https://sports.yahoo.com/vince-mcmahon-m...19710.html

There were a few things that came out last week, but now Vince has sold off $100 million of his stock in WWE to fund other sports related business in his new company, Alpha Entertainment, with a new football league being likely.

He’s applied for trademark to UFL, URFL, URFL, and United Football League.

I have no idea if such a league will work, but if it gets even one season like the XFL did I could totally see Manziel playing in it.

At this stage, no league is gonna challenge the NFL. Now maybe he can work some kind of political angle based on some of the politically incorrect things the NFL players have done recently to draw fans and viewers away from it but let's be real here. The NFL is too mainstream to be toppled over by some newcomer league and it has too many teams at this point to merge with another league. There's only about 5-10 NFL caliber markets left anyways.

What he ought to do is promote a mainstream league in a sport that has almost crossed the threshold, such as lacrosse or soccer. He could fund the MLS, bring over some big international superstars and make it a truly international league. That would be a way wiser investment.

I think there’s a good dozen markets or so that don’t currently have an NFL team that could support a football team, plus several existing markets could support another team if it played in the spring instead of the fall.

East: Toronto, Milwaukee, Columbus, Louisville, Memphis, Birmingham, Norfolk, RTP, Orlando, St Louis

West: Vancouver, Portland, San Diego, Sacramento, Salt Lake, San Antonio, Oklahoma City

If you’re looking at a league attendance in the 30,000-40,000 range any combination of these cities would be great. You’d probably need to have franchises in NY, LA, and Chicago to make the league more legit.

You can potentially have some immediate star power with possible QBs Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel. Don’t have the three year out of high school rule and you’ll get some 4 and 5 star recruits, especially in the running back position, straight out of high school before the NFL can get them.

You won’t be able to pay players what the NFL does, but you can pay them earlier, and you can eventually get some really good talent. It wouldn’t happen right away, but if patient a spring league could really take off. It could likely be comparable to MLS within 5-10 years, possibly surpassing it by then.

Would McMahon and any other owners by that patient, and/or be willing to accept that the NFL would still be top dog? Who knows.

Of course fewer kids are being allowed to play football, as health issues are really causing parents to be hesitant on what their kids participate in. MLS would definitely be a safer bet. Being in Texas I know nothing of lacrosse but I have heard it is a growing sport on the coasts. I remember seeing something about a potential cricket league forming in the states as well. Cricket would definitely be the riskiest of those now, but may be completely different story in 30 years.

If he wants to lend the XFL brand to the AFL then I can see it, but even with the knocks the NFL has taken,the public voted with their eyes and their dollar and caused the XFL to fold. He won't be able to do WWF "show" with football.

(12-21-2017 11:02 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  At this stage, no league is gonna challenge the NFL. Now maybe he can work some kind of political angle based on some of the politically incorrect things the NFL players have done recently to draw fans and viewers away from it but let's be real here. The NFL is too mainstream to be toppled over by some newcomer league and it has too many teams at this point to merge with another league. There's only about 5-10 NFL caliber markets left anyways.

What he ought to do is promote a mainstream league in a sport that has almost crossed the threshold, such as lacrosse or soccer. He could fund the MLS, bring over some big international superstars and make it a truly international league. That would be a way wiser investment.

Don't forget his wife is a Trump Admin appointee. And Trump hates the NFL (since the USFL days).

I would bet they would try to sell it as a "Patriotic" alternative to the NFL.

Vince should drop the XFL and go with USFL. Go with eight USA teams to start with. San Diego, Salt Lake, St Louis, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Canton, NYC Area, & Louisville or Orlando.

He should use the Canadian Football rules & monetary pay scale. Play the CFL schedule. And the USFL Champion plays the Canadian Grey Cup Champions for the North American Championship. The Championship game should be played the second week end of December

He should appeal for the same tax benefits the NFL receives. They should try get a contract with Fox first, if that does not work they should try Trinity Broadcast Channel, OAN (One American News) channel or Max News Channel. Their commentators must be politics free. These channels are already on Direct TV and other outlets.

They should immediately lock up Home Depot, Hobby Lobby, Chick-fil-A, Ace Hardware , SouthWest Airlines & major oil companies As major advertisers

And most of all they and their players should stay out of politics.

^ So his wife will resign from the trump admin?

(12-22-2017 01:20 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I think there’s a good dozen markets or so that don’t currently have an NFL team that could support a football team, plus several existing markets could support another team if it played in the spring instead of the fall.

East: Toronto, Milwaukee, Columbus, Louisville, Memphis, Birmingham, Norfolk, RTP, Orlando, St Louis

West: Vancouver, Portland, San Diego, Sacramento, Salt Lake, San Antonio, Oklahoma City

If you’re looking at a league attendance in the 30,000-40,000 range any combination of these cities would be great. You’d probably need to have franchises in NY, LA, and Chicago to make the league more legit.

You can potentially have some immediate star power with possible QBs Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel. Don’t have the three year out of high school rule and you’ll get some 4 and 5 star recruits, especially in the running back position, straight out of high school before the NFL can get them.

You won’t be able to pay players what the NFL does, but you can pay them earlier, and you can eventually get some really good talent. It wouldn’t happen right away, but if patient a spring league could really take off. It could likely be comparable to MLS within 5-10 years, possibly surpassing it by then.

Would McMahon and any other owners by that patient, and/or be willing to accept that the NFL would still be top dog? Who knows.

Of course fewer kids are being allowed to play football, as health issues are really causing parents to be hesitant on what their kids participate in. MLS would definitely be a safer bet. Being in Texas I know nothing of lacrosse but I have heard it is a growing sport on the coasts. I remember seeing something about a potential cricket league forming in the states as well. Cricket would definitely be the riskiest of those now, but may be completely different story in 30 years.

MLS is losing a ton of money, some say it’s a ponzi scheme. The only reason they make a profit is because of their media arm who also controls the federations media rights.

They kind of buried the lead in my opinion, where the new XFL promises to have fast moving games that will get done in 2 hours. That is something I have waiting for the NFL and NCAA FBS to do. Speed up the games. This is the most interesting part of this new league to me.

(01-06-2018 03:55 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  

(12-22-2017 01:20 AM)Phlipper33 Wrote:  I think there’s a good dozen markets or so that don’t currently have an NFL team that could support a football team, plus several existing markets could support another team if it played in the spring instead of the fall.

East: Toronto, Milwaukee, Columbus, Louisville, Memphis, Birmingham, Norfolk, RTP, Orlando, St Louis

West: Vancouver, Portland, San Diego, Sacramento, Salt Lake, San Antonio, Oklahoma City

If you’re looking at a league attendance in the 30,000-40,000 range any combination of these cities would be great. You’d probably need to have franchises in NY, LA, and Chicago to make the league more legit.

You can potentially have some immediate star power with possible QBs Tim Tebow and Johnny Manziel. Don’t have the three year out of high school rule and you’ll get some 4 and 5 star recruits, especially in the running back position, straight out of high school before the NFL can get them.

You won’t be able to pay players what the NFL does, but you can pay them earlier, and you can eventually get some really good talent. It wouldn’t happen right away, but if patient a spring league could really take off. It could likely be comparable to MLS within 5-10 years, possibly surpassing it by then.

Would McMahon and any other owners by that patient, and/or be willing to accept that the NFL would still be top dog? Who knows.

Of course fewer kids are being allowed to play football, as health issues are really causing parents to be hesitant on what their kids participate in. MLS would definitely be a safer bet. Being in Texas I know nothing of lacrosse but I have heard it is a growing sport on the coasts. I remember seeing something about a potential cricket league forming in the states as well. Cricket would definitely be the riskiest of those now, but may be completely different story in 30 years.

MLS is losing a ton of money, some say it’s a ponzi scheme. The only reason they make a profit is because of their media arm who also controls the federations media rights.

It's not a Ponzi scheme. Its profitability is due to media rights, which is also the case for other sports. The only reason weaker NHL teams aren't on the verge of bankruptcy is the league's $5 billion deal for Canadian broadcast rights. The Miami Marlins are a failure at the ticket office and have sold off all of their best players, but the team sold for more than $1 billion because MLB created BAMTech which is now valued at $3.75 billion after Disney bought a majority interest.

The new XFL can be a success if they are willing to take a financial loss for a few years while building the brand and can successfully attract segments of the market that the NFL has neglected.

These are the markets where I think they can be successful:

Oakland
San Diego
Salt Lake
San Antonio
Dallas
Houston
St Louis
Memphis
Louisville
Birmingham
Orlando
NYC market (probably in Rutgers' stadium)

Places I don't think they'd be successful:
Sacramento
Portland

(01-28-2018 02:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The new XFL can be a success if they are willing to take a financial loss for a few years while building the brand and can successfully attract segments of the market that the NFL has neglected.

These are the markets where I think they can be successful:

Oakland
San Diego
Salt Lake
San Antonio
Dallas
Houston
St Louis
Memphis
Louisville
Birmingham
Orlando
NYC market (probably in Rutgers' stadium)

Places I don't think they'd be successful:
Sacramento
Portland

Oakland is going to suddenly support a third tier team
Why would anyone in Dallas or Houston support XFL?
Same as in NYC?

Alabama loves it's pro teams already (Alabama and Auburn)

San Diego didn't care enough about it's NFL team, won't care about XFL


In reality, the market is very limited for XFL. It will be a flop

As we've seen, the only long term impacts of these "NFL" competitors is that the NFL shows back up with a better product. Broadcasting techniques, rules, etc.

If McMahon goes for a shorter game, the NFL will have a shorter game as well. All it takes is less commercial breaks.

NFL would have to make significant rule changes to cut game time even to 2.5 hours.

Hard to cut commercial breaks too much, because that's how the networks make back some of the outrageous amounts they pay the NFL.

The easiest change to make: Don't stop the clock after incomplete passes. It might have made sense to do so way back when there was only one football in the stadium. But they have a couple of dozen game balls now. It takes no more time to restart after an incomplete pass than it does after a running play. The clock should be stopped only for plays that go out of bounds, scoring plays, changes of possession, injuries that require a player to be assisted off the field, and time outs. That's it.

How does soccer manage to end their matches in two hours or less? It's simple. They don't stop the clock.

To prevent teams from using fake injuries to stop the clock, there should be an NFL rule that any player whose injury requires a clock stoppage has to be taken to the locker room and can't return to the game in that quarter.

Also, stop playing overtime in the regular season. It's unnecessary. The game ends when the 4th quarter clock reads 0:00. No exceptions other than playoff games.

(01-29-2018 12:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Oakland is going to suddenly support a third tier team
Why would anyone in Dallas or Houston support XFL?
Same as in NYC?

Alabama loves it's pro teams already (Alabama and Auburn)

San Diego didn't care enough about it's NFL team, won't care about XFL


In reality, the market is very limited for XFL. It will be a flop

I don't think it's fair to say San Diego didn't care about the Chargers. They just wouldn't build a new stadium for them. That's California in a nutshell.

And yeah, Dallas is a stretch because that's Cowboys country, although another pro team might be a diversion from the mediocrity that is the Texans.

And again, if you're not in New York or LA, if not both, any media venture you do will fail.

(01-29-2018 12:39 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(01-28-2018 02:49 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The new XFL can be a success if they are willing to take a financial loss for a few years while building the brand and can successfully attract segments of the market that the NFL has neglected.

These are the markets where I think they can be successful:

Oakland
San Diego
Salt Lake
San Antonio
Dallas
Houston
St Louis
Memphis
Louisville
Birmingham
Orlando
NYC market (probably in Rutgers' stadium)

Places I don't think they'd be successful:
Sacramento
Portland

Oakland is going to suddenly support a third tier team
Why would anyone in Dallas or Houston support XFL?
Same as in NYC?

Alabama loves it's pro teams already (Alabama and Auburn)

San Diego didn't care enough about it's NFL team, won't care about XFL


In reality, the market is very limited for XFL. It will be a flop

Oakland and San Diego will come out and support the XFL of simply to give the bird to the NFL that abandoned it. It's not that these cities did not support their NFL teams; their NFL teams didn't think the taxpayers were being fleeced enough in order to provide them new stadiums. St Louis will be the same way.

I toss out Houston and Dallas because they are large football rabid markets that have a few different stadium options that would work for the league. NYC seems logical if simply because it's the nation's largest and it was a market that the XFL felt they needed last time.

(01-29-2018 05:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  NFL would have to make significant rule changes to cut game time even to 2.5 hours.

Hard to cut commercial breaks too much, because that's how the networks make back some of the outrageous amounts they pay the NFL.

The easiest change to make: Don't stop the clock after incomplete passes. It might have made sense to do so way back when there was only one football in the stadium. But they have a couple of dozen game balls now. It takes no more time to restart after an incomplete pass than it does after a running play. The clock should be stopped only for plays that go out of bounds, scoring plays, changes of possession, injuries that require a player to be assisted off the field, and time outs. That's it.

How does soccer manage to end their matches in two hours or less? It's simple. They don't stop the clock.

To prevent teams from using fake injuries to stop the clock, there should be an NFL rule that any player whose injury requires a clock stoppage has to be taken to the locker room and can't return to the game in that quarter.

Also, stop playing overtime in the regular season. It's unnecessary. The game ends when the 4th quarter clock reads 0:00. No exceptions other than playoff games.

And that's stopping the clock if the runner goes out of bounds in the last five minutes of the half, as currently constituted.

I'd be fine with overtime as long as it's short and deliberate. Have a predetermined criteria like time of possession determine who gets to elect for the ball first. Give the ball to the first team on the 25 or 50. 5:00 OT. If you don't get the ball or the ball with enough time to do anything tough, use your time outs, you should have won in regulation.

Or you could use some criteria, like total yardage to determine wins after four quarters of a tie game. Do that and suddenly teams can't just sit on the ball late. I just hate ties and so do the standings.

@Muskie

To be fair, San Diego's stadium is almost ready to be condemned. They literally had to get a new stadium, unlike the Raiders, who were just too proud to move in with the 49ers, even on a temporary basis. There's nothing wrong with being a co-tenant, especially if you have almost nowhere to go. They found a new stadium/city but abandoned their long time fanbase in the process.

Back to two posts ago, the biggest thing the NFL can do is not review every little nic-nac play. Except in the final two minutes of the half, each team gets one replay per game. Give a remote refereree the chance to change a call if they spot it quick enough but otherwise stop delaying the game for five minutes constantly over a close call.

In which high school stadium will the Saint Louis XFL team play?