NFL Schedule Expansion and International Games
GeoffC90
internationally-hosted NFL games, imagine the possibilities in a
proposal to expand, not the number of teams, but the number of games
- by one game at a neutral site (US or international).
The following is something I came up with last year and sent around to
some of the NFL editorial writers, but I didn't get any responses. I
find it interesting to consider the possibilities, and, this seems like
something that, while out there a bit, could actually be accomplished.
Paul Tagliabue has made claims that the NFL is committed to having more
regular season games in international sites. Let us assume that Mr.
Tagliabue's successor maintains that commitment. Since it is unfair
to have teams give up home-field games for what are neutral field sites
(or potentially hostile -- I'm pretty sure I saw more shots of 49er
fans than Cards fans in the 2005 Mexico City game), I see this as an
opportunity for the NFL to expand the regular season by one game (from
16 to 17 games) by adding an extra divisional contest at a neutral
(international) site. At the same time, the pre-season schedule could
be shortened to either 2 or 3 games to the sounds of much rejoicing.
Another bonus is that teams will either be winning or losing teams -
no more .500 teams (except in the unlikely event of an 8-8-1 or similar
record featuring ties).
How would it work? Teams that finish 1st and 2nd in a division play
each other a third time the following season, as do teams that finish
3rd and 4th. Both games will be played at the same international
stadium in a two-game package (fans have to buy tickets in a two-game
package to ensure ticket sales of the potentially less attractive 3rd
place vs. 4th place game). Up to eight international sites would be
used to accommodate the games. (We'd be adding sixteen games -- two
games per site would give us eight sites).
NFL exhibition and NFL Europe games have been played in a number of
international cities in the past:
Tokyo, Japan
Osaka, Japan
Sydney, Australia
Vancouver, BC
Toronto, ON
Montreal, QC
Ottawa, ON
Hamilton, ON
Mexico City, Mexico
Monterrey, Mexico
Dublin, Ireland
London, England
Glasgow, Scotland
Edinburgh, Scotland
Goteborg, Sweden
Barcelona, Spain
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Berlin, Germany
Frankfurt, Germany
Düsseldorf, Germany
Hamburg, Germany
Cologne, Germany
I would suggest that the neutral site is not required to be
international should the NFL want to have some games in an American
city without a team. I am thinking, in particular, of Los Angeles. The
NFL could stage some games in LA instead of ominously holding the
specter of a move to LA over the heads of fans in places like New
Orleans and Minnesota. (And, if they wanted to, the league could hold
games in other US cities that have had NFL aspirations like San
Antonio, Sacramento, Orlando, etc.).
Here's one possible schedule:
AFC West -- Los Angeles, CA
NFC West -- Tokyo, Japan
AFC South -- Mexico City, Mexico
NFC South -- Monterrey, Mexico
AFC North -- Toronto, ON
NFC North -- London, England
AFC East -- Amsterdam, Netherlands
NFC East -- Berlin, Germany
If the teams finish the prior season as they did in 2005, you would
have Washington vs. NY Giants and Philadelphia vs. Dallas scheduled for
Berlin, Kansas City vs. Denver and San Diego vs. Oakland scheduled for
LA, etc. The divisions should rotate amongst the international cities
(i.e., the same division shouldn't play in Tokyo in back-to-back
seasons). I'd suggest that only Western divisions play in places across
the Pacific (Japan, Australia, ... perhaps China). I'd also suggest
that Western divisions never play in places across the Atlantic
(Europe). Any division could play in North American cities.
Cities that are home to NFL Europe or CFL teams could make tickets
available to those teams' season ticket holders first.
Scheduling may be a little weird for some places, as the league will
want to keep these games live in somewhat normal timeslots in the US.
This will be the hardest in places like Japan and Australia. For those
places, I'd say the best bet would be to have the games start at 9 PM
Eastern on Saturday which would mean an 11:00 AM Sunday start time in
Japan after the US is off daylight savings time (early November
beginning in 2007). In Australia, you're probably looking at having the
games in the early part of the season since they're in the southern
hemisphere -- which would also mean an 11:00 AM Sunday local start
time.
A team's 'bye' week should be scheduled to follow the overseas
games.
If the NFL pre-season is cut down to two games, then the teams would
split the profits from neutral site games equally. I'm sure cutting
down to one home pre-season game per year would please the majority of
fans. If the NFL decides to keep three games, then teams would
alternate each year having one or two home pre-season games. In the
year that a team has one home pre-season game, then the neutral site
game is considered its home game for profit purposes.
Thoughts? (other than I've spent too much time thinking about this)
Thanks,
-Geoff
(P.S. - I realize the LA points are a bit dated, as the NFL is
pushing very hard for an LA team of some sort (relocation or
expansion). Relocation doesn't really affect the proposed plan, but
expansion by one (to an odd number of teams) really messes everything
up (since you can't have an odd number of teams all playing an odd
number of games). They'd have to expand by two (or four or eight!).)
rob...@bestweb.net
> Cities that are home to NFL Europe or CFL teams could make tickets
> available to those teams' season ticket holders first.
As a test of draw (for a potnential future home team), it'd be better
if they didn't.
> If the NFL pre-season is cut down to two games, then the teams would
> split the profits from neutral site games equally.
I'd rather the host bid on payments to get the game, then keep the
entire revenue.
Robert
GeoffC90
> GeoffC90 wrote:
>
> > Cities that are home to NFL Europe or CFL teams could make tickets
> > available to those teams' season ticket holders first.
>
> As a test of draw (for a potnential future home team), it'd be better
> if they didn't.
>
would affect draw to offer first chance to buy tickets (I'm not saying
give free/discounted tickets -- just offer first chance to buy them) to
season ticket holders for NFL Europe or CFL teams that play in the host
city. I would see this as in the NFL's best interest for NFL Europe
(since they run the league) as it may be an incentive to buy a season
ticket for the NFLE team in order to get first crack at tickets for a
real NFL game. For the CFL, I would see it as a nice gesture on the
NFL's part to the CFL and its fans that support the team already
playing in town (that they get first crack at the tickets -- once again
not free or discounted).
As far as 'potential future home team', I assume you mean expansion to
these cities. While the league might consider North America expansion
(potentially to CFL cities), I doubt the NFL would actually expand the
core league to other continents. I think they're mainly interested in
marketing and selling mercandise to Europe and marketing NFLE (with
potentially similar intentions in other parts of the world).
> > If the NFL pre-season is cut down to two games, then the teams would
> > split the profits from neutral site games equally.
>
> I'd rather the host bid on payments to get the game, then keep the
> entire revenue.
>
That would also work, and, in that case, all teams should be
compensated equally based on the aggregate host bids (i.e., something
for the league -- then divide among the 32 teams).
Thanks for the response.
-Geoff
