NFL considering 18 games and 36 teams
 

:Lin:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Is the NFL considering expanding? And if so, how does that impact the St. Louis lawsuit? <a href="https://twitter.com/AllbrightNFL?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AllbrightNFL</a> explained today on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BKandFerrario?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BKandFerrario</a>.<br><br>PODCAST: <a href="https://t.co/c8klxwyyQk">https://t.co/c8klxwyyQk</a> <a href="https://t.co/EoMEkeky7Y">pic.twitter.com/EoMEkeky7Y</a></p>&mdash; 101 ESPN St. Louis (@101espn) <a href="https://twitter.com/101espn/status/1456373187751649287?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

No

I’m no Mark Cuban ball washer, but his prediction from a few years back regarding the NFL imploding within 10 years may come true.

Just ****ing stop.

No

What 4 sites?

I really despise the idea of an NFL team in London.

is there enough talent to have 36 teams?

Mexico City, London, STL, Anchorage, get teams

have to add one more team per conf to the playoffs.


I do not like it.

It is easy to tell that you did not watch the video or even read the snippet in the OP.

Mexico City nor Anchorage were mentioned.

36 teams.... Eh.

The IFL?

What the **** is the logic behind a team in London? If the British gave an actual **** about American Football then start another league over there.

**** the NFL 36 ways for 18 weeks straight. Or 19 weeks with a random week of rest. Then single elimination **** them followed by the Super **** Them.

One thought that I had before this season was that it would be kinda neat if they expanded the season but made it mandatory that every player had to be inactive during at least one game during the course of the year. That would bring in some chess matches of when you'd sit your key/star players. Would we wait until week 17 to sit Mahomes?? What if that last game mean't getting a playoff seed??

My understanding is that the London games sell out pretty much instantly, so there's definitely a demand there.

What I just can't figure out is how the logistics would work. You'd constantly have battles between teams that are jet lagged and teams that aren't.

just no

It’s literally the only city in the world that could actually give a shit about the Jaguars?

LA was the over the top line in the sand for their greed. My inner blackop says the LA Super Bowl will be targeted by USA haters around the globe!

That expansion draft is going to be wild with 4 teams. How many players will a current team be able to protect?

I would imagine that demand isn't big enough to sell out multiple stadiums at the same time.

How the hell can anyone even think its a good idea to have 1 team so ****ing far away? What are they going to do? Have that 1 team play all their homes games in 1 half of the season and their away games in the other half and just **** every other team that has to travel there? Its just so stupid...

They would have a hell of a time getting free agents there.

Pigs get slaughtered.

I can come up with scenarios where you could make it BETTER. You put them in a division with teams in the northeast, so the flights would only be ~6.5 hours and the time difference would only be 5 hours. Then you do the games at 1pm EST/6pm London, which at least puts them in normal waking hours for everyone. And then you do some hotel magic to try and let the players keep a sleep schedule resembling normal.

You could also consider something like you're alluding to, where the London team does 4-5 home games, then flies to the U.S. for a road tour for a month, then goes back.

But that still would be really tough to manage. If nothing else I think you'd need to allow a bonus for London players to make it worth putting up with all of that.

I really doubt that if the NFL put a team there that they would be raking in the dough. It would probably be a losing venture.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What is the most boring sport?<br>Golf - 70% who have ever watched it find boring<br>American Football - 59%<br>Cricket - 58%<br>Darts - 58%<br>Snooker - 57%<a href="https://t.co/eJughVrwa0">https://t.co/eJughVrwa0</a> <a href="https://t.co/izb7Pi0mE3">pic.twitter.com/izb7Pi0mE3</a></p>&mdash; YouGov (@YouGov) <a href="https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/951014724304588800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

May as well go the NHL route and have teams in Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, and Winnipeg. All in due time of course. Let's not get too greedy just yet.

More ≠ Better

It doesn't matter if only 1% of people are interested as long as that 1% is interested in spending lots of money.

It's kind of bizarre Toronto hasn't happened already tbh. Huge city and such a franchise would likely to be a massive success with as much corporate money as there is around here.

While they are at it why not Moscow? Looks like they already have some first rate talent. <iframe width="1520" height="589" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5T703TAscJs" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Yeah, 18% (very/quite exciting) of London is 1.62 million people, which is more people than the greater Jacksonville area... and approximately 1.62 million more than those in Jacksonville who find their football "very exciting".

Bring back NFL Europe so all the He Hate Me's can go play over there and we can keep our stocked 32 teams here.

Is it right that given a NFL player would be making more than 150k pounds that they would be taxed at a rate of 45%? Good luck getting players over there.

Gentleman's agreement with the CFL. NFL doesn't expand into Canada and CFL doesn't expand into the US.

The NFL would **** over the CFL in a second if it suited them and they saw a profit opportunity. CFL almost went out of business completely last year.

we have a thriving Chiefs fan chapter in Mexico City. The NFL will work there. London will support a NFL team. STL was supporting their team until Kronke saw the billions to be made in LA.

Last one is in no way going to be Anchorage. Has to be Canada.

I think this would be bad to do.

Probably 1.62 million more than London if the Jaguars were their team.

Buffalo would oppose a team in Toronto or Montreal.

I have watched much less football this year. Maybe one game a week other than the Chiefs. Dilution of the product will just make me care less.

Anchorage has to be joke. Anchorage couldn't even support the minor league Hockey team they once had; and hockey is probably more popular than football up here, at least more kids play it than football. Small population, no stadium, etc

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6bbzwJ0Sx48" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

lol that one of the expansion teams would be st louis

Me too. I used to arrange my entire Sunday around the NFL. Now, I mostly watch all of the Chiefs game, but a few times I’ve missed the first quarter or even a half. I’ll watch other games if it’s a compelling matchup, but that’s not as often as it used to be.

I look forward to our future games against the St. Louis Archers, Mexico City Aztecs, Portland Rogues, and El Paso Outlaws.

Seems like puffery regarding the St. Louis litigation, trying to make it seem stronger than it really is.

Expanding the season to 17 games was too much already IMO….18? Hell no.

London? Absolutely not…

Remember in old versions of Madden when you could move your team to Davenport, Iowa?

That's all they get though and they sell out games... has there ever been a decent London game where any die hard football fan would think, damn, that should sell some people on the game!

Seems like every year it's a couple of the worst teams in the league.

I really don't like the Europe thing.

Tea and crumpets!!

The quality of play with 4 more teams is going to be horrendous.

The natural craving for something that you don't have until you have it and then you don't want it as much any more.

/thread

No, why in the hell would anyone want a team there.

College is still popular with that kind of play.

If you went to 36 teams, then you're going to have one of the following:

18 divisions with 2 teams each
12 divisions with 3 teams each
9 divisions with 4 teams each
6 divisions with 6 teams each
4 divisions with 9 teams each
3 divisions with 12 teams each
2 divisions with 18 teams each

That kind of argues for six divisions with six teams.

So what's your playoffs in a three-division conference with six teams per division? You know it won't be smaller than it is now, so I doubt that it would be three division winners and a wildcard in a field of 18 teams. It'll be really awkward. Maybe something like two first round byes and then the third team plays in a pool with every second round team? That's still smaller than we have now. You could go with eight teams and the playoffs go to the first and second place teams in each division, plus two third-place teams. But that's not much of a reward for winning your division.

But there's a nice alternative if we think outside the box. They might go with the unprecedented step of having three conferences of twelve teams each. Now you have each conference having playoffs with the three division winners and one wild card. Nice and easy.

However, what happens next? You have three division champions. Who plays in the Super Bowl? The obvious answer is a round-robin tournament where each team plays the other, and whoever does the worst gets eliminated. The two survivors play the super bowl.

Oh, or wait! We have four conferences with nine teams each. Each conference has three divisions with three teams each. Four of those teams play in the playoffs (4 of the 9 teams), and at the end you have four conference winners who play each other to get to the Super Bowl. That's easy to implement, and you have 44 percent of teams getting into the playoffs, which maximizes revenue. You also have four rounds of playoff games.

So now you've got three conferences, and each one

London is a massive world class city they would absolutely support an NFL team. Does not mean it should be done but the idea that it would not be popular does not really track for me. Just hard to imagine because surely they would be at such a competitive disadvantage in regards to travel. Would be interesting to see how they would approach all of that.

Mexico City makes sense so does Toronto.

I am not as in to the NFL like I used to be so part of me knows this is a bad idea but the other part wants to see it play out just out of curisoity.

College popularity has more to do with the lifelong ties people have to the college. Far fewer people have ties to a professional team and the popularity largely revolves around the quality of the product. Few cities don't give a **** and will sellout for a shitty team.

there's already too much football on tv as is.

but the NFL will find a way to deliver a product that no one is demanding, and convince them that they want/need it.



and that other embeeded pic earlier in the thread about NFL being right behind golf as being boring...they're sort of right. I mean, sure, when a play is actually going on it's exciting...but there is a LOT of nothing going on during a televised NFL game for 3+ hours.

The absolute worst part of the NFL.

"Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered."

Instead of the "London Bridges", maybe a co-ownership with an American city could work better. Let them share one of the NY or FL teams

For non-competitive teams longer seasons would reduce local interest, poses risk to the top teams.

The season is already a grind, don't like these proposals much.

NFL Game Pass Condensed games are great, a 3hour game compressed down to 30 minutes without all the inane talk and commercials. The only way to watch the NFL IMHO.

NFL is gonna end up expanding itself into an implosion.

More people have lifelong ties to pro teams or "local" college teams if the parents watch. Most people where I grew up were fans of the Cardinals, both baseball and football, or some other pro teams, not college.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

The ties to the school are a bigger draw than the level of play for college football. Pro football, like other pro sports, is the best of the best playing the sport.

The NFL and NFLPA have been sacrificing the level of play for over 10 years and adding an 220 additional players to the league isn't going to help with that.

This is a bad idea, IMO. There will be a huge difference in QB play between the top 10 and bottom 10. Like a huge gap.

What is this exciting sport that's called "athletics"?

I don't know, but it was one of the relocation options!

Buffalo certainly would but that’s just one owner. They can’t stop this kind of expansion if the majority want it.

PT Barnum sold out a lot of shows too. At least some of it has to be the novelty of it.

Those guys go nuts if their soccer team dumps a match. Can you imagine the murder rate if they got the Jags?

There is probably more competent per capita QB play than OL play at the moment. And it will get worse. OU, Ohio State, Alabama all have shit OL right now and they get the pick of prospects.

Obviously they're going to 18 games. 17 is just to force that issue.

Detroit would probably oppose teams in those cities as well.

Still not enough. Expansion of this kind would mean (at least in theory) a lot more money for the collective.

MMM maybe.

Do you listen to the Bill Simmons podcast?

He had Cuban on and he suggested that NBA expansion would hurt current owners. It was early in the spring when I heard it so I might be wrong, but if there is a guy who's math I trust, it's Cuban. But essentially he said the pie being bigger is of no consequence because you get a smaller piece of the bigger pie.

And there's probably a similar approach here. Is the additional ad revenue of an additional 52 games (is that right? 2 additional games for 18 weeks and 18 games week 19?) worth getting 2.778% instead of 3.125%. If my math is right (it's midnight and I'm tired as **** - it's probably not), that's an additional 12% you couldn't otherwise get just to break even.

654 games vs 544 is 19% more games, but really 34 of those games would be available with 32 teams, so that's only 13.4% more games from additional teams. Also, I don't know how the ad programs work. Not sure if a 13% increase in ad slots equates to 13% more revenue.

There is also some dilution effect of franchise valuation, and reduced control over decision making that I'm not smart enough to put a number on.

But if the 12% and 13.4% numbers are right, that's a mighty big bite to take for 1.4% marginal revenue - maybe.

Vegas casinos pairing up with the NFL will be the final nail...if it weren't for Mahomes being an alien, I would have already been done.

This NFL season, as a whole has been sketchy AF...and it was already sketchy.

I can’t see sellout stadiums in London lasting a full regular season. They sell out at the moment because people want a taste of NFL and there are NFL fans here who just want to experience a game. But probably not 100,000 people every two weeks. The travel thing would suck as well. (Again, it’s probably ok for one or two games a year). Canada or Mexico makes more sense.

NFL Europe could work if they revamped it maybe? Like each NFL team had a second string team instead of the practice squad or something? You get to see talented rookies before they get into the full NFL is the draw then. I don’t know, could work?