NFL considering 18 games and 36 teams

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

The NFL would **** over the CFL in a second if it suited them and they saw a profit opportunity. CFL almost went out of business completely last year.

Buffalo would oppose a team in Toronto or Montreal.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Buffalo would oppose a team in Toronto or Montreal.

Buffalo certainly would but that’s just one owner. They can’t stop this kind of expansion if the majority want it.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by DaFace

My understanding is that the London games sell out pretty much instantly, so there's definitely a demand there.

What I just can't figure out is how the logistics would work. You'd constantly have battles between teams that are jet lagged and teams that aren't.

PT Barnum sold out a lot of shows too. At least some of it has to be the novelty of it.

Those guys go nuts if their soccer team dumps a match. Can you imagine the murder rate if they got the Jags?

Originally Posted by kcclone

This is a bad idea, IMO. There will be a huge difference in QB play between the top 10 and bottom 10. Like a huge gap.

There is probably more competent per capita QB play than OL play at the moment. And it will get worse. OU, Ohio State, Alabama all have shit OL right now and they get the pick of prospects.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Buffalo certainly would but that’s just one owner. They can’t stop this kind of expansion if the majority want it.

Detroit would probably oppose teams in those cities as well.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief

Detroit would probably oppose teams in those cities as well.

Still not enough. Expansion of this kind would mean (at least in theory) a lot more money for the collective.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Still not enough. Expansion of this kind would mean (at least in theory) a lot more money for the collective.

MMM maybe.

Do you listen to the Bill Simmons podcast?

He had Cuban on and he suggested that NBA expansion would hurt current owners. It was early in the spring when I heard it so I might be wrong, but if there is a guy who's math I trust, it's Cuban. But essentially he said the pie being bigger is of no consequence because you get a smaller piece of the bigger pie.

And there's probably a similar approach here. Is the additional ad revenue of an additional 52 games (is that right? 2 additional games for 18 weeks and 18 games week 19?) worth getting 2.778% instead of 3.125%. If my math is right (it's midnight and I'm tired as **** - it's probably not), that's an additional 12% you couldn't otherwise get just to break even.

654 games vs 544 is 19% more games, but really 34 of those games would be available with 32 teams, so that's only 13.4% more games from additional teams. Also, I don't know how the ad programs work. Not sure if a 13% increase in ad slots equates to 13% more revenue.

There is also some dilution effect of franchise valuation, and reduced control over decision making that I'm not smart enough to put a number on.

But if the 12% and 13.4% numbers are right, that's a mighty big bite to take for 1.4% marginal revenue - maybe.

[Chief Roundup]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

Buffalo certainly would but that’s just one owner. They can’t stop this kind of expansion if the majority want it.

With the talk, although likely not happening, of Buffalo relocating they might not complain.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk