(06-09-2016 12:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm not proposing any of those things, though. That's the point.

They'd use the same facilities. Same support staff. Same travel arrangements. Same gameday operations. Everything the same. Perhaps 30 players. 5-6 coaches. Same playbooks.

It'd be a JV game before/after the Varsity game. Perhaps the total roster could even swell to just 70. The bottom 30 play in the JV game. The top 40 are reserved for the main game.

I don't think you're quite getting how much more cost that is for an NFL franchise. For example, they have procure another 30 seats on expensive charter planes in order to play money-losing JV games as you have proposed at a base level. You also have to add on salaries, health care, benefits and pension obligations. As adcorbett noted, the practice squad currently consists of 5 to 8 players. You're now asking to triple/quadruple/quintuple those costs plus the additional coaching staff. That's not really addressing what the average NFL team needs - they just want to park a handful of players somewhere to provide a bit more playing time. A full-fledged minor league system a la baseball is simply not necessary for NFL football.

Look - I think that there can be value in the NFL having a limited D-League for players drafted after college. It's just not going to be a full-fledged minor league system and would probably look a lot like the old NFL Europe. Also, the intent is not really to make any money with the league - it's really a pure developmental academy. I'd compare it to the Arizona Fall League for minor league baseball where there are players from multiple organizations on each team, the league itself is owned by Major League Baseball, and they play a condensed season in a single market (Phoenix).

Also, many keep on speaking in this thread as if though the NFL is looking to create a minor league in lieu of college football, but it needs to be made VERY clear that this is about creating a D-league for players that have been drafted AFTER they have gone to college. I think too many people are erroneously mixing these two together.

(06-09-2016 01:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Obviously this is just a gut feeling with no facts to support it, but I think the XFL could have been successful if they had found a way to survive until the plug was pulled on NFL Europe. .

The XFL's biggest problem was the first week, 10 million people tuned in, so there was obvious interest, and they had two games on, one in Las Vegas that was immediately a blowout, where they had the primary production trucks and stars, and everything, and a double overtime game going in Orlando. Guess which one was shown on NBC the entire time?

That one game ruined the entire league. I am not saying they would have stuck around, because they had plenty of other issues, but that one week put them in a hole they never had a chance to recover from.

I later worked with a lot of the guys who worked on the XFL when I worked at WWE. To a man, many told me they really thought it could work, but conceded that starting the week after the Super bowl, going against the Pro Bowl (when people still cared about it), and actually thinking they could take on the NFL was the death before it even started. They thought they would get a big rating for people who missed football for a week or two right after the super bowl, but didn't count on the audience dying off so fast due to football fatigue. The thought was, had they done the league later in the spring or early summer, when football anticipation was growing, and there was space between the end of the last NFL season, and the NBA season was over (many of the teams were in NBA towns), they might have had a chance. They had a good TV deal, with games on NBA, UPN, and Spike TV, the production was top notch, and had some decent players trying to make a name for themselves to make it to the NFL.

The downfall, as they say, was McMahon would not accept just being a decent number 2 league, and really thought he could take on the NFL, and the expenses got WAY out of hand.

Frank,

Fair enough. But if they really want to "cheap out", then simply: you get what you pay for.

My proposal wouldn't cost them that much money. It would give every team a truly deeper roster, that can better withstand 16 games of punishment, and have guys available to call up.

But, as the NFL has always been about trying to go cheap on the players as much as possible, so too it will start with this.

(06-09-2016 01:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 10:11 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  8 team spring league could work in this country. USFL, XFL, CFL, and even the UFL as proven to point that it could succeed. 30k attendance type should be the goal. TV ratings really don't matter.

NFL2 with a hybrid with NFL affiliation reduce some of the costs. 4 teams affiliate with each team maybe send 5 to 6 players each, rest are allocated by the league or whatever. The next tier of US cities - the triple A baseball cites types would embrace it. You have NFL Network which would eliminate the need for a tv partner. The basic blueprint is there IMO.

Um, what? Outside of maybe the CFL (which has a fair amount of history and is the highest level of football played in Canada), all of those have shown to be money-losing operations.

Different cities shown they could support spring level football. Those leagues lost money by pandering to tv, trying to compete with the NFL, and being in major markets where they had no business being in because of tv. NFL affiliated league in the spring time in next tier of US cities can work.

(06-09-2016 01:19 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Obviously this is just a gut feeling with no facts to support it, but I think the XFL could have been successful if they had found a way to survive until the plug was pulled on NFL Europe. Having both leagues hurt the talent level of the XFL just enough to keep the games sloppy and hard to watch. I think there would have been enough players available for one 8-team league though.

The problem, of course, was the XFL would have likely been bleeding money for 6 additional years to make it past the NFL-E's demise.

The XFL suffered from prejudice (it was Vince McMahon's supposed joke of a league) and some of their rules would have led to its demise or would have needed cleaning, such as the purposeful lack of a kick coverage interference which certainly would have led to many concussions. No way would it still be operating today unless it did so well, it forced a merger.

(06-09-2016 02:05 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Different cities shown they could support spring level football. Those leagues lost money by pandering to tv, trying to compete with the NFL, and being in major markets where they had no business being in because of tv. NFL affiliated league in the spring time in next tier of US cities can work.

If you are looking to attract the eyes of the masses and you aren't within earshot of New York, LA and to a lesser extent, Chicago and Washington, then it's a doomed proposition. It may even be a good idea to be in Toronto for Canadian eyes depending on what it is (for football purposes, probably not).

But you need to be close to the media capitals, that is for certain. The XFL was trying to go mainstream, so they did the right thing.

A related article:

http://thecomeback.com/blog/nfl/15-years...tions.html

To riff on Frank's thoughts.

I know some people will go watch the Arkansas Travelers to see the stars of tomorrow (more when affiliated with locally beloved Cardinals, less now with the Angels) but when I took my son fairly regularly it was because he could run around and try to shag foul balls (turn them in for a sno cone) while I sat and had a beer or two eating lousy food that tastes good with beer on a nice summer night. I call it the best bar in town because of the floor show.

You really can't disengage from a football game that way. I was a regular at Memphis Showboats (USFL) games it was a three hour football experience not kicking back, talking and visiting and occasionally checking out the action on the field and the score.

The NFL doesn't need a full blown minor league. The NFL absolutely doesn't want to deal with developing high school players and guys with less than 3 years of college into NFL players.

All they need is enough guys to staff 4 to 6 teams so those late cuts from teams can have more playing time than training camp will give them. They need to be able to get more reps covering an NFL quality receiver, fighting off an NFL quality defensive tackle, throwing into NFL caliber coverage.

The XFL ended up sending several decent players to the NFL think it was around 9 who ended up making it. Several of those guys had been in NFL camps and even made a practice squad or regular roster and had been cut. Got more reps and made it back.

That's all the NFL really wants is to develop better depth, especially at QB.

Maybe we're looking at it wrong. Instead of getting more experience/playing time/practice/etc. after playing college, what if NFL teams got the idea to own the rights to players through their college careers to have more time to develop them. Think about it: the college years offer the most room for growth but lots of kids choose schools that don't run NFL-friendly schemes or play out of position. It would be in the NFL's best interest to hand-pick the best high school players to properly develop them rather than hope they make it on their own or with an unproven coaching staff.

Here's my idea of how it would work. Each NFL team gets to draft 25 high school seniors a year. These seniors have a list of schools they want to go to and the NFL team agrees with the player which school to attend. This gets a player to play at a school he wants to while giving the NFL the choice of putting him in a system to help him grow into an NFL player. Offseasons consist of doing everything with the NFL club like OTAs and mini camp before going to the school to play football (and be a student if he chooses).

The player gets a guaranteed 5 year contract that has an option involved to allow the team to call him up during any offseason which would void the remaining years in his high school contract and replace it with a brand new contract like a new draft pick has (something like a four year, fully guaranteed deal with a fifth year option). Undrafted high school players go to school and can declare for the regular NFL draft like normal which would be the "college and foreigners" draft for the late-bloomers.

The "high school draft" would be on a rotating basis; I remember seeing a "draft wheel" (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nb...the-wheel/) which could be useful seeing as these high schoolers would be years away form the NFL and it wouldn't be fair to have a team tank for years and get a stranglehold on the top quarterbacks or just a glutton of talent in general.

It may never work and I could be overlooking something huge, but it's what I came up with using a little bit of my noggin.

(06-09-2016 01:24 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-09-2016 12:55 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm not proposing any of those things, though. That's the point.

They'd use the same facilities. Same support staff. Same travel arrangements. Same gameday operations. Everything the same. Perhaps 30 players. 5-6 coaches. Same playbooks.

It'd be a JV game before/after the Varsity game. Perhaps the total roster could even swell to just 70. The bottom 30 play in the JV game. The top 40 are reserved for the main game.

I don't think you're quite getting how much more cost that is for an NFL franchise. For example, they have procure another 30 seats on expensive charter planes in order to play money-losing JV games as you have proposed at a base level. You also have to add on salaries, health care, benefits and pension obligations. As adcorbett noted, the practice squad currently consists of 5 to 8 players. You're now asking to triple/quadruple/quintuple those costs plus the additional coaching staff. That's not really addressing what the average NFL team needs - they just want to park a handful of players somewhere to provide a bit more playing time. A full-fledged minor league system a la baseball is simply not necessary for NFL football.

Look - I think that there can be value in the NFL having a limited D-League for players drafted after college. It's just not going to be a full-fledged minor league system and would probably look a lot like the old NFL Europe. Also, the intent is not really to make any money with the league - it's really a pure developmental academy. I'd compare it to the Arizona Fall League for minor league baseball where there are players from multiple organizations on each team, the league itself is owned by Major League Baseball, and they play a condensed season in a single market (Phoenix).

Also, many keep on speaking in this thread as if though the NFL is looking to create a minor league in lieu of college football, but it needs to be made VERY clear that this is about creating a D-league for players that have been drafted AFTER they have gone to college. I think too many people are erroneously mixing these two together.

Counter point: If the NFL goes for a true blue development league, then there is no longer any incentive for the NFL to keep Saturday "holy" for college football. Do the math with the assumption that the NFL takes Saturdays, and the NFL D-league EASILY is absorbed and ultimately give the NFL a superior product. And really, I would NOT blame the NFL one bit if it takes the CFB establishment on directly. CFB will have done this to itself by morphing itself into a league full of ringers and semi-pro mentality. You're always talking about monetizing everything in sports. This is what the NFL SHOULD do if it wants to increase its earning potential.

(06-09-2016 09:07 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Maybe we're looking at it wrong. Instead of getting more experience/playing time/practice/etc. after playing college, what if NFL teams got the idea to own the rights to players through their college careers to have more time to develop them. Think about it: the college years offer the most room for growth but lots of kids choose schools that don't run NFL-friendly schemes or play out of position. It would be in the NFL's best interest to hand-pick the best high school players to properly develop them rather than hope they make it on their own or with an unproven coaching staff.

Here's my idea of how it would work. Each NFL team gets to draft 25 high school seniors a year. These seniors have a list of schools they want to go to and the NFL team agrees with the player which school to attend. This gets a player to play at a school he wants to while giving the NFL the choice of putting him in a system to help him grow into an NFL player. Offseasons consist of doing everything with the NFL club like OTAs and mini camp before going to the school to play football (and be a student if he chooses).

The player gets a guaranteed 5 year contract that has an option involved to allow the team to call him up during any offseason which would void the remaining years in his high school contract and replace it with a brand new contract like a new draft pick has (something like a four year, fully guaranteed deal with a fifth year option). Undrafted high school players go to school and can declare for the regular NFL draft like normal which would be the "college and foreigners" draft for the late-bloomers.

The "high school draft" would be on a rotating basis; I remember seeing a "draft wheel" (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-nb...the-wheel/) which could be useful seeing as these high schoolers would be years away form the NFL and it wouldn't be fair to have a team tank for years and get a stranglehold on the top quarterbacks or just a glutton of talent in general.

It may never work and I could be overlooking something huge, but it's what I came up with using a little bit of my noggin.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-762236.html

You're welcome.

CFB couldn't do what you're advocating: people don't care if the talent on the field is closer to "NFL quality". The only thing they care about is: their team's talent is competitive with their rivals, and that their team wins.

Here's proof: look at the attendance and TV rating of the Senior Bowl. Talent alone does nothing.

Likewise, in a thought experiment: put the rosters of the Senior Bowl dressed up in your team's uniform and your rival's uniform. Does this make the game more interesting and watchable? I doubt it.

(06-10-2016 07:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  CFB couldn't do what you're advocating: people don't care if the talent on the field is closer to "NFL quality". The only thing they care about is: their team's talent is competitive with their rivals, and that their team wins.

Here's proof: look at the attendance and TV rating of the Senior Bowl. Talent alone does nothing.

Likewise, in a thought experiment: put the rosters of the Senior Bowl dressed up in your team's uniform and your rival's uniform. Does this make the game more interesting and watchable? I doubt it.

Interestingly enough most people will watch NFL games whether their teams are involved or not. The problem long term is that CFB is a hybrid. They cling as hard as they can to collegiality and amateur status...except what people plainly see on the field are a bunch of ringers who are more like professionals working in a minor league/D-league system.

The only reason why CFB does so well is because the NFL chooses NOT to play Saturday games. If that ever changes - forget about it. CFB is done.

(06-07-2016 11:37 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 11:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 11:23 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(06-07-2016 11:15 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Their hand might be forced, though, if major college football blows up because of the "make players employees" zealots.

That would not blow up college football. That is posturing - that would be biting your hand to spite your face. Those programs would not give up a hundred million plus per year, simply because their expenses went up by a few million. That would be idiotic on an epic level.

Here's what WOULD blow up college football - at least, as we know it - an NFL D-league which (1) takes players straight out of high school, (2) pays them good money, (3) and plays on Saturdays.

Game, set, match.

I am all for it.

That way college football can be played by real "student-athletes" (sic) who:

1) Go to class

2) Are more like regular students

3) Graduate from the university in large percentages


Then, the fiction of "student-athlete" would have a lot more validity and the other players who are not really interested in being college students/graduates can go play in the development league.

Could not agree more. I hope this happens and I hope the NBA invests more in their D-League so that the same occurs in basketball.

(06-10-2016 07:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Counter point: If the NFL goes for a true blue development league, then there is no longer any incentive for the NFL to keep Saturday "holy" for college football. Do the math with the assumption that the NFL takes Saturdays, and the NFL D-league EASILY is absorbed and ultimately give the NFL a superior product. And really, I would NOT blame the NFL one bit if it takes the CFB establishment on directly. CFB will have done this to itself by morphing itself into a league full of ringers and semi-pro mentality. You're always talking about monetizing everything in sports. This is what the NFL SHOULD do if it wants to increase its earning potential.

You think the NFL doesn't play on Fridays and Saturdays during the college and high school season because they are swell fellas who don't want to hurt the lower levels of football?

Let me set the record straight.

The NFL had attempted a novel idea. Selling its TV rights on a league basis rather than team-by-team. They twice ran into anti-trust roadblocks, so new commissioner Pete Rozelle went to Congress and asked for a limited anti-trust exemption to allow them to sell as a group.

Congress gave him his exemption (the Sports Broadcast Act) with three conditions.
1. No NFL games televised on Saturday during the college regular season.
2. No NFL games televised on Friday during the high school football season.
3. The infamous blackout rule where if a game isn't sold out it can't be telecast locally. That was Congress not the NFL who gave us the blackout.

The NFL had zero issues with going head-to-head vs colleges on Thursday once the colleges demonstrated there was a market for Thursday night football and the NFL has saber rattled about going head-to-head vs CFP.

The law, not chivalry is what keeps the NFL from playing on Friday and Saturday.

(06-10-2016 08:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 07:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Counter point: If the NFL goes for a true blue development league, then there is no longer any incentive for the NFL to keep Saturday "holy" for college football. Do the math with the assumption that the NFL takes Saturdays, and the NFL D-league EASILY is absorbed and ultimately give the NFL a superior product. And really, I would NOT blame the NFL one bit if it takes the CFB establishment on directly. CFB will have done this to itself by morphing itself into a league full of ringers and semi-pro mentality. You're always talking about monetizing everything in sports. This is what the NFL SHOULD do if it wants to increase its earning potential.

You think the NFL doesn't play on Fridays and Saturdays during the college and high school season because they are swell fellas who don't want to hurt the lower levels of football?

Let me set the record straight.

The NFL had attempted a novel idea. Selling its TV rights on a league basis rather than team-by-team. They twice ran into anti-trust roadblocks, so new commissioner Pete Rozelle went to Congress and asked for a limited anti-trust exemption to allow them to sell as a group.

Congress gave him his exemption (the Sports Broadcast Act) with three conditions.
1. No NFL games televised on Saturday during the college regular season.
2. No NFL games televised on Friday during the high school football season.
3. The infamous blackout rule where if a game isn't sold out it can't be telecast locally. That was Congress not the NFL who gave us the blackout.

The NFL had zero issues with going head-to-head vs colleges on Thursday once the colleges demonstrated there was a market for Thursday night football and the NFL has saber rattled about going head-to-head vs CFP.

The law, not chivalry is what keeps the NFL from playing on Friday and Saturday.

That was a long time ago. I'm aware of the past. I also wouldn't put my faith into congress regarding college sports either. Back when Rozelle was in charge it would have been unthinkable to a banking entity that acted as both an investment bank and a commercial bank. Today that is a reality among the largest banks we see today. The college game also changed - significantly - from what it was back in those days.

(06-10-2016 08:30 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 08:24 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-10-2016 07:50 AM)miko33 Wrote:  Counter point: If the NFL goes for a true blue development league, then there is no longer any incentive for the NFL to keep Saturday "holy" for college football. Do the math with the assumption that the NFL takes Saturdays, and the NFL D-league EASILY is absorbed and ultimately give the NFL a superior product. And really, I would NOT blame the NFL one bit if it takes the CFB establishment on directly. CFB will have done this to itself by morphing itself into a league full of ringers and semi-pro mentality. You're always talking about monetizing everything in sports. This is what the NFL SHOULD do if it wants to increase its earning potential.

You think the NFL doesn't play on Fridays and Saturdays during the college and high school season because they are swell fellas who don't want to hurt the lower levels of football?

Let me set the record straight.

The NFL had attempted a novel idea. Selling its TV rights on a league basis rather than team-by-team. They twice ran into anti-trust roadblocks, so new commissioner Pete Rozelle went to Congress and asked for a limited anti-trust exemption to allow them to sell as a group.

Congress gave him his exemption (the Sports Broadcast Act) with three conditions.
1. No NFL games televised on Saturday during the college regular season.
2. No NFL games televised on Friday during the high school football season.
3. The infamous blackout rule where if a game isn't sold out it can't be telecast locally. That was Congress not the NFL who gave us the blackout.

The NFL had zero issues with going head-to-head vs colleges on Thursday once the colleges demonstrated there was a market for Thursday night football and the NFL has saber rattled about going head-to-head vs CFP.

The law, not chivalry is what keeps the NFL from playing on Friday and Saturday.

That was a long time ago. I'm aware of the past. I also wouldn't put my faith into congress regarding college sports either. Back when Rozelle was in charge it would have been unthinkable to a banking entity that acted as both an investment bank and a commercial bank. Today that is a reality among the largest banks we see today. The college game also changed - significantly - from what it was back in those days.

Well I will absolutely concede that since the Baby Boomers became the majority in Congress in the 1998 mid-terms that Congress has been much less friendly toward colleges.

I'm sure this statistic doesn't exist, but it would be interesting to know the trend over time of the percentage of people who are watching NFL game live but aren't actually at the game.

What I'm getting at is I wonder if that percentage has increased significantly, since that exemption framework was approved.