt the NFL and I think the travel involved as they eventually move to Europe will hurt as well. I think, though, Mexico and Canada are the next stopping grounds. Lots of people up in Toronto and down in Mexico City. Untapped markets.

[Smidgeon]

I think, though, Mexico and Canada are the next stopping grounds. Lots of people up in Toronto and down in Mexico City. Untapped markets.

But the question isn't "How large are the markets?", but "How many people in those markets like American football?"

[Patler]

It's getting clearer that an 18 game schedule is on the way - and we thought injuries were a problem before!

I think too that the NFL network is going to become a more important option - better, more marquee games will start appearing as pay-per-view, but the networks still offer too much exposure for the NFL to dump them.

What I would like to see, if they're going to go to pay per view, is a menu in which I can select and pay for all the NFL games I want to see. That way, I could pay to see the Packers on television for the whole season.

I think the longer season is going to hurt the NFL and I think the travel involved as they eventually move to Europe will hurt as well. I think, though, Mexico and Canada are the next stopping grounds. Lots of people up in Toronto and down in Mexico City. Untapped markets.

There has been discussion of an 18 game schedule with two bye weeks for each team, perhaps weeks 6, 7 and 8 for the first set of byes, and weeks 13, 14 and 15 for the second. There was even some talk of having just two bye weeks in each half of the season, with half the league off each week. I wouldn't mind that, NFC off one week, AFC the next. Then, schedule only intra-conference games the week after the second bye week, and no team would have to face a team coming off a bye unless they were too.

There was a suggestion that two bye weeks over a 20 week schedule of 18 games might decrease some types of injuries. If you cut out two pre-season games and perhaps expand rosters a little, it might not be a big deal from the injury front.

I think a routine, extended schedule in Europe would be a real pain for the teams. But, again, money will rule that decision, in all likelihood.

[RashanGary]

Obviously there are hurdles to overcome that I have no clue of, but I've developed some ideas of what I think works best.



1. Set revenue sharing at a limit where the poorest teams can just barely afford to spend all of the cap money.

2. Set two caps: the first is a tax threshold and the 2nd would be a hard cap.


For example: Tax threshold of 100 Million dollars with revenue sharing just high enough that Minny, Cincy and the other poorer teams could afford to spend all of it. Then there would be a hard cap of 115 Million, but that money get taxed 1 dollar for every dollar spent over 100 Million with the tax money getting split up proportionally to the teams below the tax limit, with teams with the lowest revenue getting the most and tapering it down as you move up the revenue chain.


This would do a few things:

1st, the biggest markets with the most support would benefit from their support. Washington and Dallas will actually get something for having the most fans. However, it's not as dramatic as Baseball where the Yankees and Redsox are in it every year. It's a 15% extra spending limit that also has a tax attached to it.



If the players and owners were smart, they'd recognize that what is good for the league is good for everyone. Buffalo, Minnesota, Cincy and others might not bring in crazy money like Dallas and Washington, but it's still more money for the players to spend and it makes the league more interesting to have teams all over the country instead of just the major markets. Find a way to keep revenue sharing and as a reward to teh teams that have to share so much, give them the opportunity to spend a little more money on players. Ultimately, make the total pie for the players about what it is today, but give a little more to the rich and a little less to the poor. Plus, then you can further identify with your team. We're small market, we don't spend quite as much and we still beat you. Or, "yeah, we're the big boy on the block, how do you like it". . . etc. . . .

[MichiganPackerFan]

We may be down on Daryn Colledge because of his offensive line play, but I really liked his quote on this subject:

"I think every guy wants to continue to work. Nobody wants to be without a job but I think for Green Bay a lockout would be devastating for a lot of vendors and owners and restaurants and bars in this area (who) rely on these eight home games and hopefully playoff games to survive. It would be a huge blow. You're not just locking out the players, you're locking out the hundreds of people who work inside the stadium, the thousands of fans who come every single weekend and the people who watch at home. I think that's the biggest hurt."

Are players talking about it, Colledge was asked? "Everyone is aware of it but everyone is focused on the season right now. Everybody has got their own plan for it; I have already planned for it, you just can't be blindsided like that."

You mean financially? "Exactly. Steps are being made by our union if the CBA is abolished and we do get locked out. I think everybody has to."

[Guiness]

Just looking at the 50 biggest cities in America to potential support an NFL team.

Los Angeles with 3.8 million, lost teams numerous times.
San Antonio with 1.5 million is the biggest city (non-NFL) without a team.
San Jose with 1 million but SF and Oakland are close.
Columbus, OH with 750,000.
Austin, TX with 750,000.
El Paso, TX 600,00
Milwaukee, WI 600,000 22nd biggest city in the USA.

Then you're down to the Las Vegas and Oklahoma Cities of the United States.

Fixed.

[Guiness]

We may be down on Daryn Colledge because of his offensive line play, but I really liked his quote on this subject:

"I think every guy wants to continue to work. Nobody wants to be without a job but I think for Green Bay a lockout would be devastating for a lot of vendors and owners and restaurants and bars in this area (who) rely on these eight home games and hopefully playoff games to survive. It would be a huge blow. You're not just locking out the players, you're locking out the hundreds of people who work inside the stadium, the thousands of fans who come every single weekend and the people who watch at home. I think that's the biggest hurt."

Are players talking about it, Colledge was asked? "Everyone is aware of it but everyone is focused on the season right now. Everybody has got their own plan for it; I have already planned for it, you just can't be blindsided like that."

You mean financially? "Exactly. Steps are being made by our union if the CBA is abolished and we do get locked out. I think everybody has to."

Guys like him get it. Remember Tony Fischer our former 3rd down back? Never spectacular, never a big contract, but by all accounts took care of himself, and retired very comfortable life, never having to worry about working again. Then, of course, you get the Barry Bonds of the world, who when baseball was locked out, couldn't meet his child support obligations!!! I wonder how many of those stories, or guys losing their houses, we'll hear if they get locked out?

[ThunderDan]

Just looking at the 50 biggest cities in America to potential support an NFL team.

Los Angeles with 3.8 million, lost teams numerous times.
San Antonio with 1.5 million is the biggest city (non-NFL) without a team.
San Jose with 1 million but SF and Oakland are close.
Columbus, OH with 750,000.
Austin, TX with 750,000.
El Paso, TX 600,00
Milwaukee, WI 600,000 22nd biggest city in the USA.

Then you're down to the Las Vegas and Oklahoma Cities of the United States.

Fixed.

Why did this need to be fixed?

[KYPack]

Just looking at the 50 biggest cities in America to potential support an NFL team.

Los Angeles with 3.8 million, lost teams numerous times.
San Antonio with 1.5 million is the biggest city (non-NFL) without a team.
San Jose with 1 million but SF and Oakland are close.
Columbus, OH with 750,000.
Austin, TX with 750,000.
El Paso, TX 600,00
Milwaukee, WI 600,000 22nd biggest city in the USA.

Then you're down to the Las Vegas and Oklahoma Cities of the United States.

Fixed.

Why did this need to be fixed?

The NFL is looking at 4 foreign markets real hard:

London Everyone is hip to this one
Mexico City Get 'em to build a 150 - 200K capacity Stadium
Tokyo Pre the 2008 slump this was a no-brainer.
Berlin/Paris NFL Europa was really NFL Germany. Most observers are shaky about French NFL football.

Add 50 million NFL fans and increase worldwide revenues many times? That's the mountain to climb. US expansion? Move Minny and Jax to strong markets and you got that addressed.

Goodell is real bullish on all this, but I don't feel he's slick enough to pull it off.

[Guiness]

Of course, everyone has their own opinion KY.

My spin - you have to go to cities that show they will support football because they enjoy the sport - not because it's hip.

So ditch London, England, because when the 'hip' wears off, you've got yourself another LA Rams situation. They couldn't support an NFL Europe franchise, no way does an NFL team, especially a non-winning expansion franchise survive there.

Berlin is the no-brainer as far as I'm concerned; as you said, they faithfully showed up for the Europa games.

Another potential? If you're looking to Canada, no laughing, but ever hear of the Saskatchewan Roughriders? Manic fans. Sure, population of the whole province is ~750K, but every last one of them support that team.

[KYPack]

Of course, everyone has their own opinion KY.

My spin - you have to go to cities that show they will support football because they enjoy the sport - not because it's hip.

So ditch London, England, because when the 'hip' wears off, you've got yourself another LA Rams situation. They couldn't support an NFL Europe franchise, no way does an NFL team, especially a non-winning expansion franchise survive there.

Berlin is the no-brainer as far as I'm concerned; as you said, they faithfully showed up for the Europa games.

Another potential? If you're looking to Canada, no laughing, but ever hear of the Saskatchewan Roughriders? Manic fans. Sure, population of the whole province is ~750K, but every last one of them support that team.

I actually agree with you, G.
By "hip" I meant familiar. They've been shoving London down our throats. I saw some stuff on TV when the London game happened this year. They may draw 80K fans, but that's about all the people that are interested in the NFL product in London. The other things that go with an NFL franchise wouldn't go in England.

I also think they are looking at Toronto.
Sure, I've heard of the Saskatchewan Roughriders. Some of those Canuck teams have fan ownership like the Pack. The NFL will only look at Toronto for NFL expansion, IMHO.

I just can't figure out how they could handle the far-flung markets and global travel. They fell in love with worldwide expansion and then cool on the idea. I don't think they will ever pull it off, in my lifetime any way.

[digitaldean]

Another potential? If you're looking to Canada, no laughing, but ever hear of the Saskatchewan Roughriders? Manic fans. Sure, population of the whole province is ~750K, but every last one of them support that team.

That would beat the Toronto gig that Buffalo is doing, IMO as for rabidness of the fanbase.

Really felt bad for them the way they lost the Grey Cup. But win or lose, they do support the Roughriders.

Not sure if Goodell could make an outside of the box move like that however.

[Guiness]

That Grey Cup loss was something else. Coming out of half time, the Alouettes weren't even in the same league.

I don't think Toronto would work as an NFL town. They're a one team town, the Maple Leafs. They'll barely support a second hockey team. The Argonauts don't draw well at all.

I think that if there's long term viability in a market, it's because there are football fans there. Otherwise, football is merely kitsch, and you're going to get fans for a few years until the next new thing comes along.

[MJZiggy]

Interesting thought, but football is kind of addicting...

[red]

Another potential? If you're looking to Canada, no laughing, but ever hear of the Saskatchewan Roughriders? Manic fans. Sure, population of the whole province is ~750K, but every last one of them support that team.

That would beat the Toronto gig that Buffalo is doing, IMO as for rabidness of the fanbase.

Really felt bad for them the way they lost the Grey Cup. But win or lose, they do support the Roughriders.

Not sure if Goodell could make an outside of the box move like that however.

would they become fans of the nfl team though? or would they continue to support the roughriders?

thats such a small market to support 2 teams