KUBIAK UPDATE
7/22: Adds 2007 red zone target and carry data, solves error in IDP formula for top three linebackers
7/21: Changes DAL RB
Adjusts for Taylor and Shockey trades
7/19: JAC WR, CLE WR
Download here.
- You've never been closer to a poker game than today, however, deciding where to play became a problem. Look at all
online poker sites,
enjoy the best selection of online poker
and get the best poker bonus.
|
Three billionaires — including Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban — are in the preliminary stages of starting a new league, which they’re calling the United Football League. They say they want it to start in August of 2008. Would you watch?
posted
5-30-2007 at 6:59 PM by
Michael David Smith
||
Extra Points
| |
First of all: wow.
These things (who isn’t thinking about the AFL, XFL, NFLEurope) are surrogate of the NFL.
Everyone is hoping that the league is disbanding the things that you don’t like about the NFL.
Ok. Here we go.
1 Punts and punt returns.
2 Outlawed endzone celebrations.
First:
Who cares about the punter. Sepultura (or what is the name of that punter the Steelers drafted) is the first that comes to my mind.
I play football myself and love to play defense, offense . Love it. But the punts and punt returns… aaargh.
I’d rather go for it and smash it into their mouths every fourth down.
It’s been done before you know. I remember a Philadelphia game. Will you miss the punt returns? No. You won’t even know who the cover guys are.
One last note: punting from their 37 in the 4th Q while they’re trailing 17 points…
Note that punt returns are totally different from kick returns.
Second:
End zone celebrations.
I can be short. If you don’t want someone to excessively celebrate his touchdown; play better defense.
What else do you want to see in the UFL that is not in the NFL?
:: Theo — 5/30/2007 @ 7:41 pm
edit:
when I said Sepulveda is the one that comes to my mind I mean.
Is the very first punter that I’m seeing forward to to see. Because he’s the first punter that is also a legitimate special teamer.
Those Aussie punters did get a lot of hype but in the end they were just, gee what’s the word here… they where punters.
(Seriously, explain to me why an NFL kicker can’t train himself to also be a punter.)
:: Theo — 5/30/2007 @ 7:49 pm
friday nights will never work, this is traditionally a low ratings night. and why would the league last? fans might be temporarily interested but will always favor the NFL. small piece of the pie for an alternative football league, probably too small. the only way it succeeds is to put the games on throughout the week during NFL season to capitalize on the hunger for weeknight football in between sundays/mon PMs or the league could work on sundays during the nfl off-season. i don’t see it working unless they do a schedule like i have proposed and those tickets better be $20 and less
:: el scorcho — 5/30/2007 @ 7:54 pm
re: 1
It is now called NFL Europa, thank you very much.
:: Roger Goodell — 5/30/2007 @ 8:05 pm
Mark Cuban comments about it on his blogmaverick site. He’s vowed off talking about the NBA on his blog, but not this, obviously, at least for now.
Anyone think Cuban was more open to this after the dissapointment of the Mavs getting bounced in the first round of the playoffs? That they caught him on the rebound? That was my first instinct, but overall I still think he’s a businessman first and he wouldn’t be in this if he didn’t think he’d stand to make some return on his investment… we’ll see though.
I’m skeptical that they can be profitable any time in the short run, but if they’re commited in the long haul, maybe…
:: andrew — 5/30/2007 @ 8:11 pm
Oh, I dunno, I could see myself turning on a late night game from the West Coast or Hawaii when I get in on a Friday night, but I don’t know whether you can build an audience around viewers like me.
I think there is a possibility that there is non-trivial unsatisfied demand for football out there, but I think there is a conumdrum in competing with the NFL for second-tier talent, while keeping ticket prices low enough to attract crowds on Friday nights. Most fans like stars, offensive stars especially, and that is the type of player this league won’t have enough of. Kurt Warner, I’m sure, was a damned good Arena League qb, but nobody paid any attention.
If they find enough rich guys who are willing to lose money for long enough, I suppose it is possible for them to build an audience over time. Who knows?
:: Will Allen — 5/30/2007 @ 8:23 pm
if ( isFootball( UFL ) ) {
willWatch = true;
else
willWatch = false;
}
:: asg — 5/30/2007 @ 8:24 pm
4.
I know.
Oh and Roger, are you now pronouncing it ‘Oi-ro-pah’ (like ze Germans) or Uhr-o-pah like the Dutch?
It’s Shakespeare who said “what’s in a name”.
:: Theo — 5/30/2007 @ 8:29 pm
The problem with starting a new football league is that the market space just isn’t that large. The AFL is succeeding because they’ve found a niche. I don’t know how many more niches there are, and the NFL is in as unassailable a position as there can be - you simply are not going to be able to put a better product on the field than the NFL for years simply because most of the best players are already under contract to NFL teams, and even when they aren’t any more, you are going to have a really hard time signing them away from the NFL unless you offer comparable contracts. Cuban seems like he’s prepared to do that, but without all that TV money you are going to lose money for a while, probably years. Then you have to convince everyone that you are actually a legitimate league and not the toy of a few rich jerks who like sports a lot.
Doesn’t sound like the kind of thing I would invest my money in, but hey, I’ll probably watch some of it. I like watching football. Whether I’d become a fan of it like I’m a fan of the NFL….not likely.
:: ABW — 5/30/2007 @ 8:40 pm
Why don’t they just make this an off-season thing. I know that NFL Europa plays then, but who cares? Nobody watches that. I think that if they played starting just after the draft, it might work.
:: Eric — 5/30/2007 @ 8:47 pm
#7 - I think you meant:
bool isFootball(sport anySport){
if (anySport.type = “football”)
return true;
else
return false;
}
bool willWatch = isFootball(ufl)
:: Bill Barnwell — 5/30/2007 @ 8:53 pm
9. ABW
That’s why they SHOULDN’T compete with the NFL.
They should find their own niche (like the AFL).
The CFL is pretty popular with their 3 down football.
So why not disband the punt … they don´t have time at practice for the punt coverage team… and create a form of football we’ve invented on Madden… 4 down football; who needs a punter?!
4 down football; who needs a punter?! seems to be a run first, pass later game. But it´s not. The first down should actually be 20 yards away, because how many drives gain 7 first downs anyway?? Answer, 4. It demands a running back by commitee in real life, because running is so much more efficient. That´s good.
If the first downs where 20 yards it would create more turnovers and that´s a good thing and the defense would be lined up deeper (that paradoxily would create more running room).
4 down 20 yard football is the future.
The first tournament I organise would call for the 4 down 20 yards rule.
:: Theo — 5/30/2007 @ 9:01 pm
I couldn’t be more excited. First of all, more football is always better. It’s not competing with the NFL. I can, and will, watch both. If tickets are reasonable, I would actually be able to get a ticket more than once a year.
Secondly, the NFL needs competition just like every business needs competition. Looking over their shoulder will give them the motivation they need to continue to improve their product.
Thirdly, they will have competition for the 2nd - 7nth round draft picks. No more screwing players like Branch with five year rookie contracts.
Fourth, I’m sure with Cuban involved we might finally see a sports league with reasonably competent and honest referees. The NBA is currently a complete joke and Cuban knows that the Mavericks will never win a championship as long as Stern is in charge. Even if they got MJ, Wilt, Magic, and Bird in their primes. The NFL needs to put some pressure on their extremely poor refereeing to improve.
Finally, I would love to see some classy celebrations after touchdowns. The NFL can’t seem to tell the difference between celebrating and disrespecting the opposition. Chad Johnson, Steve Smith did it with class. I would love to see more of it.
:: morganja — 5/30/2007 @ 9:04 pm
Firstly, I’m amazed any businessman is dumb enough to put up the cash. Secondly. to those who don’t like punt returns, how many amazing plays would we have missed from the likes of Brian Mitchell, Mel gray, Deon Sanders, Eric Metcalf and Devin Hester down the years. The no punt return idea has to be the most absurd point I’ve heard in years. Thirdly, I will watch ANY NFL game, but I can’t watch college football or NFLE, because it’s terrible. Bad players facing other bad players. I used to have the chance to watch every NFLE game live but I couldn’t sit through a game. Why? Because the players were awful and there was no tactical element, the players weren’t good enough to play complex schemes.
This league is a stupid idea that will lose money and not contribute to the quality of play in the NFL (unlike NFLE, which has provided plenty of players).
:: Karl Cuba — 5/30/2007 @ 10:14 pm
I’m surprised no one talked about the fan ownership aspect. That is the feature that caught my attention. I think that could inspire a lot of loyalty…if fans think they can affect the team’s decisions then I could see people catching on. Ultimately though, they will have to get players. Are there really enough good players to support expansion?
Furthermore, I know I couldn’t handle following two leagues. I only have time to follow one sport in depth. I used to be an avid sports fan when I was younger, but as my free time dwindled I find myself only following football avidly. I still watch many of the MLB and NBA playoff games, (I have no idea where NHL games are broadcast and I don’t care), but football is the only sport I really pay attention to on a daily basis.
I cannot imagine that I will have the time to follow a second league. And I don’t think there are enough good players to support an expansion to 8 teams. Especially at the QB position. The USFL went after the QBs hard, and it still went under. Granted, for financial reasons…but I don’t think any league works without getting the big time QBs.
Overall, I cannot say I won’t watch the first few games, but I doubt I’ll ever start to take it seriously. And Cuban being involved really doesn’t help…I cannot stand the guy.
:: DavidE — 5/30/2007 @ 10:34 pm
Forget this idea Cuban, what we really want to see is a return to the salad days of CFL expansion into the US.
Don Matthews needs to work on his tan again.
Sacramento Goldminers anyone?
:: Paul — 5/30/2007 @ 10:34 pm
Thirdly, I will watch ANY NFL game, but I can’t watch college football or NFLE, because it’s terrible.
Oh, c’mon. Several Raiders games last year were worse than college football games. Specifically the ones versus Baltimore or San Diego. Those were just silly.
:: Pat — 5/30/2007 @ 10:43 pm
how about this 8 team league:
las vegas
LA
mex city
rochester, ny
columbia, sc
little rock
houston
portland
:: el scorcho — 5/30/2007 @ 10:43 pm
I don’t know that anyone can compete.
FACT 1: For a pro football league to compete directly with the NFL, it has to have comparable talent. The first XFL game on February 3rd got a 9.5 rating. The game on March 31st was down to a 1.5 rating. Once people found out that the talent level wasn’t any good (and all the players kept getting hurt), they weren’t interested.
FACT 2: In order to get that level of talent, you’ve got to pay them more than the NFL is offering. The AFL succeeded because they offered players more money. Joe Namath signed what was at the time the largest rookie contract in professional football history to join the New York Jets. What limited success the USFL had was from doing the same thing: signing players like Reggie White, Herschel Walker, and Steve Young.
FACT 3: The average NFL team is worth $900 million, according to Forbes. Each team in this league will initially be worth $60 million, and expect to be worth $90 million once they give fans the opportunity to buy a share of the team. That means the total league will be worth $720 million. Each NFL team will be worth more than the entire UFL.
The article says that the league believes they will be able to pay 2nd round and later picks more than the NFL currently does. The 2nd or 3rd round is where players usually get the minimum salaries (plus a signing bonus). That means they’ve got to pay more than 285K per person (the NFL minimum). Let’s say their minimum salary is $435K per year (the same as an NFL player in his 3rd year). They can probably get by with 45 guys per team (this is 11 on 11 football, and I don’t see anything about having two-way players), which means a team salary cap of about $20 million. So players salaries will be 33% of a team’s initial value. The NFL salary cap is $109 million. That means NFL salaries are 12% of each team’s net worth.
They say that the NFL’s collective bargaining agreement makes it hard to raise prices, but if I was the players’ union, and the NFL wanted to raise the salary cap, I’d get it done that same day.
All in all, I’d say it’s a longshot.
:: Zac — 5/30/2007 @ 10:46 pm
The average NFL team is worth $900 million, according to Forbes. Each team in this league will initially be worth $60 million, and expect to be worth $90 million once they give fans the opportunity to buy a share of the team. That means the total league will be worth $720 million. Each NFL team will be worth more than the entire UFL.
It would be very difficult for both those things to be true.
:: Bill Barnwell — 5/30/2007 @ 10:51 pm
The 8 largest metro areas in the United States that don’t have NFL teams are (w rank in parenthesis):
Los Angeles (2)
Orlando (21)
San Juan (23*)
Sacramento (23)
Portland (26)
Columbus (29)
San Antonio (30)
Las Vegas (31)
Milwaukee (32)
Let’s throw out San Juan (though it would be interesting) and add Mexico City (was mentioned in the article). If we want to include the rest of North America there’s Guadalajara (population comparable to Phoenix[#13]), Toronto (comparable to Houston[#9]), and Montreal and Monterrey (both bigger than Minneapolis [#15]).
:: Zac — 5/30/2007 @ 11:03 pm
The NFL salary cap is $109 million. That means NFL salaries are 12% of each team’s net worth.
The NFL salary structure is dominated by the starters. A team built out of backups in the NFL would still produce a product better than NFL Europe, and better than a lot of college football, for a salary cap of probably $20M or so.
The one thing that surprises me is that they’re not taking the obvious route to trying to compete with the NFL - starting about two months earlier or so.
:: Pat — 5/30/2007 @ 11:14 pm
re: 15
I can understand that a bit. I find myself watching NFL and MLB games. I don’t have as ,much time for the NBA these days. I can’t watch college sports. Big waste of time in my opinion.
Will I watch the UFL? If I had to venture a guess and the options were YES or NO, I’d go NO.
:: Mul Dawg — 5/30/2007 @ 11:14 pm
It could work.
I think that splitting the schedule to have two games on Thursday and two on Friday might increase viewership. Also, scheduling the league’s games so that there is minimal overlap with the NFL is good. The only problem I see is that these are mostly Southern cities, and July and August in the South are not pleasant, and I don’t know where the league would get the money to construct large indoor stadiums.
:: throughthelookingglass — 5/30/2007 @ 11:30 pm
re24
Indoor stadiums?
Mulgrew no likey.
If the UFL is going to work it has to be played outdoors.
Who likes domes? I mean, c’mon.
They are fine in some northern cities, but nobody in their right mind wants to watch indoor football played in the south and California/Arizona/Nevada.
:: Mul Dawg — 5/30/2007 @ 11:33 pm
If they put a pointspread on the games people will watch.
:: NorthernIce — 5/30/2007 @ 11:41 pm
25-Who in their right minds is going to want to sit through a game in Nevada during August?
:: throughthelookingglass — 5/30/2007 @ 11:49 pm
I don’t see this working at all. I might watch a game or two just to see what it looks like, but I really can’t envision myself caring about the league or the teams. A huge part of being a fan involves rooting for a team for a long time and appreciating that team’s history and tradition. Obviously, none of the teams in a new league will have any history or tradition, so it’s hard to see how it can inspire hard-core loyalty in a short period of time.
I do think the economics mentioned in the article are interesting. Apparently, owners like Cuban will put up $30 million, and end up with a one-third interest in their respective teams. Fans will put up twice that amount ($60 million) for each team, but will end up with just one-third of the team, the same amount as the owners. So fans will pay twice as much to own the same amount as the “owner.” And the league will own one-third of each team, with the people who “own” the league putting up what looks to be practically nothing in comparison.
It looks lke Hambrecht and Armstrong are putting up $2 million each. So for $4 million, they get one-third of each of the 8 teams, which is the equivalent of 2 2/3 teams. It’s pretty easy to see how Hambrecht plans to make money on this. I know he made a killing in Silicon Valley with his investment banking firm. He apparently is using a similar model here - put up a relatively small amount of capital in order to take a relatively huge percentage of a business.
:: Marko — 5/30/2007 @ 11:49 pm
Las Vegas games would be played at night. It really wouldn’t be a problem.
:: Mul Dawg — 5/30/2007 @ 11:58 pm
I also found his description of the USFL’s downfall interesting. Considering the USFL would’ve been a gigantic success had a jury simply understood antitrust law correctly, his interpretation seems a bit sketchy. If memory serves, the main reason for the USFL’s downfall also was its decision to attack the NFL directly, both in time and in the courts. The latter, as I suggested, would’ve been a tremendous success if not for one of the silliest high profile gaffes in the American court system.
:: Pat — 5/31/2007 @ 12:01 am
How about allowing college underclassmen and even some high schoolers to join the league?
I didn’t rtfa… but I think those are some intriguing ideas for a football league.
Also, if the pay is comparable and the schedule less grueling… that could attract football players, specifically linemen… just a few thoughts.
:: Fergasun — 5/31/2007 @ 12:14 am
re: 7
bool isFootball(…)???
geez…
better still:
Function isFootball(…) as boolean
!!!
get with the program, man!
:: Sergio — 5/31/2007 @ 12:19 am
I’m pretty sure to succeed there they will have to build in some gimmicks, getting rid of punters is start. I don’t think 1st and 20 would work. With less talent you want to increase scoring not make it harder. Maybe have a scale for how much field goals are worth? For example under 30 yards is only 2, 30-40 is 3, 40+ is 4, or maybe even add 1 point to each of those. People watched the AFL because they paved the way with high-flying offense. The UFL is going to have to do something similar if they want to succeed.
They could also take some cues from college. Wider hash marks, shorter play clock, etc.
And I think friday games are a terrible idea. If it were me, I would show two games a week on tuesdays and thursdays. People want to go out on friday. Catch them when they’re going to be at home. Also, GET GOOD ANNOUNCERS. If the commentary is bad, and the game is sub-par you might as well not even try.
:: Tom — 5/31/2007 @ 12:19 am
Pat, why do you think the jury in the USFL v. NFL case didn’t understand antitrust law and that the verdict in that case was a huge gaffe? The jury in that case found that the NFL violated the antitrust laws, but awarded only nominal damages ($1, which was trebled under the antitrust laws) because it believed the NFL’s conduct didn’t cause damage to the USFL. Instead, the jury believed that the USFL was damaged by its own missteps. In other words, the USFL’s damage was self-inflicted, and its own decisions caused its demise.
That seems pretty reasonable, if you know the history of the USFL. Why do you think otherwise?
:: Marko — 5/31/2007 @ 12:23 am
If people want to see football on Friday nights so bad….why don’t they just watch high school football? I think the market for high school football is better then having the to watch these guys….
:: Erasmus — 5/31/2007 @ 12:30 am
If the UFL plays Fridays in Southern cities, they’re going to be competeing with high school football games. This might prove to be a tough sell. And if it *is* sold, it’s going to be bad for high school football.
:: wr — 5/31/2007 @ 12:36 am
Its not going to make it in the South, especially on a Friday night. High school football rules there and people would rather be watching guys who are about to go to their favorite college team then scrub NFL players
:: Erasmus — 5/31/2007 @ 12:40 am
What I’d like to know is where this league plans on getting 8 (or even 4) reasonably competent left tackles from, when the NFL doesn’t have a full set of 32 competent left tackles?
(And the AFL can’t be a model for this; their solution to the left tackle issue is to basically never run the ball, which massively reduces the difficulty of being a left tackle).
:: Thok — 5/31/2007 @ 2:24 am
38: They’ll use the approach of facing vastly inferior defensive ends, which has a tendency to make the position easier.
:: Optimistic Packer Fan — 5/31/2007 @ 2:45 am
re: 38
I’ve always thought the issue with elite LTs has to do with pass protecting.
:: Sergio — 5/31/2007 @ 7:01 am
This could work. Secondary sports leagues can be successful: look at the 2nd tier of English football, which is the 6th biggest league in Europe, or indeed college football.
:: Nick — 5/31/2007 @ 7:10 am
The Mexico city angle I like. In fact, I’d go so far as to make Mexico the focus of the league. The MFL.
Include a few US towns near the mexican border with large mexican populations (Los Angeles, San Antonio, maybe El Paso). Put the rest of the franchises in Mexico. Mexico City, Acapulco, Veracruz, Guadalajara, Chihuahua, hell maybe one in Cancun.
I think this would have a far better chance of working.
Oh, yeah, and have the players wear masks under their helmets, and keep them on for interviews.
:: andrew — 5/31/2007 @ 7:28 am
#41 The 2nd tier of English football has been in existence for over 100 years and the clubs have local support that in many cases is almost hereditary. The gap in talent between the Premiership and the Championship(or the Second division as we used to call it before the marketing arseholes got hold of it)is huge.
I know the NFL off-season seems long but believe me, this is a good thing. Average Premiership attendences have fallen for 4 out of the last 5 years and the slight rise is distorted by Arsenal and Man Utd increasing their capacity. Football is on TV at least 4 nights a week and in many cases 6 or 7.
It’s a cliche but re the NFL, less really is more. Be careful what you wish for. Having said that, I’d be happy to replace 2 pre-season games with 2(or even 1) regular season games.
:: Paul (London,UK) — 5/31/2007 @ 7:50 am
#42, as crazy as that sounds that might actually work. Have the helmets match the masks (the uniforms would be team based). Throw in a little personality and for a small investment you probably could get some serious return.
:: steelboots — 5/31/2007 @ 8:07 am
#32
VB??
Get real!
:: zip — 5/31/2007 @ 8:21 am
Instead, the jury believed that the USFL was damaged by its own missteps. In other words, the USFL’s damage was self-inflicted, and its own decisions caused its demise.
Actually, the jury didn’t think that (well, not all of them).
About half of the jurors thought the USFL did itself in. The other half didn’t.
:: Pat — 5/31/2007 @ 8:42 am
Las Vegas is a bad idea because the Silver Bowl is an ugly, outdated and small college stadium. It can be renovated and they can add skyboxes (and new seats and parking and a new scoreboard) but it’s still 15 miles away from anything anyone in Las Vegas wants to do.
That said, the best the UFL can hope to be is the NFL’s D-League. They might be able to pay more for lower-round draft picks, but if the guy becomes a star there, the NFL can offer him millions more than the UFL. That means that the UFL’s best players will always leave right about the time fans begin knowing who they are. Who wants to pay good money to see guys who aren’t good enough to play in the NFL? Or, to put another way, “Starting at quarterback for your San Antonio Toros, #17, Quincy Carter!”
:: Harris — 5/31/2007 @ 8:57 am
re: 18
If the Little Rock franchise is called the Little Rock Little Rocks then I’ll tune in.
:: RobM — 5/31/2007 @ 9:05 am
Trump was all about a merger anyway. He wanted a merger. He challenged the NFL. He lost.
If the USFL had stayed as a summer league they might have been successsful.
:: MCS — 5/31/2007 @ 9:16 am
Zac and El Scorcho:
While those are nice lists, neither of them really think through where the untapped market for football might be. Its not a “biggest cities without NFL team” issue entirely.
I’d suggest for 8:
LA
Virginia Beach
Columbus
Memphis
Orlando
Oklahoma City
San Antonio
Mexico City
:: Andrew — 5/31/2007 @ 9:22 am
The problem with Cuban’s idea is that we don’t need a competing league, what we need is an NFL B league on the lines of the European soccer and basketball leagues. At the end of each season the worst 4 NFL teams would get relegated to the B league and the best 4 B teams would get to move up to the NFL. This is really a great system, and creates a whole new layer of rooting interest.
:: vanya — 5/31/2007 @ 9:34 am
#43 - well said. Less really is more. I actually get tired of regular season games by week 14. I’m opposed to a 17th game for that reason.
#51 - interesting. I’ve joked about the idea of relegation before. A year ago there was talk of a developmental or minor league that would associate with the major division colleges. They would play at the college stadiums and inherit the local college fan bases. I was more keen on the success of that plan than an actual rival pro-league.
:: Joe T. — 5/31/2007 @ 9:51 am
#46:
Yeah, but what kind of idiot requests a jury in a major antitrust case anyway? Do 12 randomly-selected nobodies off the street really have any chance to understand antitrust law properly? Whoever requested that the case be tried by jury was practically begging the court to get it wrong in some fashion.
:: JasonK — 5/31/2007 @ 10:08 am
How could this league NOT work??
:: He Hate Me — 5/31/2007 @ 10:24 am
#53, the 7th Amendment prevents the plaintiff from having any influence as to whether a jury will hear the case.
:: Will Allen — 5/31/2007 @ 10:31 am
Good site to check out.
http://www.usfl.info/
“Credibility” appears to have been a recurring problem for the USFL, according to the site writer. I suspect the same for the Cuban Football League. He’s kind of a goofball, he’ll find it hard (as did Vince McMahon) to get many people to take him seriously. I know he’s not the only entrepreneur involved, but he’s certainly the most high profile.
And “fan-owned” teams sounds more like a gimmick than a bona-fide investment opportunity.
:: Joe T. — 5/31/2007 @ 10:31 am
Most of us already watch both College and the NFL (and the NBA), so this won’t be a problem.
A huge part of being a fan involves rooting for a team for a long time and appreciating that team’s history and tradition.
Like the Baltimore Ravens, the Tennessee Titans, the Arizona Cardinals, the St. Louis Rams, the Houston Texans, the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Carolina Panthers, and the Los Angeles Raiders?
:: Scott de B. — 5/31/2007 @ 10:37 am
#51
What an awful idea !
If your team can be relegated, your coach will never, never, let your rookie QB take the field and screw it all…
No more time to let a player to develop, you’ll just play not to lose…
That’s what happen everytime in Europe in rugby or in soccer.
Just to take rugby, in the Southern hemisphere, they have a competition called “Super 14″ where the teams are always the same, they play freely, they attack, even when they lose their 4 or 5 first games.
In France, once your team lose two or three games in a row, your coach is on the hot seat and you start to see smashmouth rugby…
:: lobolafcadio — 5/31/2007 @ 11:02 am
I am not sure whether such a league could or would succeed. That said, I think that providing MORE football can lead to people watching LESS football, in one of those odd things.
One thing that the whole NFL Network thing proved to some of my friends that don’t get NFLN is that they didn’t need football after all. They would religiously watch on Sundays, and when they found they didn’t get NFLN they were distraught that they wouldn’t be able to see the games.
However, after missing those Thursday games for a few weeks and noting that the sky did not fall, they realized they didn’t need football like they thought, and ended up skipping some of the Sunday games as the season went on - something I don’t think ever would have happened without NFLN.
They didn’t call their cable companies begging for NFLN, instead, the opposite happened - they realized they don’t need the NFL at all.
:: Tarrant — 5/31/2007 @ 11:07 am
Query: I never have understood this, but why are so many people so utterly against another football league? It’s more football, people!
Note: Except for the XFL, with its gimmicky stupidity ruining the game. The more stupid gimmicks to the league, the worse a chance it will have.
:: Basilicus — 5/31/2007 @ 11:11 am
“About half of the jurors thought the USFL did itself in. The other half didn’t.”
Pat, what’s your source for that statement and the quote in post #46? And even if that were true, why is the half that thought the USFL didn’t do itself in more important than the half that did? What makes the half that thought the USFL did itself in “wrong,” and the other half “right”?
As for juror confusion: That’s pretty standard, especially for a very complex case. Just because there was some confusion “at first,” and one of the jurors assumed something that was inaccurate, doesn’t mean that the whole jury decision was invalid. If the judge would have thought that, he would have thrown out the verdict and declared a mistrial.
I once worked on a complex case with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in which the jury completely botched everything. On claim A, the case was pretty strong against our client, with possible damages of about $200 million. On claim B, the case against our client was meritless, with possible damages of about $17 million. The jury (wrongly) ruled for our client on claim A, so there were no damages on that claim. On claim B, the jury (wrongly) ruled against our client and awarded damages of $120 million, which was about 7 times the amount that the plaintiffs sought in a best-case scenario. Because the jury’s decision made no sense, the judge declared a mistrial, and the case had to be retried.
If Judge Leisure thought there was something wrong with the jury decision, he would have thrown it out. He didn’t.
:: Marko — 5/31/2007 @ 11:15 am
#61: It’s a Times article from a while ago. If you just search on any of the quotes, you’ll see it pop up real fast.
And even if that were true, why is the half that thought the USFL didn’t do itself in more important than the half that did?
Did I say it was? If half thought $100M was fair, the other half thought $1 was fair, it stands to reason they would’ve evened out somewhere around $25-50M. $50M (trebled) would’ve been enough to keep the league in operation. Either that or a mistrial. The jury deliberations were pretty vociferous, so a mistrial might’ve been likely.
Judges require more information than that to set aside a verdict. That doesn’t mean it didn’t affect the result, which it in all likelihood did.
:: Pat — 5/31/2007 @ 11:33 am
#58
Why do you want to see rookie QBs on the field. Nine times out of ten they suck.
:: James C — 5/31/2007 @ 11:34 am
On the talent and niche arguments:
One potential “niche” is to start moving internationally more quickly than the NFL is. That’s why the Mexico City thing caught my eye. AMERICAN football fans may watch the NFL first, but Mexican fans? Canadian fans (for whom the CFL may not be as powerful a draw as the NFL is to American fans)? How about Dominican or Puerto Rican fans? Argentine or Brazilian? And what if some wealthy Japanese or Chinese business man was willing to come on board and be an owner if Tokyo or Hong Kong got a team? The NFL isn’t going to be doing a full slate of international games for at least a couple of years, and then will be targeting Europe. If the U.S.F.L targets non-European international audiences, especially western hemisphere or far eastern, there’s definitely a significant potential fan base and a lot of cash floating around.
And if it builds international appeal, that helps it address the talent issue as well. One poster commented:
most of the best players are already under contract to NFL teams
I would argue that most of the best American players are under NFL contract. There’s a potential well of talented international athletes that could rival the American players. Not for the first couple of years, but remember, the A.F.L. was routinely kicked around by the N.F.L. until the Browns (?) figured out how to invent a modern passing offense.
:: MJK — 5/31/2007 @ 11:50 am
“If half thought $100M was fair, the other half thought $1 was fair, it stands to reason they would’ve evened out somewhere around $25-50M.”
Not necessarily. If half thought that $100 million was the appropriate amount, they shouldn’t have agreed to a damage award of $1. When did they think that $100 million was appropriate? At the end of deliberations, or before then? (I haven’t looked for the article yet - I will after this.) Maybe they changed their minds after other jurors convinced them to do so.
As for the jurors that thought $1 was the appropriate amount, that’s really saying there was no damage caused by the NFL’s conduct. The $1 award is noiminal damages for a violation of the antitrust laws, even though that violation caused no damage. If half the jury thought no damage was caused by the NFL’s conduct, it doesn’t make sense for them to agree to “split the baby” and agree to an award of $25-50 million.
:: Marko — 5/31/2007 @ 11:54 am
#60 More football is a double edged sword. Maintaining the quality would be impossible given that the talent pool would be spread much more thinly plus the enjoyment that comes from the comparative rarity value of NFL games would quickly dissipate.
Regarding relegation and promotion,some of the reasons for the NFL being the World’s most succesful league are the draft, the salary cap and the fact that nearly all games are meaningful, at least to one of the two teams playing. How would the draft operate in the event of two tiers? On the face of it, the best college players would automatically be playing for the bottom team of the second tier. Would the salary cap be the same for both tiers?
Please learn from the mistakes of European football. Most non Man Utd, Chelsea etc. fans would kill for a salary cap, a draft system and less football.
By the time the NFL comes back each new season, I’m really looking forward to it.
Two more cliches : If it ain’t broke…..and don’t kill the goose…..
:: Paul (London,UK) — 5/31/2007 @ 11:59 am
I found the article. Here was an important quote that you left out, Pat:
“Finally the jurors agreed to compromise with a $1 verdict. Lilienfeld argued that there was no confusion in the end. ‘Six people took a vote,’ she said, ‘and it was unanimous.’”
That sums it up pretty well. That decision seems eminently reasonable to me.
:: Marko — 5/31/2007 @ 12:04 pm
42/44: I realize that your comment wasn’t entirely serious, but there’s no way a Mexican Football League would work. First off you’d have to compete soccer which is as wildly popular as it is basically everywhere in the world outside of the US and Cananda and would pre-emptively swallow up a huge portion of the fan base. Baseball is also fairly popular, moreso in the north. More importantly I seriously doubt there are enough people with the kind of expendable $$$ to throw around on tickets, especially season tickets. Mexico City is the only place I can envision a pro football franchise being successful.
I think a 2nd tier league w/relegation would be great. It’s just so unfeasible; how could it be successfully introduced? Owners would never, ever allow it and I think the vast majority of fans would scream bloody murder. There’s a reason Major League Soccer adopted a division/conference system even while trying to emulate foreign leagues in almost every other way.
:: jr — 5/31/2007 @ 12:05 pm
#67: The woman who gave that quote was one of the ones who didn’t believe that the USFL deserved anything. The two quotes are from different jurors.
:: Pat — 5/31/2007 @ 12:18 pm
Yes, I know that. And your point is? The juror quoted in my post was the same juror who was first quoted in post #46, saying that there was some confusion at first. But there was no confusion at the end.
:: Marko — 5/31/2007 @ 12:59 pm
#60 - Paul, I couldn’t agree more. There already is a significant lack of depth due to insufficient talent in the NFL (arguably). For the same reasons I think expansion beyond 32 teams is a bad idea (contraction actually might be helpful but is politically not a feasible solution).
I especially like your point about comparative rarity of NFL games driving up their entertainment value. MLB has 162 games per year and as a result suffers from an excess of their product. I think this tendency to over-produce (along with all their steroid and labor issues) has contributed to a sharp decline in MLB popularity over the decades.
:: Joe T. — 5/31/2007 @ 1:00 pm
“That’s why the N.F.L. does just fine despite not fielding a team in 21 of the country’s top 50 markets — including such enormous metropolitan areas as San Antonio, Las Vegas, Orlando and (of course) Los Angeles.” Of course the NFL is not going to be in a lot of top 50 markets with 32 teams. Since 4 teams are in only two markets (NY and SF-OAK-San Jose), at best in could be in 30 of the top 50 media markets (I’m using Nielsen’s Designated Market Areas) - or not in 20 of them. They are actually not in 22 DMAs, as NO and GB are outside the top 50. That’s a little misleading as the NFL probably figures Milwaukee (#33) is covered by GB and West Palm Beach - Ft. Pierce (#38) is covered by MIA. Additionally, Sacramnto-Stkton-Modesto (#19), Orlando-Daytona Bch-Melbrn (#20), Hartford & New Haven (#28), Greenvll-Spart-Ashevll-And (#36), Harrisburg-Lncstr-Leb-York (#41), Greensboro-H.Point-W.Salem (#47) (Nielson’s abbr’s) are all within roughly 100 miles of an NFL franchise -which is why the NFL hasn’t expanded there. If you take the top 50 markets, the NFL directly has a franchise in markets with 51.3M TV-homes as Nielson calls them. 7.6M TV-homes are in the markets I mentioned above, call them “battleground markets”. LA alone has 5.6M TV-homes. It’s unclear in LA would support a minor league team but it’s 5x bigger than any non-battleground market w/o a team. You only need marginally decent viewership there to make it more valuable than a small market. You could make a similar argument for putting a team in NY (7.4M TV-homes). So put teams in NY and LA. The next 8 largest non-battleground markets: Portland, OR (1.1M) Raleigh (1.0M) Columbus (0.9M) Salt Lake City (0.8M) San Antonio (0.8M) Grand Rapids (!) (0.7M) Birmingham (0.7M) Norfolk (0.7M) Las Vegas would be next (0.7M) - a much sexier location than Grand Rapids (sorry if you live there, but it’s true). San Antonio and Vegas are just NOT that big as TV markets despite all the noise about them. They are bigger than NO, BUF, JAX, which is why those teams could move.
:: MRH — 5/31/2007 @ 1:28 pm
As a football consumer, I would love to see a new league form, be successful, and provide some real competition to both the NFL and college football. Here’s a suggestion: The UFL should have no three-years-removed-from-high-school-graduation rule. It should aggressively recruit top high school and underclassmen college talent. Right now, due to NFL fiat, the best high school players funnel directly to major college football programs, where they risk their careers on a regular basis for mere tuition as financial compensation, meanwhile generating millions of dollars in revenue for their schools. Instead, they could go directly to the UFL and make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for three years, proving themselves against superior competition, before entering the NFL draft (if they are likely to be first round picks). The UFL could get its hands on some premium talent in this way.
In addition, if successful, by outbidding NFL teams for non-first-round talent, the UFL could force NFL teams to compensate players at closer to market levels in their rookie contracts or even force the NFL to abandon the draft altogether. Furthermore, the UFL could become a haven for excellent but suspended football players like Pacman Jones if Goodell continues to enforce an overly aggressive personal conduct policy. I would love to see all of these possibilities come to fruition, but I do recognize that some people would consider all of these potential developments as negative rather than positive.
:: CA — 5/31/2007 @ 1:44 pm
I just don’t see this working. Going head to head with the NFL and College schedule is not a winning idea. You get the feeling just like the XFL these teams will be under practiced, under funded and play at a very boring level of play.
:: johonny — 5/31/2007 @ 1:44 pm
More football is a double edged sword. Maintaining the quality would be impossible given that the talent pool would be spread much more thinly plus the enjoyment that comes from the comparative rarity value of NFL games would quickly dissipate.
The NFL is extremely profitable, so one can easily argue that there is room for expansion. Yes, the profits would be spread more thinly, but what would Cuban care as long as he were getting a cut? The number of NFL games has increased only 14% since 1980, while the population has increased 32%, and revenues have increased by orders of magnitude.
There is easily room for 8 more teams: Two in LA (or one in LA, one in Sacramento), one in Chicago, Portland, San Antonio, Las Vegas, and Mexico City isn’t a bad idea. That’s seven.
I think this is doable. It will be difficult, not least because the NFL will want to stop it, but it is feasible.
:: Scott de B. — 5/31/2007 @ 1:48 pm
Its pretty disappointing to see such a large number of people against competition. What has happened to the US? The clear cut obvious winner from competition is the consumer. Any pressure at all put on the NFL will result in a better product for us, whether the new league survives or not.
:: morganja — 5/31/2007 @ 1:50 pm
Totally agree with CA, except for the criminals. Competition would be great for us consumers. However, I would not support them if they employed people like Pacman Jones or Michael Vick. It’s simply that I choose to do my best to not support immoral and unethical businesses.
:: morganja — 5/31/2007 @ 1:56 pm
Morganja - I’m not opposed to competition. I embrace it, but that being said, I just don’t see how another pro-league will survive more than a season or two. Three of the last four have all flopped, and their only legacy are some rule changes inherited by the NFL.
If this is what the investors want, then by all means they should do it, but I really do not want to hear about how big and bad the NFL monopoly is once the USFL starts bleeding revenue thanks to mismanagement, rapidly diminishing interest, and lower quality play.
:: Joe T. — 5/31/2007 @ 2:01 pm
#76, you’re acting as if the NFL exists in an entertainment vacuum. I don’t think anyone here is against competition per se. The NFL has to compete every day to keep people interested, and not watching basketball, playing video games, listening to music, going for a run, reading a book, getting work done, whatever.
:: vanya — 5/31/2007 @ 2:01 pm
I don’t understand the quality of play concerns. People love college football and the UFL would have to be at a higher level than even BCS bowl games. People WILL watch football of that caliber.
Colleges have an advantage in that they have built in fan support from their alumni, but is that really THAT much of an edge ? I think lower ticket prices and fan ownership would help people accept the lower than NFL quality of play.
The idea of allowing high school grads to play would be another boon to the talent pool. I have long thought that college football makes no sense and their should be minor league football as there is baseball. This could ultimately start off as that, and then who knows what it would grow into.
:: TBW — 5/31/2007 @ 2:10 pm
#32 - You’ve tried the best, now try the rest.
10 WatchFootball
20 Goto 10
:: Randy S. — 5/31/2007 @ 2:17 pm
A huge part of being a fan involves rooting for a team for a long time and appreciating that team’s history and tradition. Obviously, none of the teams in a new league will have any history or tradition, so it’s hard to see how it can inspire hard-core loyalty in a short period of time.
Offering fans a piece of ownership could replace the tradition and history factor.
:: Richie — 5/31/2007 @ 2:23 pm
Just because a city doesn’t have an NFL team, that doesn’t necessarily make it a good market for a second-tier pro league.
A lot of these cities are far from football-starved. Pro football doesn’t always mean good football. If you’re in LA or Columbus, would you rather watch the local elite college program or a pro team made up of guys who aren’t good enough to start in the NFL? The UFL isn’t going to be signing any Reggie Bushes.
:: Chewbacca — 5/31/2007 @ 2:25 pm
#63: “Why do you want to see rookie QBs on the field. Nine times out of ten they suck.”
While they’re rookies, sure. But without getting some game experience, they won’t develop, and we’ll be stuck with old game-managers at QB, and that will be seriously boring. If nobody is willing to take a risk that their rookie QB will be bad, then they’ll never develop any good QBs, and the overall quality will drop drastically. NFL coaches are already too risk-averse as it is, making them more conservative is a bad thing. I for one want to see rookie QBs so that I can find out whether they are good or not.
Vince Young and Matt Leinart were a lot of fun to watch last year, a lot more than Kerry Collins or even Kurt Warner were. So I don’t see the big problem with rookie QBs.
:: Alex — 5/31/2007 @ 2:30 pm
I haven’t read through all the comments yet so I don’t know if this has been offered, but why don’t these people just put their money into professional rugby?
I would be willing to wager that you’d get a better peice of the male, 18-30 demographic than what they’re currently getting with MLS, and they don’t have to compete with football if they run their season in the spring.
:: Sophandros — 5/31/2007 @ 2:52 pm
#80, I’m with you. I don’t understand the concerns about watered down talent. I think it’s relative. Yeah, the LT of the Las Vegas Sinners is not going to be as good as Walter Jones, but also he is not going to be attempting to block Jason Taylor.
There are plenty of players in college football that look really good at that level and are entertaining to watch. Many of them are not entertaining once they get to the NFL. Maybe they are good enough to entertain in the UFL.
The Raiders offense may have been horrible in 2006, but it’s not because there is not enough talent in the NFL. It’s only because there was not enough talent on the Raiders. If the Raiders could have plucked a couple of backups from other NFL teams (Michael Turner, Matt Schaub), they could have had a respectable offense.
:: Richie — 5/31/2007 @ 3:05 pm
If you’re in LA or Columbus, would you rather watch the local elite college program or a pro team made up of guys who aren’t good enough to start in the NFL?
I live in the LA market. I would watch the UFL game on Friday night, and the UCLA game on Saturday and the NFL on Sunday.
:: Richie — 5/31/2007 @ 3:07 pm
84 -
Young and Leinart (and Cutler) got to play when their coaches believed that they were better NOW than the other guy. It wasn’t because they had coaches who were willing to accept losses in the near term while these guys got in-game experience.
:: tracy — 5/31/2007 @ 3:09 pm
I kind of agree that one way the UFL could manage to grab talent early is by ditching the “three years out of high school” rule that the NFL has in place.
Offer minimum salaries of around $350-400k, much higher than the NFL, and you could get those players.
That might end up making the UFL a siphon for the NFL, but at least then people would pay some attention.
That said, Friday night is terrible for TV, plus, it interferes with high school football, and in many states high school football is waaaaay too big to mess with. Tuesday/Thursday or whatever would work much better.
:: Tarrant — 5/31/2007 @ 3:49 pm
#89 That would make at least four days/nights of the week that football is on TV…and so the descent into overkill begins.
If you really want to watch more football, why not just televise NFL Europe. After all it’s supposed to be populated by the next level of players and it’s already up and running. My understanding is that it was originally shown in the US when it was the World League but the figures were so lousy they stopped showing it. I might be wrong about it being televised in the US but it’s been re-branded twice and is now on it’s third incarnation.
There are more live football (soccer) matches on UK TV than ever yet viewing figures appear to be falling. This backs up the point made by Tarrant in#59. The big games still get big audiences but there are so many lesser games that no-one cares if they miss them as another one will be along soon enough.
This is not an anti-competition stance, just personal experience of what has happened to football in Europe. Keep the exclusive quality of the NFL, you’ll be glad in the long run.
:: Paul (London,UK) — 5/31/2007 @ 4:44 pm
I’d like more football.
I just don’t want more football in the Fall. Competition is great - but I want it at some other time so I can enjoy both. Give me something during the spring so that baseball has something to compete against. That would rock.
:: Kal — 5/31/2007 @ 4:54 pm
“Offering fans a piece of ownership could replace the tradition and history factor.”
Not really. Only so many people would be able to buy shares. Anyone who doesn’t buy shares for whatver reason (e.g., all of the shares are bought by others too quickly, not being able to afford to buy shares, etc.) will not feel any extra connection to a team. And even for those who do buy shares, I doubt that the connection they feel to the team will be as intense as the connection die-hard NFL fans have with their teams.
Many NFL teams have incredibly passionate, loyal fans. Teams like the Bears, Packers, Cowboys, Steelers, Browns, Redskins, Eagles, and Giants (apologies to fans of other teams not listed) have fans who I’m sure would rather have their NFL team win the Super Bowl than have a UFL team in which they have a very small ownership interest win the UFL Championship (whatever it will be called).
:: Marko — 5/31/2007 @ 4:57 pm
Re: 64. I’m not sure that I agree. When they did the World Baseball Classic, did you see the Chinese team at all? They lost their 3 games by a combined score of 40-6. And China’s had a professional baseball league since 2002. You don’t get players at an elite level with a sport until they’ve been able to play it their entire life (or they play a sport that is very similar, and soccer is not similar enough). You’re going to need at least 15 years in order to have home-grown football players. That’s why the NFL keeps toughing it out in NFL Europa. They’re finally getting to that point (the WLAF started in 1991).
Re: 72. Additionally, Washington DC and Baltimore are usually considered to be the same market. So that’s NFL teams in 29 markets.
Re: 92. That’s the thing. They don’t have to be exclusive. When you have teams that aren’t competing with each other, you can root for both of them to succeed.
:: Zac — 5/31/2007 @ 5:50 pm
I would love to see this league develop for 10 years or so and then merge with the NFL. It could also stop some NFL owners from using other cities for leaverage to move their team.
My 8 would be:
Honolulu
Las Vegas
LA
Birmingham, AL
San Antonio
Mexico City
Toronto
Orlando
:: CK — 5/31/2007 @ 6:47 pm
“That’s the thing. They don’t have to be exclusive. When you have teams that aren’t competing with each other, you can root for both of them to succeed.”
But would you really care about the UFL team? I wouldn’t. Whereas many diehard fans plan their week around watching their NFL team, I highly doubt the same level of interest would exist for a UFL team. The issue isn’t rooting for both of “your” teams to succeed. It is the passion with which you follow the teams.
If people weren’t invested in the teams emotionally like they are with the NFL teams, they wouldn’t watch the UFL games nearly as much. Maybe they would watch the UFL game if they happened to be home when the game was on, but they wouldn’t plan their week to make sure they were home to watch the game like they would with their favorite NFL team.
:: Marko — 5/31/2007 @ 7:23 pm
Just because a city doesn’t have an NFL team, that doesn’t necessarily make it a good market for a second-tier pro league.
I’ll note that there was a recent study on the capacity of various markets to support professional franchieses, and the conclusion was that cities as small as Omaha, NE and Birmingham, AL could profitably support an NFL team.
:: Scott de B. — 5/31/2007 @ 7:51 pm
Even if this UFL abandons the “3-years-out-of-high-school” rule, if I was in the position of being a mortal lock for being drafted on day 1, I wouldn’t dare give up my eligibility unless I was absolutely sure that the UFL would last until I could enter the NFL. And even then, if I don’t do well in the UFL, and it folds, the average perception of a pro non-NFL league would say that I’m not good enough for the NFL, and I would screw the pooch on my big NFL contract.
:: Shylo — 5/31/2007 @ 8:05 pm
If this league is being conceptualized as a competitor for the NFL then it probably won’t last long. Throughout its history the NFL has fought off the challenge of a lot of other rival football leagues and now it has a substantial financial advantage to ward off competition. I would like to see it evolve into an intermediate step between high school and the NFL, in essence competing with colleges for talent. If they can assemble strong coaching staffs that communicate the message that playing 2 or three years with us will make you NFL ready, then I could see many players preferring to directly enter the job market, rather than playing for free for a college. Especially if they can earn a fair wage and get benefits like year-round health coverage and modest retirement contributions.
:: Daniel — 5/31/2007 @ 9:04 pm
I don’t want to read through all the posts here (maybe I will later), but here’s a thought on the XFL from Bill Simmons, as an aside during a rant against the WNBA (link on my name):
Take Vince McMahon’s XFL idea, which NBC killed after one season despite solid attendance and ratings that tripled the WNBA that year. When the XFL was canceled, few people realized McMahon’s biggest mistake was not giving the teams longer training camps so they could gel, that some of its players were good enough to eventually play in the NFL (most famously, Tommy Maddox), that some of its technical innovations helped to push the NFL’s TV coverage into the 21st century (like cameras on the field, or players wearing microphones during games). Unlike with the WNBA, there was a foundation there for a spring football league with some attitude — just look at the success of the Arena League — and I will always believe NBC dropped the ball here. But when the plug was pulled, nobody really argued, and that was that.
Basically he’s saying that the idea had merit and was partially successful, and with better management (or a bottomless money pit/ sugar daddy) it could have fully succeeded. I think having Friday games is a bad idea, but there’s no reason this league can’t become better than the Arena league and maybe even serve as a de facto minor league for the NFL, more so than the Europe league. For example: How could it become better that the Arena league? Easily, by drawing the talent away with better salaries, and maintaining rules and regulations which are closer to NFL/NCAA than Arena.
:: The McNabb Bowl Game Anomaly — 5/31/2007 @ 10:06 pm
Wow. Simmons didn’t bash the XFL. He’s one of the few, and that surprises me.
I liked the XFL.
:: Richie — 5/31/2007 @ 11:27 pm
I thought about this whole thing tonight.
I have now realized this idea is D, U, M, P.
:: The Mul — 5/31/2007 @ 11:42 pm
IIRC, XFL games were approaching record low network ratings by the end of the season; that’s why NBC pulled the plug.
The success of the UFL will depend on their approach. If they’re looking for big TV ratings and a quick score, they’ll be added to the ashheap of history. If they try to build up fan bases for their individual teams, and can settle into decent markets within a couple of years, they stand a chance.
:: Jerry — 6/1/2007 @ 1:32 am
My 8 would be:
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Portland
Mexico City
San Antonio
Virginia (Richmond/Hampton Roads)
Birmingham
Hartford (actually one of the largest media markets without a team, and they’re close to a whole lot of people)
Other good choices would be Oklahoma or Michigan (Grand Rapids is sizable, and it would be an interesting move to try and challenge the Lions). Those two spots could fill in for Birmingham or Hartford; I’m pretty confident the first six on the list are the easy choices here.
I know Orlando is considered one of the possibilities, and I know it is a larger market than many mentioned here, but the NFL already has three Florida teams, and you also have to go up against the popularity of high school football in the South. Sure, HS football is also popular in San Antonio, but there’s a much wider swath of land to draw from in Texas.
And Columbus, OH is just crazy talk. The UFL won’t be able to compete with Ohio State.
:: ChrisFromNJ — 6/1/2007 @ 4:18 am
I still don’t get why the UFL is starting in August on nights the NFL wouldn’t broadcast. That just seems kind of stupid - They should start their season right after the NFL draft, during that huge down time when all they have to compete with is baseball.
:: Crushinator — 6/1/2007 @ 10:15 am
Personally, I like the idea of another football league. My loyalty remains to the NFL and college football, but I’m a football junkie and will watch anything that gets shown. There’s no doubt that the UFL would attract a higher talent level than college, so that’s not an issue. Here’s my ideas on how it would need to be successful.
1) It’s got to be a spring league. In the fall, you’ve got to compete with HS football, college ball and the NFL. Even if you’re airing games on Friday night, the average person can only devote so much time during the week to watching football. In the spring, you’re competing with NFL Europe and Arena league. There’s a good possibility that the UFL would actually be the most talented league of those 3.
2) Get star power. The NFL thrives on 2 things: star power and fan loyalty. College football thrives almost exclusively on the latter. The UFL needs to find a mix between the two and the best way to do this is to poach all the star college players that can’t make it in the NFL. Would a UFL team in Columbus compete against OSU? Absolutely not. But what about a UFL team with starting QB Troy Smith? Or an Oklahoma team with Jason White? Or a Nebraska team with Eric Crouch? Half of the past ten Heisman winners were marginal (at best) NFL players. Build local teams around the college stars with name recognition. There are a lot of college stars, especially at the QB position, who will never make it in the NFL. Exploit them!
3) Recruit high school prospects. This has already been mentioned, but it’s such a great idea that it deserves to be mentioned again. The NCAA places so many restrictions on recruiting that a decent professional league could really jump in and make a big impact on some big name recruits. No HS prospect is guaranteed to be a high NFL draft pick. A lot of kids would love a chance to earn some money playing football right away. Either because their families need it or because of academic restrictions in college.
4) Be patient. It looks like these investors are prepared to lose money and that’s a good thing. If they’re expecting a huge ROI in the first year, they’ll fold faster than the XFL. If they’re prepared to sustain losses for five years, while fans begin to show loyalty, HS players trust that the league won’t fold, and some marginal NFL players jump ship for a guaranteed job, they might be able to succeed in the long run.
:: turgy22 — 6/1/2007 @ 10:28 am
Dumping 8 new teams in the lap of American sports fans is probably not a great idea. Allow me to elaborate. If you examine the history of the 3 most recent start-up pro leagues that lasted more than a season (this excludes the XFL) they all had a high level of franchise instability. Only the AFL could really claim to have a majority of stable franchises (the only relocating franchise being the Dallas/KC club), and I suspect their stability owed to the fact that the market for pro-teams had yet to be fully saturated. The WFL and USFL had rapidly relocating clubs for a variety of reasons (fan bases never developing, lack of local facilities, direct competition with NFL clubs). The point here is that the success of a franchise is hardly guaranteed (although I will refrain from quantifying it). NFL franchises are pretty stable because the league structure is so rigid, and revenue sharing allows teams in smaller markets to survive (Jacksonville being a good example).
Franchise instability eats away at the credibility of the league and scares players and coaching staffs from committing to contracts. The XFL, by keeping all 8 teams under central ownership, was able to keep the clubs securely in one place (although, the XFL was organized more along the lines of a show and less a sports league). Unfortunately, with only a year of existence we really can’t test the hypothesis.
:: Joe T — 6/1/2007 @ 10:36 am
IIRC, XFL games were approaching record low network ratings by the end of the season; that’s why NBC pulled the plug.
Part of the problem was NBC’s excessively high targets offered to advertisers, and the fact that it was on network TV. The paid attendance, for instance, was basically what was expected, and the off-network TV ratings were comparable to the NHL (that’s not saying much, but…)
I think Simmons’s comment was basically right, but mainly, the XFL died because it was hyped too much and couldn’t live up to it. If it had been willing to accept more modest results, I think it would’ve been fine.
I also don’t think they thought through some of the rules changes, either. Hence the reason they had to change them midseason.
:: Pat — 6/1/2007 @ 10:53 am
You guys are crazy. The reason they are starting in August is to compete with… NCAA football! How hard is it going to be to compete with NCAA football? Sure, it’s a gamble in the first 2 years… but I think if they survive that long it could change football as we know it. While they start off on Friday nights, I’m sure they hope to push their way into Saturday afternoon’s.
Wouldn’t you love to be a college coach who can recruit without having to worry about your precious scholarships? If they paid you on par with NCAA, it would be worth it.
Wouldn’t you love to be a player who can make enough money in 1 year that it would probably be 4 years tuition at any university? Especially if you can get college level coaching, and don’t need to deal with going to classes studyhall or anything?
Professional videogame players have it better than your average college football player.
Troy Smith wishes he could’ve made 1 million dollars starting for Ohio State Univeristy.
I think they’ll be successful as long as they allow their players to jump into the NFL, and they recruit a mix of college blue chippers and NFL roster washouts.
What if Cuban offered FootballOutsiders $1M to be the “official stats provider” for the UFL? What if all the games were provided in high definition downloadable off of the UFL website?
Why do we have so much love for NCAA anyway? It’s one of the most dirty sports this side of boxing.
I’m just saying, I’ll support this league for at least it’s first year… I have no love for college football in it’s present state, and I believe there is a market for a college football killer… if they can make it through the baby steps.
The problem will be finding 8 sincere coaches and a coaching staff… and 8 state of the art training facilities and decent stadiums.
I bet they can get 50% of the top 100 recruits to play in this league…
:: Fergasun — 6/1/2007 @ 11:03 am
I find August 2008 a bit agressive, maybe August 2009… but I believe they can find 8 high tier coaches sick of all the BS in college football.
I have no loyalty to my alma matter… stop begging me for money already!
:: Fergasun — 6/1/2007 @ 11:06 am
… and I wanted to add. The only way they can compete with college is to play in the fall. So start up Friday nights, use internet marketing and $$$ to get talented coaches and players (you only need 300+ players to build a team)… let your coaches go and recruit the top talent, easy sell… provide a quality product… leech players from college… let your players go to the NFL. Enjoy being an honest NFL minor league rather than the sham we have of current college athletics…
:: Fergasun — 6/1/2007 @ 11:09 am
This is an aside, but why does everyone keep referring to Jacksonville as a small market. It is the most populous city in Florida, and it’s not even close:
1) Jacksonville: 782,623
2) Miami: 386,417
3) Tampa: 325,989
4) St. Petersburg: 249,079
5) Hialeah: 220,485
6) Orlando: 213,223
Figures taken from US Census Bureau. Link to source in my name.
:: Eddo — 6/1/2007 @ 11:56 am
Re: 111 why does everyone keep referring to Jacksonville as a small market.
That’s an easy one. The city itself may be large, but the metro area is not. Jacksonville is the 46th largest MSA in America with just 1.1 million people according to the 2000 census. I believe that makes it the second smallest MSA with an NFL team, ahead of only Green Bay.
:: CA — 6/1/2007 @ 12:17 pm
If it had been willing to accept more modest results, I think it would’ve been fine.
Which is really one of the big problems with any new business. It always amazes me when somebody starts a new business and expects (needs) that he’s going to be able to live off the profits in the first month. That is a recipe for disaster.
:: Richie — 6/1/2007 @ 12:20 pm
Re 93 - thanks for reading that mass of text after I screwed up the formatting. But the reason I called BAL and WAs separate markets is because Neilsen does and I was using TV markets not Census Bureau metroploitan statistcal areas or another measure. I think that’s reasonable considering TV seems to drive the NFL.
Re 111 - the problem with using city populations to define market size is that city limits are completely arbitrary. That’s why the Census Bureau has created different measures of metropolitan areas to define urban area size. For example, the 2000 census ranks of metropolitan areas puts Jacksonville at 46th with 1.1M people (Miami-Ft Lauderdale is one area, it’s 12th w/3.9M pop ; Tampa-StPete is one area, it’s 21st/2.4M ; Orlando is 24th/1.6M).
I don’t know how the NFL defines “market” size. It could be Census Bureau MSAs; it could be Neilsen Designated Market Areas (which I used in my earlier post) where JAC is 50th in “TV homes”. But it almost certainly isn’t population within the city limits.
:: MRH — 6/1/2007 @ 12:35 pm
Not sure this UFL will work, but it got me thinking: How about an alternative league with a player size limit, something like 6′2″ 200 pounds max? Teams wouldn’t have to worry about the NFL poaching their star 195-pound left tackle or rifle-armed 5′10″ QB. There are certainly excellent athletes out there who could play in the NFL if only they were bigger…could be a very fun league to watch, too, with lots of wiry fast guys on the field.
:: Not The Great Babe Laufenberg — 6/1/2007 @ 12:55 pm
Jacksonville is one of those cities that has wildly expanded its physical borders which gives it an inflated population. I think it’s second in area to Los Angeles. So that reduces the number of other cities that form part of its urban areas. Jacksonville’s city population is bigger than Boston or Washington, but obviously that stat is meaningless when determining the size of an urban area. That is why a place like Pittsburgh or Cincy, with maybe half the primary city population as JAX can be 3 or more times as large a metropolis in reality.
:: oljb — 6/1/2007 @ 1:12 pm
With blackout rules in place, isn’t it better to have places like LA not have a team, so that there would not be a blackout in the event of a blackout?
:: Sophandros — 6/1/2007 @ 2:11 pm
Maybe the new league won’t have similar blackout rules.
:: Marko — 6/1/2007 @ 2:43 pm
Why do we have so much love for NCAA anyway?
If you lived in a power college football location you wouldn’t have to ask that.
I’m from Nebraska, and I would gladly trade all the NFL games from now until the end of time for two more Nebraska wins next season.
And that classifies me as a ‘moderately rabid’ fan.
:: Scott de B. — 6/1/2007 @ 3:17 pm
Re 115:
The more I think about your idea, the better it sounds. It gives a place for the Troy Smiths of the world to go compete. However, more than that, with a weight restriction, it would safe to play 19 and 20 year olds, and they would be competitive.
:: Tom — 6/1/2007 @ 3:51 pm
But the UFL gives you the potential to have a better football league than just the NCAA, Divison I. Take the top talent from 100 teams, and put them onto 8.
Wouldn’t you like to see a league where Notre Dame, USC, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Louisville, Ohio State and Oklahoma play each other through the whole season? If the UFL can take top tier recruits from the NCAA, and it wouldn’t take a lot of money to do either… I can see this really killing college football… and I think that’s a good thing for NCAA, as we know they are not “student-athletes”.
So now the math… let’s say average salary is $400k.
50 players per 8 teams = 400
400 players * $400k salary = $160M payroll for the whole league
$80M for coaching staffs/front office ($10M per team).
Total team budget = $240M.
Skimming through the article, it looks like they are out to get the NFL. If they take that attitude… silly. They need to go after NCAA first, which should be an easier fruit to pick.
:: Fergasun — 6/1/2007 @ 3:52 pm
“Wouldn’t you like to see a league where Notre Dame, USC, Texas, Florida, Michigan, Louisville, Ohio State and Oklahoma play each other through the whole season?”
You’re missing the point. A HUGE part of the reason those teams are followed so passionately is that they ARE Notre Dame, USC, Texas, etc. People follow their teams (college or pro) religiously because they have developed a long-standing connection to the teams. When you take a bunch of top recruits and put them in the uniform of one of the tradition-rich college programs like those you mentioned (or ot