2013 NFC North/NFL Thread

[GGGG]

Also, the Super Bowl doesn't need to be moved back if they eliminate the pointless bye week after the conf championships.

It's not pointless to the teams that are playing.  They have done this before, and the consensus was that between practice, the mandatory events, and travel, that it was very difficult for teams to feel prepared for that game.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I see the potential for a perfect storm for the NFL in the next couple of years.  I'm going to the game Sunday but only after my dad called and offered to buy tickets for he, my brother and I to go to the game.  Weather is definitely a factor, so is the short turn around and the fact that a lot of people had given up on this team a month ago.

I think the biggest factor is the in-game experience is crap.  I don't understand why teams(not just an NFL issue) don't invest in high speed cell network's and/or high volume wi-fi.  Getting the internet at a game is damn near impossible most days and like it or not things like twitter and highlights from other games or fantasy football(during the regular season) are things that are integral to me watching a game these days.  It's somewhat better now that they have the new video board and show highlights, but you can miss a lot being at a game that you would catch being at home.  Also, the pricing is pretty insane, especially for Packer fans.  Not only is there the game ticket, but travel costs, meals, parking(if your a sucker and use the lots) and any incidentals at the game.  Plus the time involved to travel to and from.

You combine all that with some of the changes in the game, reffing atrocities, PR stupidity, and any potential impact of the concussion thing and the NFL could have some real issues.  I don't think anything catastrophic, but I do think a pretty big sea change is coming.

One other thing, another Thursday night package????  I'm about as big a football fan as you'll find and I don't think I watched more than 2 hours of Thursday night football collectively this season.  Part of it was terrible match-ups, part was it's bad football(turn around is too quick), and part is I can't commit 4 nights to football(Saturday(college), Sunday, and Monday are must haves).

I think Bill Simmons has it right, the league should go to an 18 week schedule(still 16 games per team) and have two bye weeks per team.  Fewer games on each week but how many games can you really watch?  Eliminate Thursday games but you can extend the season and revenue an extra week will improving the product by allowing teams to be fresher and keep star players on the field more.  Additionally, they moves the last two weeks of the season out of competition with college football so you can play a couple of Saturday games on the final two weeks when the games count the most.  That pushes the SuperBowl back but who cares, nothing interesting from a sports perspective is happening in mid-February that would conflict with a SuperBowl Sunday.

There is a saturation point... and eventually the NFL will get there. (probably not yet though).

The NFL is a hollywood studio/television network. Its looking to produce/sell content. It's not a sports league.

They want thursday night football, they would love tuesday night football. Hell, they would like to buy the CFL and put on content 4 nights per week. Football draws good ratings compared to reruns of Murphy Brown, and delivers the key male beer-drinking demo. The NFL loves to produce and sell content. As long as people watch on TV, the NFL will keep selling it.

Honestly, other than bad PR, the NFL doesn't care about full stadiums any longer. Sure, they make money on people at the games, but the VAST MAJORITY of money comes from TV.

[GGGG]

Honestly, other than bad PR, the NFL doesn't care about full stadiums any longer. Sure, they make money on people at the games, but the VAST MAJORITY of money comes from TV.

Agreed.  Full stadiums are more about optics for television than they are revenue for the teams.

[mu03eng]

Agreed.  Full stadiums are more about optics for television than they are revenue for the teams.

I agree with that, but that's what makes the black out rule so stupid.  They seem complete blind to the optics of the Packers not having a game on tv.  It won't be blacked out but the damage is done from a PR standpoint because the possibility is mind boggling enough.

[GGGG]

That is why I think the Packers and the local Fox affiliates end up eating the difference.  It's about $350,000 at this point.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Also, the Super Bowl doesn't need to be moved back if they eliminate the pointless bye week after the conf championships.

Duh, that's the week the Pro Bowl is played.  WTF is wrong with that you didn't know that it was the Pro Bowl week.   

[martyconlonontherun]

You have to wonder if the NFL refuses to move on blackout rules, if stadium sizes will shrink or become more complex. Lambeau is the 3rd largest at 80,750 and the highest is the redskins stadium at 85K. The Cowboys have expandable seating with a "sell-out" ranging from 80K to 105K. The new levi stadium will range from 69K to 75K.

[DegenerateDish]

Agreed.  Full stadiums are more about optics for television than they are revenue for the teams.

You guys are wrong here, it may be micro/marco view of things, but there's a lot more to it than that.

NFL teams split/made $180 mil per team last season on split revenues (TV, licensing, etc.). Cowboys alone make $75 mil just on premium seating per season. Yes, it's not equal to $180 mil, but combine that with instadium sponsorship, Cowboys made $100 mil last season alone, and you are talking lots of real in stadium revenue. Yes, the Cowboys are at the high end. But there's a reason they are worth over $2 billion.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You have to wonder if the NFL refuses to move on blackout rules, if stadium sizes will shrink or become more complex. Lambeau is the 3rd largest at 80,750 and the highest is the redskins stadium at 85K. The Cowboys have expandable seating with a "sell-out" ranging from 80K to 105K. The new levi stadium will range from 69K to 75K.

That's actually an interesting one.

If the NFL was re-starting itself from scratch, I imagine the structure would be more about 30-40,000 person stadiums (that have a ton of luxury box and fan-friendly amenities), but then the NFL would try to be in 40-50 markets. The NFL has proven that it can get good enough ratings with "small market" teams.

Maybe the "AFC" plays on Sundays and Thursdays and the "NFC" plays on Sundays and Wednesdays.

I know it sounds crazy, but the NFL makes $ on television content. Therefore, the NFL is looking for ways to maximize it's available content. 50 teams. Spread out the schedule. Maybe buy out the CFL and add those markets as well. Extend the season to 20 weeks. Make the playoffs larger/longer. Add some players to the rosters (to satisfy the union).

The quality of football would go down, but they would have more content to sell... and the NFL is about quantity, not quality right now. They don't make more money with "better football", but they do make more money with "more football".

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You guys are wrong here, it may be micro/marco view of things, but there's a lot more to it than that.

NFL teams split/made $180 mil per team last season on split revenues (TV, licensing, etc.). Cowboys alone make $75 mil just on premium seating per season. Yes, it's not equal to $180 mil, but combine that with instadium sponsorship, Cowboys made $100 mil last season alone, and you are talking lots of real in stadium revenue. Yes, the Cowboys are at the high end. But there's a reason they are worth over $2 billion.

When season ticket sales go down, the NFL will get nervous.

There is money to be made in attendance, but I don't think single game tickets (even playoffs) make much of a dent. SEASON tickets, and corporate sales certainly make a dent.

Don't get me wrong, (insert owner) would LOVE a sold out playoff game. But, in reality, it's not that much of the pie. TV is king, especially to the league office.

[Coleman]

That's actually an interesting one.

If the NFL was re-starting itself from scratch, I imagine the structure would be more about 30-40,000 person stadiums (that have a ton of luxury box and fan-friendly amenities), but then the NFL would try to be in 40-50 markets. The NFL has proven that it can get good enough ratings with "small market" teams.

Maybe the "AFC" plays on Sundays and Thursdays and the "NFC" plays on Sundays and Wednesdays.

I know it sounds crazy, but the NFL makes $ on television content. Therefore, the NFL is looking for ways to maximize it's available content. 50 teams. Spread out the schedule. Maybe buy out the CFL and add those markets as well. Extend the season to 20 weeks. Make the playoffs larger/longer. Add some players to the rosters (to satisfy the union).

The quality of football would go down, but they would have more content to sell... and the NFL is about quantity, not quality right now. They don't make more money with "better football", but they do make more money with "more football".

Interesting take, but what markets would it expand to? What markets are left that can support an NFL team? Portland? Las Vegas? LA? Toronto?

Beyond the 4 I just mentioned, I'm just not sure there are 10 to 20 more markets to expand to, as you suggest.

I also think that you really start watering down the product at some point that it really denigrates the whole thing. Not sure what that point is, but 40 teams is probably pretty close. I mean, there aren't even 20 good QBs in the league right now. If you add 10 more teams, some of these games could be pretty brutal to watch.

I honestly think in professional sports, 30-35 teams is the perfect amount. That seems to be about where all the major leagues for all sports ended up. Maybe in 20-30 years, if population growth keeps up, that number will grow to 40ish but I just don't think the market is big enough yet.

[brandx]

That's what is out there now. The language of it all is what will be telling. Is he getting salary/bonus all guaranteed in those first 3 years? The bonus will be guaranteed, but did they front load it so heavily with all guaranteed money for three years, and then be able to walk away after year 3 with no dead money?

Actually better for Bears than franchising him for the next 2 years. Don't know what franchise tag would be - but guessing it is around $18. The difference being that if they franchise him, that entire $18 mil goes on the cap next year, whereas I am sure the contract was structured for a much smaller hit the next couple years. Important because of all of the defensive needs.

[brandx]

Interesting take, but what markets would it expand to? What markets are left that can support an NFL team? Portland? Las Vegas? LA? Toronto?

Beyond the 4 I just mentioned, I'm just not sure there are 10 to 20 more markets to expand to, as you suggest.

I also think that you really start watering down the product at some point that it really denigrates the whole thing. Not sure what that point is, but 40 teams is probably pretty close.

May be there now when you look at some of the starting QBs in the league. They can't find 20 quality QBs let alone upping it to 40.

[Coleman]

May be there now when you look at some of the starting QBs in the league. They can't find 20 quality QBs let alone upping it to 40.

Just added that exact same thing to my post 

[martyconlonontherun]

That's actually an interesting one.

If the NFL was re-starting itself from scratch, I imagine the structure would be more about 30-40,000 person stadiums (that have a ton of luxury box and fan-friendly amenities), but then the NFL would try to be in 40-50 markets. The NFL has proven that it can get good enough ratings with "small market" teams.

Maybe the "AFC" plays on Sundays and Thursdays and the "NFC" plays on Sundays and Wednesdays.

I know it sounds crazy, but the NFL makes $ on television content. Therefore, the NFL is looking for ways to maximize it's available content. 50 teams. Spread out the schedule. Maybe buy out the CFL and add those markets as well. Extend the season to 20 weeks. Make the playoffs larger/longer. Add some players to the rosters (to satisfy the union).

The quality of football would go down, but they would have more content to sell... and the NFL is about quantity, not quality right now. They don't make more money with "better football", but they do make more money with "more football".

Don't see it happening. You would dilute the fanbase and have diminishing returns. Wisconsin wouldn't be gaining that many more eyeballs since we view the Packers as the the team for the whole state. Plus fans would lose interest. Parity is nice when there are 30 teams, but if you double that it and only have a 1 in 50 chance of being champions with a crappy QB, it takes away the fun. Look at this thread, there are only a few tier 1 qbs. Imagine the crappy qbs if there were 50 teams.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

They don't make more money with "better football", but they do make more money with "more football".

There will be a saturation point, would anybody watch Tuesday night football with Portland vs Salt Lake? Could they sell that to advertisers?

I have no idea.

I do think the NFL in its current format might be at it's peak... so I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. But, if you are asking me what the NFL would do, I believe they think they could package and sell any team at any time.

[DegenerateDish]

When season ticket sales go down, the NFL will get nervous.

There is money to be made in attendance, but I don't think single game tickets (even playoffs) make much of a dent. SEASON tickets, and corporate sales certainly make a dent.

Don't get me wrong, (insert owner) would LOVE a sold out playoff game. But, in reality, it's not that much of the pie. TV is king, especially to the league office.

I get at what you're saying, and you're not wrong in that regard. But there's a reason the Vikes aren't playing in the Metrodome any more. There's a reason the Raiders are valued so low. There's a reason the Pack expanded Lambeau and there's a reason Jerry World was built.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Don't see it happening. You would dilute the fanbase and have diminishing returns. Wisconsin wouldn't be gaining that many more eyeballs since we view the Packers as the the team for the whole state. Plus fans would lose interest. Parity is nice when there are 30 teams, but if you double that it and only have a 1 in 50 chance of being champions with a crappy QB, it takes away the fun. Look at this thread, there are only a few tier 1 qbs. Imagine the crappy qbs if there were 50 teams.

Well, my scenario was only if they were starting from scratch. Obviously the current infrastructure changes it. The NFL isn't going to 50 teams anytime soon.

However, I think some people are putting too much value on quality of football and/or loyalty of fans.

In the past 20 years, the NFL has seen a massive growth in out of market viewing (loyalty) and people will watch crappy football (look at the crappy thursday night ratings, or the ratings of crappy bowl games).

[mu03eng]

You have to wonder if the NFL refuses to move on blackout rules, if stadium sizes will shrink or become more complex. Lambeau is the 3rd largest at 80,750 and the highest is the redskins stadium at 85K. The Cowboys have expandable seating with a "sell-out" ranging from 80K to 105K. The new levi stadium will range from 69K to 75K.

I think this makes a ton of sense, and I see the NBA going this direction as well.  I think smaller stadiums forces scarcity that may defray some of the lost revenue from ticket volume as well as playing into the market pricing concept Dish talked about.  Additionally, stadiums can be built "cheaper" and fan experience could improve with a reduced stress on stadium infrastructure.  Lastly you could improve home field advantage by designing the stadium to trap noise like the Seahawks do.

I think the NBA definitely goes in that direction.  8,000-12,000 person stadiums that are relatively easy to sell out with internet and entertainment options for a great fan experience.  More intimate and enjoyable to watch than sitting in the noise bleeds.

[mu03eng]

Well, my scenario was only if they were starting from scratch. Obviously the current infrastructure changes it. The NFL isn't going to 50 teams anytime soon.

However, I think some people are putting too much value on quality of football and/or loyalty of fans.

In the past 20 years, the NFL has seen a massive growth in out of market viewing (loyalty) and people will watch crappy football (look at the crappy thursday night ratings, or the ratings of crappy bowl games).

One could argue that college football and college basketball prove this point.  They get great ratings and when compared to the professionals are a "crappy" version of the product.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I get at what you're saying, and you're not wrong in that regard. But there's a reason the Vikes aren't playing in the Metrodome any more. There's a reason the Raiders are valued so low. There's a reason the Pack expanded Lambeau and there's a reason Jerry World was built.

You're right. The OWNERS make a lot of money off of tickets/parking/food. And, its basically "free" because taxpayers fund the stadiums (in some cases).

The league doesn't particularly care. They want the television revenue and ad sales. The league is basically just a television network now. It produces content, packages it, and sells it. The owners obviously have influence with the league, but I don't think the league office is going to freak out about attendance of a few playoff games.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

One could argue that college football and college basketball prove this point.  They get great ratings and when compared to the professionals are a "crappy" version of the product.

Right, although major colleges have built in loyalties/traditions/alumni. I watch MU, but I don't watch crappy NBA teams.

However, if you look specifically at crappy bowl games (insert crap school against insert crap school) in a corporate sponsored bowl game, you'll see that people do actually watch... which is shocking.

[MerrittsMustache]

Well, my scenario was only if they were starting from scratch. Obviously the current infrastructure changes it. The NFL isn't going to 50 teams anytime soon.

However, I think some people are putting too much value on quality of football and/or loyalty of fans.

In the past 20 years, the NFL has seen a massive growth in out of market viewing (loyalty) and people will watch crappy football (look at the crappy thursday night ratings, or the ratings of crappy bowl games).

Exactly. "Starting from scratch" was the key phrase (though maybe "have a do-over" might support my statements more). 50 teams would be doable with smaller stadiums. Just look at college football. In 2012, there were 60 teams that averaged at least 40k per game. The average home attendance for a Big East team was nearly 35k. Sun Belt teams averaged over 20k/game. If there was an established pro team in Little Rock or Louisville or Hartford, they could draw 40k/game.

[Spotcheck Billy]

nm

[DegenerateDish]

You're right. The OWNERS make a lot of money off of tickets/parking/food. And, its basically "free" because taxpayers fund the stadiums (in some cases).

The league doesn't particularly care. They want the television revenue and ad sales. The league is basically just a television network now. It produces content, packages it, and sells it. The owners obviously have influence with the league, but I don't think the league office is going to freak out about attendance of a few playoff games.

This is well said, and I meant in an earlier post to point out the taxpayer funded stadiums, huge point there. That is why the league will freak out though. Taxpayer funded stadiums that don't sell out in the playoffs and said taxpayer then can not watch the game is a big problem. Especially when the league wants to keep leveraging taxpayer dollars for new stadiums down the road.