NFL Considered Relegation Style League

ColtCrazy · 10-24-2008, 04:48 PM

Commissioner links longer season to higher quality NFL - NFL - SI.com

Goodell supports expanded season

LONDON (AP) -- An expanded regular season would improve the overall quality of the NFL and increase interest among fans, commissioner Roger Goodell said Friday.

The NFL discussed adding one or two more games to the regular-season schedule at its owners meeting this month, but no decision was made and no change is expected for 2009.

In the long term, however, Goodell said it made sense to shorten the preseason schedule in favor of more competitive games.

"We think that's better content, it's higher quality," Goodell said. "That's what our partners, our fans are going to demand."

Goodell was speaking at a conference on the globalization of sports in London, held in conjunction with Sunday's game between the San Diego Chargers and New Orleans Saints at Wembley Stadium. He said the league is still working out the details of a possible expansion, and that any deal would have to be negotiated with media partners and the players' union.

"But from a quality standpoint, we believe it's one alternative to improve the quality of our game," he said, adding that the long preseason has little entertainment value for fans. "It's clear that our four preseason games are not high-quality content. They're just not at the same level our regular-season games are. They don't have the consequences."

Goodell spoke during a panel discussion with Richard Scudamore, the chief executive of the English Premier League. When asked by moderator Jim Nantz of CBS, Goodell said the NFL had looked briefly at the possibility of copying the model of European football leagues -- where the bottom teams get relegated to a lower league every year -- but rejected it as unfeasible.

"It is a fascinating concept, and we've actually talked about it a great deal," he said. "Relegation is something that has created a great deal of interest. But it would be counter to everything we do now."

I think it's very interesting that they even considered a relegation style system. Would have been hard to implement from scratch, but it would have been a very good concept and given even your bottom teams something to play for.

JPhillips · 10-24-2008, 04:51 PM

Another Bengals game won't improve the overall quality of the NFL.

Buccaneer · 10-24-2008, 04:53 PM

I still can't believe he and the NFL are serious about this. I still say the more games you schedule, the less quality games there will be - due to the number of injuries. Unless he meant that starting backups == more quality.

path12 · 10-24-2008, 04:56 PM

I'd love to see relegation in all US major sports leagues.

molson · 10-24-2008, 05:15 PM

The novelty would be fun for a year or two but relegation makes no sense for football. You'd hurt attendence/ratings/interest in the bottom "league" far more than you'd increase it in the higher league.

I wonder how the league would look. Maybe a 12-team "premiere" conference, with two divisions of 6 teams, you play the 5 teams in your division twice and the other six once to get to 16 games. Maybe a six-team playoff, with the winner of #2 vs. #3 visiting #1 for the division championship (and to move on to the super bowl)? Bottom 4 teams drop out to the lower conference the next season, and the "final four" playoff teams in that lower conference move up. Of course, that would make earlier playoff games/late season regular season games way more important than the lower conference "championship game", unless that winner also won some kind of immunity from being sent down for a while.

It'd be fun and different, but it makes so sense from a business standpoint.

Surtt · 10-24-2008, 05:20 PM

One of the things that make the NFL so exciting is the small number of games, everyone is very important (well most of them anyway).

Expanding the season would dilute it too.

Passacaglia · 10-24-2008, 05:21 PM

Sounded to me like he was trying to say "hell no" in the politest way possible.

molson · 10-24-2008, 05:22 PM

Maybe they should play 162 games like baseball. Eventually I'd get contract to suit up.

timmynausea · 10-24-2008, 05:23 PM

I think each week one team should get voted out of the league.

Lathum · 10-24-2008, 06:32 PM

this thread title is very misleading

Young Drachma · 10-24-2008, 06:43 PM

Not for football, but for baseball yes.

nilodor · 10-24-2008, 07:03 PM

CFL has 18 games and 4 less players on the active roster, plus 2 more players on the field, and hell 75% of the league makes the playoffs and it's still really interesting. There's always going to be injuries, but that's part of the game and guys get hurt in training camp, pre season, whenever guys are on the field there's that potential, agreed it's higher in regular season games but I don't think it's that much of a stretch.

ColtCrazy · 10-24-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum

this thread title is very misleading

Sorry.

I guess the relegation part of the story caught my eye more than the expanded regular season. I've heard that so much and they never seem to do much with it. The relegation idea just sounded very intriguing.

Senator · 10-24-2008, 08:05 PM

Baseball would be perfect for this, but not football. Not enough teams.

ColtCrazy · 10-24-2008, 08:08 PM

I do tend to agree that football wouldn't have enough teams and that it will kill some teams financially. I look at the Premiership as an example. You basically have the same teams that get into Europe, then a group that fights for UEFA, and another group that fights for midtable. Then the rest are constantly being rotated in and out of the Championship.

You'd have the same thing in football, and that would hurt a lot of cities.

For baseball, you already have teams with and without finances so it wouldn't be as big as switch...but baseball has a larger purist fan base that wouldn't like it.

GrantDawg · 10-24-2008, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator

Baseball would be perfect for this, but not football. Not enough teams.

Well, create a second league? Another Chicago team, An LA team, Los Vegas, I'm sure we could come with another 10-12 cites that could host a NFL minor league, with the possibility of promotion. Pretty cool. I do agree it fits better with baseball.

Crim · 10-24-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lathum

this thread title is very misleading

+1

VOTE COLTCRAZY

fantom1979 · 10-24-2008, 10:17 PM

I am not a fan of this in any league. If this was done in baseball, you can forget about the Rays in the World Series this year, or the Tigers a couple of years ago.

lighthousekeeper · 10-24-2008, 11:02 PM

This is actually much more feasable in football than baseball, which has affiliated minor league system that would complicate things a lot.

cartman · 10-24-2008, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Well, create a second league? Another Chicago team, An LA team, Los Vegas, I'm sure we could come with another 10-12 cites that could host a NFL minor league, with the possibility of promotion. Pretty cool. I do agree it fits better with baseball.

We could resurrect the WFL or USFL as the lower league. Cities like Birmingham, Memphis, Orlando, Honolulu, Anchorage, and the like.

RendeR · 10-24-2008, 11:53 PM

Relegation is good in the sense that it forces teams to build or the long haul, you won;t get one year wonders advaning and succeeding at all. You get teams that build themselves for long term success because you have to GET to the top level before you can win it all.

The NFL would have to have 48 teams total, 24 for the top tier and 24 for the bottom. You COULD go less in the bottom, but not by much. Adjustments in salaries and costs for the lower league would have to be seriously offset by those in the higher one because the financial hit would be huge when relegated down.

I keep wondering what the people against an 18 game regular season are seeing as changing? They already play those 2 games we're talking about, they simply play them in the pre-season. Pre season games are ugly, they mean nothing and they are money-losing events for the teams when you consider they're players get hurt no matter what the game means.

Moving 2 pre season games to the regular season makes far more sense in that you're getting far better quality games, more viewership and selling out (for most teams) 2 more games per season.

Players are paid per season so contracts really wouldn't NEED to change much, but you can bet your ass the agents will try to play that into larger deals.

I'm a Bengals fan and I honestly wouldn't complain if they went to a relegation system. I think it would force teams like Cincy to make better decisions.

I definitely support the move to an 18 game regular season though. If my team is going to have itse best players hurt I at least want the game they're playing in to mean something more than an exhibition.

Marc Vaughan · 10-25-2008, 04:26 PM

I think changing to a relegation based system would be very problematic for any American sport - simply put so much of your sporting system is built around the 'balancing' aspect of the game.

That is trying to allow some competitive balance between teams via. drafts, salary caps etc - basically American sports are setup in a socialist manner whereas most other countries use a capitalist system

DeToxRox · 10-25-2008, 04:45 PM

Relegation won't be done. No owner is going to spend hundreds of millions on a team only to risk them having to drop down to play minor league teams.

Wolfpack · 10-25-2008, 10:08 PM

Not to mention the TV execs would go ape if the first division consisted of, say, Carolina, Tennessee, Denver, Miami, etc, while you found the Giants, Jets, Bears, Packers, Steelers, etc in the second division. It simply couldn't work here like in Europe because major European cities have many teams to represent them whereas just about every metropolitan area in the US aside from New York has just one team to cover the area with.

DeToxRox · 10-25-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Not to mention the TV execs would go ape if the first division consisted of, say, Carolina, Tennessee, Denver, Miami, etc, while you found the Giants, Jets, Bears, Packers, Steelers, etc in the second division. It simply couldn't work here like in Europe because major European cities have many teams to represent them whereas just about every metropolitan area in the US aside from New York has just one team to cover the area with.

Yup.

Honolulu Blue · 10-27-2008, 09:02 AM

I guess I'm a bit of a contrarian in that I don't mind the preseason. I don't expect play of the highest quality, and I like the 2nd and 3rd stringers battling it out for spots on the back of the roster and/or the practice squad. Then again, I don't have to pay full price for tickets (and wouldn't) or be forced to purchase them as part of a season ticket plan. Fewer preseason games would seem to mean either more risk of injuries as players practice themselves into shape or more earlier practices which are even less interesting than the preseason.

I can't see relegation in American football, but it's easy enough to do in baseball, IMO. Just free the minors and everything would fall into place.

Cringer · 10-27-2008, 09:23 AM

I have pretty much accepted the fact that the season will be expanded by one or two games. One thing not being brought up is one of the other big reasons the NFL wants to expand the schedule, the fact that with one extra game every team could play a game in Europe, or Mexico, or Canada, and not get screwed out of a home game. A 17th game would always be a nuetral site game.

RendeR · 10-27-2008, 10:21 AM

Thats a valid point Cringer, also if they add only 1 game to the regular season you eliminate ties for playoff s[pots altogether. With the rare exception of two teams having a tie game during the season being tied with one another for a spot.

I'd rather they add 2 games, but 1 does seem to have specific advantages.

Anthony · 10-27-2008, 10:33 AM

you'd think the players would be all over this - more games means more chances to hit incentives. even if you get injured and have to sit out 2 or 3 games at least you don't have to kiss your incentives goodbye. and since they'd subtract from preseason games to add to the regular season they wouldn't actually be playing more games. this is what happens when you have jocks who are not smart. they fail to see the bottom line. all they see is "more games? that means more work!".

Samdari · 10-27-2008, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Relegation won't be done. No owner is going to spend hundreds of millions on a team only to risk them having to drop down to play minor league teams.

Exactly. The money made by NFL teams is not yearly profit, its in increase in franchise value. Relegation would instantly drop a franchise value by at least half, if not more. A proposal for any type of system that has a chance to drastically lower values of current franchises would get zero votes from holders of those franchises.

Anthony · 10-27-2008, 10:42 AM

why are we wasting time on this nonsense? we all know this is not gonna happen. it took coach's challenges like several years to get implemented - you think something as drastic as relegation is gonna happen?

Senator · 10-27-2008, 11:12 AM

Playoff system in college would make all this go away.

Counter point in.....three......two....one.....

Galaxy · 10-27-2008, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

you'd think the players would be all over this - more games means more chances to hit incentives. even if you get injured and have to sit out 2 or 3 games at least you don't have to kiss your incentives goodbye. and since they'd subtract from preseason games to add to the regular season they wouldn't actually be playing more games. this is what happens when you have jocks who are not smart. they fail to see the bottom line. all they see is "more games? that means more work!".

I would expect incentives, with new contracts, to be re-adjusted for the length of the season. However, two extra regular season games would increase the league revenues (just think what the TV deals will be with two extra weeks of regular season football) and the cap. However, we'll have to see what happens when the collective bargaining agreement expires in a few years.

MikeVic · 10-27-2008, 11:24 AM

This would suck. Wouldn't records be tainted? A guy has two more games to throw TDs, rush for yards, etc...

Anthony · 10-27-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I would expect incentives, with new contracts, to be re-adjusted for the length of the season. However, two extra regular season games would increase the league revenues (just think what the TV deals will be with two extra weeks of regular season football) and the cap. However, we'll have to see what happens when the collective bargaining agreement expires in a few years.

that i understand, i'm talking about incentives for reaching the Pro Bowl or winning MVP awards. more games means you can afford to get injured and sit out a game or two and you'd still have a good shot at obtaining those incentives.

Sgran · 10-27-2008, 11:50 AM

I think basketball would be the sport to make this happen. You already have several minor leagues without a farm-team system too entrenched like in baseball. Deadbeats like the Clippers and Grizzlies would fall out of sight and become the Manchester City or West Ham of the NBA. You also have the benefit of a league that isn't afraid to try new things and is actively expanding its market. Ideally they would reduce the length of the regular season, lop off a few teams, and shorten the playoffs in conjunction, but now I'm really dreaming.

lordscarlet · 10-27-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeVic

This would suck. Wouldn't records be tainted? A guy has two more games to throw TDs, rush for yards, etc...

It wouldn't be the first time this happened. The NFL did not switch to 16 games until 1978.

Anthony · 10-27-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgran

I think basketball would be the sport to make this happen. You already have several minor leagues without a farm-team system too entrenched like in baseball. Deadbeats like the Clippers and Grizzlies would fall out of sight and become the Manchester City or West Ham of the NBA. You also have the benefit of a league that isn't afraid to try new things and is actively expanding its market. Ideally they would reduce the length of the regular season, lop off a few teams, and shorten the playoffs in conjunction, but now I'm really dreaming.

during the strike season when the schedule was 54 games i thought that was the best. i wouldn't mind a 54 game schedule. most of the stars mail it in anyway just to save themselves for the postseason.

Passacaglia · 10-27-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RendeR

Thats a valid point Cringer, also if they add only 1 game to the regular season you eliminate ties for playoff s[pots altogether. With the rare exception of two teams having a tie game during the season being tied with one another for a spot.

I'd rather they add 2 games, but 1 does seem to have specific advantages.

I don't get it. How does adding only 1 game eliminate ties?

Pumpy Tudors · 10-27-2008, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

that i understand, i'm talking about incentives for reaching the Pro Bowl or winning MVP awards. more games means you can afford to get injured and sit out a game or two and you'd still have a good shot at obtaining those incentives.

How does a guy have a better shot at hitting those incentives with a couple more games on the schedule? Sure, a guy can sit out a game, but the other players competing for that Pro Bowl spot aren't all sitting out too. What am I missing here?

Icy · 10-27-2008, 12:32 PM

I don't think it would work for exactly the reason Mark V. stated. USA sports are about every team being able to compete, with the draft being the main way to do it, letting the worst teams to choose the best prospects, unlike in European sports were the richest teams sign or buy the best players, winning more and becoming even richer.

What i would add to the NFL is a minors system like the MLB or development league like the NBA, where the huge amount of non drafted college players or the players cut by the NFL teams, still will have a chance to compete and to show if they can play in the NFL. All us know that there have been some undrafted players that after being given a chance, became top players.

The players in that minor league would earn a league minimum so the teams financials won't be a big problem. I can't udnerestand how a huge country like USA has only 32 teams. I think that every city of 100k habs or so could maintain a football team if the players contracts, tickets, TV etc are well thought to make it profitable, and it's not that the players would be crap and nobody would enjoy watching them. Just look at the huge amount of players that are good enough to entertain the fans in college football and that end leaving football after not being drafted.

The NFL tried it with the NFL Europe as minor league, and a good amount of current NFL players started there. The problem is that the NFL Euro was not popular in Europe besides UK and Germany, but with teams located in USA, i think it could work.

Cringer · 10-27-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony

you'd think the players would be all over this - more games means more chances to hit incentives. even if you get injured and have to sit out 2 or 3 games at least you don't have to kiss your incentives goodbye. and since they'd subtract from preseason games to add to the regular season they wouldn't actually be playing more games. this is what happens when you have jocks who are not smart. they fail to see the bottom line. all they see is "more games? that means more work!".

Actually what the players see is they are having to play one extra game which actually favors the owners when it comes to their contracts. NFL players are paid per regular season game, so all contracts are based off of 16 games. NFL players do not get paid in the preseason. So you are talking about a guy who previously made $100,000 per game now making roughly $94,000 per game (or less is 2 games are added). So these jocks will want their contracts adjusted to reflect more regular season games.

As for incentives, that is a good part. That would become something that is heavily debated between both sides I think if games were added. Players would easily want to grandfather them into any adjusted contracts, while the owners would probably want to fight those parts.

Of course if they just slap down a rookie cap at the same time everyone could walk away happy I think.

Pumpy Tudors · 10-27-2008, 12:57 PM

Icy, in my opinion, I think that people don't really won't care about minor league football in their cities. I'm not trying to put all the blame on the fans here, but I can imagine a load of complaints like "The quality of the game is so bad!" Even if the NFL is completely behind it, not enough people will care. If they want pro football, they'll watch their favorite NFL team instead.

Frankly, I don't completely understand it. There are huge fans of minor league baseball and minor league hockey, but it just doesn't seem to work for basketball and football. Maybe it's because people expect to see baseball and hockey players in the minors "before they are stars." If a guy ends up in the minors in basketball or football, everyone will just think that he's not good enough to ever make the pros.

I don't know if that's the reason, but it's the only thing I can think of.

Young Drachma · 10-27-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sgran

I think basketball would be the sport to make this happen. You already have several minor leagues without a farm-team system too entrenched like in baseball. Deadbeats like the Clippers and Grizzlies would fall out of sight and become the Manchester City or West Ham of the NBA. You also have the benefit of a league that isn't afraid to try new things and is actively expanding its market. Ideally they would reduce the length of the regular season, lop off a few teams, and shorten the playoffs in conjunction, but now I'm really dreaming.

Good point.

Especially with Stern trying to reach Europe anyway.

Young Drachma · 10-27-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Icy, in my opinion, I think that people don't really won't care about minor league football in their cities. I'm not trying to put all the blame on the fans here, but I can imagine a load of complaints like "The quality of the game is so bad!" Even if the NFL is completely behind it, not enough people will care. If they want pro football, they'll watch their favorite NFL team instead.

Frankly, I don't completely understand it. There are huge fans of minor league baseball and minor league hockey, but it just doesn't seem to work for basketball and football. Maybe it's because people expect to see baseball and hockey players in the minors "before they are stars." If a guy ends up in the minors in basketball or football, everyone will just think that he's not good enough to ever make the pros.

I don't know if that's the reason, but it's the only thing I can think of.

College football and basketball are just too huge.

I do think an NFL Summer League (that ran from May to July) would be just the trick though and would have the bonus of getting the college kids after they graduate/drop out and would give teams a chance to see players without having to waste time or money on them in mincamps, etc.

I think for football starved fans, a league with the NFL umbrella would be a nice draw. Take it back to the NFL roots and put it in cities where you don't have as much entertainment competition, get a TV deal on ESPN2 or Versus even. Find ways to speed up the game and keep it interesting and I think it'd do pretty well.

The NFL brand is huge. I just think they'd prefer not to have the headaches that might go along with it, not that you can blame them, for the lack of perceived benefit.

Fidatelo · 10-27-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Icy, in my opinion, I think that people don't really won't care about minor league football in their cities. I'm not trying to put all the blame on the fans here, but I can imagine a load of complaints like "The quality of the game is so bad!" Even if the NFL is completely behind it, not enough people will care. If they want pro football, they'll watch their favorite NFL team instead.

Frankly, I don't completely understand it. There are huge fans of minor league baseball and minor league hockey, but it just doesn't seem to work for basketball and football. Maybe it's because people expect to see baseball and hockey players in the minors "before they are stars." If a guy ends up in the minors in basketball or football, everyone will just think that he's not good enough to ever make the pros.

I don't know if that's the reason, but it's the only thing I can think of.

I think the reason is because of college basketball and football. That's where all the up and coming stars are. In hockey and baseball the up and coming stars are mostly in the minors (or juniors for hockey). In football and basketball there are very few future pros outside of the college realm.

Pumpy Tudors · 10-27-2008, 02:07 PM

First of all, Dark Cloud and Fidatelo make good points about college sports. I forgot about the huge impact of those.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think for football starved fans, a league with the NFL umbrella would be a nice draw. Take it back to the NFL roots and put it in cities where you don't have as much entertainment competition, get a TV deal on ESPN2 or Versus even. Find ways to speed up the game and keep it interesting and I think it'd do pretty well.

Your last sentence is a good idea, but I think it that would present a problem. If you end up tinkering with the game to keep it interesting, the fans will perceive it almost as a completely different sport. People will watch a couple of times for the novelty of it, but at the end of the day, they'll say "It's not the NFL." Now, I know you're not talking about extremes like turning it into Arena Football, but I really don't think the average football fan wants to see any pro football except exactly what the NFL provides.

Imagine the XFL without all the Vince McMahon promotional garbage. As an on-field product, it should have been able to work. It was pro football, it had at least a couple of recognizable names, and for the most part, the rules were already familiar to football fans. After the first couple of weeks when WWE toned down the "glitz" and tried to make it all about football, people said that the players just weren't any good. They didn't care to watch it because it was substandard football.

On the other side, the USFL had a really good chance to work 25 years ago. They had players who went on to have Hall of Fame NFL careers, and the general quality of play was very good. As everyone knows now, the USFL pretty much undid itself, but when it was working, it was because they had NFL-caliber talent on the field.

I question the significant existance of the "football starved fan." I think there's much more of an "NFL starved fan" than anything. I could be totally wrong, but I would imagine that the majority of NFL fans would rather watch the scouting combine over a bunch of pros who are playing in a minor league.

RendeR · 10-27-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I don't get it. How does adding only 1 game eliminate ties?

it doesn't, I was drunk, err high...umm..on pain killers, yeah thats it....

Fidatelo · 10-27-2008, 03:21 PM

If you guys want to watch some scrubs play football during the spring/summer, just petition your networks to show some CFL games.

Pumpy Tudors · 10-27-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

If you guys want to watch some scrubs play football during the spring/summer, just petition your networks to show some CFL games.

I'm one of the people who actually would watch the CFL if it came on TV here. Of course, I watch Arena Football, so that shouldn't come as any surprise. If there's a football and at least one goalpost involved, I'll watch it.

10-24-2008, 04:56 PM	#4
path12 Coordinator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle, WA	I'd love to see relegation in all US major sports leagues. __________________ We have always been at war with Eastasia.

10-24-2008, 05:15 PM	#5
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	The novelty would be fun for a year or two but relegation makes no sense for football. You'd hurt attendence/ratings/interest in the bottom "league" far more than you'd increase it in the higher league. I wonder how the league would look. Maybe a 12-team "premiere" conference, with two divisions of 6 teams, you play the 5 teams in your division twice and the other six once to get to 16 games. Maybe a six-team playoff, with the winner of #2 vs. #3 visiting #1 for the division championship (and to move on to the super bowl)? Bottom 4 teams drop out to the lower conference the next season, and the "final four" playoff teams in that lower conference move up. Of course, that would make earlier playoff games/late season regular season games way more important than the lower conference "championship game", unless that winner also won some kind of immunity from being sent down for a while. It'd be fun and different, but it makes so sense from a business standpoint. Last edited by molson : 10-24-2008 at 05:20 PM.

10-24-2008, 05:20 PM	#6
Surtt College Benchwarmer Join Date: Nov 2003	One of the things that make the NFL so exciting is the small number of games, everyone is very important (well most of them anyway). Expanding the season would dilute it too. __________________ “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis

10-24-2008, 06:43 PM	#11
Young Drachma Dark Cloud Join Date: Apr 2001	Not for football, but for baseball yes. __________________ Current Dynasty:The Zenith of Professional Basketball Careers (FBPB/FBCB) FBCB / FPB3 Mods

10-24-2008, 08:05 PM	#14
Senator FOFC's Elected Representative Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The stars at night; are big and bright	Baseball would be perfect for this, but not football. Not enough teams. __________________ "i have seen chris simms play 4-5 times in the pros and he's very clearly got it. he won't make a pro bowl this year, but it'll come. if you don't like me saying that, so be it, but its true. we'll just have to wait until then" imettrentgreen "looking at only ten games, and oddly using a median only, leaves me unmoved generally" - Quiksand

10-24-2008, 04:51 PM	#2
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	Another Bengals game won't improve the overall quality of the NFL. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

10-24-2008, 04:53 PM	#3
Buccaneer Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Colorado	I still can't believe he and the NFL are serious about this. I still say the more games you schedule, the less quality games there will be - due to the number of injuries. Unless he meant that starting backups == more quality.

10-24-2008, 05:21 PM	#7
Passacaglia Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Big Ten Country	Sounded to me like he was trying to say "hell no" in the politest way possible.

10-24-2008, 05:22 PM	#8
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	Maybe they should play 162 games like baseball. Eventually I'd get contract to suit up.

10-24-2008, 05:23 PM	#9
timmynausea College Starter Join Date: Dec 2002	I think each week one team should get voted out of the league.

10-24-2008, 06:32 PM	#10
Lathum Favored Bitch #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: homeless in NJ	this thread title is very misleading

10-24-2008, 07:03 PM	#12
nilodor College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: calgary, AB	CFL has 18 games and 4 less players on the active roster, plus 2 more players on the field, and hell 75% of the league makes the playoffs and it's still really interesting. There's always going to be injuries, but that's part of the game and guys get hurt in training camp, pre season, whenever guys are on the field there's that potential, agreed it's higher in regular season games but I don't think it's that much of a stretch.

10-24-2008, 08:08 PM	#15
ColtCrazy College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Midwest	I do tend to agree that football wouldn't have enough teams and that it will kill some teams financially. I look at the Premiership as an example. You basically have the same teams that get into Europe, then a group that fights for UEFA, and another group that fights for midtable. Then the rest are constantly being rotated in and out of the Championship. You'd have the same thing in football, and that would hurt a lot of cities. For baseball, you already have teams with and without finances so it wouldn't be as big as switch...but baseball has a larger purist fan base that wouldn't like it.

10-24-2008, 10:17 PM	#18
fantom1979 College Benchwarmer Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Sterling Heights, Mi	I am not a fan of this in any league. If this was done in baseball, you can forget about the Rays in the World Series this year, or the Tigers a couple of years ago.

10-24-2008, 11:02 PM	#19
lighthousekeeper College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000	This is actually much more feasable in football than baseball, which has affiliated minor league system that would complicate things a lot. __________________ ...

10-24-2008, 11:53 PM	#21
RendeR Coordinator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Buffalo, NY	Relegation is good in the sense that it forces teams to build or the long haul, you won;t get one year wonders advaning and succeeding at all. You get teams that build themselves for long term success because you have to GET to the top level before you can win it all. The NFL would have to have 48 teams total, 24 for the top tier and 24 for the bottom. You COULD go less in the bottom, but not by much. Adjustments in salaries and costs for the lower league would have to be seriously offset by those in the higher one because the financial hit would be huge when relegated down. I keep wondering what the people against an 18 game regular season are seeing as changing? They already play those 2 games we're talking about, they simply play them in the pre-season. Pre season games are ugly, they mean nothing and they are money-losing events for the teams when you consider they're players get hurt no matter what the game means. Moving 2 pre season games to the regular season makes far more sense in that you're getting far better quality games, more viewership and selling out (for most teams) 2 more games per season. Players are paid per season so contracts really wouldn't NEED to change much, but you can bet your ass the agents will try to play that into larger deals. I'm a Bengals fan and I honestly wouldn't complain if they went to a relegation system. I think it would force teams like Cincy to make better decisions. I definitely support the move to an 18 game regular season though. If my team is going to have itse best players hurt I at least want the game they're playing in to mean something more than an exhibition.

10-25-2008, 04:26 PM	#22
Marc Vaughan SI Games Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Melbourne, FL	I think changing to a relegation based system would be very problematic for any American sport - simply put so much of your sporting system is built around the 'balancing' aspect of the game. That is trying to allow some competitive balance between teams via. drafts, salary caps etc - basically American sports are setup in a socialist manner whereas most other countries use a capitalist system

10-25-2008, 04:45 PM	#23
DeToxRox Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Michigan	Relegation won't be done. No owner is going to spend hundreds of millions on a team only to risk them having to drop down to play minor league teams.

10-25-2008, 10:08 PM	#24
Wolfpack Pro Rookie Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Raleigh, NC	Not to mention the TV execs would go ape if the first division consisted of, say, Carolina, Tennessee, Denver, Miami, etc, while you found the Giants, Jets, Bears, Packers, Steelers, etc in the second division. It simply couldn't work here like in Europe because major European cities have many teams to represent them whereas just about every metropolitan area in the US aside from New York has just one team to cover the area with.

10-27-2008, 09:02 AM	#26
Honolulu Blue Dynasty Boy Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Michigan	I guess I'm a bit of a contrarian in that I don't mind the preseason. I don't expect play of the highest quality, and I like the 2nd and 3rd stringers battling it out for spots on the back of the roster and/or the practice squad. Then again, I don't have to pay full price for tickets (and wouldn't) or be forced to purchase them as part of a season ticket plan. Fewer preseason games would seem to mean either more risk of injuries as players practice themselves into shape or more earlier practices which are even less interesting than the preseason. I can't see relegation in American football, but it's easy enough to do in baseball, IMO. Just free the minors and everything would fall into place.

10-27-2008, 09:23 AM	#27
Cringer Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Edinburg,TX	I have pretty much accepted the fact that the season will be expanded by one or two games. One thing not being brought up is one of the other big reasons the NFL wants to expand the schedule, the fact that with one extra game every team could play a game in Europe, or Mexico, or Canada, and not get screwed out of a home game. A 17th game would always be a nuetral site game. __________________ You Stole Fizzy Lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and steralized, so you get NOTHING! You lose! Last edited by Cringer : 10-27-2008 at 09:24 AM.

10-27-2008, 10:21 AM	#28
RendeR Coordinator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Buffalo, NY	Thats a valid point Cringer, also if they add only 1 game to the regular season you eliminate ties for playoff s[pots altogether. With the rare exception of two teams having a tie game during the season being tied with one another for a spot. I'd rather they add 2 games, but 1 does seem to have specific advantages.

10-27-2008, 10:33 AM	#29
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	you'd think the players would be all over this - more games means more chances to hit incentives. even if you get injured and have to sit out 2 or 3 games at least you don't have to kiss your incentives goodbye. and since they'd subtract from preseason games to add to the regular season they wouldn't actually be playing more games. this is what happens when you have jocks who are not smart. they fail to see the bottom line. all they see is "more games? that means more work!".

10-27-2008, 10:42 AM	#31
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	why are we wasting time on this nonsense? we all know this is not gonna happen. it took coach's challenges like several years to get implemented - you think something as drastic as relegation is gonna happen?

10-27-2008, 11:12 AM	#32
Senator FOFC's Elected Representative Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The stars at night; are big and bright	Playoff system in college would make all this go away. Counter point in.....three......two....one..... __________________ "i have seen chris simms play 4-5 times in the pros and he's very clearly got it. he won't make a pro bowl this year, but it'll come. if you don't like me saying that, so be it, but its true. we'll just have to wait until then" imettrentgreen "looking at only ten games, and oddly using a median only, leaves me unmoved generally" - Quiksand

10-27-2008, 11:24 AM	#34
MikeVic Head Coach Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Hometown of Canada	This would suck. Wouldn't records be tainted? A guy has two more games to throw TDs, rush for yards, etc...

10-27-2008, 11:50 AM	#36
Sgran High School Varsity Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Budapest	I think basketball would be the sport to make this happen. You already have several minor leagues without a farm-team system too entrenched like in baseball. Deadbeats like the Clippers and Grizzlies would fall out of sight and become the Manchester City or West Ham of the NBA. You also have the benefit of a league that isn't afraid to try new things and is actively expanding its market. Ideally they would reduce the length of the regular season, lop off a few teams, and shorten the playoffs in conjunction, but now I'm really dreaming. __________________ What the hell is Mike Brown diagramming for them during timeouts? Is he like the guy from "Memento" or something? Guys, I just thought of something … what if we ran a high screen for LeBron?

10-27-2008, 12:32 PM	#41
Icy Pro Starter Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Toledo - Spain	I don't think it would work for exactly the reason Mark V. stated. USA sports are about every team being able to compete, with the draft being the main way to do it, letting the worst teams to choose the best prospects, unlike in European sports were the richest teams sign or buy the best players, winning more and becoming even richer. What i would add to the NFL is a minors system like the MLB or development league like the NBA, where the huge amount of non drafted college players or the players cut by the NFL teams, still will have a chance to compete and to show if they can play in the NFL. All us know that there have been some undrafted players that after being given a chance, became top players. The players in that minor league would earn a league minimum so the teams financials won't be a big problem. I can't udnerestand how a huge country like USA has only 32 teams. I think that every city of 100k habs or so could maintain a football team if the players contracts, tickets, TV etc are well thought to make it profitable, and it's not that the players would be crap and nobody would enjoy watching them. Just look at the huge amount of players that are good enough to entertain the fans in college football and that end leaving football after not being drafted. The NFL tried it with the NFL Europe as minor league, and a good amount of current NFL players started there. The problem is that the NFL Euro was not popular in Europe besides UK and Germany, but with teams located in USA, i think it could work. __________________

10-27-2008, 12:57 PM	#43
Pumpy Tudors Bounty Hunter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Pittsburgh, PA	Icy, in my opinion, I think that people don't really won't care about minor league football in their cities. I'm not trying to put all the blame on the fans here, but I can imagine a load of complaints like "The quality of the game is so bad!" Even if the NFL is completely behind it, not enough people will care. If they want pro football, they'll watch their favorite NFL team instead. Frankly, I don't completely understand it. There are huge fans of minor league baseball and minor league hockey, but it just doesn't seem to work for basketball and football. Maybe it's because people expect to see baseball and hockey players in the minors "before they are stars." If a guy ends up in the minors in basketball or football, everyone will just think that he's not good enough to ever make the pros. I don't know if that's the reason, but it's the only thing I can think of. __________________ No, I am not Batman, and I will not repair your food processor.

10-27-2008, 03:21 PM	#49
Fidatelo Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB	If you guys want to watch some scrubs play football during the spring/summer, just petition your networks to show some CFL games. __________________ "Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime."

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)