PDA

View Full Version : Expanded Playoffs?



ShaneFalco
12-12-2012, 11:05 PM
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000110396/article/roger-goodell-nfl-considering-expanding-playoffs

"Right now we're with 12 teams obviously. We'll look at probably 14 or 16 teams," Goodell said.

Timmy!
12-12-2012, 11:09 PM
Somebody needs to bitch-slap Goodell. Seriously.

Army Bronco
12-12-2012, 11:13 PM
Somebody needs to bitch-slap Goodell. Seriously. Or bitch- slap his good idea fairy.

FanInAZ
12-12-2012, 11:16 PM
Tned, can you do something about us not being able to change our votes? This is the 2nd time that I accidently voted opposite of what I intended.

Bottom line is that making it possible for half the teams to get in means teams with losing records would qualify, just like in the NBA & NHL. I believe that if you can't win at least half of your games, you don't deserve to make the play-offs. That included the 2010 Seahawks that make it with a losing record by winning the division title of the most horrible division in the history of the NFL, the 2010 NFCW.

BroncoWave
12-12-2012, 11:18 PM
Ugh, no. Usually I try to be progressive and I like alot of changes Goodell has had in mind, but this one sucks. Plenty of teams make the playoffs as it is. Chances are 999/1000 times the best team in the league will find a way into the top 12 and get a crack at the title.

Pudge
12-12-2012, 11:45 PM
14 or 16 teams with a league expansion I suppose. But with the 32 team league hell no

chazoe60
12-12-2012, 11:53 PM
The Hunt family has been pushing for this for decades. :laugh: I wonder why? :laugh:

ShaneFalco
12-13-2012, 12:07 AM
14 or 16 teams with a league expansion I suppose. But with the 32 team league hell no

yes that is what i am thinking.

BroncoJoe
12-13-2012, 09:30 AM
Tned, can you do something about us not being able to change our votes? This is the 2nd time that I accidently voted opposite of what I intended.

Bottom line is that making it possible for half the teams to get in means teams with losing records would qualify, just like in the NBA & NHL. I believe that if you can't win at least half of your games, you don't deserve to make the play-offs. That included the 2010 Seahawks that make it with a losing record by winning the division title of the most horrible division in the history of the NFL, the 2010 NFCW.

Or maybe slow down and read the question before you vote?

MasterShake
12-13-2012, 09:38 AM
Hell no. The only team in recent memory I think of that got "screwed" out of the playoffs was the Pats when they went 11-5 a few years ago. How would they even handle that? Have a Wild-Wild Card Weekend where the bottom 4 teams in each conference played each other to advance to the Wild Card Round? Just dumb. The top 12 seems just about perfect to me

SR
12-13-2012, 09:53 AM
I don't have a problem with 16 teams. The NHL has nearly the same amount of teams in the league and has 16 teams in the playoffs...four division winners and four wild card teams per conference. I don't see why it would be bad in the NFL.

MOtorboat
12-13-2012, 10:00 AM
As a fan, I wouldn't ever mind more football, but it's a bad idea.

On one hand we have Goodell using "safety" to essentially make defenders play two hand touch. And on the other he's trying to make them play more games. He's an effing hypocrite.

Tned
12-13-2012, 10:15 AM
I don't have a problem with 16 teams. The NHL has nearly the same amount of teams in the league and has 16 teams in the playoffs...four division winners and four wild card teams per conference. I don't see why it would be bad in the NFL.

I like the NFL's model, where you have to really work to get into the Playoffs, and only about 1/3 of the teams get in, vs. the NHL/NBA, where over half of the teams get in.

On the one hand, more teams means more games, and a better chance of "your" team getting in, but it also diminishes the excitement of the playoff races and the fight to get in. Also, good or bad, it would get rid of one or both of the top seeds getting byes (if you went to 14 teams, only one in each conference would get a bye), if you went to 16, nobody would get a bye. I'm torn on whether the elimination of the byes is good or bad.

I think I lean towards how it is now.

BroncoWave
12-13-2012, 10:21 AM
As a fan, I wouldn't ever mind more football, but it's a bad idea.

On one hand we have Goodell using "safety" to essentially make defenders play two hand touch. And on the other he's trying to make them play more games. He's an effing hypocrite.

Yes, because not allowing defenders to lead with the helmet, or go at a QB's knees is pretty much exactly the same thing a two hand touch. :lol:

I think equating safety changes to "two hand touch" or "flag football" has BY FAR become the most overused cliche of the 2012 NFL season.

BroncoWave
12-13-2012, 10:23 AM
I like the NFL's model, where you have to really work to get into the Playoffs, and only about 1/3 of the teams get in, vs. the NHL/NBA, where over half of the teams get in.

On the one hand, more teams means more games, and a better chance of "your" team getting in, but it also diminishes the excitement of the playoff races and the fight to get in. Also, good or bad, it would get rid of one or both of the top seeds getting byes (if you went to 14 teams, only one in each conference would get a bye), if you went to 16, nobody would get a bye. I'm torn on whether the elimination of the byes is good or bad.

I think I lean towards how it is now.

While I don't side with expanding the playoffs, I don't think eliminating the byes would be the big issue. If you look at the last several SB winners, most have actually come from the wild card round. It doesn't seem like the bye has a huge advantage these days.

Tned
12-13-2012, 10:40 AM
While I don't side with expanding the playoffs, I don't think eliminating the byes would be the big issue. If you look at the last several SB winners, most have actually come from the wild card round. It doesn't seem like the bye has a huge advantage these days.

Agreed, and as I said, I'm torn, because I'm not sure a team should get a week off to rest players, because even if it hasn't been an advantage of late, it is at least a theoretical one. There is part of me that thinks all teams should have to win three games to get to the SB, rather than some only having to win two games.

Ravage!!!
12-13-2012, 11:24 AM
The NFL does NOT care about player safety, or the fans, or anything else OTHER than making money. Its ALLLL about money, period. More playoff games, means more TV deals, means more advertising, means more stadiums to sell tickets.

As someone already said, someone really needs to bitch-slap Goodell.

slim
12-13-2012, 11:27 AM
The NFL does NOT care about player safety, or the fans, or anything else OTHER than making money. Its ALLLL about money, period. More playoff games, means more TV deals, means more advertising, means more stadiums to sell tickets.

As someone already said, someone really needs to bitch-slap Goodell.

Yeah, it's a business :noidea:

Tned
12-13-2012, 11:40 AM
The NFL does NOT care about player safety, or the fans, or anything else OTHER than making money. Its ALLLL about money, period. More playoff games, means more TV deals, means more advertising, means more stadiums to sell tickets.

As someone already said, someone really needs to bitch-slap Goodell.

Kind of goes without saying. Just like most companies don't care about their customers, other than how it relates to customer loyalty that will turn into repeat sales. The NFL is a business. It's the same reason that virtually no players take home town discounts to stay with their team -- the NFL is a business, whether at the league office level, team ownership level or player level. I don't see anything wrong with this.

Tned
12-13-2012, 11:41 AM
Yeah, it's a business :noidea:

I should have read your first post, you said in four words and a smiley would I took 50 or so words to say.

CoachChaz
12-13-2012, 11:57 AM
Here's another perspective. Let's say we finish the season at 13-3 with Manning at QB. What would our record be with Hanie or Osweiler if Manning was injured week 2? For arguments sake, let's say Manning came back from injury at the end of the season and we finished 7-9. We would technicaly have a playoff caliber team at that point...but wouldnt qualify. Maybe having a healthy Manning makes a 7-9 team a SB contender.

Yes, it would be a rare instance where something like this would happen to a team, but if my above scenario happened to play out that way, I'm betting the votes of the fans on this board would be ALOT different.

blamkin86
12-13-2012, 12:17 PM
And when everyone's super, no one will be...

1932

Slick
12-13-2012, 12:20 PM
Yes, because not allowing defenders to lead with the helmet, or go at a QB's knees is pretty much exactly the same thing a two hand touch. :lol:

I think equating safety changes to "two hand touch" or "flag football" has BY FAR become the most overused cliche of the 2012 NFL season.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the rules to protect the QB's knees or head, or not allowing players to be leading with the helmet. My biggest problem is the "defensless receiver" rule. When a DB gets flagged and fined for a shoulder charge on a receiver that goes over the middle, and leaves his feet to make a catch, I just shake my head in disgust. If you aren't close enough to get your hand in there and break the pass up, you have to let them catch the ball and just touch them down.

I can't speak for Mo but I don't think his refrence has anything to do with your two examples.



I think the playoffs are just fine the way they are. Sure the NFl is a business but they don't need to be greedy.

MOtorboat
12-13-2012, 12:24 PM
I don't think anyone has a problem with the rules to protect the QB's knees or head, or not allowing players to be leading with the helmet. My biggest problem is the "defensless receiver" rule. When a DB gets flagged and fined for a shoulder charge on a receiver that goes over the middle, and leaves his feet to make a catch, I just shake my head in disgust. If you aren't close enough to get your hand in there and break the pass up, you have to let them catch the ball and just touch them down.

I can't speak for Mo but I don't think his refrence has anything to do with your two examples.

I think the playoffs are just fine the way they are. Sure the NFl is a business but they don't need to be greedy.

Forgive me for using hyperbole, a very effective literary tool, to make my point...

slim
12-13-2012, 12:26 PM
I can't speak for Slick, but I will forgive you MO.

Mike
12-13-2012, 12:40 PM
Hell naw.

And Goodell is bad for the league.

BroncoWave
12-13-2012, 02:26 PM
Forgive me for using hyperbole, a very effective literary tool, to make my point...

I have no problem with hyperbole. I'm simply mentioning that "flag football" and "two hand touch" have by far become the two most overused cliches when discussing safety measures.

T.K.O.
12-13-2012, 03:03 PM
maybe after Manning retires:D

gregbroncs
12-13-2012, 03:42 PM
I don't have a problem with 16 teams. The NHL has nearly the same amount of teams in the league and has 16 teams in the playoffs...four division winners and four wild card teams per conference. I don't see why it would be bad in the NFL.

Because it makes the regular season pretty much worthless. The NBA playoffs are terrible until the 2nd round. Why would we want teams with losing records in the playoffs.

If half the teams in your league make the playoffs then the whole purpose of the regular season is watered down. Hell why not just invite all 32?

SR
12-13-2012, 04:56 PM
Because it makes the regular season pretty much worthless. The NBA playoffs are terrible until the 2nd round. Why would we want teams with losing records in the playoffs.

If half the teams in your league make the playoffs then the whole purpose of the regular season is watered down. Hell why not just invite all 32?

The NBA is a ******* joke, period.

So you're saying that the NHL playoffs, which have no first round bye but eight teams per conference and a bigger, better tournament doesnt' stack up to the six team per conference four week long NFL playoffs? The NHL plays 82 sixty minute games with the top players averaging upwards of 25 (or more) minutes per game with usually only one day off between games. The playoffs last from April until July. Eight teams per conference of some of the most competitive, intense professional sports a person on this planet can watch. I have ZERO problem with making the top teams prove they're top teams by potentially playing one more game. It might get rid of some of the ridiculous parity in this league.

I would also be okay with getting rid of the first round bye and making the 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, and 3 vs 4 seeds play each other in the wild card round.

BroncoWave
12-13-2012, 05:11 PM
I would also be okay with getting rid of the first round bye and making the 1 vs 6, 2 vs 5, and 3 vs 4 seeds play each other in the wild card round.

Well that would result in 3 teams left, so you still have to give one of them a bye. That would be even worse. Say the top remaining seed gets a bye. For the 1 seed, they would just have to beat the 6 and they would automatically go to the conference championship. I don't think that is the best answer.

SR
12-13-2012, 07:55 PM
Well that would result in 3 teams left, so you still have to give one of them a bye. That would be even worse. Say the top remaining seed gets a bye. For the 1 seed, they would just have to beat the 6 and they would automatically go to the conference championship. I don't think that is the best answer.

I'm a tard. Eight teams it is ;)

Dapper Dan
12-15-2012, 09:30 AM
I have no problem with hyperbole. I'm simply mentioning that "flag football" and "two hand touch" have by far become the two most overused cliches when discussing safety measures.

I don't know. I think calling something "bush league" is a lot worse. It just irritates me.

West
12-15-2012, 01:56 PM
I didn't read a post in this thread so I don't know if this has been talked about already, but isn't this a little hypocritical of the NFL? Wouldn't expanded playoffs increase the risk of "player safety"? I'm the biggest Goodell basher because he's turning the NFL into wet vaj football, but the idea of expanding the playoffs is making their hypocriticism far too obvious. $$$$$$$

Ravage!!!
12-15-2012, 02:18 PM
I didn't read a post in this thread so I don't know if this has been talked about already, but isn't this a little hypocritical of the NFL? Wouldn't expanded playoffs increase the risk of "player safety"? I'm the biggest Goodell basher because he's turning the NFL into wet vaj football, but the idea of expanding the playoffs is making their hypocriticism far too obvious. $$$$$$$

Same with thursday night games.

Lets be honest and up-front. The NFL does NOT care about the Fans, players, or player safety. Its ALlllllll about profits. Goodell doesn't give a rats-behind about the players. He doesn't care what pleases the fans, andhe doesn't care about the game. He cares about profits, because if he shows profits for the owners, he keeps his high salary job.

Goodell is the biggest hypocrite of them all. Where is the "accountability" for him suspending people without going through the proper actions? He claims that everyone should be "accountable" for their own actions, yet REFUSES to admit how poorly he handles things. I can't stand Goodell, and hope that the lawsuit against him for "defamation" goes well for Vilma.

West
12-15-2012, 02:21 PM
Same with thursday night games.

Lets be honest and up-front. The NFL does NOT care about the Fans, players, or player safety. Its ALlllllll about profits. Goodell doesn't give a rats-behind about the players. He doesn't care what pleases the fans, andhe doesn't care about the game. He cares about profits, because if he shows profits for the owners, he keeps his high salary job.

Goodell is the biggest hypocrite of them all. Where is the "accountability" for him suspending people without going through the proper actions? He claims that everyone should be "accountable" for their own actions, yet REFUSES to admit how poorly he handles things. I can't stand Goodell, and hope that the lawsuit against him for "defamation" goes well for Vilma.

He's destroying the NFL, IMO. If the Broncos aren't playing, I'm not watching the games, because I can't stand this flag football BS.

Ravage!!!
12-15-2012, 06:47 PM
He's destroying the NFL, IMO. If the Broncos aren't playing, I'm not watching the games, because I can't stand this flag football BS.

If he actually, somehow, in some way get the kick-off removed from the NFL...then I'll stop watching altogether.

FanInAZ
12-16-2012, 04:25 PM
Or maybe slow down and read the question before you vote?


I didn't misread nor misunderstand this time like I did last time. I knew that I wanted to vote no, I just clicked yes by accident. However, you are right about me needing to slow down & double check that I selected the correct response before finalizing my vote.

ShaneFalco
12-18-2012, 10:11 PM
I love Thursday night games

tomjonesrocks
12-19-2012, 11:12 AM
I have no problem with hyperbole. I'm simply mentioning that "flag football" and "two hand touch" have by far become the two most overused cliches when discussing safety measures.

I don't know. I think calling something "bush league" is a lot worse. It just irritates me.

I think threats of "If ______ rule/policy gets implemented, I'll stop watching!" Is the most overused cliche.

In most cases Goodell could have slept with our wives and we'd still tune in to the NFL. It's just an such an obviously empty threat.

Dapper Dan
12-19-2012, 11:22 AM
I think threats of "If ______ rule/policy gets implemented, I'll stop watching!" Is the most overused cliche.

In most cases Goodell could have slept with our wives and we'd still tune in to the NFL. It's just an such an obviously empty threat.

I almost became a Texans fan when we fired Shanahan. I almost picked a new college team when we fired Filmed. But here I am. On Broncos forums with a Tennessee tattoo.

Lancane
03-22-2013, 12:50 PM
The only way an expanded playoff would work would be if there is a massive team expansion, which is way beyond due. I remember in High School that some teams actually got in the playoffs with less then .500 records which I thought was utter BS. We saw that happen with Seattle a couple years back and it was IMHO a joke, you can suck during the regular season and get a shot at the title? No way in hell is that on the up and up.

Jaded
03-24-2013, 03:28 PM
Lan, you can't find 20 starting NFL QB's and you think expansion is overdue?

Lancane
03-24-2013, 04:03 PM
Lan, you can't find 20 starting NFL QB's and you think expansion is overdue?

That's is untrue, teams keep searching for franchise quarterbacks, but that doesn't mean that there are no starter capable quarterbacks. If you look at the league today, there are more franchise quarterbacks then at anytime in professional football, the diversity between teams has thinned. Don't you think that draft prospects wish the NFL had more teams? There are more then enough venues and proof is in the CFL and UFL. How many draft prospects choose another route because they go undrafted? The NFL use to have drafts of 12 rounds or more. The NFL wants another team in Los Angeles, they also want a team in London, England, you can not honestly tell me that there are not enough players to fill many more rosters and expand the NFL even more.

Joel
03-27-2013, 11:57 PM
Too many teams make it already; were it up to me we'd go back to division winners plus the "best of the rest" in each conference. That was far more sensible and exciting; instead of just qualifying for A wildcard all division losers knew they had to outperform the rest for THE wildcard. Admitting half the teams really does obviate a regular season; it's not like a losing team will beat all the good ones and win the Super Bowl.

Could be Goodell just dislikes giving the top teams a pass with byes, which would be understandable, but is unavoidable unless we go back to eight teams (i.e. just division winners) or expand to 16, neither of which is appealing. Making a 16 team tournament respectable would require a LOT of new teams; even two more full divisions would still be 16/40, which is 40%, and far too many playoff teams Reducing that to a 1:3 ratio (the absolute most any playoff should have) would require an entire new CONFERENCE, proportionately diluting the quality of each NFL team.

I know Goodell wants to squeeze every last cent out of the NFL, even if it means nerfing a full contact sport for "safety" while playing 25% more injury-producing games, but this is a horrible idea. Stick a Canadian division into the NFC and a Mexican one into the AFC and just admit all 10 division winners plus the best of the rest. That would still dilute overall quality, but is a small price to pay for increasing the pool of ticket, merchandise and broadcast buyers 50%, right? ;) At least if we give them something worth watching, rather than a 9-7 team playing a 7-9 wildcard team for the privilege of getting stomped by a 12-4 team.

Joel
03-28-2013, 12:15 AM
I think threats of "If ______ rule/policy gets implemented, I'll stop watching!" Is the most overused cliche.

In most cases Goodell could have slept with our wives and we'd still tune in to the NFL. It's just an such an obviously empty threat.
When it ceases to be football because no one can be hit below the knees or above the shoulders (except running backs, who are NEVER injured, of course) it's no longer worth watching. Goodell should ask MLB what happens to profits when fans become so disgusted with the sport they seek out alternatives. Remember, for most of footballs existence no one cared about the pros, only college.

Rules on where to hit players are bad enough, but requiring defenders wait, not just until after the catch, but for "an actcommon to the game of football" is practically flag football. Now that defenders must concede catches before contact too much of the game has been reduced to just chunking the ball downfield confident it's more likely to result in a first down by catch or penalty than an incomplete or interception. For the first 70 years after the forward pass coaches said, "two things can happen when you pass, and two of them are bad;" now many things are possible, most good.

Why not go all the way: Widen and lengthen the field, change possession from four downs to three, and begin CFL merger talks? It's no longer easy to dispute accusations of "armball" from soccer and rugby fans. Maybe that's why Plummer left the NFL to play handball: It was an easy transition. :tsk: Each day Goodell's commissioner rugby looks that much better; the NFL's not the only game in town, it only behaves that way.

Ravage!!!
03-28-2013, 10:44 AM
The only way an expanded playoff would work would be if there is a massive team expansion, which is way beyond due. I remember in High School that some teams actually got in the playoffs with less then .500 records which I thought was utter BS. We saw that happen with Seattle a couple years back and it was IMHO a joke, you can suck during the regular season and get a shot at the title? No way in hell is that on the up and up.

Yet you think a team expansion is over due when you don't want to see .500 teams make it to the playoffs???

I think the LAST thing the NFL needs to do is expand.

GOOD GOD GOODELL.... PLEASE do not listen to Lancane!!!!!!!!

Dreadnought
03-28-2013, 12:01 PM
No to further expansion, and a resounding NO to expanded playoffs. The NHL and NBA are impossible to take seriously because of their playoff system....well, the NBA blows goats regardless, but if the NHL would adopt a smaller playoff pool similar to the NFL I'd find it possible to follow it somewhat seriously.

The NFL playoff system is damned near perfect; 12 of 32 teams make it in. Those in almost always deserve to be there, while those left out rarely should have been. The first round Byes are a thing worth competing for through week 17, which helps keep the regular season relevant throughout its course.

Joel
03-28-2013, 03:13 PM
Yet you think a team expansion is over due when you don't want to see .500 teams make it to the playoffs???

I think the LAST thing the NFL needs to do is expand.

GOOD GOD GOODELL.... PLEASE do not listen to Lancane!!!!!!!!
Expansion would make .500 playoff teams less rather than more likely; winners and losers is a zero sum game, and there would be that many more winning teams competing for wildcards. Of course, that would change if the playoffs expanded, too, but any playoff expansion always make losing playoff teams more likely, and any league expansion always makes them less likely.

Regardless of competitive effects though, the NFLs stunning greed makes expansion beyond the US likely soon. The US market can only support so many teams before reaching saturation and marginal returns (witness the USFL, XFL and UFL.) Meanwhile, the NFL sees the success of Canadian NBA and MLB teams, and FIFAs staggering global fanbase (i.e. revenue,) and visibly lusts for a piece of that action.

Meanwhile, the Nice Dauphins beat the Barcelona Dracs 20-6 last Saturday to win the European Football Leagues season opener. http://www.efaf.info/text.php?Inhalt=game&ID=808%3E I only last week learned of this, but it's quite well developed and organized much like FIFA: Various levels of play range from JV flag and tackle forms up to pro premiere and lesser leagues for for adults, with the most successful teams "promoted" to premiere and the least successful "relegated" to lower leagues (maybe we should try that with the Raiders, Browns and Lions. :tongue:)

Logistically, a European vs. American Super Bowl ala the Ryder or Davis Cups makes the most sense, especially since it would allow development of a European league without jet lag impacting transatlantic games. Yet one way or the other this will happen soon. If Londons market can support the Blitz, Olympians AND Warriors for 25 years, it could support a single NFL team, and the NFL knows that. The only reason the owners MIGHT not approve it is because it would increase their competition for the championship, but revenue sharing gives them much greater incentive to do it anyway.

It's coming for financial reasons, whether or not anyone likes it, so make peace with it now. What would our uniquely American game be without greed?

Lancane
03-28-2013, 04:08 PM
Yet you think a team expansion is over due when you don't want to see .500 teams make it to the playoffs???

I think the LAST thing the NFL needs to do is expand.

GOOD GOD GOODELL.... PLEASE do not listen to Lancane!!!!!!!!

:lol:

It's going to expand no matter if we want it to or not, but the NFL expands like a snails erection (LMAO). The NFL wants a team in LA, they've wanted a team there for the past five years, look at the talks about an expansion in London. Trying to keep the divisions the same with one, let alone two teams added is impossible. The only way to keep the divisions stable would be an eight team expansion. When you consider such a massive expansion, you have to add what each new venue and new organizations would mean to the league and the sport. Not to mention the players, half the eligible players that could be drafted go undrafted, the college to pro ratio is what 35% at best, that leaves a lot of talented kids that would love to play, now multiply that number over five or six years! Las Vegas, Calgary, Honolulu, Ottawa, Portland, Vancouver, London, Salt Lake City, Montreal, Birmingham, Toronto, Los Angeles, Oklahoma City and Edmonton, each of those locations is prime for an NFL expansion, and once there is one European team (London), other western nations will be looking to land and NFL franchise such as Berlin, Madrid, Paris, Rome and so forth. Which also likely means we'll see more foreign colleges and universities have football programs, and then it will be like Basketball and Baseball.

Joel
03-28-2013, 08:46 PM
In the short term new divisions in Canada and Mexico make more sense and could exploit existing regional rivalries. There's little chance US fans would care how badly their favorite team crushed another countrys expansion team, or foreign "fans" would care about their new American football team getting shelled by existing US ones.

Calgary and Edmonton, as well as Montreal and Toronto, already have rich sports rivalries that extend to football (in fact Toronto beat Montreal for their conferences spot in last years Grey Cup.) It would be foolish to ignore that and try shoehorning western Canadian team into the NFC West, even without considering the travel time between there and St. Louis, Phoenix and San Francisco, and the same logic applies to eastern teams. The biggest problem with Canadian expansion teams might be competing with their existing CFL teams for fans, merchandise sales and broadcast contracts.

Europe is a whole other animal, because unless the NFL revived the Concorde transatlantic flights would take a minimum of six hours even for East Coast teams; from the West Coast it'd be more like nine. We can't do Europe without at least one entirely new division for it, because we can't have US teams regularly making a 7-9 hour flight before a game. Even that would be nothing compared to what the poor SOBs based in London endured: They'd be subjected to that jetlag before HALF their games.

Europe only makes sense with its own division or, better yet, conference competing to face the NFL champ in the Super Bowl, but adding a conference would obviously and greatly complicate the playoffs. Even with a 16 team playoff that would only admit eight of 32 NFL teams (about right, IMHO, but every 10-6 team that missed out would complain.) Adding a Canadian, Mexican and possibly Brazilian division to a "transamerican conference" would only make it worse (yet American football is popular in Brazil, which has the worlds sixth largest economy and fifth largest population.)

That's viable: Sixteen teams each in the NFC, AFC, EFC and TFC, for a total of 64. Playoffs could consist of simply all 16 division winners, or pit the best of the rest in each conference against its worst division winners wildcard weekend, with the winners moving on against each conferences top three division winners.

That's a VERY long term view though. Each expansion admits ~100 previously unemployed players, proportionately lowering each teams average talent, hence the NFL rarely adds more than a couple teams at a time. The only exceptions were the 1949 and 1970 mergers, but those involved leagues that had already been competing with the NFL for players for several years, so the overall talent was already diluted. DOUBLING the CURRENT number of teams would greatly reduce overall talent, even after tapping new player pools in Europe (pop. 500 million,) Mexico (pop. 110 million) and Brazil (pop. 200 million.)

That's still nearly a billion potential new fans in the wealthiest countries on Earth (excluding China and Japan) buying tickets and merchandise as well as tuning into games TV networks pay the NFL for the privilege of broadcasting. The NFLs owners just can't resist QUADRUPLING such a lucrative fanbase.

It's the owners' call, and since their decisions must be unanimous it's unlikely Lamar Hunt and Jerry Jones allow an OKC team. Small market franchises are dubious anyway (the Jags have operated at such huge losses for so long they're practically an arm of NFL Charities, surviving only on revenue sharing.) The question's no longer whether an OK NFL team could sell tickets to fans who'd rather see the Sooners, Chiefs or Cowboys (though the NFL games with the most regular and preseason attendance were both in Mexico.) It's whether they could sell mugs, jerseys and broadcast rights, and the answer is almost certainly "no."

Lancane
03-28-2013, 10:47 PM
I don't see that the NFL pushing too hard into the middle and south American markets, Mexico is in too much disarray with the drug cartels IMHO. Tapping into the European and Canadian Market makes far more sense to be honest. When you add the populous, the fiscal investment and television rights...

And there are still some prime US markets, I would say the top four American venues would be Los Angeles and Birmingham followed by Las Vegas and Oklahoma City. If I was the commissioner and looking to make a massive expansion, I would go with a team in London and Berlin, now this wouldn't be a reinvention of NFLE, but one would end up in the NFC East, the other in the AFC East, two very large media covered divisions. Los Angeles and Birmingham and Oklahoma City here in the US, three of the largest football markets, Ottowa (which would probably get Montreal and Toronto coverage due to the short distance between the three cities), Regina and Vancouver, which puts the NFL in prime position to rival the CFL in those markets. That would be an eight team expansion, of course the league would be forced to rearrange the divisions, but that is easy enough.

Jaded
03-28-2013, 11:43 PM
That's is untrue, teams keep searching for franchise quarterbacks, but that doesn't mean that there are no starter capable quarterbacks. If you look at the league today, there are more franchise quarterbacks then at anytime in professional football, the diversity between teams has thinned. Don't you think that draft prospects wish the NFL had more teams? There are more then enough venues and proof is in the CFL and UFL. How many draft prospects choose another route because they go undrafted? The NFL use to have drafts of 12 rounds or more. The NFL wants another team in Los Angeles, they also want a team in London, England, you can not honestly tell me that there are not enough players to fill many more rosters and expand the NFL even more.

This is a league that starts the likes of John Skelton, Kyle Orton and Tim Tebow, where Doug Johnson and Kevin Kolb get millions off the strength of one start. Andy ******* Dalton made the ProBowl.

There are 32 "starters", somewhere around half of them suck, some are pure garbage. Respectfully disagree, there's not enough QB's to go around.

Lancane
03-29-2013, 12:05 AM
This is a league that starts the likes of John Skelton, Kyle Orton and Tim Tebow, where Doug Johnson and Kevin Kolb get millions off the strength of one start. Andy ******* Dalton made the ProBowl.

There are 32 "starters", somewhere around half of them suck, some are pure garbage. Respectfully disagree, there's not enough QB's to go around.

That is because the league is too impatient and buys into draft grades far too much at times, and the perfect example is Tom Brady, if that is not enough proof then look at Tony Romo...what about Bart Starr, Joe Theismann, Dan Fouts, George Blanda, Joe Montana, Warren Moon, Roger Staubach, Johnny Unitas, Bob Waterfield, Sonny Jurgensen, Norm Van Brocklin, Fran Tarkenton, Brett Farve, Jeff Hostetler or Kurt Warner?

For every quarterback there are those that go undrafted or in the latter rounds that are not given a fair shot, and part of the reason is the monetary obligations to those drafted before them or drafted at all. So there are plenty of capable quarterbacks, if coaches wanted to actually coach.

MOtorboat
03-29-2013, 12:25 AM
That is because the league is too impatient and buys into draft grades far too much at times, and the perfect example is Tom Brady, if that is not enough proof then look at Tony Romo...what about Bart Starr, Joe Theismann, Dan Fouts, George Blanda, Joe Montana, Warren Moon, Roger Staubach, Johnny Unitas, Bob Waterfield, Sonny Jurgensen, Norm Van Brocklin, Fran Tarkenton, Brett Farve, Jeff Hostetler or Kurt Warner?

For every quarterback there are those that go undrafted or in the latter rounds that are not given a fair shot, and part of the reason is the monetary obligations to those drafted before them or drafted at all. So there are plenty of capable quarterbacks, if coaches wanted to actually coach.

Elite 11 camps.

That has exponentially changed the game in quarterback scouting.

Lancane
03-29-2013, 12:44 AM
Elite 11 camps.

That has exponentially changed the game in quarterback scouting.

Mo, it may have exponentially changed quarterback scouting, but is by in far not a perfect system nor has it proven to be the end all be all of such. I agree with you that it has changed many things, then again let's look at some of the more notable quarterbacks that have gained from ESPN Rise; Tim Tebow, Vince Young, Mark Sanchez, Troy Smith, Brandon Weeden, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Matthew Stafford, Matt Cassel, Kyle Orton and Derek Anderson, there have been some elite talent marked by the Elite 11 Camps, such as Andrew Luck, but shit Mo, they haven't revolutionized it to where the system is even close to being above 60% accurate, the grading system remains flawed, as does the notion of coaches actually coaching these athletes. I'm sorry, but the truth is that several quarterbacks have not been drafted or not been given a fair shot because teams draft or sign free agents whom are given these inflated contracts and no way in hell are they going to start a seventh round pick over their second or first rounder. Look at Wilson? Another perfect example, it's quite possible that had Brock Osweiler not been drafted by Denver that he'd be starting somewhere else, what about Ryan Mallett or Kirk Cousins?...

Joel
03-29-2013, 06:02 AM
I don't see that the NFL pushing too hard into the middle and south American markets, Mexico is in too much disarray with the drug cartels IMHO. Tapping into the European and Canadian Market makes far more sense to be honest. When you add the populous, the fiscal investment and television rights...
The cartels are a regional, not national, problem in Mexico, much as in the US, but also much like the US they're typically an urban problem, so they're most prevalent in all the places that would otherwise be ideal for expansion teams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mexican_States_with_mafia_conflicts.png Brazil though... 200 million people with the worlds 5th largest GDP and an interest in gridiron is hard to refuse.


And there are still some prime US markets, I would say the top four American venues would be Los Angeles and Birmingham followed by Las Vegas and Oklahoma City. If I was the commissioner and looking to make a massive expansion, I would go with a team in London and Berlin, now this wouldn't be a reinvention of NFLE, but one would end up in the NFC East, the other in the AFC East, two very large media covered divisions. Los Angeles and Birmingham and Oklahoma City here in the US, three of the largest football markets, Ottowa (which would probably get Montreal and Toronto coverage due to the short distance between the three cities), Regina and Vancouver, which puts the NFL in prime position to rival the CFL in those markets. That would be an eight team expansion, of course the league would be forced to rearrange the divisions, but that is easy enough.
Those may be prime ticket markets, but only L.A. and possibly Vegas are prime media markets. The NFL doesn't make most of its money from tickets anymore: Its leading revenue source is merchandise, then Madden. Neither depends on regional appeal, but both depend on large media exposure impossible for one moderately large city surrounded by hundreds of miles of nothing. You know how Broncos fans complain Denver doesn't get the media attention of East Coast teams? Imagine if Denver were a 4-12 expansion team.

Birmingham and OKC are barely in the top FIFTY US media markets, let alone top three. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States Colorado's only slightly bigger than AL, but has a million more residents than OK (already saturated by the Sooners, Cowboys, Chiefs and (other) Cowboys,) and is almost twice as big as NV. Those are populations about an order of magnitude off what the NFL wants for teams.

Same problem with places like Regina: Its population is <200,000, and all of Saskatchewan only has a population just over a million, just not enough to support an NFL team; Alberta has two CITIES more populous than its neighboring province. The whole country has <35 million people, but half live in six cities, so any new Canadian teams would have to be in one of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_metropolitan_areas_in_Cana da

With half a billion residents, Europe presents no such problem; its problem is distance. Put a new AFC team in London and an NFC team in Berlin and those poor SOBs will have to make a 7-9 hour flight eight games a year; the rest of the time their opponents will, and that's simply impractical. West Coast teams have long complained about noon kickoffs on the East Coast feeling like 9AM, but with a transatlantic trip jetlag would become a real thing, that couldn't be fixed with the bye week because the teams would still have to fly back in time for their next game.

Europe only works with its own division/conference playing at least 6 games within a few hours of each other, and only forcing about as many NFL teams to cross the ocean each year. Fortunately there are ample media markets to support that—IF not restricted to guys who can't even make a CFL roster and immediately bolt for "real football" the second a scout sees enough talent to think they may be the next Kurt Warner.

It's important to realize WLAF/NFL Europe didn't fail because Europeans were oblivious. The first couple WLAF seasons drew quite respectable crowds most places, but each only had ONE non-American player (invariably the kicker) because League bylaws REQUIRED it. Everyone who knew football also knew they were getting third string starters; everyone else wondered what Americans see in such an untalented sport. Both quickly learned any of the few stars their team might produce—against all odds—would pull a Doom on them the instant his talent became clear, so there was no point getting attached.

They started with an entire LEAGUE of garbage, and if by some quirk of fate a decent player found himself there an NFL scout quickly recognized and rectified that error, restoring the status quo of uniform SUB-mediocrity. The NFL didn't care though, because European ticket and broadcast revenue was never more than a way to avoid taking a loss on what WLAF really was:

The NFLs farm league.

Trouble was, minor league baseball doesn't endure low attendance and consequent financial challenges because MLB teams saturated the US market. Their attendance is low because few fans will PAY to watch bad players play bad ball, or develop any loyalty to teams or players when every diamond in the rough quickly abandons them for the real thing. By WLaughs third season Europeans figured it out, so it went like the minor league it was: A handful of good teams drew decent home crowds to watch them pummel their latest victims; the rest were lucky to sell 20,000 tickets at home unless hosting one of those few good teams.

Rhetoric aside, WLAF/NFL Europe was never about "promoting gridiron in Europe," because there's been an extensively integrated European Football League taking kids from JV at 14-17 all the way to TWO pro leagues since the mid-eighties. Last years listing of the top 20 teams concludes by noting "only teams taking part in one of the EFAF tournaments will be regarded." London alone has THREE pro teams (though only the unfortunately named Blitz are currently in the top league,) so if the NFL wants to "introduce pro football to London" maybe it should talk to them.

At least the Broncos won THAT 2012 championship. :tongue: http://eurobowl.efaf.info/text.php3?Inhalt=top20&MenueID=131 In fact, they won three: The Swiss championship en route to the Euro Bowl, plus their JV team won that league championship. But, um, nobody tell Pat about their logo.... ;) http://www.calandabroncos.ch/index.php?section=home

If the NFL decides to only introduce two expansion teams in a place dozens already contest a continental championship, and puts one in Berlin, I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to tell the EFAF president in Frankfurt that the home of the team that hosted WLAFs first game, scored its first points, consistently drew its highest attendance, and the ONLY WLAF team that never relocated or disbanded, gets no team.

Even after the lessons of multiple strikes in various lucrative pro sports, the leagues seemingly still haven't learned screwing the customers doesn't move product. :rolleyes:

MOtorboat
03-29-2013, 08:08 AM
Mo, it may have exponentially changed quarterback scouting, but is by in far not a perfect system nor has it proven to be the end all be all of such. I agree with you that it has changed many things, then again let's look at some of the more notable quarterbacks that have gained from ESPN Rise; Tim Tebow, Vince Young, Mark Sanchez, Troy Smith, Brandon Weeden, Matt Leinart, JaMarcus Russell, Matthew Stafford, Matt Cassel, Kyle Orton and Derek Anderson, there have been some elite talent marked by the Elite 11 Camps, such as Andrew Luck, but shit Mo, they haven't revolutionized it to where the system is even close to being above 60% accurate, the grading system remains flawed, as does the notion of coaches actually coaching these athletes. I'm sorry, but the truth is that several quarterbacks have not been drafted or not been given a fair shot because teams draft or sign free agents whom are given these inflated contracts and no way in hell are they going to start a seventh round pick over their second or first rounder. Look at Wilson? Another perfect example, it's quite possible that had Brock Osweiler not been drafted by Denver that he'd be starting somewhere else, what about Ryan Mallett or Kirk Cousins?...

It's not JUST the Elite 11 camps, but my point, which I didn't elaborate on is that coaches are starting to scout these kids in middle school, so they are getting better at it. I think the quarterback busts have dropped in the last four years. You're never going to have a perfect system, but I think it's getting better.

Lancane
03-29-2013, 01:28 PM
It's not JUST the Elite 11 camps, but my point, which I didn't elaborate on is that coaches are starting to scout these kids in middle school, so they are getting better at it. I think the quarterback busts have dropped in the last four years. You're never going to have a perfect system, but I think it's getting better.

No, I agree that the it's improved, I mean if you compare the bust ratio at the position now to the 80's it's a far cry better. They may be scouting these kids earlier then before, but I've seen kids open up with the right coaching and others graded higher who've flopped because the lack thereof. Will it ever be perfect? No.

But, the fact remains that kids are falling through the cracks and are capable of being starters, maybe not elite, but you can not tell me that teams can be successful with substandard quarterbacks, we went to the AFCCG with Jake Plummer and won the division with Tim freaking Tebow. Even Orton could be somewhat successful on the right team, there will never be a time where a team has a franchise capable quarterback, look at what we've gone through here, and we really can not claim Manning as a franchise quarterback because he is nothing more then a temporary solution to the position, despite having a five year deal, do any of us expect him to actually play till he's 41? I guess he could, but I don't see Denver giving up on Osweiler so easily either.

Lancane
03-29-2013, 02:40 PM
The cartels are a regional, not national, problem in Mexico, much as in the US, but also much like the US they're typically an urban problem, so they're most prevalent in all the places that would otherwise be ideal for expansion teams. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mexican_States_with_mafia_conflicts.png Brazil though... 200 million people with the worlds 5th largest GDP and an interest in gridiron is hard to refuse.

The drug cartels may be regional in your opinion, but it's not true. Every major urban populace in Middle or South America is riddled with cartels and criminal elements which will effect the NFL's willingness to bring a multi-million dollar expansion anywhere near such epicenters. Even in fiscally opportune cities like Rio de Jeneiro or Buenos Aires.



Those may be prime ticket markets, but only L.A. and possibly Vegas are prime media markets. The NFL doesn't make most of its money from tickets anymore: Its leading revenue source is merchandise, then Madden. Neither depends on regional appeal, but both depend on large media exposure impossible for one moderately large city surrounded by hundreds of miles of nothing. You know how Broncos fans complain Denver doesn't get the media attention of East Coast teams? Imagine if Denver were a 4-12 expansion team.

Birmingham and OKC are barely in the top FIFTY US media markets, let alone top three. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_metropolitan_areas_of_the_United_States Colorado's only slightly bigger than AL, but has a million more residents than OK (already saturated by the Sooners, Cowboys, Chiefs and (other) Cowboys,) and is almost twice as big as NV. Those are populations about an order of magnitude off what the NFL wants for teams.

I agree that LA and Las Vegas are prime media epicenters, but don't discount the media markets of Birmingham and Oklahoma. They may not be friendly media markets per capita, however football is another business altogether, Birmingham is the largest urban populace in Alabama and the same for Oklahoma City in Oklahoma, but both states breath and live football. You have to account for the other cities and townships within a region, for example, Alabama is riddled with small towns, but having a team that has a fan base of Montgomery, Birmingham and Mobile? Are you kidding me Joel? Towns close for High School and College Football, can you imagine what a team would mean to the region? Not to mention that nearby Arkansas and Mississippi would add to that media market. Same with Oklahoma City, despite being so near to Texas which there is a natural rivalry of sorts, you have to account for the same love of the sport found in Alabama and in Texas. And like Alabama there is a pull in other nearby markets, rural Kansas, maybe as far as Nebraska and even part of Arkansas.

Your assessment is interesting, but you're discounting the fan factor of those regions which makes them the ideal markets for expansion.


Same problem with places like Regina: Its population is <200,000, and all of Saskatchewan only has a population just over a million, just not enough to support an NFL team; Alberta has two CITIES more populous than its neighboring province. The whole country has <35 million people, but half live in six cities, so any new Canadian teams would have to be in one of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_100_largest_metropolitan_areas_in_Cana da

Again you are discounting the nearby markets of Calgary and Winnipeg, let alone of the rural areas. Even if they looked at Winnipeg or Calgary they'd still look be looking at location in order to bring more fans to the league. You're the one who is discounting the major factor in the media market, the fans Joel, and while Saskatchewan is again not a media epicenter, there are plenty of factors to cause pause, they have a successful CFL team after all. Now you could be spot on, but either way there are other metropolitan areas that could be secured as I already pointed to.


With half a billion residents, Europe presents no such problem; its problem is distance. Put a new AFC team in London and an NFC team in Berlin and those poor SOBs will have to make a 7-9 hour flight eight games a year; the rest of the time their opponents will, and that's simply impractical. West Coast teams have long complained about noon kickoffs on the East Coast feeling like 9AM, but with a transatlantic trip jetlag would become a real thing, that couldn't be fixed with the bye week because the teams would still have to fly back in time for their next game.

Again, at the rate we're going without an NFL expansion in Europe we'll start to see more and more games played on foreign soil, the only reason I would choose Berlin is because it is the capital of Germany has had a team which was rather successful...add in that we're also talking about a market that once was home to five NFLE teams, it's more then prime. Argue the semantics all you like, but Germany is probably the second best European market next to England.


Europe only works with its own division/conference playing at least 6 games within a few hours of each other, and only forcing about as many NFL teams to cross the ocean each year. Fortunately there are ample media markets to support that—IF not restricted to guys who can't even make a CFL roster and immediately bolt for "real football" the second a scout sees enough talent to think they may be the next Kurt Warner.

Which is understandable, but explain to me how you see Europe maintaining a singular division? Especially given the current unstable fiscal climate of southern Europe?

The only way I could see two singular markets...would be if the NFL purchased the rights to the CFL and absorbed the league into the NFL, then split the teams into conferences...so for example the teams that remained in Canada would likely be Toronto, Montreal, British Columbia and Calgary, those would cover wider media markets, but then move Winnipeg, Saskatchewan, Edmonton and Hamilton to Europe, and the only way I see that working would be if the new league covered more of the northwestern areas, London of course, and we'll go with Frankfurt because you made a fair argument for them having a team, so then who? There are far too many 'what if' questions surrounding Spain, Amsterdamn, France, Italy or Greece. I would say that there could be arguments made for a team in Scotland, but their NFLE team didn't have the best attendance. Vienna and Stockholm are the probably only other two epicenters I could see fair arguments for to have an NFL franchise. Then you have AFC Europe and NFC Canada?


It's important to realize WLAF/NFL Europe didn't fail because Europeans were oblivious. The first couple WLAF seasons drew quite respectable crowds most places, but each only had ONE non-American player (invariably the kicker) because League bylaws REQUIRED it. Everyone who knew football also knew they were getting third string starters; everyone else wondered what Americans see in such an untalented sport. Both quickly learned any of the few stars their team might produce—against all odds—would pull a Doom on them the instant his talent became clear, so there was no point getting attached.

They started with an entire LEAGUE of garbage, and if by some quirk of fate a decent player found himself there an NFL scout quickly recognized and rectified that error, restoring the status quo of uniform SUB-mediocrity. The NFL didn't care though, because European ticket and broadcast revenue was never more than a way to avoid taking a loss on what WLAF really was:

The NFLs farm league.

Trouble was, minor league baseball doesn't endure low attendance and consequent financial challenges because MLB teams saturated the US market. Their attendance is low because few fans will PAY to watch bad players play bad ball, or develop any loyalty to teams or players when every diamond in the rough quickly abandons them for the real thing. By WLaughs third season Europeans figured it out, so it went like the minor league it was: A handful of good teams drew decent home crowds to watch them pummel their latest victims; the rest were lucky to sell 20,000 tickets at home unless hosting one of those few good teams.

Rhetoric aside, WLAF/NFL Europe was never about "promoting gridiron in Europe," because there's been an extensively integrated European Football League taking kids from JV at 14-17 all the way to TWO pro leagues since the mid-eighties. Last years listing of the top 20 teams concludes by noting "only teams taking part in one of the EFAF tournaments will be regarded." London alone has THREE pro teams (though only the unfortunately named Blitz are currently in the top league,) so if the NFL wants to "introduce pro football to London" maybe it should talk to them.

At least the Broncos won THAT 2012 championship. :tongue: http://eurobowl.efaf.info/text.php3?Inhalt=top20&MenueID=131 In fact, they won three: The Swiss championship en route to the Euro Bowl, plus their JV team won that league championship. But, um, nobody tell Pat about their logo.... ;) http://www.calandabroncos.ch/index.php?section=home

If the NFL decides to only introduce two expansion teams in a place dozens already contest a continental championship, and puts one in Berlin, I wouldn't want to be the guy who has to tell the EFAF president in Frankfurt that the home of the team that hosted WLAFs first game, scored its first points, consistently drew its highest attendance, and the ONLY WLAF team that never relocated or disbanded, gets no team.

Even after the lessons of multiple strikes in various lucrative pro sports, the leagues seemingly still haven't learned screwing the customers doesn't move product. :rolleyes:

This is a fair assessment, then again...I am not sure that Europe can maintain a conference alone, even if the NFL purchased the rights to the CFL, of course you mentioned the European Football Leagues, but those kids would go on to be included in league's process of the Combine, Pro Days and then the Draft which could help expand those football programs. I agree with you that the NFLE was the NFL's farm league, but the different rules that were tested in the European League hampered them more then helped those athletes, especially given that the coaches of those leagues proved themselves to be near incompetent at the pro level on most occassions.

Joel
03-30-2013, 09:16 PM
The drug cartels may be regional in your opinion, but it's not true. Every major urban populace in Middle or South America is riddled with cartels and criminal elements which will effect the NFL's willingness to bring a multi-million dollar expansion anywhere near such epicenters. Even in fiscally opportune cities like Rio de Jeneiro or Buenos Aires.
The need for urban markets (and secluded agricultural countryside) is what makes them regional. The NFL and drug cartels are drawn to the same markets for the same reason; one of the biggest hotspots for Mexican drug violence is right across the border from San Diego. On the other hand, that hasn't driven the Chargers out, nor has rampant drug violence driven the Redskins, Dolphins or Raiders from their hometowns; the biggest effect has been schools and malls banning NFL replica jerseys as "gang apparel." Any expansion is almost obligated to exploit a college football tradition nearly as old in Mexico as in the US.

I wouldn't put a team in Bogota, and maybe not Monterrey (appealing as that would otherwise be) but if Brazil were like that the World Cup wouldn't be coming there next year, and the Olympics wouldn't be following in 2016. Its drug violence is no worse than one finds among the methlabs common to Americas Deep South and OK; indeed, there's some evidence Brazilian slums under tight cartel control actually have LESS violence because drug lords swiftly retaliate against rapists, murderers and thieves.


I agree that LA and Las Vegas are prime media epicenters, but don't discount the media markets of Birmingham and Oklahoma. They may not be friendly media markets per capita, however football is another business altogether, Birmingham is the largest urban populace in Alabama and the same for Oklahoma City in Oklahoma, but both states breath and live football. You have to account for the other cities and townships within a region, for example, Alabama is riddled with small towns, but having a team that has a fan base of Montgomery, Birmingham and Mobile? Are you kidding me Joel? Towns close for High School and College Football, can you imagine what a team would mean to the region? Not to mention that nearby Arkansas and Mississippi would add to that media market. Same with Oklahoma City, despite being so near to Texas which there is a natural rivalry of sorts, you have to account for the same love of the sport found in Alabama and in Texas. And like Alabama there is a pull in other nearby markets, rural Kansas, maybe as far as Nebraska and even part of Arkansas.

Your assessment is interesting, but you're discounting the fan factor of those regions which makes them the ideal markets for expansion.
Hey, I'm from TX; you don't have to tell me what HS football is like there. But HS fans=/=college fans=/=pro fans. I doubt any Denver residents regularly run into Peyton, Eli or Archie Manning at the grocery store or church, or have kids of their own on the Broncos roster; the pro and HS paradigms are very different. I was raised on the NFL, grew up watching Earl Campbell and Tony Dorsett, then Warren Moon and Emmitt Smith, but couldn't care less about the SECAAs elected champions. A good friend of mine avidly follows his TAMU alma mater but has no interest in pro mercenaries who neither inspire nor possess any team loyalty.

All that aside, wooing an NFL franchise requires broadcasters willing and able to bid for them based on the millions of living rooms who'd air its games. Metro Birminghams 1.3 million residents just can't, not even if we throw in 400,000 more in metro Montgomery and an equal number in metro Mobile; if every single one watched the NFL Tide (and they wouldn't) it STILL wouldn't be enough. Residents of MS and AR have no more incentive to watch an Alabama pro team than they do the Saints, Bucs or Chiefs—or the Jags; if that were viable Jacksonville wouldn't be leaking money like a sieve.

Things get worse, not better, in OKC. The whole STATE has <4 million residents, most of whom are already committed to the Chiefs or Cowboys if they have any football interest beyond the Sooners and OSUs Cowboys (which many don't.) Kansas and Nebraska can't help; they barely have as many residents COMBINED as OK, and it's a safe bet most KS natives would feel more loyalty to the KANSAS City Chiefs they've had for 45 years than to an abysmal OK expansion team. I hate to go there, but if the breadbasket had enough residents to buy caps, jerseys and Madden, Romney would be president now.

Apart from L.A. Las Vegas is the only US market you mentioned that might be viable. Nevada is even less populous than OK and AL, but nearly all its 2.7 million residents live in Metro Vegas, and the Chargers and Cards are the closest NFL teams that might already command their loyalty (in the Cards case, only since the mid-nineties.) Otherwise, nearly every US market that could support an NFL team already does.

Except L.A. the only exception is San Antonio, and that's the only other place I'd go. Of the nations four most populous states, the only one with <3 NFL teams is TX, where whole towns shut DOWN from 7-11PM on Fall Fridays, often even on THURSDAYS for JV games. Not only do San Antonios 2.2 million metro residents vastly outnumber Birminghams, OKCs or even Vegas', but metro Austin has another 1.8 million just 80 miles distant. Put together that's a lot more than OK or NV and nearly as much as AL even before considering intervening and surrounding areas like Waco (home of RGIIIs Baylor Bears.)


Again you are discounting the nearby markets of Calgary and Winnipeg, let alone of the rural areas. Even if they looked at Winnipeg or Calgary they'd still look be looking at location in order to bring more fans to the league. You're the one who is discounting the major factor in the media market, the fans Joel, and while Saskatchewan is again not a media epicenter, there are plenty of factors to cause pause, they have a successful CFL team after all. Now you could be spot on, but either way there are other metropolitan areas that could be secured as I already pointed to.
I'm not discounting Calgary at all; I'm saying I'd but a team there and/or Edmonton rather than Regina, since those two cities have almost as many residents as the whole PROVINCE of Saskatchewan. It's about 500 miles from either of them to Regina; I doubt an NFL team there could convince Eskimos and Stampeders fans to support them even if it didn't feel like halfway to supporting the Roughriders. Capturing millions of living rooms means Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Edmonton and/or Calgary; Saskatchewan couldn't even deliver A million.

Like I say, there are <35 million people in the whole country, and half of them live in six cities, so those are the ONLY places an NFL expansion team could survive, let alone thrive.


Again, at the rate we're going without an NFL expansion in Europe we'll start to see more and more games played on foreign soil, the only reason I would choose Berlin is because it is the capital of Germany has had a team which was rather successful...add in that we're also talking about a market that once was home to five NFLE teams, it's more then prime. Argue the semantics all you like, but Germany is probably the second best European market next to England.
Oh, no doubt about it; there's a reason the NFL kept moving all its WLaugh teams to Germany until there was only one non-German team left and people mocked the league as "NFL Germany." German teams sold tickets and broadcast deals, and teams elsewhere, even in Britain, didn't. However, moving all the teams to Germany just exacerbated that problem because it left NO teams in any other country (except the Admirals,) which not only meant no tickets sold elsewhere but no reason for TV stations outside Germany to air games, which meant no reason for anyone but Germans to buy team merchandise etc. etc.

If the NFL's going to put all its eggs in one basket, it better be a VERY big (and wealthy) one.


Which is understandable, but explain to me how you see Europe maintaining a singular division? Especially given the current unstable fiscal climate of southern Europe?
The short answer is few or no southern European teams. Nearly half the populace lives in the UK, Germany or France, the wealthiest countries, and the NFL's had the most success in the first two. The only southern European cites that make much sense are Barcelona, Madrid and Milan, none of which have had any difficulty supporting FIFA clubs (in fact, FC Barcelona even sponsored and lent their name to the illfated Barcelona Dragons for a season when WLaugh was bleeding money.) Otherwise the best choices are the virtual megalopolis consisting of the three Benelux nations and places like:

London, THAT Birmingham, Manchester and (perhaps) Edinburgh in the UK.
Berlin, Frankfurt, Hamburg and Munich in Germany.
Paris, Marseilles and Lyon in France

That's only two teams shy of a conference already; one more in Austria, Switzerland and/or Sweden (though I'd prefer Norway, for obvious reasons) would do it.

Alternatively, the NFL could expand to these 20 cities knowing a football fan base already exists for anyone with sense to offer more than all-foreign teams playing a foreign game badly: http://www.eurobowl.info/

Note, incidentally, only TWO of those top 20 teams are in southern Europe, just as in the list I suggested off the top of my head (each of which would command about 5 million potential fans in its home media market alone.) The question isn't whether it can be done; the fact Europe's had a pro football league since 1986 proves that: The question is whether the NFL will finally give them teams worth watching or reserve the best players for US markets. Until/unless owners believe revenue sharing makes that worthwhile any foreign expansion will be doomed.


The only way I could see two singular markets...would be if the NFL purchased the rights to the CFL and absorbed the league into the NFL, then split the teams into conferences...so for example the teams that remained in Canada would likely be Toronto, Montreal, British Columbia and Calgary, those would cover wider media markets, but then move Winnipeg, Saskatchewan, Edmonton and Hamilton to Europe, and the only way I see that working would be if the new league covered more of the northwestern areas, London of course, and we'll go with Frankfurt because you made a fair argument for them having a team, so then who? There are far too many 'what if' questions surrounding Spain, Amsterdamn, France, Italy or Greece. I would say that there could be arguments made for a team in Scotland, but their NFLE team didn't have the best attendance. Vienna and Stockholm are the probably only other two epicenters I could see fair arguments for to have an NFL franchise. Then you have AFC Europe and NFC Canada?
That sounds like a good approach to Canada; my main concern is whether Edmonton residents would follow and support a Calgary team if they lost the Eskimos.

France and the Netherlands are safe markets, and Spain isn't much worse; its federal deficits were lower than France and Germanys until those two sold them those idiotic "easy credit ripoffs," and it's already bouncing back again. Italy's another matter, but what would make or break (a) team(s) there is whether the NFL convinced Berlusconi his media monopoly could make money off the broadcasts.

Still, if we had only four teams to consider, again, London alone already has three pro teams. With one there, Paris, Amsterdam and Berlin or Frankfurt the only question would be why we ignored the rest of Britain, Germany and Frances 200+ million residents. If even one in ten of them became NFL fans that would still be more than OK, NV or AL could deliver.


This is a fair assessment, then again...I am not sure that Europe can maintain a conference alone, even if the NFL purchased the rights to the CFL, of course you mentioned the European Football Leagues, but those kids would go on to be included in league's process of the Combine, Pro Days and then the Draft which could help expand those football programs. I agree with you that the NFLE was the NFL's farm league, but the different rules that were tested in the European League hampered them more then helped those athletes, especially given that the coaches of those leagues proved themselves to be near incompetent at the pro level on most occassions.
IF (it may be a big "if") the NFL convinced the EFL to merge that would surely be best. Yet WLaugh was a huge slap in their faces, after which they could reasonably ask if the NFL has anything to offer or would simply raid any good European players for US teams. The EFL already has its own European JV and V farm teams; transplanted CFL teams would not, but would be yet another insult to decades-old European pro football teams. Bear in mind Europe has no draft, nor antitrust exemptions that would allow one, and I doubt the NFL could buy one with an expansion team as they did with the Saints.

The bottom line remains the bottom line: The NFL would rather have a London than OK or AL team because London offers a larger audience than both others combined. As with Paris, Frankfurt, Berlin, Amsterdam....

The Jags will probably move to L.A. eventually and that will be it for the US. If TX can't support three NFL teams with 26 million rabid football fans FL can't do it with 19 million who'd rather watch FSU than their pitiful pro neighbors in Jacksonville. Between them, Carolina (which isn't in great financial shape either,) Cleveland and Houston the NFL has been far too prolific with expansion teams, and it shows in the overall talent.

Jaded
03-31-2013, 11:19 AM
Buffalo just gave Kevin Kolb another multi-million dollar contract, so naturally every football fan should look forward to an NFL that gives all these super talented undrafted players a chance to play what used to be the best sport on the planet.

I thought that's what college was for.

Lancane
03-31-2013, 03:19 PM
Buffalo just gave Kevin Kolb another multi-million dollar contract, so naturally every football fan should look forward to an NFL that gives all these super talented undrafted players a chance to play what used to be the best sport on the planet.

I thought that's what college was for.

Yeah, but for every Kolb and Flynn there is a Warner or Romo.

King87
03-31-2013, 03:22 PM
I didn't know that Kolb was so bad he made the game of football worse?

Jaded
04-07-2013, 12:47 PM
Yeah, but for every Kolb and Flynn there is a Warner or Romo.

No, there isn't, the ratio is closer to 100-1. If not higher.


I didn't know that Kolb was so bad he made the game of football worse?

Never said that, but clever nonetheless. I said expansion makes the NFL worse.

King87
04-07-2013, 01:05 PM
I thought you would find the statement entertaining, Jaded. ;)

Lancane
04-07-2013, 02:59 PM
No, there isn't, the ratio is closer to 100-1. If not higher.



Never said that, but clever nonetheless. I said expansion makes the NFL worse.

No, it's not...again, I point to coaches who don't know how to coach, see Cincinnati (Sorry King), Cleveland and Oakland for examples. It easier for these coaches to think drills and running plays make these kids better, but it isn't the truth.

As to expansion makes the NFL worse, are you saying the Broncos who were part of the AFL should have never become part of the NFL? I'm sure that the Texans' fans would disagree as well. Expansion might not be great right away, in the end though (if done right) we could see more talent introduced into the NFL and a much larger impact on the sport.

Jaded
04-07-2013, 03:06 PM
No, it's not...again, I point to coaches who don't know how to coach, see Cincinnati (Sorry King), Cleveland and Oakland for examples. It easier for these coaches to think drills and running plays make these kids better, but it isn't the truth.

As to expansion makes the NFL worse, are you saying the Broncos who were part of the AFL should have never become part of the NFL? I'm sure that the Texans' fans would disagree as well. Expansion might not be great right away, in the end though (if done right) we could see more talent introduced into the NFL and a much larger impact on the sport.

It's the coaches fault that there aren't enough QB's (and LT's and DE's and CB's and.......everything) to expand into ******* Germany? And why would you want that anyway? More teams competing for the same amount of talent makes it harder for Denver to win Championships. It's simple supply and demand.

Personally, I couldn't possibly care any less about LA if I tried really, REALLY hard.

Oh and btw, if the coaches are failing in today's game how is expansion going to help that?

Jaded
04-07-2013, 03:08 PM
This argument reminds me of the Buffalo Wild Wings commercial where every team makes the March Madness. "We're in?".

Lancane
04-07-2013, 03:40 PM
It's the coaches fault that there aren't enough QB's (and LT's and DE's and CB's and.......everything) to expand into ******* Germany? And why would you want that anyway? More teams competing for the same amount of talent makes it harder for Denver to win Championships. It's simple supply and demand.

Personally, I couldn't possibly care any less about LA if I tried really, REALLY hard.

Oh and btw, if the coaches are failing in today's game how is expansion going to help that?

There are enough quarterbacks, etc. the problem is that we have a very large pool from which to draft from and several kids walk away when they're not drafted. Karl Mecklenburg was a 12th Round Pick and is a finalist for the HOF, if he can be found and the likes of Davis or Brady in the latter rounds, how many of those who walk away are undervalued because the teams drafted someone at the position high and therefor are forgotten or overlooked?

And football is no longer an American Sport, if you remember a few years back I went to Japan because the sport has taken hold there, there are minor leagues and pro leagues worldwide from South America to Germany to England. If you expand the league, those talent pools are added to league, that means more talent overall. Perfect example is Bjoern Werner, a German born athlete who is considered by many as the top defensive end in the upcoming draft. Denver has two players who were born in other countries and raised in Canada on the roster. America isn't the only nation with talented athletes, to even think that is moronic. Add in the athletes of those other nations and the league will have an explosion on the number of talent athletes available for teams. Even without an expansion, if the league had a twelve round draft still, there would still be a lot of talent found later in the draft. As a Broncos' fan you should understand this, after all the Broncos have found gems later on more then most, even UDFA, like Rod Smith or Wesley Woodyard. It's asinine to think there isn't enough talent, the problem now days is that coaches have to coach less because the level of talent they draft early on, so people like Romo wouldn't have a fair shot against someone like Eric Couch, even if Romo was better...because the fiscal difference in contracts and draft grading, etc. It's far too easy for these coaches to be lazy, look at Ryan in NY. When he had the coaches and talent, the team was solid...now? I rest my case.

Jaded
04-07-2013, 04:25 PM
You rest your case on the talent pool in Japan/Germany, two or three undrafted free agents and lazy coaching?

If it ain't broke don't fix, there is nothing wrong with "just" 32 teams. It's not Eric Crouch's God given right to play professional football, it's moronic and asinine to suggest otherwise. As nice as it'd be for scrubs like Crouch to play in the NFL I don't care to watch the garbage football that's an inevitable by-product of TRYING to create an opportunity for every swinging dick to play college/foreign football.

Rod Smith, Karl Mechlenberg and Tony Romo are cherry picked exceptions and I think we both know that.

Lancane
04-07-2013, 05:29 PM
You rest your case on the talent pool in Japan/Germany, two or three undrafted free agents and lazy coaching?

If it ain't broke don't fix, there is nothing wrong with "just" 32 teams. It's not Eric Crouch's God given right to play professional football, it's moronic and asinine to suggest otherwise. As nice as it'd be for scrubs like Crouch to play in the NFL I don't care to watch the garbage football that's an inevitable by-product of TRYING to create an opportunity for every swinging dick to play college/foreign football.

Rod Smith, Karl Mechlenberg and Tony Romo are cherry picked exceptions and I think we both know that.

Jaded, argue all you want, there is no argument you can make that backs what you believe, the proof is in the pudding as they say. You openly discount the talent that we've seen an influx of throughout the rest of major league sports, from baseball, soccer, hockey and yes, even basketball and to do that is without question, lame. The pool as it stands is deep, let's not forget Antonio Gates, Larry Little, Lou Groza, Adam Vinatieri, James Harrison, Priest Holmes, Donnie Shell, London Fletcher, Kurt Warner, Warren Moon, Arian Foster, Wayne Chrebet, Jim Langer, Jim Burt, Everson Walls, Josh Cribbs, Jim Hart, Sam Mills, Jessie Tuggle, Kris Dielman, Joe Jacoby, Frank Gatski, Wayne Moore, Deron Cherry, Nate Newton, Cliff Harris, Jeff Saturday, Willie Brown, Brian Waters, Joe Perry, John Randle, Victor Cruz, Willie Wood, Dick 'Night Train' Lane or how about our newly added starting slot receiver Wes Welker? Do you want me to go on, most of those mentioned above have All-Pro and Pro-Bowl Accolades that a good 75% of first round picks will not accumulate in their careers. Still want to argue? Let's keep going then Jaded, I can do this all day long, let's look at the other spectrum, latter round draft picks... Curtis Duncan, Dwayne Harper, Adalius Thomas, Joe Horn, Rodney Harrison, Stevie Johnson, Shannon Sharpe, T.J Housmanzadeh, Tom Nalen, Jesse Sapolu, Yeremiah Bell, Larry Brown, Matt Birk, Clyde Simmons, Kyle Williams, Dexter Manley, Brian Sipe, Joe Klecko, Marques Colston, Seth Joyner, Robert Mathis, Bo Jackson, Harold Carmichael, Jamal Anderson, Cortland Finnegan, Dwight Clark, Al Harris, Shane Lechler, Mike Webster, Zach Thomas, Jake Scott, Rod Martin, Steve Largent, Terrell Davis, Tom Brady, Karl Mecklenburg, Chris Hanburger, Jackie Smith, Bart Starr, Richard Dent, Deacon Jones and Roger Staubauch to name some. The talent is there, teams need to quite being lazy and develop that talent, that is one thing currently wrong with the league.

You say 'If it ain't broke don't fix it', the league is broken, between outrageous contracts, uptight rules, piss poor coaching, character issues and so much more, the league needs fixed, the sport is suffering from the stupidity. If the NFL was so grand then the UFL and CFL wouldn't be as popular as it has become, even the Arena League has remained, football has expanded around the globe and the National Football League will in my honest opinion will not sit by and allow those markets to be forsaken for the sake of American Pride, nor allow the talent pools of those nations to not better the league itself.

As I state above, I rest my case.

Jaded
04-07-2013, 10:09 PM
I still see you playing the Exception Game, there aren't enough undrafted free agents to field a single competitive expansion team, much less enough draftable players. Germany and Japan will do nothing to help that. When and if there is anybody worth a shit in those markets the NFL and their shitty coaches will find them sooner or later, ya know why? Because they know there is only so much talent to go around. And if the coaching sucks in the NFL how bad is the coaching in those countries?

It has nothing to do with American Pride, if l could have a draft composed entirely of Ezekiel Ansha, Bjoern Werner and Margus Hunt it would suit me straight down to the ground. It's not about that at all, it's just plain and simple supply and demand. There simply isn't enough players nor enough coaches to field NFL quality football at the scope you're dreaming of. Not now or any time soon.

Now, if you're dreaming of an NFL that produces the quality that Tim Tebow and Eric Crouch provides than all I can say is be careful what you wish for.

Expansion into God awful P.O.S that is LA is one thing but to gripe about the lack of expansion nearing 40 teams is just comical to me.

Lancane
04-08-2013, 12:58 AM
I still see you playing the Exception Game, there aren't enough undrafted free agents to field a single competitive expansion team, much less enough draftable players. Germany and Japan will do nothing to help that. When and if there is anybody worth a shit in those markets the NFL and their shitty coaches will find them sooner or later, ya know why? Because they know there is only so much talent to go around. And if the coaching sucks in the NFL how bad is the coaching in those countries?

It has nothing to do with American Pride, if l could have a draft composed entirely of Ezekiel Ansha, Bjoern Werner and Margus Hunt it would suit me straight down to the ground. It's not about that at all, it's just plain and simple supply and demand. There simply isn't enough players nor enough coaches to field NFL quality football at the scope you're dreaming of. Not now or any time soon.

Now, if you're dreaming of an NFL that produces the quality that Tim Tebow and Eric Crouch provides than all I can say is be careful what you wish for.

Expansion into God awful P.O.S that is LA is one thing but to gripe about the lack of expansion nearing 40 teams is just comical to me.

That is untrue Jaded, we're starting to see it, with people like Werner, Franklin and others, the reason the NFL hasn't really reached into foreign markets is because at this time, unless fiscally backed (which would come with a multitude expansion), right now it would be a nightmare for immigration, but considering what we'd be talking about with a large expansion is billions of dollars in revenue and that changes things. Remember the issues that have arisen regarding such things in baseball, basketball, hockey and soccer, this is much the same, it will not happen overnight, but if all of a sudden there is going to be millions of dollars coming in to these areas from the sport, bet your ass they'll figure it out. Trust me, the talent is there, if you calculate the players that go undrafted each year, you could stock three or four rosters in as many years, it's not as inconceivable as you might think Jaded. It would also focus the scouts and coaching staffs to pay more attention to the smaller programs which only helps the sport more. I am sorry you disagree, but an expansion is coming whether you like it or not, but to what extent could determine the future of the league as well.

Jaded
04-09-2013, 03:57 PM
Expansion teams have had the pick of the UDFA litter and have had the Expansion Draft where they pilfer existing teams for players they're willing to expose. Yet rarely have they ever fielded a competitive team, this is because there just isn't enough professional talent to go around, in college, Japan or wherever.

I didn't say expansion is not going to happen but I think I've pretty well articulated how it's going to suck a fart, wet fart when it does happen. I have no interest in watching college scrubs play a garbage brand of professional football, that's what college is for. This may be good for the owners and scrubs wishing they had professional talent but it's not good for the quality of play on the field.

And I still don't see how the coaching is going to improve the quality of expanded play if the coaching currently doesn't satisfy your expectations. Less talent and less quality coaching to go around simply does not add up to better product. Star Wars had 3 more prequels but that doesn't mean it was a better product than the originals. More doesn't always mean better.

Btw, the Frankfurt Galaxy says hi.

Lancane
04-09-2013, 04:26 PM
Expansion teams have had the pick of the UDFA litter and have had the Expansion Draft where they pilfer existing teams for players they're willing to expose. Yet rarely have they ever fielded a competitive team, this is because there just isn't enough professional talent to go around, in college, Japan or wherever.

I didn't say expansion is not going to happen but I think I've pretty well articulated how it's going to suck a fart, wet fart when it does happen. I have no interest in watching college scrubs play a garbage brand of professional football, that's what college is for. This may be good for the owners and scrubs wishing they had professional talent but it's not good for the quality of play on the field.

And I still don't see how the coaching is going to improve the quality of expanded play if the coaching currently doesn't satisfy your expectations. Less talent and less quality coaching to go around simply does not add up to better product. Star Wars had 3 more prequels but that doesn't mean it was a better product than the originals. More doesn't always mean better.

Btw, the Frankfurt Galaxy says hi.

Again, you're simply disregarding the talent that is unseen, that is like listening to Mel Kiper or Todd McShay when there are hundreds of scouts more knowledgeable then either of those two ***holes. We've seen talent continually fall through the cracks, or become overlooked rather then be given a fair shot to compete and a lot of that has to do with lazy coaching, not bad coaching, when you have a level of talent that makes your skills less valuable you become sloppy in your duties, this is the case with a lot of the coaches in the NFL. A teacher doesn't have to teach those who are bookworms and continually well placed in their class, but they need to teach those who lack that, can you not see how that has become lax? If coaches start being held to a higher standard, we could see some quality changes. Canada and other countries have not thrown their straws into the mix, what would Hockey be without Canadians, Swedish or Russian players? Baseball without Cuban or Latin Americans? There potential is there, the talent is there, but they are not part of this pool...and despite what you think, some can not just hop a plane and go to Japan or somewhere else for a player, if added to the drawing pool however, then the expanse of talent will double.

No, the prequels were not better, but still made a ****load of money and now there will be more films...

BTW Kurt Warner just gave you the bird with his Championship ring on it.

Jaded
04-09-2013, 04:50 PM
In 2020 you might be right but in 2013 the worst NFL team EVER could throw Japan and Germany all-stars a ****** beatin that would leave them looking different. If I'm wrong in 2020 I'll be more than happy to admit it, but 8 teams made entirely of foreigners and undrafted scrubs would be lucky to win a single game in 2013.

Why anybody would be upset about missing out on an NFL like that is a mystery.

Jaded
04-09-2013, 04:53 PM
2020, maybe 2030. Hopefully I've weaned off the garbage by then.

Joel
04-09-2013, 05:37 PM
I still see you playing the Exception Game, there aren't enough undrafted free agents to field a single competitive expansion team, much less enough draftable players. Germany and Japan will do nothing to help that. When and if there is anybody worth a shit in those markets the NFL and their shitty coaches will find them sooner or later, ya know why? Because they know there is only so much talent to go around. And if the coaching sucks in the NFL how bad is the coaching in those countries?

It has nothing to do with American Pride, if l could have a draft composed entirely of Ezekiel Ansha, Bjoern Werner and Margus Hunt it would suit me straight down to the ground. It's not about that at all, it's just plain and simple supply and demand. There simply isn't enough players nor enough coaches to field NFL quality football at the scope you're dreaming of. Not now or any time soon.
A nation of 310 million has enough talent to fill 32 NFL teams, with plenty left for Canadian ones, but a continent of 500 million doesn't have enough to fill even a COUPLE teams? That's like saying the reason there are so few US pro soccer players is because America doesn't have enough talent to produce them. The reason there aren't more European football players is lack of incentive, not talent.

Same reason the US had to find a German who didn't even speak English (but had a US father) to captain our soccer team and prevent total global embarrassment when hosting the '94 World Cup. Ten-year-olds in the US dreaming of sports fame and fortune don't turn to a game VERY high profile and lucrative elsewhere, because their exposure to it is almost nil. Even if they do, top coaches and players aren't around to teach them play the highest level: They're where the money and cameras are. Our kids, and fans, get leftovers not good enough for the big league, leaving us to wonder wtf anyone cares about such a lame sport.

It's pretty much the same in Europe (everywhere but the US and Canada, actually.) There's plenty of talent, but any athletic kid who wants to be noticed by pro scouts in his local HS better practice and play a game those scouts actually follow. Practicing a game no one on his side of the ocean follows, with no decent coaches to teach it or decent competition to test his mettle, would be idiotic. Which would YOU pick:

1) Train in an unknown sport, get a passport, fly to an overseas college (WITHOUT scholarships they give top HS players,) try to pass classes in a second language and do well enough to be drafted 4 years later, or

2) Train in the sport your WHOLE COUNTRY watches, skip college and make your millions NOW playing for whomever offers the most money?

Even US players wouldn't delay making millions/year and boinking supermodels during college if the NFL didn't make 'em; they know how much injury and age will limit their pro careers.

"Europe's got talent," too; it just has no motive to waste it on football, and great motive to spend it elsewhere. Talented or otherwise, Europeans with even slight desire to play in the NFL consist of guys like the aforementioned Hunt or guys like this: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57562835/norwegian-kicker-dreams-of-nfl-after-viral-video/

If you're so concerned about US football talent reaching marginal returns (and 25% more teams in 20 years makes that concern valid) you should be begging for the NFL to expand to Europe. That would nearly TRIPLE the NFLs athlete pool, rather than splitting the same US pool between more teams in L.A. and other US cities. NFL scouts aren't even looking at most of those potential new players. You want half a dozen more pro-level QBs? Try the half a billion places no one has looked yet.

Jaded
04-09-2013, 05:52 PM
Are you talking about expansion into these places now or the distant future? Cause Lan specifically said it's long overdue, meaning the talent is there ready, willing and able to take the field and play at an NFL level.......right now. All they need is coaches that aren't lazy.

It's going to take years, if not decades, before these markets produce NFL talent, just like it's taken years, if not decades to produce NBA talent.

Personally, I've seen enough of NFLE and I've seen enough UDFA college players to know they're not NFL talents.

And again, who is gonna coach them if the coaches are failing now?

Joel
04-09-2013, 05:56 PM
Expansion teams have had the pick of the UDFA litter and have had the Expansion Draft where they pilfer existing teams for players they're willing to expose. Yet rarely have they ever fielded a competitive team, this is because there just isn't enough professional talent to go around, in college, Japan or wherever.
Um, the Jacksonville Jaguars and Carolina Panthers did pretty well out of expansions drafts; just ask the 1996 Denver Broncos. Sadly, I think the NFL looked at that and decided it overcompensated, which was bad news for the Texans and Browns, and probably for any other expansion team in the near future.


In 2020 you might be right but in 2013 the worst NFL team EVER could throw Japan and Germany all-stars a ****** beatin that would leave them looking different. If I'm wrong in 2020 I'll be more than happy to admit it, but 8 teams made entirely of foreigners and undrafted scrubs would be lucky to win a single game in 2013.
Probably so, but that was precisely the problem with WLaugh: Instead of drawing from the same talent pool as NFL teams and PLAYING NFL teams, they got a token foreign kicker and rejects not even good enough for CFL ball, playing for 1950s salaries that forced them to keep their dayjobs.

Shockingly, those fourth-stringers sucked out loud, especially when the NFL quickly snatched back the few like Warner and Delhomme who didn't. Just as inevitably, European fans soon quit buying tickets to the comedy of errors once the novelty faded and they realized any of the foreigners they liked soon left town, either for an NFL contract, or because the NFL moved the whole TEAM to Germany for more money.

Put the shoe on the other foot again: IF you were a soccer fan, would you rather watch a hometown team with friends, neighbors and family, or a bunch of Brazilians only playing because they couldn't make it back home, and who went back there as soon as they showed ANY talent? Would you rather watch the 20 year old hometown team with people you knew or the new team of foreigners that would probably move to another state next week and WASN'T EVEN AS GOOD?! Which would you pay to see?

You want more talent, you'll have to broaden your base, and you won't do it telling people overseas they have to learn English, get into a US college and wait four years. You sure won't do it expecting them to pay to see foreign rejects play a foreign game badly when they could watch LITERALLY world class talent play an already popular game they know and understand well.

Joel
04-09-2013, 06:04 PM
Are you talking about expansion into these places now or the distant future? Cause Lan specifically said it's long overdue, meaning the talent is there ready, willing and able to take the field and play at an NFL level.......right now. All they need is coaches that aren't lazy.

It's going to take years, if not decades, before these markets produce NFL talent, just like it's taken years, if not decades to produce NBA talent.

Personally, I've seen enough of NFLE and I've seen enough UDFA college players to know they're not NFL talents.

And again, who is gonna coach them if the coaches are failing now?
I don't entirely share Lans disapproval of NFL coaches, but, yes, the talent is there, just not the incentive. Again, Europe's had pro football for going on 30 years, but as long as the top athletes make millions/year in pro soccer and thousands/year in pro football it's a no brainer which one they'll pick every day of the week and twice on Super Bowl Sunday.

I had my fill of watching AMERICAN college rejects play in NFL "Europe," too, and that's DEFINITELY NOT what I'm proposing. That was a huge slap in the face to the previous decade plus of European pro football players, did nothing but undermine European interest in the game and I can think of nothing worse for European pro football. It didn't broaden the base and expand the NFLs talent pool, but further diluted it: The talent pool was still the same size as ever, but 25% of it was playing spring ball in Europe. As an American football fan, it was frankly embarrassing: We gave them foreign crap, charged them to see it, deigned to grant a token native kicker and, on the rare occasions someone good slipped through the cracks to Europe, jerked him back again as soon as we realized it. No wonder they didn't take it seriously: WE didn't.

If we want European NFL teams, and more NFL talent, we draft European players. I do NOT mean put all European ones on European teams, I mean have every team draft players from the US, Canada AND Europe, then pay them by performance. Wave $5 million/year under the nose of a 290 lb. Italian weightlifter too slow for rugby or soccer, and I guarantee some brutal bilingual DTs.

Jaded
04-09-2013, 06:44 PM
I don't doubt there are plenty of athletes that run a good 40 but until Euro's establish a firm footing in the current NFL I think y'all are overstating the proof of NFL talent level abroad. Thus, the argument for expansion of that scope is thoroughly premature.

Joel
04-09-2013, 08:05 PM
I don't doubt there are plenty of athletes that run a good 40 but until Euro's establish a firm footing in the current NFL I think y'all are overstating the proof of NFL talent level abroad. Thus, the argument for expansion of that scope is thoroughly premature.
300 million people have the talent to support 32 NFL teams, but 500 million don't have enough to support sixteen, even FOUR? Americans are 16X more talented than Europeans? Sure you wanna go with that?

Lancane
04-10-2013, 12:25 PM
Joel, how can you...someone who exudes a level of sufficient intelligence not concur that the quality of coaching has in fact not diminished at the pro level? Forget Bill Belichick for a minute and look at what we're seeing now with more infusion at the position from the collegiate level, granted Pete Carroll had his time in the NFL, but it was almost as though his tenure at USC reminded him of how to be a coach, look at Jim Harbaugh and now Kelly in Philadelphia. Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with John Fox, we could do much worse, but we're starting to see the 'Old Guard' fall to the wayside in production, see Shanahan who has to have the right talent and it took him forever to figure out how to really work the draft. Denver went out of the box like Baltimore and got an Vice President/General Manager who had little experience in the field and 'boom' has been more successful then a good number of others. While I admit the level of coaching in the NFL ranks has diminished, like what you and I have talked about, about talent available around the world, the same can be said for coaches. There are 625 Colleges and Universities that have football teams in the US between Div I, Div II and Div III, with at least ten coaches for each team, not including the influx of new coaching candidates that apply to be coaching assistants to learn every year. That excludes coaches in the CFL, Canadian Collegiate Field, Football Organizations overseas, the UFL and those already in the NFL as assistants and positional coaches, even coordinators. The issue in my honest opinion is that the 'Old Guard' and some of those tutored under them are lax in their judgment and coaching requirements because the level of talent has made up in many cases for what they lack elsewhere and that has been what has effected them as coaches, it's real easy to simply play the best at each position, much harder to coach up kids who can eventually challenge those who are better. That is one thing I loath about Free Agency as it is, which was set-up to allow players to get more value but has in my mind flawed the level of coaching, Dan Reeves didn't have superstars at every position, nor did Levy, Madden, Allen, Parcells (NY), Brown, Gibbs, Ditka(CHI), Shula and so on, it was rare for teams to be as stocked in talent as Johnson's Cowboys or Walsh's 49ers, most had to be better coaches in order to cover where they were weakest and turn it into a strength or raise those players to a level of capability.

Jaded
04-10-2013, 02:20 PM
Lan, no offense, but I hope I'm dead before your dream of the NFL comes true. And it has nothing to do with American Pride.

Jaded
04-10-2013, 02:25 PM
300 million people have the talent to support 32 NFL teams, but 500 million don't have enough to support sixteen, even FOUR? Americans are 16X more talented than Europeans? Sure you wanna go with that?

Am I sure I wanna go with what? The burden of proof is on you two. There's a lot of people in China too, ya know why they're not any good at football? Because they don't care about football.

And yes, when it comes to American football the Americans are 16x more talented than Europeans. In 20 years? Who knows? You might be right.

Lancane
04-10-2013, 06:47 PM
Am I sure I wanna go with what? The burden of proof is on you two. There's a lot of people in China too, ya know why they're not any good at football? Because they don't care about football.

And yes, when it comes to American football the Americans are 16x more talented than Europeans. In 20 years? Who knows? You might be right.

Really, 16x more talented? That's funny, Margus Hunt and Bjoern Werner are both foreigners and two of the top defensive ends in this draft, Denver has a starting right tackle not born in this country nor his adoptive country of Canada and he's considered the sixth best right tackle in the NFL. There is no burden of proof, it's been given...you simply choose not to see it. Do you remember Harald Hasselbach? He was born and raised in the Netherlands and started for Denver in Super Bowl XXXIII. Sebastian Janikowski, considered one of the best in the game, he's from Poland. Osi Umenyiora who's family hails from Nigeria was born in London, England. What about Olshansky, Cherilus or Okoye. Mandarich, Rypien and even Nagurski all hailed from Canada, or doesn't that count. I'm sure that you wouldn't be as upset if the NFL simply decided not to expand but decided to open the rookie field to include foreign prospects, having an Asian, South and Central American and European combines for a chance for them to showcase themselves at the NFL Combine? Now would you? Your argument is against expansion, but as you already know the owners and the league are dead set into expanding into the London market, what about when Germany or Sweden want a team? It will grow and expand, as I said but to which extent is the real question.

Don't look at this as a fan Jaded, look at it from a business standpoint...

Joel
04-11-2013, 01:05 PM
Joel, how can you...someone who exudes a level of sufficient intelligence not concur that the quality of coaching has in fact not diminished at the pro level? Forget Bill Belichick for a minute and look at what we're seeing now with more infusion at the position from the collegiate level, granted Pete Carroll had his time in the NFL, but it was almost as though his tenure at USC reminded him of how to be a coach, look at Jim Harbaugh and now Kelly in Philadelphia. Don't get me wrong, I'm okay with John Fox, we could do much worse, but we're starting to see the 'Old Guard' fall to the wayside in production, see Shanahan who has to have the right talent and it took him forever to figure out how to really work the draft. Denver went out of the box like Baltimore and got an Vice President/General Manager who had little experience in the field and 'boom' has been more successful then a good number of others. While I admit the level of coaching in the NFL ranks has diminished, like what you and I have talked about, about talent available around the world, the same can be said for coaches. There are 625 Colleges and Universities that have football teams in the US between Div I, Div II and Div III, with at least ten coaches for each team, not including the influx of new coaching candidates that apply to be coaching assistants to learn every year. That excludes coaches in the CFL, Canadian Collegiate Field, Football Organizations overseas, the UFL and those already in the NFL as assistants and positional coaches, even coordinators. The issue in my honest opinion is that the 'Old Guard' and some of those tutored under them are lax in their judgment and coaching requirements because the level of talent has made up in many cases for what they lack elsewhere and that has been what has effected them as coaches, it's real easy to simply play the best at each position, much harder to coach up kids who can eventually challenge those who are better. That is one thing I loath about Free Agency as it is, which was set-up to allow players to get more value but has in my mind flawed the level of coaching, Dan Reeves didn't have superstars at every position, nor did Levy, Madden, Allen, Parcells (NY), Brown, Gibbs, Ditka(CHI), Shula and so on, it was rare for teams to be as stocked in talent as Johnson's Cowboys or Walsh's 49ers, most had to be better coaches in order to cover where they were weakest and turn it into a strength or raise those players to a level of capability.
I think you're wrong about the difference between todays teams and the '90s Cowboys and Niners. Coaching isn't why dynasties are the exception NOW but weren't THEN: Free agency is (and, to an even greater extent, the salary cap directly aimed at ending the Cowboys/'9ers dynasties.) The '90s Bills were stacked with HoFers AND had the same Marv Levy you cite as a contrast to supposedly lesser current coaches. Yet they lost four straight Super Bowls to three different teams from the SAME DIVISION, and only one of those games was even close.

Same thing happened to the Vikings a decade earlier when they lost four Super Bowls: A team of HoFers had to get through their conferences permanent power just for the privilege of getting stomped by the OTHER conferences permanent power (or the perfect Dolphins in their third STRAIGHT SB.) The Raiders had a similar problem; even after the Dolphins disintegrated there was only ONE year neither the Steelers nor Cowboys reached the Super Bowl, so Oakland beat Minnesota for the title of "best second-best team."

Unfortunately for everyone else, either Dallas or Pitt reached SEVEN SBs in TEN years (twice against each other.) The rest consist of the undefeated '72 Dolphins winning back-to-back a year after Dallas held them to a Super Bowl record 3 points (Dallas only allowed ONE TD in the whole '71 playoffs) and the Vikings/Raiders consolation game. Other than that ONE year, everyone but Dallas, Pitt and Miami was SOL for the whole decade. If we include the Raiders 1981 win FOUR teams won ELEVEN STRAIGHT Super Bowls. Or how 'bout the '60s Packers winning five straight NFL titles?

I can't believe Landry, Noll, Madden and Grant were the only decent NFL coaches in the '70s, but even if they were that wouldn't be enough to support arguments there were many more good coaches then than now.

Coaching didn't kill consistency; free agency brought the 13th Amendment to the NFL, and the combination of four more teams bidding for them plus the salary cap made keeping a team of HoFers impossible.

I agree with Jaded on talent progression, hence I can't understand why he thinks 12-50% more teams with 200% more talent would be so horrid. We added 4 teams in <20 years; 200 current NFL players would've needed real jobs in 1994: OF COURSE that diluted the talent. The only way it wouldn't is if we proportionately reduced rosters, such a bad idea owners would never go for it DESPITE the payroll reduction. That, free agency and the cap makes things a lot more hit and miss now, and perennial powerhouses practically impossible (looked at the Steelers or Ravens lately?) Coaching's at best a minor factor in that.

By the way, I wouldn't say Elway is completely outside the box; no more so than Him Harbaugh, who didn't play as long, well or successfully, nor own and manage a championship arena league team. I also think it a bit early to declare his management an unmitigated success; he's won a single playoff game in two years, and what's generally considered his biggest accomplishment (signing Manning) was mainly a matter of salesmanship and money most people consider a no brainer, not genius.

Joel
04-11-2013, 01:15 PM
Am I sure I wanna go with what? The burden of proof is on you two. There's a lot of people in China too, ya know why they're not any good at football? Because they don't care about football.

And yes, when it comes to American football the Americans are 16x more talented than Europeans. In 20 years? Who knows? You might be right.
Talent=/=skill: The former's a matter of physical ability and mental aptitude; the latter, training. So, yeah, Europe has roughly 67% more talent than the US: That's just math. Since you mention it though, the IFAF's apparently working hard to introduce football in China. I'm skeptical whether many Chinese natives get the necessary nutrition, or have enough disposable income for free time to train, but do wish the NFL were doing as much directly to increase the games exposure, popularity and respectability. But the NFL's not about promoting football for the games sake, it's about promoting the NFL for profits sake.

Jaded
04-11-2013, 09:59 PM
Europe has 67% more talent? No wonder the NFL doesn't want any part of their athletes. I'm cool with that, considering I couldn't possibly care any less if Europe, Germany or China get to play football. If the NFL owners don't wanna spend their money on European athletes I guess they'll just have to spend it on their own.

Joel
04-11-2013, 11:51 PM
Europe has 67% more talent? No wonder the NFL doesn't want any part of their athletes. I'm cool with that, considering I couldn't possibly care any less if Europe, Germany or China get to play football. If the NFL owners don't wanna spend their money on European athletes I guess they'll just have to spend it on their own.
Two-thirds of 300 million is 200 million, so 500 million is 67% more than 300 million, yeah; simple math. The rest of the world plays plenty of football, but if you're content for the NFL to spend all its money on US athletes, why are you complaining about reduced NFL talent? Either the NFL needs more talent and must look beyond its current depleted sources, or it doesn't and undiluted talent is no cause to complain.

European expansion—REAL European expansion, not just exporting inferior US players to people with no connection to them, then yanking them back if they turn out to have talent after all—would TRIPLE the player pool but only add HALF as many teams (probably more like an eighth or sixteenth for the first decade or two.) Anyone who wants to boost the NFLs average talent level should be BEGGING for that.

Bottom line is Europe has more money, more sports fans and more athletes than the US, and the NFL's tired of missing out on all three. They've sought a way into the European market for at least 20 years: They just haven't found a risk-free route. They'll keep looking till they find one, or bite the bullet and make a real investment rather than loaning out dregs. Either way the question is when and how it happens, not if.

Jaded
04-12-2013, 12:30 AM
The question I have is why you care so much? I care cause I'm a Broncos fan, not a fan of 6 or 7 teams, just the Broncos.

You think it's hard to build a Championship now wait til you're sharing the Manning's and Brady's with teams on the other side of the planet. Oh wait, that's right, I keep forgetting that Europe has 67% more Manning's and Brady's than America.

Can't wait.

Joel
04-12-2013, 03:11 AM
You keep dismissing it, not forgetting it, but that doesn't change the reality of simple math; denial ain't just a river in Egypt (google that name if necessary. :tongue:)

I love the Broncos, but have loved football roughly twice as long and wouldn't give it up if the Broncos moved to L.A. tomorrow. I hated Elways guts a long time for the Drive II, and am still not thrilled about it. Yet he and the Broncos won me over in the '90s by playing football the way it's supposed to be played when few still did, when the Packers were a "dynasty" that couldn't be bothered to develop a running game and didn't need a line as long as they had their "gunslinger" to scramble around throwing picks. I love the Broncos for footballs sake, not the reverse.

I'm not the only one, and neither are Americans, no matter how much you use "NFL players" interchangeably with "US players" and deride "euros." The NFL wants euros as much as it wants dollars and Europe has twice as many athletes as America, who want to be rich just as badly as ours do. Football IS spreading regardless. Take what comfort you can in knowing the Ravens can no more call themselves "world champions" than the Broncos until they win an IFAF tournament. They probably could, now, but the day is fast approaching when that won't necessarily be true.

Jaded
04-14-2013, 03:14 PM
I'm not in denial, Joel, I've just been mistaking you for a Broncos fan all this time. Won't happen again, though.

Sorry to waste both our time. Peace out.

Joel
04-14-2013, 04:05 PM
I'm not in denial, Joel, I've just been mistaking you for a Broncos fan all this time. Won't happen again, though.

Sorry to waste both our time. Peace out.
I never said I'm not a Broncos fan (just the opposite) but never hid the fact I wasn't always one. If that's not good enough for the fan police it's neither my fault nor problem. Zam's right: Ya'll ain't worth this. Acting like a bunch of sixteen year olds who just lost a prom queen election doesn't make anyone look smart, cool or tough: It makes them look like an ass; while I have as much restraint as the next man, I'm about done giving ya'll the benefit of a doubt. The clique can keep high-fiving each others catty posts, but neither needs nor merits my response.

Jaded
04-14-2013, 09:24 PM
I never said I'm not a Broncos fan (just the opposite) but never hid the fact I wasn't always one. If that's not good enough for the fan police it's neither my fault nor problem. Zam's right: Ya'll ain't worth this. Acting like a bunch of sixteen year olds who just lost a prom queen election doesn't make anyone look smart, cool or tough: It makes them look like an ass; while I have as much restraint as the next man, I'm about done giving ya'll the benefit of a doubt. The clique can keep high-fiving each others catty posts, but neither needs nor merits my response.

I'm not a fan police, I have no intention of telling people who they can root for, nor do I care. However, the context of your opinion has changed my opinion of you, you're just not what l thought you were. I used to wonder how a Broncos fan could care more about Euro's and Tebow than the Broncos, now I know in your case. You and I are no different we just have different priorities, you're a fan of football more than the Broncos. I'm cool with that.

And you're right, it/we ain't worth it, it's just a message board. I think you need to better understand that you're dealing with people that put the Broncos over football in general. Just as it helps to know your mind set perhaps it'd help you to understand ours.

Joel
04-16-2013, 01:56 AM
Returning to the original issue, expanded playoffs make no sense without more teams. The NFL already admits 12/32 teams, or 37.5%, and going to 50% would regularly produce the ridiculous spectacle of losing teams hopelessly and pointlessly contesting the championship, while more games would be counterproductive to the NFLs stated goal of reducing injuries. I see the appeal in eliminating byes and no longer giving some division winners a free pass to the divisional round, while others must play an additional good team to get there, but it's not worth it at the cost of expanding the tournament without expanding the league.

With that in mind, expansion to Mexico and Canada would be logistically easier, but European expansion far more lucrative IF successful. That's probably why the NFL has so aggressively moved in that direction over the past 10-20 years. However, a couple rugby fans have indicated to me that FIFA so dominates the European sports media market rugby teams have difficulty getting broadcast deals, and thus sponsors. Therefore, European expansion could only succeed if the NFL fully committed to it, invested a lot of money, and was willing to take a loss for several years (as with the WLAF) until the new teams were established.

IF the NFL wants the expanded REVENUE badly enough to do that, an expanded LEAGUE could work quite well, though it would probably never be a truly continental phenomena. Over 60% of Europe resides in Germany, the UK, France, Spain and Italy, making those five nations obviously the best sites for NFL teams. Put another way, 20% of Europe lives within "the Blue Banana" stretching from the English Midlands to Milan, and that's where most of Europes wealth is, too. With the exceptions of Rome, Madrid, Barcelona and a couple French cities (Paris technically lies just outside the Blue Banana) no other sites make sense.

Those sites make MUCH sense though. It's easy to see why if we compare Europe and North Americas population densities http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Population_density.png or night satellite views http://geology.com/articles/satellite-photo-earth-at-night.shtml. Two things stand out:

1) Every major US urban center but L.A. and Vegas already have teams. Expansion anywhere else would force the NFL to hope fans buy season tickets despite having to drive/fly hundreds of miles for games, and that the rest of the country watches those games on TV and buys team merchandise just for the sake of doing it.

2) Northwestern Europe combines wealth unparalleled anywhere but the US with populations unparalleled anywhere but the Far East.

Every place on Earth either has far less money or far less people (or both) than the Blue Banana. Japan has more people (though not if Paris, Madrid, Barcelona and Rome are included) but less than half the GDP, and its relatively small area (less than California) limits how many teams could exist without competing for the same fanbase. China, India and Indonesia can barely afford food, much less pro football teams, so putting other pro teams there to compete with Japanese ones isn't an option for the foreseeable future. Europe's another matter. It could easily, though not immediately, be organized into a conference like this:

EFC West
London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London
Manchester/Birmingham http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Manchester http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_conurbation
Glasgow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Glasgow
Cardiff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiff

Potential local fanbase: 20 million National GDP: $2.4 trillion

Initially, London would get the UKs sole team, which its metro population of >15 million would easilyl support; as noted earlier, the city already supports THREE US football teams in the European league. Manchester and nearby Birmingham have nearly as many potential fans, though the latter might be a better choice for a team so it didn't have to compete with Man U AND Man City. Glasgow and Cardiff are considerably smaller, but multiple British teams in England with none in Scotland nor Wales would just be asking for trouble.

EFC Central
Paris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris
Lyon/Marseilles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rh%C3%B4ne-Alpes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provence-Alpes-C%C3%B4te_d%27Azur
Amsterdam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randstad
Brussels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemish_Diamond

Potential local fanbase: 35.5 million National GDP: $4.1 trillion

A metro population >12 million in the capital of a nation of >65 million makes Paris as much a no-brainer as London for the first European teams, with others to follow later. Lyon and Marseilles have roughly equal populations of >2 million, but Marseilles is more centrally located relative to the rest of their respective regions, whose total population is >10 million. Brussels and, to a lesser extent, Amsterdam, have relatively small populations within the cities proper, but are part of massive (and overlapping) conurbations spanning most of their respective countries.

EFC East
Berlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Metropolitan_Region
Cologne/Dusseldorf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhine-Ruhr_Metropolitan_Region
Munich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria
Frankfurt-am-Main http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt/Rhine-Main_Metropolitan_Region

Potential local fanbase: 40 million National GDP: $3.6 trillion

The combined population of Berlin and surrounding Brandenburg is "just" 6 million, but the capital of Western Europes most populous nation (>80 million) is still the only German choice for an initial team. The biggest problem after that is deciding who SHOULDN'T get one, because five other cities have metro populations >5 million. Köln and Dusseldorf, however, are the respective largest city and capital of an urban region with >10 million inhabitants; Hamburg is (comparatively) smaller and close enough a Köln team would draw fans. Stuttgart's similarly large, but lies between Frankfurt and München, both better choices.

EFC South
Madrid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid
Barcelona http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona
Rome/Naples http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campania
Milan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_metropolitan_area

Potential local fanbase: 27 million National GDP: $3.7 trillion

Initially, Madrid's probably the best choice because it has >7 million people in its metro area alone, and Spain's probably more stable than Italy (from what an Italian coworker tells me, Italys government is neither a republic NOR democracy: It's graft.) Spain is unexpectedly much like France in having a disproportionate amount of residents in or around just a couple cities, but that makes Barcelona the obvious next choice (their soccer team even briefly sponsored their WLAF team during its financial woes.) Rome+Naples provides a market of 10 million or more, as does Milan+Turin.

Currently, the NFL maintains 32 teams in a country of 315 million (just under one team for every 10 million people,) with a national GDP of $16 trillion. The above hypothetical conference represents 16 teams in seven countries of 345 million (with 122 million only a couple hours drive from at least one teams stadium) and a national GDP of $13.5 trillion. Half as many teams supported by more people with nearly as much money? That would be childs play if approached comprehensively and professionally, rather than as a farm league for foreign players.

It's not ideal. Ireland is reduced to rooting for Glasgow or Manchester/Birmingham, Portugal's stuck with Madrid, the Swiss with Milan and Austria with them or a German team. Try as I might, I found no way to justify any Nordic team, even in Copenhagen (though a Danish team could draw 25 million Nordic fans who tend to side with each other against Europe, from which, like the British, they mostly consider themselves separate.) The whole thing could be called a WESTERN European expansion; Eastern Europe, and most of Central and Southern Europe, are out in the cold because they can't provide the NFL required profits.

However, a non-ideal European conference such as that would be very viable, and furnish four new division winners for a 16 team NFL playoff (or 20 team playoff with a wildcard from each conference, plus the best remaining team.) The biggest challenge would be producing two SB teams from three conferences, so two European divisions in each currrent conference might be better (though the titles "American" and "National" Conference would instantly become inappropriate.) Eventually, a full 32 teams in two European conferences are feasible, though probably not for several decades.

Regardless, one of the biggest obstacles to European expansion (travel time) would be greatly reduced. Even as members of existing conferences, European divisions could play 6 home/away games with their division, 4 more against another European division in their conference and 4 more against a European division from the other. That would leave just 2 games in a 16 game season: Each European team crosses the Atlantic once, as does one of the US teams it plays. Basically, every NFL team would have ONE London game per year (rather than 8 or more, as would occur with just one or two European teams.)

For fans, it boils down to whether we prefer to be big fish in small ponds, keep football to ourselves while the rest of the world mocks what they don't understand, and never have to PROVE our favorite team "world" rather than merely US champion. Yet that decision is really just a matter of how we feel about what the NFL will do regardless of our feelings. The League's moving haltingly but inexorably toward European expansion no matter what. A market with 25% of global wealth just isn't enough: The owners can't resist a try at ANOTHER 25%, and revenue sharing means they don't even care which teams earn the most.

Alright, deconstruct away, with the understanding criticisms of myself rather than arguments will be duly ignored. ;)

Jaded
04-16-2013, 11:36 PM
Big fish, small pond.......so be it. I could not care any less what you and the rest of the world mocks. I want the Denver Broncos to win the Super Bowl. **** Japan, **** Europe and **** the IFPF or whatthe****ever you call it.

Jaded
05-01-2013, 11:56 AM
If they expand anything they should expand the active list and rosters to include what is now the practice squad.

Ravage!!!
05-01-2013, 12:27 PM
If they expand anything they should expand the active list and rosters to include what is now the practice squad.

This was talked about heavily with some GMs last year...especially with the idea of expanding the season to 18 games (more hypocrisy from Goodell).


But man...after re-reading this thread, I hope to God (and I don't even believe) that the NFL doesn't believe like Lancane does on this subject. The NFL would just be soooo watered down that the importance of having a guy like Manning and Brady would just GROW that much more, because the distance between them and the "other QBs".. would grow. Instead of having the talent at the other positions to make up for that difference, those guys would be spread out even more throughout the NFL.

More NFL teams just means more games per season. Lets not keep trying ot make this a baseball type season. Football is great because its nto allll year round. There is nothing wrong with 32 teams and leaving it at 32 teams. This "long overdue stuff"....sounds to me like someone that just wants to see more kids make it in the NFL. That just means more players of lesser quality being paid.

Jaded
05-01-2013, 12:45 PM
This was talked about heavily with some GMs last year...especially with the idea of expanding the season to 18 games (more hypocrisy from Goodell).


But man...after re-reading this thread, I hope to God (and I don't even believe) that the NFL doesn't believe like Lancane does on this subject. The NFL would just be soooo watered down that the importance of having a guy like Manning and Brady would just GROW that much more, because the distance between them and the "other QBs".. would grow. Instead of having the talent at the other positions to make up for that difference, those guys would be spread out even more throughout the NFL.

More NFL teams just means more games per season. Lets not keep trying ot make this a baseball type season. Football is great because its nto allll year round. There is nothing wrong with 32 teams and leaving it at 32 teams. This "long overdue stuff"....sounds to me like someone that just wants to see more kids make it in the NFL. That just means more players of lesser quality being paid.
That's what it sounds like to me too, especially Joel, it appears he's indifferent to what's best for the NFL and is solely concerned about what he wants the NFL to be. Which is no different from me, my only concern is the Denver Broncos and I'm totally against anything that makes the ultimate prize harder to obtain. I couldn't possibly care less about Japan, China and Germany and I find it unconscionable to put a foreign countries athletes ahead of what's best for the Broncos. Especially considering that nobody is stopping these athletes from trying to make it to the NFL.

But, as Joel will tell you, he's not really a fan of the Broncos, he's more of a fan of the style of play they used to have.

Ravage!!!
05-01-2013, 12:49 PM
I care about the quality of the sport as a whole. Expansion, right now, will lower that quality of product.

Jaded
05-01-2013, 12:52 PM
I care about the quality of the sport as a whole. Expansion, right now, will lower that quality of product.

That too.

Joel
05-02-2013, 12:50 AM
This was talked about heavily with some GMs last year...especially with the idea of expanding the season to 18 games (more hypocrisy from Goodell).

But man...after re-reading this thread, I hope to God (and I don't even believe) that the NFL doesn't believe like Lancane does on this subject. The NFL would just be soooo watered down that the importance of having a guy like Manning and Brady would just GROW that much more, because the distance between them and the "other QBs".. would grow. Instead of having the talent at the other positions to make up for that difference, those guys would be spread out even more throughout the NFL.

More NFL teams just means more games per season. Lets not keep trying ot make this a baseball type season. Football is great because its nto allll year round. There is nothing wrong with 32 teams and leaving it at 32 teams. This "long overdue stuff"....sounds to me like someone that just wants to see more kids make it in the NFL. That just means more players of lesser quality being paid.
You'll have to talk to the owners; when they smell money they come running, and there's lots to be had in Europe. More than the US, all told, and it's CONCENTRATED in a few very convenient areas; there's not even a language barrier in the UK, nor at the US military bases dotting Germany.

In terms of quality and marketing foreign expansion makes far more sense than further US expansion though. That WOULD stretch a finite and already thin player pool even thinner. Meanwhile, I can't keep track of every European native who just made an NFL roster. Everyone knows about Werner and Hunt, but NFL.com notes (in panning the Raiders draft) not only is Menelik Watson from Manchester, he's likely to practice against DE and London native Jack Crawford, drafted last year. Additionally, Ansah is Ghanan, so 4 foreign born players went in the first two rounds of this draft alone.

I just found this 2011 Business Insider chart listing the total number of current NFL players from outside the US (there are 20 just from Europe.) http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-international-origins-of-nfl-players-2011-11 However, foreign rookies have evidently spiked this year, and since I seem to recall Jaded trumpeting Gil Brandts expertise recently he be interested in this article that begins by citing Brandts belief 5 of them would be 2013 1st round picks: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/bruce-feldman/22036864/influx-of-foreignborn-nfl-hopefuls-no-fluke

Turned out to be 2, because Hunt and Watson didn't go till the 2nd, while Australian born Jesse Williams lasted till the 4th. The article also says Lawrence Okoye (whom you may recall from the thread here) credits Hunt and Ansah as his inspirations to reject law studies at Oxford in favor of the NFL. We're no longer just talking about kickers like Stenerud, Nittmo, Tynes or the guy (Håvard Rugland) the Lions just brought to camp on the strength of an amazing YouTube video and workouts with several NFL teams.

The bottom line is that averaging 1 new team/5 years since the mid-nineties means the NFL has just about squeezed all the talent and money they can out of the US. They're reaching marginal returns, know it, and see a wealth (literally and figuratively) of untapped opportunities overseas, especially in Europe. Something's gotta give, and it won't be the owners greed; that's the NFLs one constant. British or German track and rugby stars playing for ten times the money in Denver may be good news for them and us, but won't sell any more tickets, broadcast rights, jerseys or copies of Madden.

Joel
05-02-2013, 12:57 AM
That's what it sounds like to me too, especially Joel, it appears he's indifferent to what's best for the NFL and is solely concerned about what he wants the NFL to be. Which is no different from me, my only concern is the Denver Broncos and I'm totally against anything that makes the ultimate prize harder to obtain. I couldn't possibly care less about Japan, China and Germany and I find it unconscionable to put a foreign countries athletes ahead of what's best for the Broncos. Especially considering that nobody is stopping these athletes from trying to make it to the NFL.

But, as Joel will tell you, he's not really a fan of the Broncos, he's more of a fan of the style of play they used to have.
Look, man, if you want to disagree with me on anything and EVERYTHING just for the sake of doing it, fine, but that doesn't give you any right to question my support for the Broncos, like some sort of KGB Loyalty Officer looking for people to put in front of a firing squad. I'm a Broncos fan and THAT'S what I said, however much you want to try twisting it into something else. That doesn't mean I'd stop watching football if the team moved to L.A. tomorrow any more than I did when the Oilers moved to TN. Maybe you would, fine; not my fault, not my problem—at least it SHOULDN'T be.

If you genuinely care about the quality of the sport as a whole, it's time to start thinking about what you prefer in an international expansion the owners have made very clear is inevitable; it's only a question of where and when, not if. Whether you feel good, bad or indifferently about me or "euros" personally is irrelevant to that. It's irrelevant to football discussion, period.

Jaded
05-02-2013, 01:49 PM
You specifically said you were a fan of the style of play and actually hated Elway and the Broncos, you've also clearly declared your allegiance to, what did you say? "My Oilers". So just how many teams could I question your support? The Broncos (so you say), the Texans/Oilers, the Germans, the Brits, the Japs, the Chinese, Australia, Wlaugh (whatever the **** that is?).

You're a huge fan of anybody and everybody that doesn't take Tim Tebow's job. I'm cool with that, I just can't take it seriously.

Btw, it only seems like I disagee with you about anything and everything because you're consistently wrong about anything and everything.

Joel
05-02-2013, 11:22 PM
Tebow again? :rolleyes: Yes I hateD (note the past tense) Elway and the Broncos for The Drive II; how could any self respecting Oilers fan do otherwise? It was ONE GAME though; my hatred of Denver then was nothing like my enduring feelings toward the Steelers, Bengals and Browns (and, yes, the Ravens are grandfathered in there.) Trust me, I still hate the Bills more for The Comeback a year later. Things change; a year after, the Oilers hometown changed and I needed a new team. While my father was alive it was his Cowboys, but after I picked Denver, however much that annoys you. Get over it. Or don't. Either way, get off my butt.

Ravage!!!
05-04-2013, 04:11 PM
ahhh.. that explains a lot.

Joel
05-05-2013, 12:02 PM
Nothing I didn't already explain 5 or 6 years ago.