If I were commish of...Football

[ninersdd]

Also regarding Ochocincos fines, the commish can't fine him 20 and 30K, while helmet to helmet hits are only 10K(Adrian Wilson of AZ did that to Vernon Davis in week 1, and also remember Tommie Harris only got 7.5K for punching the Cardinal in the face) Keep this in mind: A player can sustain a major injury from helmet to helmet hits, while who exactly gets hurt from a guy wearing a sombrero or poncho? Just my opinion, but maybe they weren't going to fine Flozell Adams all that much last week, but they realized after fining Ochocinco for 30K, that it would look pretty bad so they got him for 50K.

I know this is unfeasible, but is there any way they can ban jawing after plays? Its just ridiculous IMO

[illwauk]

No. It would be pointless. Let's take a look. Ohio State draws 100,000+. The Buckeyes played to a sold out Cleveland Stadium this season in The Patriot Game or whatever it's called. The Browns play to empty seats; in Cleveland. Do you really think The Browns would draw in Columbus?

FWIW, the Packers used to sell out their ever-other-year preseason game in Madison in the 80s and early 90s... and if they were better than the Browns are now, it wasn't by much.

That said... college venue games are what preseason is for. If they did go to 18 games, I say have every team claim a "home away from home" and play one "home" preseaon game and the other on the road.

[Saintsfan]

Saintsfan has no clue what he's talking about; what else is new.

Commit to staging Superbowls in cold weather venues every 4 or 5 years. Just seems a bit unfair that good football cities like Chicago or New York never get a Superbowl because of the weather, and the game can be made more interesting by differing weather conditions.

I hate populist cold-weather-super-bowl rabblerousing so much. It's perfectly fair that Chicago will never get a Super Bowl, and you know why? Because they play in a dump, a shiny renovated half-billion-dollar dump, yet implausibly a dump all the same. It's the smallest stadium in the league. It's built on below-grade landfill, which means that the sod never fully takes and so the grass is always dead and brown and slippery. They can't install FieldTurf because the Park District doesn't want to lose precious soccer exhibitions. The concourses aren't even much better than they were before the renovation. Plain and simple, it's a bottom five NFL stadium. This is all disregarding the fact that the Chicago lakefront is a miserable place to be on a Sunday night in February. People aren't going to pay Super Bowl money to freeze their asses off in the subzero wind chill. I mean they're right on the lake. Do you know what "cooler by the lake" means? Do you know what lake effect snow is? Have you ever even been to a Great Lakes city in April when there are still bitter cold winds coming off the lakes, to say nothing of February? Good lord.

If Chicago really wanted a Super Bowl, they would've built a 90,000-seat retractable-roof palace, but they were equal parts unwilling (da Bears can't play indoors!) and unable (Reinsdorf/Wirtz wouldn't let a dome steal all their big-ticket United Center acts). At the very least they could've built a respectable piece of architecture like the Packers did, and they couldn't even do that. They don't deserve a thing.

Perhaps giving the Bears a shot at the Superbowl would encourage Chicago to build a properly decent stadium. Give NY one Superbowl, see if it works, if people think its two cold, or whatever, don't do it again. Are you saying that NY or Philadelphia or Boston couldn't stage a Superbowl and Jacksonville or Glendale can? Thats kind of crazy to me. I think the odd Superbowl when weather could be a factor might be fun. It happens a lot in regular season play, especially in crucial late season games and in the playoffs, so why not in the Superbowl every once in a while? My point about the Superbowl maybe not working out as it is is a small one, based around the fact that the games, whilst exciting , seem to be very sterile affairs somehow, without the elements effecting the game. Why not every now and again let the natural elements affect the game?

[rams80]

Because we don't want natural elements to affect the game. We want the players, and the players alone, to affect the game.

[Saintsfan]

But isn't it true that some of the greatest moments in sport have come when the elements have been involved in affecting the action? When a great players greatness has been seen IN SPITE of the surroundings, not just because the surroundings where made as comfortable for them as possible?

Just a thought.

[The_Admiral]

Wind patterns and bad grass and dome noise and all those venue-specific variables are all well and good through the regular season. It's part of home field. For a neutral-site league championship game, I don't want those variables, and I know I'm not alone on this. Let it come down to strictly x vs. y, with no z involved.

[njmeadowlanders]

I'd throw support at a Super Bowl in Honolulu. Awesome location and it'd still be a day game set at the same time on the East Coast...

[BBTV]

Saintsfan has no clue what he's talking about; what else is new.

Commit to staging Superbowls in cold weather venues every 4 or 5 years. Just seems a bit unfair that good football cities like Chicago or New York never get a Superbowl because of the weather, and the game can be made more interesting by differing weather conditions.

I hate populist cold-weather-super-bowl rabblerousing so much. It's perfectly fair that Chicago will never get a Super Bowl, and you know why? Because they play in a dump, a shiny renovated half-billion-dollar dump, yet implausibly a dump all the same. It's the smallest stadium in the league. It's built on below-grade landfill, which means that the sod never fully takes and so the grass is always dead and brown and slippery. They can't install FieldTurf because the Park District doesn't want to lose precious soccer exhibitions. The concourses aren't even much better than they were before the renovation. Plain and simple, it's a bottom five NFL stadium. This is all disregarding the fact that the Chicago lakefront is a miserable place to be on a Sunday night in February. People aren't going to pay Super Bowl money to freeze their asses off in the subzero wind chill. I mean they're right on the lake. Do you know what "cooler by the lake" means? Do you know what lake effect snow is? Have you ever even been to a Great Lakes city in April when there are still bitter cold winds coming off the lakes, to say nothing of February? Good lord.

If Chicago really wanted a Super Bowl, they would've built a 90,000-seat retractable-roof palace, but they were equal parts unwilling (da Bears can't play indoors!) and unable (Reinsdorf/Wirtz wouldn't let a dome steal all their big-ticket United Center acts). At the very least they could've built a respectable piece of architecture like the Packers did, and they couldn't even do that. They don't deserve a thing.

Perhaps giving the Bears a shot at the Superbowl would encourage Chicago to build a properly decent stadium. Give NY one Superbowl, see if it works, if people think its two cold, or whatever, don't do it again. Are you saying that NY or Philadelphia or Boston couldn't stage a Superbowl and Jacksonville or Glendale can? Thats kind of crazy to me. I think the odd Superbowl when weather could be a factor might be fun. It happens a lot in regular season play, especially in crucial late season games and in the playoffs, so why not in the Superbowl every once in a while? My point about the Superbowl maybe not working out as it is is a small one, based around the fact that the games, whilst exciting , seem to be very sterile affairs somehow, without the elements effecting the game. Why not every now and again let the natural elements affect the game?

You continue to ignore the fact that the SB is a major "event" that draws people in from all over to take part in different side attractions, and be out and about the town. NOBODY wants to spend all of that time in the freezing cold.

Not only that, but the players are out there on the field for media day, plus all of the other promotional things that they go through that day, and it'd suck if one got hypothermia and died.

Also, if the Vikings or Saints were to play the Patriots, and the game was in New York or Chicago, I'd say that the Patriots have the decided advantage. They're trying to avoid such scenarios.

[infrared41]

Wind patterns and bad grass and dome noise and all those venue-specific variables are all well and good through the regular season. It's part of home field. For a neutral-site league championship game, I don't want those variables, and I know I'm not alone on this. Let it come down to strictly x vs. y, with no z involved.

Exactly. Who in their right mind wants to attend a football game in February in Chicago? Remember how much fun Bears - Colts was to watch in that monsoon in Miami a few years ago? Now let's drop the temperature about 70 degrees and crank up the snow and wind off Lake Michigan or Lake Erie. February football in the midwest. Yahoo. Sounds like a rip-roaring good time to me.

Better yet, let's just look back to the 2007 NFC Championship game at Lambeau. That's exactly what you're going to get with an outdoor Super Bowl in the north...if you're lucky and can get a good calm night like that was.

[dfwabel]

Saintsfan has no clue what he's talking about; what else is new.

Commit to staging Superbowls in cold weather venues every 4 or 5 years. Just seems a bit unfair that good football cities like Chicago or New York never get a Superbowl because of the weather, and the game can be made more interesting by differing weather conditions.

I hate populist cold-weather-super-bowl rabblerousing so much. It's perfectly fair that Chicago will never get a Super Bowl, and you know why? Because they play in a dump, a shiny renovated half-billion-dollar dump, yet implausibly a dump all the same. It's the smallest stadium in the league. It's built on below-grade landfill, which means that the sod never fully takes and so the grass is always dead and brown and slippery. They can't install FieldTurf because the Park District doesn't want to lose precious soccer exhibitions. The concourses aren't even much better than they were before the renovation. Plain and simple, it's a bottom five NFL stadium. This is all disregarding the fact that the Chicago lakefront is a miserable place to be on a Sunday night in February. People aren't going to pay Super Bowl money to freeze their asses off in the subzero wind chill. I mean they're right on the lake. Do you know what "cooler by the lake" means? Do you know what lake effect snow is? Have you ever even been to a Great Lakes city in April when there are still bitter cold winds coming off the lakes, to say nothing of February? Good lord.

If Chicago really wanted a Super Bowl, they would've built a 90,000-seat retractable-roof palace, but they were equal parts unwilling (da Bears can't play indoors!) and unable (Reinsdorf/Wirtz wouldn't let a dome steal all their big-ticket United Center acts). At the very least they could've built a respectable piece of architecture like the Packers did, and they couldn't even do that. They don't deserve a thing.

Perhaps giving the Bears a shot at the Superbowl would encourage Chicago to build a properly decent stadium. Give NY one Superbowl, see if it works, if people think its two cold, or whatever, don't do it again. Are you saying that NY or Philadelphia or Boston couldn't stage a Superbowl and Jacksonville or Glendale can? Thats kind of crazy to me. I think the odd Superbowl when weather could be a factor might be fun. It happens a lot in regular season play, especially in crucial late season games and in the playoffs, so why not in the Superbowl every once in a while? My point about the Superbowl maybe not working out as it is is a small one, based around the fact that the games, whilst exciting , seem to be very sterile affairs somehow, without the elements effecting the game. Why not every now and again let the natural elements affect the game?

So a city (here Chicago) with a $400 million deficit for 2010, and a budget with $400 deficit, which taxes its own employees $4/month per head, and is hedging income on future receipt from parking meters is just supposed to build a new facility when the city and the park district, which operates Soldier Field, spent years on how to get the Bears their current facility while keeping a WWI memorial? 'admiral' is correct in that many balked at the concept, plus weather is not only bad for the game, but also for transportation in terms of air travel for those who visit. Too many air delays with lake effect snow.

[Saintsfan]

Also, if the Vikings or Saints were to play the Patriots, and the game was in New York or Chicago, I'd say that the Patriots have the decided advantage. They're trying to avoid such scenarios.

Surely if the Vikings played the Patriots indoors say, then the Vikings, playing in similar conditions to which they play at least 8 games a year in, is a decided advantage? I personally don't think that the NFL is trying to eliminate such scenarios at all.

I think that the argument that the NFL doesn't want the build up to the game and the 'event' part, rather than the game, is probably a lot closer to the mark. But for instance New York is experienced at dealing with tourists all year around. There is plenty to do, and there are plenty of spaces that could be used.

I guess the best argument against what I am suggesting is the possibility that a Superbowl might get postponed, but when was the last time ANY NFL game was postponed?

I guess there are people on the boards who I am not going to convince ever, but personally I think it would give a fresh edge to the occasional Superbowl. And as I say, how can Jacksonville or Phoenix/Glendale be a suitable venue for a Superbowl but Boston or New York or Philadelphia can't? To me that seems very very unfair.

[Saintsfan]

And Washington coped with 1 million or more people arriving in it for an outdoor event in Late January this year. People will turn up for a Superbowl and find entertainment, in the right city.

[BBTV]

Also, if the Vikings or Saints were to play the Patriots, and the game was in New York or Chicago, I'd say that the Patriots have the decided advantage. They're trying to avoid such scenarios.

Surely if the Vikings played the Patriots indoors say, then the Vikings, playing in similar conditions to which they play at least 8 games a year in, is a decided advantage? I personally don't think that the NFL is trying to eliminate such scenarios at all.

I think that the argument that the NFL doesn't want the build up to the game and the 'event' part, rather than the game, is probably a lot closer to the mark. But for instance New York is experienced at dealing with tourists all year around. There is plenty to do, and there are plenty of spaces that could be used.

I guess the best argument against what I am suggesting is the possibility that a Superbowl might get postponed, but when was the last time ANY NFL game was postponed?

I guess there are people on the boards who I am not going to convince ever, but personally I think it would give a fresh edge to the occasional Superbowl. And as I say, how can Jacksonville or Phoenix/Glendale be a suitable venue for a Superbowl but Boston or New York or Philadelphia can't? To me that seems very very unfair.

Absolutely not. It is no advantage at all. In the beginning of the season, all teams play in good weather or in domes. Teams practice in domes. A dome is only a great advantage when it's your dome with your fans. Outside of that, it's probably the most neutral environment you can play in.

Yes, NY is used to tourists all year round, but so are a lot of other cities. It still doesn't change the fact that many of the SB-related events are outdoors (or in the stadium), and nobody wants to be freezing their nuts off.

How many people do you hear begging for anther SB in Minneapolis? Granted, it's Minneapolis and not a bigger city, but I'm sure the weather is a huge deal. Same with Detroit. At least they had indoor facilities.

The SB is more like a resort vacation, and should be held in resort-type cities.

Honestly, if I was commissioner, I'd just openly acknowledge the fact that gambling is a big part of what makes the NFL great, and have a $2B mega-super-colossal-ultra-[insert adjective for really big here] stadium built in Las Vegas, and just have it be the permanent home of the Super Bowl.

[IceCap]

Your Toronto suggestion doesn't sound properly researched, as the Skydome doesn't appear to be "NFL caliber" - they'd have to construct a whole new arena. Also, the number one thing the NFL has going for it is it's TV contracts. Throw a Canadian team into the mix, and that could complicate things a lot, as that market wouldn't have a FOX or CBS affiliate (unless they do - I'm not sure.) I can't imagine the networks would love this.

You hit the nail on the head. The Rogers Centre (SkyDome) is small and outdated by NFL standards, and they don't even sell that out when the Bills come to Toronto. If the NFL was going to move to Toronto I would imagine they would want some kind of guarantee of a new stadium, with the RC looked at as simply temporary.

The thing is, the City of Toronto would disagree. Not only are the funds lacking, but the desire is lacking as well. The city doesn't feel it needs a new football stadium. As far as they're concerned the RC is just fine as a pro football venue. Toronto FC's BMO Field was that last new arena/stadium you'll see in Toronto for a long time. If the NFL wants to come to Toronto they would have to accept the RC as the permanent home of the team. I'm not sure the NFL would be to keen on that.

As for the TV contracts, you're right, we don't have Fox or CBS affiliates. We get the games on Canadian networks like Global, CTV, and TSN. The feeds are directly from the original American networks, but they're aired on Canadian channels, which means the Canadian networks get the ratings. I can't imagine Fox, NBC, and CBS being happy about a team in Toronto that had that arrangement.

So yeah, the NFL in Toronto's not happening. If the Bills must move, stick them somewhere else.

5) I would do what I could to keep the Bills in Buffalo though. Unlike Jacksonville, Buffalo supports their team, and the team seems to be doing just fine financially in upstate New York. The only reason I see for them moving is that their owner's going to die. That's not enough of a reason to abandon a small, but potent market.

I'd question the potency. It's a small market that's getting smaller every day. The area isn't exactly flourishing from an economic perspective, nor does it have a modern stadium that generates revenue like most of the other cities. In a league driven by revenue sharing, I'm sure the other owners can't be happy with the amount that the Bills contribute to the pot, and would welcome an opportunity to move the franchise to a city that's better able to support the team. Remember - support doesn't necessarily = fans attending games. I'll agree that the Buffalo fans are passionate, unfortunately, it doesn't matter.

You have some good points, but I think the Packers need to be considered. If the league is unhappy with the amount of revenue the Bills bring to the NFL pot, surely they can't be to happy with what the Packers are bringing in.

Ultimately though, if it doesn't work in Buffalo it doesn't work in Buffalo. Just move them somewhere else south of the border

[BBTV]

Your Toronto suggestion doesn't sound properly researched, as the Skydome doesn't appear to be "NFL caliber" - they'd have to construct a whole new arena. Also, the number one thing the NFL has going for it is it's TV contracts. Throw a Canadian team into the mix, and that could complicate things a lot, as that market wouldn't have a FOX or CBS affiliate (unless they do - I'm not sure.) I can't imagine the networks would love this.

You hit the nail on the head. The Rogers Centre (SkyDome) is small and outdated by NFL standards, and they don't even sell that out when the Bills come to Toronto. If the NFL was going to move to Toronto I would imagine they would want some kind of guarantee of a new stadium, with the RC looked at as simply temporary.

The thing is, the City of Toronto would disagree. Not only are the funds lacking, but the desire is lacking as well. The city doesn't feel it needs a new football stadium. As far as they're concerned the RC is just fine as a pro football venue. Toronto FC's BMO Field was that last new arena/stadium you'll see in Toronto for a long time. If the NFL wants to come to Toronto they would have to accept the RC as the permanent home of the team. I'm not sure the NFL would be to keen on that.

As for the TV contracts, you're right, we don't have Fox or CBS affiliates. We get the games on Canadian networks like Global, CTV, and TSN. The feeds are directly from the original American networks, but they're aired on Canadian channels, which means the Canadian networks get the ratings. I can't imagine Fox, NBC, and CBS being happy about a team in Toronto that had that arrangement.

So yeah, the NFL in Toronto's not happening. If the Bills must move, stick them somewhere else.

5) I would do what I could to keep the Bills in Buffalo though. Unlike Jacksonville, Buffalo supports their team, and the team seems to be doing just fine financially in upstate New York. The only reason I see for them moving is that their owner's going to die. That's not enough of a reason to abandon a small, but potent market.

I'd question the potency. It's a small market that's getting smaller every day. The area isn't exactly flourishing from an economic perspective, nor does it have a modern stadium that generates revenue like most of the other cities. In a league driven by revenue sharing, I'm sure the other owners can't be happy with the amount that the Bills contribute to the pot, and would welcome an opportunity to move the franchise to a city that's better able to support the team. Remember - support doesn't necessarily = fans attending games. I'll agree that the Buffalo fans are passionate, unfortunately, it doesn't matter.

You have some good points, but I think the Packers need to be considered. If the league is unhappy with the amount of revenue the Bills bring to the NFL pot, surely they can't be to happy with what the Packers are bringing in.

Ultimately though, if it doesn't work in Buffalo it doesn't work in Buffalo. Just move them somewhere else south of the border

Your comparison to the Packers is a good one... sort of. The Packers are still supported by the Milwaukee metro area, which while not large, is still slightly larger than Buffalo, plus... they're the Green Bay Packers. They have a large national following, do well in merchandising, and are a public (sort of) corporation. Buffalo is certainly more of a regional team, in a depressed region.

If a league was just starting today, neither of these teams would likely exist (or the Packers would be in Milwaukee), but their history and popularity have allowed them to be successful despite their "home". Look at them as an anomoly - not as evidence that teams can succeed in small markets.

[IceCap]

Oh I'm aware the Packers are an anomaly. I'm just not sure the Bills aren't one as well.

The bigger question is, where will they move to? Toronto's not happening. LA's probably getting the Chargers and Jags (maybe the Rams in place of either of those two), where else is there? People are always throwing around a second team in Chicago, but I doubt anyone will break into Bears country. The only other place I can think of is San Antonio, but that market has a few problems of their own.

[The_Admiral]

If the league is unhappy with the amount of revenue the Bills bring to the NFL pot, surely they can't be to happy with what the Packers are bringing in.

psst! The Packers are one of the most popular teams in the league. I don't think they're struggling to make a buck.

[Brian in Boston]

You hit the nail on the head. The Rogers Centre (SkyDome) is small and outdated by NFL standards, and they don't even sell that out when the Bills come to Toronto. If the NFL was going to move to Toronto I would imagine they would want some kind of guarantee of a new stadium, with the RC looked at as simply temporary.

The thing is, the City of Toronto would disagree. Not only are the funds lacking, but the desire is lacking as well. The city doesn't feel it needs a new football stadium. As far as they're concerned the RC is just fine as a pro football venue. Toronto FC's BMO Field was that last new arena/stadium you'll see in Toronto for a long time. If the NFL wants to come to Toronto they would have to accept the RC as the permanent home of the team.

When Larry Tanenbaum and Ted Rogers announced that they were interested in bringing an NFL franchise to Toronto, then-Blue Jays' CEO and President Paul Godfrey was quoted as saying, "... a new facility can be built by (selling) personal seat licenses". Sure, prospective owners of a Toronto-based NFL franchise will attempt to foist a renovated Rogers Centre on the NFL suits. Such a move represents an opportunity to save considerable time, effort and money on start-up efforts. Sure, local politicians are going to draw a line in the sand over the outlay of public dollars on such a project. That said, NFL insistence on a new facility wouldn't be a deal-breaker, as there are ways in which the construction of such a structure can be financed at minimal cost to local government. Witness Bob Kraft's construction of Gillette Stadium.

As for the TV contracts, you're right, we don't have Fox or CBS affiliates. We get the games on Canadian networks like Global, CTV, and TSN. The feeds are directly from the original American networks, but they're aired on Canadian channels, which means the Canadian networks get the ratings. I can't imagine Fox, NBC, and CBS being happy about a team in Toronto that had that arrangement.

So the NFL, its broadcast partners and Canadian television outlets would figure out a new arrangement. Since Art Modell's early work on a league-wide broadcast deal back in the 1960s, the NFL has always been at the forefront of figuring out how to make television more profitable for the league and its member franchises. We're not talking about rocket-science. The league would figure something out.

So yeah, the NFL in Toronto's not happening.

In your opinion. The fact of the matter is that the National Football League covets the Greater Toronto market. Further, there are well-heeled parties who are interested in bringing an NFL franchise to Toronto. Hell... even CFL commissioner Mark Cohon sees the writing on the wall. As recently as two years ago he conceded that he could see a day when the NFL had a full-time franchise presence in Toronto. His hope was that such a move could be undertaken cooperatively.

Bottom line? None of the obstacles you cite as standing in the way of the establishment of an NFL franchise in Toronto are insurmountable.

[illwauk]

I just did the math. Because Milwaukee is offically considered part of the Packers market, they actually fall between Cleveland and St. Louis in terms of market size (and right on par with Minneapolis-St. Paul if you include Madison). And that's not even taking into account their national fanbase of Notre Dame like loyalists. In fact (IIRC), the last time Jacksonville sold out, guess who they were playing...

[IceCap]

You hit the nail on the head. The Rogers Centre (SkyDome) is small and outdated by NFL standards, and they don't even sell that out when the Bills come to Toronto. If the NFL was going to move to Toronto I would imagine they would want some kind of guarantee of a new stadium, with the RC looked at as simply temporary.

The thing is, the City of Toronto would disagree. Not only are the funds lacking, but the desire is lacking as well. The city doesn't feel it needs a new football stadium. As far as they're concerned the RC is just fine as a pro football venue. Toronto FC's BMO Field was that last new arena/stadium you'll see in Toronto for a long time. If the NFL wants to come to Toronto they would have to accept the RC as the permanent home of the team.

When Larry Tanenbaum and Ted Rogers announced that they were interested in bringing an NFL franchise to Toronto, then-Blue Jays' CEO and President Paul Godfrey was quoted as saying, "... a new facility can be built by (selling) personal seat licenses". Sure, prospective owners of a Toronto-based NFL franchise will attempt to foist a renovated Rogers Centre on the NFL suits. Such a move represents an opportunity to save considerable time, effort and money on start-up efforts. Sure, local politicians are going to draw a line in the sand over the outlay of public dollars on such a project. That said, NFL insistence on a new facility wouldn't be a deal-breaker, as there are ways in which the construction of such a structure can be financed at minimal cost to local government. Witness Bob Kraft's construction of Gillette Stadium.

Of course such a stadium could be built. The question is who's going to build it. You mentioned the Tanenbaum/Rogers partnership. I'll get back to why that's not as promising as it sounds.

The fact is that the undersized-for-NFL-football Rogers Centre seats 54,000 for Bills football, and they can't even sell that out. The smallest NFL stadium when it comes to seating, on the other hand, is Soldier Field, which holds 61, 500. All but five NFL stadiums hold 65,000 or more. So yes, a new stadium could be built with private funds, but would it filled?

Can they sell 61,000 seats in a new stadium if they can't sell 54,000 in the RC? Keep in mind that this is a city that's been in NFL relocation talk since as far back as the 70's. A city that prides itself on having THE best (though their renovations to the ROM would seem to point to the contrary), and has supposedly seen being saddled with the CFL as an insult to its status as a world class metropolis. You would think that selling 54,000 tickets for NFL football would be easy. This is it Toronto, your chance to show the NFL that putting a franchise here is worth it. Well already in year two of the Bills in Toronto experiment and prices have dropped on tickets, and some are even being given away to fill up the upper bowl. Tailgating hasn't taken off at all, fan response has been lukewarm, and 54,000 seats were definitely not sold. The NFL experience didn't create the buzz everyone, myself included, thought it would. Compare this to San Antonio, who as a city went wild fro the Saints when they played a few home games there in the wake of Katrina.

So yeah, a new stadium could be built with private funds, but could they fill it? The Bills barley manage to outdraw the Jags in Jacksonville when they play in the RC. No way is the NFL pleased looking at the reaction of Toronto to the Bills experiment.

As for the TV contracts, you're right, we don't have Fox or CBS affiliates. We get the games on Canadian networks like Global, CTV, and TSN. The feeds are directly from the original American networks, but they're aired on Canadian channels, which means the Canadian networks get the ratings. I can't imagine Fox, NBC, and CBS being happy about a team in Toronto that had that arrangement.

So the NFL, its broadcast partners and Canadian television outlets would figure out a new arrangement. Since Art Modell's early work on a league-wide broadcast deal back in the 1960s, the NFL has always been at the forefront of figuring out how to make television more profitable for the league and its member franchises. We're not talking about rocket-science. The league would figure something out.

I'm sure they would. The question is, do they want to go through that trouble? The NFL doesn't need Toronto. They can opt to walk away from it and still do just fine. The fact is that when you bring Canadian viewer-ship into the picture things get complicated. Would they bring CTVglobemedia, which owns CTV and TSN (two of the networks that air American NFL feeds), into the fold? If so how would that work? Would CTV/TSN get exclusive coverage in Canada while CBS continues to maintain the rights in the States? Would CTV/TSN have their own guys calling the game? I mean Rogers has their own team covering the Jays, and TSN has their own guys calling the Raptors. Would the league want to bring in a new television partner for the sake of one team? What if the Toronto team's playing on Sunday or Monday nights? Those games are broadcast on TSN up here. Would we get TSN guys calling those games? Seems like a lot to work around for one team. Sure, they could work something out, but given that the NFL doesn't need the market, why would they put themselves through the hassle? They're the NFL. They can afford to walk away if things don't work out as planned.

So yeah, the NFL in Toronto's not happening.

In your opinion. The fact of the matter is that the National Football League covets the Greater Toronto market.

It's a fact is it? First the NHL, now the NFL. You seem to know a lot about the workings of top tier professional sports leagues.

In all seriousness though, the NFL is/was at the very least interested in the GTA market. That's why the Bills are doing what they're doing, after all. The thing is, as I pointed out earlier, the response isn't what anyone expected. When NFL football can't put 54,000 butts in seats something's not working. And again, plenty of "temporary home sites" have shown fantastic levels of support of the "home" team in the past, like Madison and Milwaukee for the Packers, and San Antonio for the Saints, so it's not like anyone can pin the underwhelmed fan response in Toronto to the fact that the team's really just visiting.

The NFL was right to be interested in the GTA, it's a large, untapped market. They tested the waters, another smart move. I think the results of that experiment have made the location less palatable to the NFL. The NFL not drawing 54,000 fans? Sure, that can be expected in Jacksonville, a local they never should have set up shop in to begin with, but Toronto? The city that most claim NEEDS NFL football? Perhaps the market wasn't what the NFL thought it was. The fan response in Toronto has to be giving some higher ups in the NFL a second thought regarding the GTA market.

Further, there are well-heeled parties who are interested in bringing an NFL franchise to Toronto.

Are there now? There's the Tanenbaum/Rogers partnership, but that's really nothing new. Groups trying to bring the NFL to Toronto have been trying since the 70's, this partnership is just the latest incarnation of that trend.

When they announced the MLSE/Rogers Communications partnership to bring the NFL to Toronto there was a lot of media buzz at first, but then it sort of just went away. On top of that Ted Rogers, one of the main figures behind the push for the NFL in Toronto, is dead. Rogers Communications, meanwhile, is cutting ticket prices, and even giving them away for free. So I'm not really seeing a lot of promise from this "well-heeled party."

Hell... even CFL commissioner Mark Cohon sees the writing on the wall. As recently as two years ago he conceded that he could see a day when the NFL had a full-time franchise presence in Toronto. His hope was that such a move could be undertaken cooperatively.

I would like to live in Mr. Cohon's world, as it seems like a much nicer place then the one we inhabit. For all the flack Toronto gets for their lukewarm support of the Argos within CFL circles the fact is that it's the country's, and by extension the league's, largest media market. Though support for the Bills in Toronto has been disappointing compared to the level of support showed by NFL fans elsewhere, they would still be able to put the Argos, the oldest pro football team in North America, under. Not just in terms of fan support either. With a NFL team in Toronto the Argos would get even less coverage then they do now, and sooner or later they will either have to move or fold. It's even questionable whether the Hamilton Ti-Cats can survive with the NFL juggernaut so close by.

So already a NFL team in Toronto is putting the existence of two CFL teams in the country's most populated region in serious trouble, if not out-right condemning them to death. And as much as the passionate CFL fans out west and in Montréal would hate to admit it, the CFL cannot survive without a team in Toronto. You cannot abandon the country's largest media market, plus another team on top of that, to what is essentially the competition and expect the league to be alright. The Argos won't survive, at least in Toronto, if the NFL sets up shop there, and without the Argos the league's done for.

And yes, once the NFL puts a team in Toronto they become competition to the CFL.

It's more then just losing the Canadian Football League that's at stake, it's the loss of Canadian football as a separate game as well. Without the CFL Canadian rules would go by the wayside nation wide.

Yes, it's just losing a different way to play gridiron football, and that may not seem like much at all. The thing is though, it's bigger then that. We as a country have lost a lot of traditions and unique customs to American mass media and politics. Our lumber industry laws are facing ruin as the US challenges us on them in a NAFTA dispute. I was accused of not being "liberal enough" because I failed to get excited over a certain Democratic Presidential candidate a year ago. I even hear kids saying "zee" instead of "zed" now and then

So I'm not in favour of losing anything else. That includes our quirky style of football. Good portions of our history follow the theme of figuring out ways not be absorbed into your country. We fought a war over it. We need to protect the things we have that help define us as a unique nation on the North American continent.

None of the obstacles you cite as standing in the way of the establishment of an NFL franchise in Toronto are insurmountable.

No, they aren't insurmountable. They aren't things that can just be cast aside either. Add the fact that the Bills can't even sell out the Rogers Centre to the original points I made, and the NFL in Toronto doesn't seem as sure a thing as it once did.

Bottom line?

That despite ridiculing me for holding an opinion contrary to your own in the Coyotes thread, YOU took it upon yourself to post-bomb me about the Buffalo Bills possibly moving to Toronto?

Despite what happened in that Coyotes thread I've had enough sense to stay clear of you, because for whatever reason the opinions of Icecap79 annoy Brian in Boston, and I have no interest in maintaining an internet pissing contest.

If you want to take time out of your day to harass me every time I make a post that conflicts with your world view, that's your own prerogative. I'll be happy to discuss the matter at hand, provided you can do so without calling unreasonable for not automatically abandoning my own position and embracing yours.