NFL ponders 17 game schedule & overseas Super Bowl

[Mista T]

Commissioner Roger Goodell said that the NFL is considering:

• 
  
• playing a Super Bowl outside the United States
  
• cutting the exhibition season to three games and adding a 17th game, to be played outside the United States.
  

A Super Bowl in Toronto should be no big deal for any NFL fan, but Mexico City or London would be a stretch. Fans from East Coast teams would not be much worse off travelling to London than the West Coast, and low winter air fares would be a plus; however, it would still involve substantial travel. Worse yet, West Coast fans would have to travel nearly half way around the world to see their team playing a Super Bowl in e.g. Rome or Athens.

Converting one exhibition game to a regular season game could be an improvement. Many fans feel a bit ripped off by having to pay full price for two home exhibition games, and the exhibition season is too long for just about everyone except the coaches (btw: does anyone remember the 6 game exhibitions?). Adding a 17th game to be played overseas should mitigate fan displeasure at the current NFL overseas game plan, which would result in losing a home game every 16 years. This could potentially add a great road trip opportunity each year for Ravens fans. But, the plan could result in sixteen NFL games being played overseas annually, which might be excessive. Perhaps, instead, some of the 17th games could be played in neutral US cities, especially expansion candidates, e.g. LA or San Antonio, or in Honolulu.

[DRayRaven]

Playing the Super Bowl overseas is a horrible idea. It's already a game for the privileged few the average fan can't attend, but sending the game to London or Paris would make it even worse. Instead of seeing Jack Nicholson and John Travolta in the stands, we'd see Prince William or Jacques Chirac instead? No, thanks.

On the other hand, I would like a 17 week schedule. If the NFL wants to use the extra game to market itself in foreign markets, that's fine with me. It's certainly a better option than leaving a team like Miami with only seven games in its home stadium.

[Brandon]

Playing the Super Bowl overseas is a horrible idea. It's already a game for the privileged few the average fan can't attend, but sending the game to London or Paris would make it even worse. Instead of seeing Jack Nicholson and John Travolta in the stands, we'd see Prince William or Jacques Chirac instead? No, thanks.

On the other hand, I would like a 17 week schedule. If the NFL wants to use the extra game to market itself in foreign markets, that's fine with me. It's certainly a better option than leaving a team like Miami with only seven games in its home stadium.

I completely agreee with this. I really don't see a Super Bowl overseas happening though.

[berad]

they are also thinking of putting the Probowl after the Conference Championships and between the Superbowl.

A horrible idea if you ask me

[BmoreRavensFan410]

football is AMERICA's sport, so it should stay in AMERICA, also moving the probowl game before the superbowl is a dumb idea

[theFRANCHISE]

Honestly, as others have said before, moving the Super Bowl outside of the United States (with the exception of maybe Toronto) probably wouldn't work.

There's too many logistical headaches involved that would have to be sorted ahead of time.

For instance, most governments would have a lot of red tape that would delay the game from going as smoothly as it would on American soil. Also, there's the matter of fans of both participating teams having to travel further than most have probably ever gone. Not only would this elevate travel costs and turn many fans off, this could also put them at risk of being taken advantage of in foreign countries. Unless the NFL is willing to put together something along the lines of the Olympic village, there's no way fans could ever escape being taken advantage of. Plus, there's also the chance that international fans may end up occupying more seats than both teams' usual fanbase, which would essentially alienate the American fans over time.

As for the 17-game schedule, I think it could work if the players agree to it. You have to take into account the potential fatigue factor that would arise from having to play a 17th game overseas, even though the 4th exhibition game would be eliminated. Perhaps spacing out the time between the playoffs and the last game of the season would help (even though it'd test our patience even further as fans).

[willis mcgahee run u over]

football is AMERICA's sport, so it should stay in AMERICA, also moving the probowl game before the superbowl is a dumb idea

yep

all 3 are dumb ideas

superbowl should be in america

players in pro-bowl playing in superbowl might get injured

how would you determine what the 17th game would be

[Jesse Conroy]

I like the idea of 3 exhibition games and 17 regular season games.

But nothing overseas, I wouldn't like that.

[Tiz]

I'm not a big fan of overseas games. If you want to expand the appeal of the game hold an exhibition or regular season game in Alaska, South Dakota, New Mexico or one of the many other states that don't have an NFL team.

[Neil]

I'm not a big fan of overseas games. If you want to expand the appeal of the game hold an exhibition or regular season game in Alaska, South Dakota, New Mexico or one of the many other states that don't have an NFL team.

That does nothing for the league, mind you. The whole US is already a football market, and low-population areas like that do nothing at all for the NFL. They could do some exhibition work there, but it would be a gift. On the other hand, foreign games have a very real business potential for the league. Imagine the amount of revenue that could be generated by a Mexico City or London franchise? They could even do well to put one in Toronto, although that'd be more difficult, with the existing CFL franchise. Mind you, new and distant franchises aren't super-important. There's always the merchandise sales, as people in new markets purchase those flamboyant 'Ocho Cinco' jerseys. You can strike interesting new deals with international sponsors. But most importantly of all, from the standpoint of the Commish, is the TV rights. Imagine if they could popularize the NFL in the UK, how much the broadcast rights would be worth? If the game is reasonably popular, it could be billions.

[Tiz]

That does nothing for the league, mind you. The whole US is already a football market, and low-population areas like that do nothing at all for the NFL. They could do some exhibition work there, but it would be a gift. On the other hand, foreign games have a very real business potential for the league. Imagine the amount of revenue that could be generated by a Mexico City or London franchise? They could even do well to put one in Toronto, although that'd be more difficult, with the existing CFL franchise. Mind you, new and distant franchises aren't super-important. There's always the merchandise sales, as people in new markets purchase those flamboyant 'Ocho Cinco' jerseys. You can strike interesting new deals with international sponsors. But most importantly of all, from the standpoint of the Commish, is the TV rights. Imagine if they could popularize the NFL in the UK, how much the broadcast rights would be worth? If the game is reasonably popular, it could be billions.

I'm sure the people in Alberquerque love the fact that you refer to them as a low population area, but it's simply not the case.

The mexico city thing, I agree about revenue because of the size of the stadium used there. But the fact remains if you have your 17th game in the state capitols of the states that don't have NFL you'll get the same turnout, if not more, than you would by going overseas.

[Neil]

I'm sure the people in Alberquerque love the fact that you refer to them as a low population area, but it's simply not the case.

'Low population' is, of course, relative. Nevertheless, the eight hundred thousand or so inhabitants of Alberquerque have less to offer the league than fourteen million Londoners.

The mexico city thing, I agree about revenue because of the size of the stadium used there. But the fact remains if you have your 17th game in the state capitols of the states that don't have NFL you'll get the same turnout, if not more, than you would by going overseas.

If the gate mattered, LA would still have a team, and the NFL stadiums would be built to house a hundred and fifty thousand, instead of seventy or eighty thousand. It's the marketing, sponsorship and TV money that matters.

Besides, it's not like every city has an NFL-calibre stadium.

[BrownsFan]

That does nothing for the league, mind you. The whole US is already a football market, and low-population areas like that do nothing at all for the NFL. They could do some exhibition work there, but it would be a gift. On the other hand, foreign games have a very real business potential for the league. Imagine the amount of revenue that could be generated by a Mexico City or London franchise? They could even do well to put one in Toronto, although that'd be more difficult, with the existing CFL franchise. Mind you, new and distant franchises aren't super-important. There's always the merchandise sales, as people in new markets purchase those flamboyant 'Ocho Cinco' jerseys. You can strike interesting new deals with international sponsors. But most importantly of all, from the standpoint of the Commish, is the TV rights. Imagine if they could popularize the NFL in the UK, how much the broadcast rights would be worth? If the game is reasonably popular, it could be billions.

I agree with some of these points and while the Glazers own ManU and Randy Lerner now owns Aston Villa (although they say it's because he has a huge love affair with footie but who knows if that's the *real* reason?), it makes you wonder if owners like this and others are the ones influencing other owners to dip their hands into the overseas market and team shares more.