If sports were starting today ...

[mjrbaseball]

A thought experiment ...

Let's say professional sports were just beginning today, rather than having been around for the better part of a century (or in baseball's case, more than that). I believe there might be a very different model than the one we are familiar with, due to technology, transportation and other issues.

Using football, for example, the NFL would still have 32 teams, but they would not represent cities. They would just be Giants, Rams, Colts, Packers, etc. Because most people follow football on television, and fan support frequently has little to do with geography, tying teams to cities would not be needed.

But the games would have to be played somewhere, of course. So there would be stadiums all over the country, just as there are now. But without home teams, every game would be a neutral site game. Teams would play in a different city every week.

There would not necessarily be 32 cities to match the number of teams. There would need to be a minimum of 16 cities, of course, because that is how many games there are each week. But there could be more than that, and perhaps even more than 32 cities.

Cities would not have to host the same number of games. New York might, though, so 17 games would be played there. Chicago and Los Angeles might also host 17 games. Other cities would host a lesser number of games, perhaps on a sliding scale: 14 games in Philadelphia, 10 in Houston, 8 in Denver, and so on. Some really little cities might get one game a year, or maybe even every other year, or just a one-time special occasion (perhaps for a small city's centennial or something).

This, of course, is vastly different than every NFL city hosting 8 games a year.

As I said, this is just fantasy, and it obviously has a lot of flaws. Please don't simply say "It will never work." Of course it won't. But please discuss the pros and cons of this as a concept. Use your imagination and pretend that it is possible. Imagine that the NFL might have always been this way, without the current system ever having existed.

[CS85]

I'm not high enough to understand what this is.

[Kevin W.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Basketball_Association

[Cujo]

There would not necessarily be 32 cities to match the number of teams. There would need to be a minimum of 16 cities, of course, because that is how many games there are each week. But there could be more than that, and perhaps even more than 32 cities. Cities would not have to host the same number of games. New York might, though, so 17 games would be played there. Chicago and Los Angeles might also host 17 games. Other cities would host a lesser number of games, perhaps on a sliding scale: 14 games in Philadelphia, 10 in Houston, 8 in Denver, and so on. Some really little cities might get one game a year, or maybe even every other year, or just a one-time special occasion (perhaps for a small city's centennial or something).

[Philsphan]

I like this topic! It took a great imagination to come up with this. What I think would happen is that the only 5-10 teams would actually have fans. Everyone would be a fair weather fan, cheering for whichever team was the best, or the most fun to watch. Famous college players would carry their fanbases to their teams, for instance, everyone at Baylor would be Redskins fans. Eventually, teams would start making deals with stadiums so they can either play close to these "college fanbases" or avoid playing in small places like Jacksonville.

Stadiums would also have problems filling seats because not many people would want to come out to see two teams which they are impartial to. Games like Chiefs vs. Cardinals would attract about as many fans as the Little Caesars Bowl. All in all, the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer.

[officeglenn]

mjr, I think you're grossly underestimating the power of geography in determining fanbases. You're right in that, with television and the internet, geography doesn't have as much to do with team allegiances as it once did, but I still think it plays a major part, so much so that simply having generic teams that are not associated with cities would not go over well.

Pro sports — even amateur sports — fandom has always really been an expression of tribalism, built around the idea that the team I associate with is better than the team you associate with. And probably the biggest factor in that tribalism is location. If the teams were not representing cities, not carrying the hopes and dreams of those cities on their shoulders, I don't think you would see the passion of sports fans that you do today, and consequently you would not see as many fans come out to games or buy merchandise, and the leagues would struggle to stay afloat.

[BBTV]

Pro sports — even amateur sports — fandom has always really been an expression of tribalism, built around the idea that the team I associate with is better than the team you associate with. And probably the biggest factor in that tribalism is location. If the teams were not representing cities, not carrying the hopes and dreams of those cities on their shoulders, I don't think you would see the passion of sports fans that you do today, and consequently you would not see as many fans come out to games or buy merchandise, and the leagues would struggle to stay afloat.

This is the essence of it.

This idea is essentially like pro wrestling. You hype up matches and then contest them in various cities. For it to work, you'd have to hype up each team and artificially create rivalries and "stories" to get people to come out. The problem (well, one of the less obvious problems) would be that some games are just duds - under a model like this, the league can't afford to have dud games, or people in the host cities just wouldn't come out anymore (as opposed to the current model, where people come out for "their" team just because.)

I think that the biggest ways sports would be different today is that

1. You'd see teams in different cities. There is no way some of today's markets would have teams.

2. There would be a centralized ownership with "branches" in various cities. This would allow for simpler collective bargaining, as each player would essentially have a contract with the "home office", and could be transferred to any branch office, just like a bank. Each "branch manager" would be given a budget, and have to work out transfers and other personnel decisions based on that number.

I'm not saying that this is better, but back in the day, nobody was envisioning the amount of money and the strengths of the unions that would be involved in sports teams.

[tBBP]

I really have no good way to illustrate this so bear with me...but I guess if I was to play devil's advocate, if teams were to pop up today without being tied to a specific location, might it end up something like NASCAR, where all you know is the driver and the number plastered to the side of his (or her) car? I mean, I guess that kinda fits into what the OP was mentioning about playing in different venues—drivers all meet up and race at different tracks each week, all around the nation. And I'm willing to bet NASCAR probably has the biggest cross-section of fans of a certain driver per capita out of all the (major) pro sports in this country.

But I guess even then some hometown bias pride would inevitably show through, though. Just figured I'd try to present another angle.

[pianoknight]

mjr, I think you're grossly underestimating the power of geography in determining fanbases. You're right in that, with television and the internet, geography doesn't have as much to do with team allegiances as it once did, but I still think it plays a major part, so much so that simply having generic teams that are not associated with cities would not go over well.

Pro sports — even amateur sports — fandom has always really been an expression of tribalism, built around the idea that the team I associate with is better than the team you associate with. And probably the biggest factor in that tribalism is location. If the teams were not representing cities, not carrying the hopes and dreams of those cities on their shoulders, I don't think you would see the passion of sports fans that you do today, and consequently you would not see as many fans come out to games or buy merchandise, and the leagues would struggle to stay afloat.

This is a vastly important concept.

Even if you stripped away the idea of home cities - look at how sports are laid out. The NBA has an Eastern and Western Division. MLB has the AL West. The NFC and AFC each have four directional divisions. Even in the college ranks this trend continues - SEC East, Pac 12 North.

To make a historical comparison, this is why many Americans were neutral about WWII until Pearl Harbor. Sure, the Nazis were bad, but that was France and Poland's problem -- they were the ones getting invaded.

It's the same reason that Alabama hates Auburn more than Florida. It's why Oklahoma and Colorado meant more to Nebraska than Penn State.

Bulls-Pistons? Cardinals-Cubs? Yankees-Red Sox? Duke-UNC?

You strip away geography and you strip away a large part of rivalries. Which is really what sports is all about. The Bears could win 5 games all season, but if two of those wins were over Green Bay, some fans would be satisfied with the season.

[Sport]

mjr, I think you're grossly underestimating the power of geography in determining fanbases. You're right in that, with television and the internet, geography doesn't have as much to do with team allegiances as it once did, but I still think it plays a major part, so much so that simply having generic teams that are not associated with cities would not go over well.

Pro sports — even amateur sports — fandom has always really been an expression of tribalism, built around the idea that the team I associate with is better than the team you associate with. And probably the biggest factor in that tribalism is location. If the teams were not representing cities, not carrying the hopes and dreams of those cities on their shoulders, I don't think you would see the passion of sports fans that you do today, and consequently you would not see as many fans come out to games or buy merchandise, and the leagues would struggle to stay afloat.

This is a vastly important concept.

Even if you stripped away the idea of home cities - look at how sports are laid out. The NBA has an Eastern and Western Division. MLB has the AL West. The NFC and AFC each have four directional divisions. Even in the college ranks this trend continues - SEC East, Pac 12 North.

To make a historical comparison, this is why many Americans were neutral about WWII until Pearl Harbor. Sure, the Nazis were bad, but that was France and Poland's problem -- they were the ones getting invaded.

It's the same reason that Alabama hates Auburn more than Florida. It's why Oklahoma and Colorado meant more to Nebraska than Penn State.

Bulls-Pistons? Cardinals-Cubs? Yankees-Red Sox? Duke-UNC?

You strip away geography and you strip away a large part of rivalries. Which is really what sports is all about. The Bears could win 5 games all season, but if two of those wins were over Green Bay, some fans would be satisfied with the season.

That's true. A lot of Browns fans I know are okay with their 5 win season because two of those wins were over the Bengals and Steelers.

I don't think geographical alliances between teams and cities would disappear if professional sports were invented today. It's just that a lot of cities currently in the big 4 wouldn't have teams. Cincinnati, for example, probably wouldn't be in the NFL or MLB (intentional kiddie speak).

[mjrbaseball]

Good responses. I didn't realize that I was thinking of a NASCAR-like scenario when I thought of this. In reality, I don't doubt that a team's geographical fan base is important. But sometimes I let my imagination wander and say "What if?" I think it might work on a small geographical scale — the Philippines example is a good one — but the U.S. / Canada is too widespread.

[DaytonBlue]

I had a thought like this back in the earlier days of MLS. Have fewer teams represent regions, thus each team would be more talented. Would not ever see this working.

Example of Regions:

Megalopolis

Great Lakes

Cascadia

California

Texas

[dfwabel]

I really have no good way to illustrate this so bear with me...but I guess if I was to play devil's advocate, if teams were to pop up today without being tied to a specific location, might it end up something like NASCAR, where all you know is the driver and the number plastered to the side of his (or her) car? I mean, I guess that kinda fits into what the OP was mentioning about playing in different venues—drivers all meet up and race at different tracks each week, all around the nation. And I'm willing to bet NASCAR probably has the biggest cross-section of fans of a certain driver per capita out of all the (major) pro sports in this country.

But I guess even then some hometown bias pride would inevitably show through, though. Just figured I'd try to present another angle.

I thought of NASCAR as well, but in a different way.

The OP talked about cities hosting, but not all cities would host the same amount. This would be like tracks with two events as opposed to one (or even just a NNS race). Race in town X and return to your motorshop. While most NASCAR race teams have shops within a 20 mile radius, could the same actually exist for these "barnstorming teams"? I think not.

At one point, a city would want a team to base their offices with them due to the number of games they would "host", and thus you have a de-facto home team arrangement. If not, the league would just be considered more of a sideshow since the cities would want more of a committment from the league/team.

[JackieMoon]

I am 16 deep into a High Life Light Cube and I don't understand this... lol

[Cosmic]

Pro sports — even amateur sports — fandom has always really been an expression of tribalism, built around the idea that the team I associate with is better than the team you associate with. And probably the biggest factor in that tribalism is location. If the teams were not representing cities, not carrying the hopes and dreams of those cities on their shoulders, I don't think you would see the passion of sports fans that you do today, and consequently you would not see as many fans come out to games or buy merchandise, and the leagues would struggle to stay afloat.

This is the essence of it.

This idea is essentially like pro wrestling. You hype up matches and then contest them in various cities. For it to work, you'd have to hype up each team and artificially create rivalries and "stories" to get people to come out. The problem (well, one of the less obvious problems) would be that some games are just duds - under a model like this, the league can't afford to have dud games, or people in the host cities just wouldn't come out anymore (as opposed to the current model, where people come out for "their" team just because.)

I think that the biggest ways sports would be different today is that

1. You'd see teams in different cities. There is no way some of today's markets would have teams.

2. There would be a centralized ownership with "branches" in various cities. This would allow for simpler collective bargaining, as each player would essentially have a contract with the "home office", and could be transferred to any branch office, just like a bank. Each "branch manager" would be given a budget, and have to work out transfers and other personnel decisions based on that number.

I'm not saying that this is better, but back in the day, nobody was envisioning the amount of money and the strengths of the unions that would be involved in sports teams.

This, basically. The difference with pro wrestling and NASCAR is that you get most or all of your best "players" at every event. In pro wrestling, you can even sorta control who is popular and who isn't. Who is going to watch or go see, for example, this Sunday's Bills-Jets game if the teams don't represent any specific cities and the game is being played in Atlanta? Just because it's NFL football?

[mjrbaseball]

Who is going to watch or go see, for example, this Sunday's Bills-Jets game if the teams don't represent any specific cities and the game is being played in Atlanta? Just because it's NFL football?

I guess such a league might evolve into this situation. But people might go to a game such as Bills-Jets because (1) if it were in a larger city, they would be in the habit of going to a game every Sunday, no matter who was playing; (2) it was part of their season-ticket package, or (3) it was in a smaller city which only got one or two games a year, and thus was a bigger local event.

[pianoknight]

I do like your concept of having a team rotate around the country, though.

What about keeping the traditional home/away model, but adding a decent amount of neutral site games? A 16-game football schedule might include 6 home, 6 away and 4 neutral site games each season?

Or, you could have teams play games at close-by stadiums. The Redskins, for example, could play "home" games in Baltimore or Philadelphia - likely when the Ravens or Eagles are on the road. The metro area of DC/Baltimore/Philly is relatively close and there are plenty of Ravens fans in Philadelphia, or Eagles fans in Washington DC.

[njmeadowlanders]

Re: rotating games...I always thought the NFL compromise (if they were SO hellbent on 18 games, for what its worth I think it should stay at 16) should be a 17 game schedule with 8 home and road games and a neutral site game for all 32 teams once a year. It'd have to be places that could seat at least 60,000...so major college stadiums basically, and then you could try your London game, Mexico City again, Toronto, and even maybe try places like Tokyo, Vancouver, maybe a couple other CFL stadiums every now and then, or other European cities. They would be non-divisional games and an "at large" matchup within your conference. Since you play 12 conference games currently (six vs your division, four against an entire division in your conference, and two from the other two conference divisions based on the prior years record) you'd have a pool of six other teams for that at large opponent each season.

[illwauk]

The only one of the "Big 4" I could see this working in is the NBA where... aside from the Lakers, Celtics and perhaps the Knicks... players usually have more notoriety than the teams they play for. I would imagine something like the And1 Tour, only with permanent teams that weren't necessarily tied to locales.

Aside from that, if pro sports started today, I'd imagine it'd be more like (association) football in Europe.

[Gothamite]

Aside from that, if pro sports started today, I'd imagine it'd be more like (association) football in Europe.

In what way? European football is even more tribal than anything we've got. It breaks down even further than large metro area v. large metro area, with large cities having several teams representing different neighborhoods.