Originally Posted by DaFace:
What metric is that? "More popular" can mean a million things.
Thats the metric he used. I googled and the first thing that popped up is what I used. Maybe that was wrong on my part but his "least popular sport in the US" was very vague so I did vague research lol [Reply]
I hope people knew I was being ridiculous - I did it from mobile and my smilie appeared as 2 question marks .. Im impressed people knew that it was soccer related to begin with.
Why anyone would change the structure of the best sport in the US.. the most entertaining, and the one that doesnt dilute the playoffs with trash teams... is beyond my comprehension.
I get the money aspect, but at some point, greediness will dilute the product and ruin what people love about the sport. [Reply]
Originally Posted by oldman:
If the owners want it, they're going to have to give some concessions to the NFLPA and the fans. First, expand the rosters to 55 or 57 players. Keep the cap to the top 51 or raise the cap $1.5M per player. Second, give an extra bye week. Nobody wants to see Chad Henne QB the Chiefs (possible exception, Chad's family).
As to the cities, keep them all in the US. St. Louis would be about the only city no one would bitch about. Jones would have a fit if a team was allocated to San Antonio. Buffalo and probably 3 of the 4 teams in the NFC North would have problems with Canadian cities. Seattle would probably do a Jerruh about Portland. You'd have the same problems with Honolulu as you would with London (time zones and travel). You'd have to have a dome in Anchorage. There just aren't enough cities that realistically could support a NFL team.
San Diego, North Bay Area/Sacramento, St. Louis, and Norfolk/Hampton Roads are all viable. [Reply]
I'm fine with it, but you better not let anyone breathe on the QB if the ball isn't in his hand, and going low on any player results in an ejection. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief:
San Diego, North Bay Area/Sacramento, St. Louis, and Norfolk/Hampton Roads are all viable.
They just moved a team out of SD because the taxpayers wouldn't pay for a new stadium. Sacramento is 2 1/2 hours from Santa Clara, so I don't see that as a viable oprion. Norfolk is too close to Washington for Dan Synder's comfort. St. Louis is the only possible city. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
What metric is that? "More popular" can mean a million things.
I googled most popular professional sport in the US. As far as viewership, soccer was below the 4 major professional team sports. One site combined viewership with the amount of people that played the sport, which put soccer above hockey. I’m guessing that there’s not a lot of Americans south of Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. that have ever played hockey. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ThyKingdomCome15:
May as well go the NHL route and have teams in Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, and Winnipeg. All in due time of course. Let's not get too greedy just yet.
I bet the NFL has some sorta agreement with the CFL to not do that.
Originally Posted by oldman:
They just moved a team out of SD because the taxpayers wouldn't pay for a new stadium. Sacramento is 2 1/2 hours from Santa Clara, so I don't see that as a viable oprion. Norfolk is too close to Washington for Dan Synder's comfort. St. Louis is the only possible city.
Because Spanos torpedoed any goodwill in San Diego. It might be 2 and a half hours by car with no traffic but reality is far different. Norfolk is more than 4 and a half hours away from DC and farther from Landover. I know, I drove back and forth from those areas many times. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Spott:
I googled most popular professional sport in the US. As far as viewership, soccer was below the 4 major professional team sports. One site combined viewership with the amount of people that played the sport, which put soccer above hockey. I’m guessing that there’s not a lot of Americans south of Michigan, Wisconsin, etc. that have ever played hockey.
Yeah, it's really tough to come up with a ranking that covers all of the different angles. Just spitballing, you could rank a sport's popularity in terms of:
Percent who are currently active participants
Percent who have ever actively participated
Attendance at games (K-12, college, or pro - all different)
TV viewership
Ticket revenue
TV revenue
Opinion based - forced ranking (e.g., which is your favorite?)
Opinion based - all that apply (e.g., which do you like?)
I'm sure there are plenty more. It just doesn't make a ton of sense to throw out percentages in a vacuum when we don't know what they mean. [Reply]
I don't need more games at all and prefer not to lengthen the season. But if they want to do so, I'd be intrigued by a new rule that teams play an 18-game season and players are only allowed to play 15 or 16 games. It would add a new level of strategy about who gets rested and when. It would probably add competition because the strong teams would likely rest their stars against the weakest teams.
The strategy would be really cool. You probably wouldn't want to rest players too early in the season, because ideally you'll hold their individual byes for if they get injured. But if you wait too late, you might end up having to rest players in critical games with playoff implications. And how many starters can you rest against a team like the Panthers or Patriots before you're taking an unacceptable risk of a loss? [Reply]
