Jump to content

Teams With Multiple Home Venues.


NicDB
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 12/8/2019 at 8:44 PM, the admiral said:

Toronto is a world-class city (just ask 'em!) with a metro population of around 9 million

Well, close enough...
 

Quote

Toronto is the provincial capital of Ontario and the most populous city in Canada, with a population of 2,731,571 as of 2016. Current to 2016, the Toronto census metropolitan area (CMA), of which the majority is within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), held a population of 5,928,040, making it Canada's most populous CMA. The city is the anchor of the Golden Horseshoe, an urban agglomeration of 9,245,438 people

Per Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/30/2019 at 6:22 PM, NicDB said:

I also don't think it's a coincidence that a huge part of the Packers mystique is that, historically, they've presented themselves and related to their fans in a way that has more in common with big time college football than most of their NFL colleagues. 

 

That image was born out of necessity and accident. Its either appeal to a regional fan base, or bank on one in four people from the Green Bay metro area showing up to the game. People can and will drive two-plus hours to go to Packer games. The team wouldn't exist if they didn't.

 

If I were the NFL, I would see the Packers success as a sign that a team in Des Moines, Iowa, might be able to not only support an NFL team but have one that can thrive using the same business model. Like Green Bay, the city has nowhere near the metro area needed to support an NFL team. But if you can pull fans from places like Cedar Rapids, and Omaha, it could work. Fans like that won't show up 40-80 times year, which is why I think any of the other three major sports leagues would be crazy even to attempt going there. But eight times is doable, especially in a market where they would be the only major pro sports team for hundreds of miles in any direction.

 

If the Packers model can be replicated, then places like Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Louisville, and Birmingham become a lot more advantageous than their metro area demographics would indicate. Even though the NFL has the most teams, they might be the league selling themselves the shortest in terms of the number of teams they could sustain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind NFL expansion if it was accompanied by playoff expansion. And/or pro/rel. A 40-team NFL would have a crazy pro/rel system.

 

Of course, the Draft complicates that, though the NFL's reliance on the NCAA exploiting young men for free labor in order to develop future talent isn't really a system worth saving anyway. The NFL has plenty of money for teams to develop their own player academies.

 

The European soccer model is really great and the biggest reason it doesn't scale to American sports is because we think it's just fine for young talent to perform without pay in their teenage and early 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

I wouldn't mind NFL expansion if it was accompanied by playoff expansion. And/or pro/rel. A 40-team NFL would have a crazy pro/rel system.

 

Of course, the Draft complicates that, though the NFL's reliance on the NCAA exploiting young men for free labor in order to develop future talent isn't really a system worth saving anyway. The NFL has plenty of money for teams to develop their own player academies.

 

The European soccer model is really great and the biggest reason it doesn't scale to American sports is because we think it's just fine for young talent to perform without pay in their teenage and early 20 years.

 

Also a lot of NFL owners own MLS teams and/or European soccer teams and they would know a thing or two about player academies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, pmoehrin said:

 

That image was born out of necessity and accident. Its either appeal to a regional fan base, or bank on 1 in 4 people from the Green Bay metro area showing up to the game. People can and will drive two-plus hours to go to Packer games. The team wouldn't exist if they didn't.

 

If I were the NFL, I would see the Packers success as a sign that a team in Des Moines, Iowa, might be able to not only support an NFL team but have one that can thrive using the same business model. Like Green Bay, the city has nowhere near the metro area needed to support an NFL team. But if you can pull fans from places like Cedar Rapids, and Omaha, it could work. Fans like that won't show up 40-80 times year, which is why I think any of the other three major sports leagues would be crazy even to attempt going there. But eight times is doable, especially in a market where they would be the only major pro sports team for hundreds of miles in any direction.

 

If the Packers model can be replicated, then places like Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Louisville, and Birmingham become a lot more advantageous than their metro area demographics would indicate. Even though the NFL has the most teams, they might be the league selling themselves the shortest in terms of the number of teams they could sustain.


I'm not sure how much the Packers model could be replicated.  They spent 60+ years playing home games in a neighboring market (Milwaukee) that could have otherwise supported their own team.  I'm not sure what the equivalent of that would be for any of the cities you named.  It's also worth mentioning that Green Bay is not even the biggest metro area in Northeast Wisconsin.  Significantly more people live in the Fox Valley than Metro GB, making its television market share bigger than Omaha and Des Moines even though those cities are several times bigger than Green Bay by itself.

Of the cities you named, I think Birmingham would have the best chance of making it work.  Birmingham along with Mobile makes for a market share comparable to Milwaukee-Green Bay; and there's also the precedent of the Crimson Tide playing games in Birmingham and Mobile during the Bear Bryant days.  But I'm not sure the NFL would allow such a thing in this day in age.  It's debatable whether or not the NFL would have even allowed games at County Stadium in the 90s had the tradition not been established decades before then, and even that was a significantly bigger facility than what Mobile would have to offer a team from Birmingham.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pmoehrin said:

 

That image was born out of necessity and accident. Its either appeal to a regional fan base, or bank on one in four people from the Green Bay metro area showing up to the game. People can and will drive two-plus hours to go to Packer games. The team wouldn't exist if they didn't.

 

If I were the NFL, I would see the Packers success as a sign that a team in Des Moines, Iowa, might be able to not only support an NFL team but have one that can thrive using the same business model. Like Green Bay, the city has nowhere near the metro area needed to support an NFL team. But if you can pull fans from places like Cedar Rapids, and Omaha, it could work. Fans like that won't show up 40-80 times year, which is why I think any of the other three major sports leagues would be crazy even to attempt going there. But eight times is doable, especially in a market where they would be the only major pro sports team for hundreds of miles in any direction.

 

If the Packers model can be replicated, then places like Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Louisville, and Birmingham become a lot more advantageous than their metro area demographics would indicate. Even though the NFL has the most teams, they might be the league selling themselves the shortest in terms of the number of teams they could sustain.

Folks of Des Monies, Omaha, Birmingham, SLC, or Louisville are not likely to pay a shareholder fee en masse for a NFL franchise in addition to a potential PSL without any true shareholder stake or no PSL/stadium deposit return

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dfwabel said:

Folks of Des Monies, Omaha, Birmingham, SLC, or Louisville are not likely to pay a shareholder fee en masse for a NFL franchise in addition to a potential PSL without any true shareholder stake or no PSL/stadium deposit return


Couldn’t the same be said about pretty much any potential expansion city. San Diego balked at this.

 

I’m not disagreeing with your claim, but when the economic model for new stadiums is pricing the league out of San Diego, I feel like you need to take a pause and reevaluate what you’re trying to accomplish.

 

This is the same league that managed to screw up Los Angeles twice, so I’m not expecting the Iowa Barnstormers to be making their NFL debut anytime soon. It would be a near-miracle just for them to get a third team in Texas. How is it that a pro basketball league can justify a team in San Antonio, but a pro football league can’t? It’s football, and it’s Texas. Not sure what part of that the NFL isn’t getting, but when they solve that riddle in 2047, Des Moines will be ready for an NFL team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, pmoehrin said:


Couldn’t the same be said about pretty much any potential expansion city. San Diego balked at this.

 

I’m not disagreeing with your claim, but when the economic model for new stadiums is pricing the league out of San Diego, I feel like you need to take a pause and reevaluate what you’re trying to accomplish.

 

This is the same league that managed to screw up Los Angeles twice, so I’m not expecting the Iowa Barnstormers to be making their NFL debut anytime soon. It would be a near-miracle just for them to get a third team in Texas. How is it that a pro basketball league can justify a team in San Antonio, but a pro football league can’t? It’s football, and it’s Texas. Not sure what part of that the NFL isn’t getting, but when they solve that riddle in 2047, Des Moines will be ready for an NFL team.

Spurs ownership in the ABA days accepted the lesser national NBA TV revenue during the ABA merger.  Next ownership groups accepted them being in a growing "1-team Big 4 town" especially since red McCombs saw Alamodome as a gate driven model and San Antonio still isn't a cable system favorite as Peter Holt never separated their 82 games into a network, so they've dealt with the Dallas based RSNs meanwhile always being top 5 in local ratings. 

 

There still is a terrestrial TV demand which networks have to point to leagues with. 

Edited by dfwabel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pmoehrin said:

 

That image was born out of necessity and accident. Its either appeal to a regional fan base, or bank on one in four people from the Green Bay metro area showing up to the game. People can and will drive two-plus hours to go to Packer games. The team wouldn't exist if they didn't.

 

If I were the NFL, I would see the Packers success as a sign that a team in Des Moines, Iowa, might be able to not only support an NFL team but have one that can thrive using the same business model. Like Green Bay, the city has nowhere near the metro area needed to support an NFL team. But if you can pull fans from places like Cedar Rapids, and Omaha, it could work. Fans like that won't show up 40-80 times year, which is why I think any of the other three major sports leagues would be crazy even to attempt going there. But eight times is doable, especially in a market where they would be the only major pro sports team for hundreds of miles in any direction.

 

If the Packers model can be replicated, then places like Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, Louisville, and Birmingham become a lot more advantageous than their metro area demographics would indicate. Even though the NFL has the most teams, they might be the league selling themselves the shortest in terms of the number of teams they could sustain.

 

Honestly?  I don't think I could disagree more.  There aren't 32 markets that can sustain NFL-level football, let alone more. The Packers evolved during a different time, and developed a mystique that made them one of the few 'national' teams (along with the Cowboys and Steelers), so they contribute their fair share to the TV ratings.  Milwaukee isn't a large market, but it's large enough, and I'm willing to bet that it's a 100% Packers market, so their actual market size is probably considerably larger than what the Green Bay CSA or MSA would indicate.  

 

Who's going to care enough about a Des Moines team to go out of their way to watch them?  Even if everyone in Des Moines did, that still wouldn't make a dent, and realistically, they're not going to contribute anything towards a TV contract negotiation. The necessary corporate support probably isn't there like it is in other cities (who's giving the Des Moines Insurers $1B for a stadium, or $40M/year for naming-rights?  I doubt that any of those cities could produce the ratings to make it worth anyone's investment, or have the wealth and population in the metro area to even make it worth much local investment.

 

I wouldn't look at Green Bay as a model for anything in American top-level pro sports.  It's unique, and a product of an era which is long gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, dfwabel said:

Spurs ownership in the ABA days accepted the lesser national NBA TV revenue during the ABA merger.  Next ownership groups accepted them being in a growing "1-team Big 4 town" especially since red McCombs saw Alamodome as a gate driven model and San Antonio still isn't a cable system favorite as Peter Holt never separated their 82 games into a network, so they've dealt with the Dallas based RSNs meanwhile always being top 5 in local ratings. 

 

There still is a terrestrial TV demand which networks have to point to leagues with. 

 

NOt only that, but the requirements to support an NBA team are waaaaaaaaay less than they are an NFL team.  Hell - OKC is doing it.  Does anyone not on crack think OKC could have an MLB or NFL team?

 

From most difficult for a market to sustain to least, the order is MLB (stadium costs, need to draw 3M fans over 81 games, need to sell radio/RSN rights), NFL (really high stadium costs, need local corporate support, need to draw 80k/game at $150/ticket), NHL (need to be somewhere where people care about hockey, arena requirements not too high but gate still matters, not a ton of TV money to go around), NBA (LOL the city doesn't even matter, people will watch anything anywhere. Hell - the Utah Jazz are a thing.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Honestly?  I don't think I could disagree more.  There aren't 32 markets that can sustain NFL-level football, let alone more. The Packers evolved during a different time, and developed a mystique that made them one of the few 'national' teams (along with the Cowboys and Steelers), so they contribute their fair share to the TV ratings.  Milwaukee isn't a large market, but it's large enough, and I'm willing to bet that it's a 100% Packers market, so their actual market size is probably considerably larger than what the Green Bay CSA or MSA would indicate.  

 

Who's going to care enough about a Des Moines team to go out of their way to watch them?  Even if everyone in Des Moines did, that still wouldn't make a dent, and realistically, they're not going to contribute anything towards a TV contract negotiation. The necessary corporate support probably isn't there like it is in other cities (who's giving the Des Moines Insurers $1B for a stadium, or $40M/year for naming-rights?  I doubt that any of those cities could produce the ratings to make it worth anyone's investment, or have the wealth and population in the metro area to even make it worth much local investment.

 

I wouldn't look at Green Bay as a model for anything in American top-level pro sports.  It's unique, and a product of an era which is long gone.

 

I have family in Des Moines and all of them are Vikings fans. 

 

If the NFL adds new cities, it'll be places like London, Mexico City, Toronto or Vancouver and not Green Bay type of markets, although the latter two are less likely to happen in the NFL than the other two. Still though I don't think that the NFL will ever have a team in London, although I do think eventually there will be 8 NFL games played in London. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dfwabel said:

Spurs ownership in the ABA days accepted the lesser national NBA TV revenue during the ABA merger.  Next ownership groups accepted them being in a growing "1-team Big 4 town" especially since red McCombs saw Alamodome as a gate driven model and San Antonio still isn't a cable system favorite as Peter Holt never separated their 82 games into a network, so they've dealt with the Dallas based RSNs meanwhile always being top 5 in local ratings. 

 

There still is a terrestrial TV demand which networks have to point to leagues with. 

 

So no San Antonio football until at least 2050 when the Spurs are celebrating 75+ years in the NBA. Gotcha. I am not even being sarcastic.

 

I get people being suspicious of markets like Des Moines. It's not my top choice either for an expansion market or even top five for that matter. But San Antonio should be a layup for the NFL, and they can't figure out how to dribble the ball.

 

I think the NFL has made it so cost-prohibitive for any team or city to even think about building a new stadium, that the two new stadiums opening up this year are going to the last ones to open up for a while. They should be the league best in the position to expand, and instead they're probably the worst. After this year you may not see a new NFL stadium until the next decade.

 

6 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

There aren't 32 markets that can sustain NFL-level football, let alone more.

 

I laugh every time I hear this, because I've heard it my whole life. If Tampa didn't already have a team people would be arguing that market can't work even though the Bucs have been there for for over 40 years.

 

Look at the MLS. They've been the most aggressive league with expansion over the past decade, and they were the league that grew the most. I believe the two are correlated because you can't grow while staying put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pmoehrin said:

I laugh every time I hear this, because I've heard it my whole life. If Tampa didn't already have a team people would be arguing that market can't work even though the Bucs have been there for for over 40 years.

 

Look at the MLS. They've been the most aggressive league with expansion over the past decade, and they were the league that grew the most. I believe the two are correlated because you can't grow while staying put.

 

Comparing what it takes to run an MLS team to an NFL team is not fair at all.  

 

Look at all the franchise relocations in the NFL, and the near ones (that should still happen - Jacksonville for example) and that's at least one indicator that the league doesn't have 32 strong markets.  It's just masked because they have a billion dollar TV deal that funds the clubs, and a favorable labor contract.

 

A team like Jacksonville contributes zero from a TV deal perspective (nobody at CBS is saying "we'll throw another 100M onto our bid if we get the Jaguars) and probably from a sales perspective as well.  Their seat prices are low, so they don't even earn the gate of other teams.  If they weren't rescued by a billionaire owner, they'd be in LA already.  STL wouln't fund a modern stadium (good on them for standing up to the league, but unfortunately that's what it takes these days), Oakland turned into a disaster, and I even question whether Tampa really is looked at as a strong franchise.

 

There's a reason you see the same teams consistently signing the top-tier guys to cap-friendly deals with huge signing bonuses, and the smaller market teams unable to do it, and that's because even in a capped system, the gigantic signing bonuses are necessary to 1) provide the 'guaranteed money' to the player, and 2) make the deal relatively cap friendly.  Can a Jacksonville or Tampa pony up $50M up front for a signing bonus?  Even if they can pay salaries up to the cap, teams need tons of cash on hand, and many simply don't, while the Dallases, Philadelphias, LAs, New Yorks, New Englands, always do.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pmoehrin said:

 

So no San Antonio football until at least 2050 when the Spurs are celebrating 75+ years in the NBA. Gotcha. I am not even being sarcastic.

... San Antonio should be a layup for the NFL, and they can't figure out how to dribble the ball.

 

Having lived in San Antonio (1982-1983), and having followed their attempts to get a pro football team over the years, I think I will chime in with some random bullet points (too lazy to do a proper narrative right now):

  • It's not for lack of trying that San Antonio didn't get in the NFL.  The Wings in the WFL, Gunslingers in the USFL, Riders in the WLAF and Texans in the CFL ( and even Commanders in the AAF) were all attempts to get some form of pro ball and show their "worth", as was (even moreso) the hosting/trying to steal the Saints post-Katrina. 
  • I can remember in 1982/1983 the key local news sportscaster putting together a "We Want Pro Ball" (NFL) Rally in San Antonio.
  • Back in the 70s up until the late 80s, the biggest issue was lack of suitable stadium. Old WPA Alamo Stadium is a high school facility.  Henry Cisneros thought he was remedying that when he pushed the Alamodome in the late 80s in hopes of attracting an NFL team, but that facility became probably the first real instance of the "if you build it, they will come" approach NEVER working out (KC's Sprint Center being the other).
  • While San Antonio is very large in terms of its city population (in the top 10 in the nation), its metro population is not much bigger proportionally as in other spots like Atlanta, Houston, Miami, New Orleans, etc.
  • Also, the population in San Antonio was traditionally poorer compared to most other cities/metro areas of similar size, though that has changed a bit over the last 20-30 years or so. 
  • Back in the day (1980s/ early 90s)  I thought San Antonio was a likely NFL city.  But other cities completely passed it (and places like Birmingham and Memphis) and acquired teams-- namely Nashville, Charlotte and Las Vegas.  Those 3 cities weren't on any NFL radar back in the '80s (surprisingly, Jacksonville was, though).
  • Despite what he may say publicly, Jerrah (Jones) clearly does NOT want anymore NFL competition in Texas. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B-Rich said:

 

Having lived in San Antonio (1982-1983), and having followed their attempts to get as pro team over the years, I think I will chime in with some random bullet points (too lazy to do a proper narrative right now):

  • It's not for lack of trying that San Antonio didn't get in the NFL.  The Wings in the WFL, Gunslingers in the USFL, Riders in the WLAF and Texans in the CFL ( and even Commanders in the AAF) were all attempts to get some form of pro ball and show their "worth", as was (even moreso) the hosting/trying to steal the Saints post-Katrina. 
  • I can remember in 1982/1983 the key local news sportscaster putting together a "We Want Pro Ball" (NFL) Rally in San Antonio.
  • Back in the 70s up until the late 80s, the biggest issue was lack of suitable stadium. Old WPA Alamo Stadium is a high school facility.  Henry Cisneros thought he was remedying that when he pushed the Alamodome in the late 80s in hopes of attracting an NFL team, but that facility became probably the first real instance of the "if you build it, they will come" approach NEVER working out (KC's Sprint Center being the other).
  • While San Antonio is very large in terms of its city population (in the top 10 in the nation), its metro population is not much bigger proportionally as in other spots like Atlanta, Houston, Miami, New Orleans, etc.
  • Also, the population in San Antonio was traditionally poorer compared to most other cities/metro areas of similar size, though that has changed a bit over the last 20-30 years or so. 
  • Back in the day (1980s/ early 90s)  I thought San Antonio was a likely NFL city.  But other cities completely passed it (and places like Birmingham and Memphis) up and acquired teams-- namely Nashville, Charlotte and Las Vegas.  Those 3 cities weren't on any NFL radar back in the '80s (surprisingly, Jacksonville was, though).
  • Despite what he may say publicly, Jerrah (Jones) clearly does NOT want anymore NFL competition in Texas. 

 

I don't think any city has put more effort into getting a team without getting one than San Antonio. The town built an NFL caliber stadium, and that still wasn't enough. If the NFL had gone there in the mid-'90s, they probably would have moved out of the Alamodome by now. Or it would have had a lot more money sunk into it to modernize it.

 

I think your point about Jerry has more to do with it than anything else. The population excuse was valid 30 years ago, but this is now an emerging mid-market city, and they are crazy about football. You could throw a dart on a map pretty much anywhere between San Antonio and Austin, and a team would work there. Nothing about this that should be difficult and the NFL can't figure it out. Why? Somebody doesn't want a team there, or they would already have one. A big reason why the Cowboys are so valuable is that they're one of only two teams in a football-crazed state with 29 million people in it. Even if they don't draw many fans from San Antonio, they still get a lot of eyeballs via television, as does Houston. I don't think its a coincidence the Cowboys have held so many training camps in the San Antonio/Austin area. They've put effort into building a relationship with that area, so I could see Jerry believing that's his market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2020 at 11:36 PM, pmoehrin said:

How is it that a pro basketball league can justify a team in San Antonio, but a pro football league can’t?


A few years ago I would have bet anyone that the Raiders were going to move to San Antonio.  I am glad that no one took me up on that.

 

 

On 1/2/2020 at 7:29 PM, DG_Now said:

I wouldn't mind NFL expansion if it was accompanied by playoff expansion. And/or pro/rel. A 40-team NFL would have a crazy pro/rel system.

 

Of course, the Draft complicates that, though the NFL's reliance on the NCAA exploiting young men for free labor in order to develop future talent isn't really a system worth saving anyway. The NFL has plenty of money for teams to develop their own player academies.

 

The European soccer model is really great and the biggest reason it doesn't scale to American sports is because we think it's just fine for young talent to perform without pay in their teenage and early 20 years.

 

Egad, man; no. 

No first to expanded playoffs.  Wild card teams were a creation of the era when each conference had three divisions.  The period when each conference sent three division champs and two wild cards was best because it required the wild card teams to play off against each other first, thereby weighting the playoffs in favour of the division winners.  But this was ruined with the addition of a third wild card, which resulted in one of the three division winners being treated like a wild card.  The current system makes the same error, reducing two of the four division champions to the status of wild cards.  The truth is that, with four divisions per conference, there is no need for any wild card teams at all. So the playoffs should be pared back, not expanded.

And a big no to promotion and relegation!  The reason that promotion and relegation doesn't scale to American sports has nothing to do with the free labour that the NFL extracts from its prospects, with or the starvation wages that Major League Baseball pays to its.  The system of promotion and relegation was created long before the days when major sports leagues were big businesses, when there existed many more teams than league places. This practice could conceivably have come to American baseball, whose National League began only a little before the Football League in England; but there just weren't an overabundance of teams vying to join the National League as there were wishing to join the Football League.  The American baseball leagues thus settled into a pattern by which each league was made up of a consistent set of teams (unless one folded), and whereby teams in lower leagues made money by selling players to teams in higher leagues (this is well before the creation of farm systems and affiliations).  As sports became big business, it became ever clearer that big-time sports are for big-time cities; this means that the top leagues in every sport must have teams in New York and Chicago, and never in Albany and Des Moines. 

Promotion and relegation is a terrible, senseless policy.  If it didn't exist already, then it would have no chance of ever being adopted.  On its merits this policy is utterly incompatible with a world in which a team is valued in the billions.  The fans who mindlessly denounce "modern football" and who like to defend promotion and relegation make plenty of noise; but many of us would welcome the abandoment of promotion and relegation in European football leagues, or else the creation of a European league with permanent membership that supersedes the national leagues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:


A few years ago I would have bet anyone that the Raiders were going to move to San Antonio.  I am glad that no one took me up on that.

 

 

 

Egad, man; no. 

No first to expanded playoffs.  Wild card teams were a creation of the era when each conference had three divisions.  The period when each conference sent three division champs and two wild cards was best because it required the wild card teams to play off against each other first, thereby weighting the playoffs in favour of the division winners.  But this was ruined with the addition of a third wild card, which resulted in one of the three division winners being treated like a wild card.  The current system makes the same error, reducing two of the four division champions to the status of wild cards.  The truth is that, with four divisions per conference, there is no need for any wild card teams at all. So the playoffs should be pared back, not expanded.


You nailed it.  I will say the current system is slightly better than what preceded it in that it at least assures that only the division winners are guaranteed to host a playoff game.  But the three division champion, two wildcard per conference system was perfection for exactly the reasons you cited.  Championships should reward a great season.  Not simply getting hot at the end of the year, which is far too often the case in the NBA, NHL, and NCAA tournament.

I'm 100% with you on pro-rel too... it's a terrible idea.  For everyone who thinks the Patriots win too much, consider that 25 of the 27 Premier League championships that have ever been awarded (over 92 percent!) are accounted for by only 5 clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.