|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 4, 2009 16:58:33 GMT -6
It's not a coaching topic, but it is football. Is it possible today to start a money-making football league? My criteria: - Not the NFL or the CFL. I don't want a wise guy answer "yes" pointing to those. It's possible even the CFL wouldn't qualify today by the other criteria.
- Players and families not a source of revenue. Players to at least break even on expenses, not counting opportunity cost of foregone income from time playing instead of career.
- All or almost all games to be played within North America.
- IRS guideline: having to make a profit 3 of its 1st 5 years of operation. Above that, over those 5 years overall avg. rate of return to at least equal a money market fund.
- Revenue from gate, sponsorship/ads, concessions, and/or licensing. No extravagant patron's input to count as revenue, nor stock sales to investors collectively losing money.
- It could never be cumulatively more than $1,000,000 in the red, not counting initial outlay by personnel to be reimbursed by season's end.
- No revenue from or ownership by the NFL, except as sales of contracts on players or facilities, or of goods. No payment by the NFL to develop personnel.
- League to use own playing rules, distinct enough that officials need considerable homework on differences with what they're used to.
- It would be field football, at least 10/side, and recognizable as a version of American/Canadian football.
- At least 6 teams to play at least 8 games each per season, at least 1 season/year, starting within 1 year of initial expenditure.
- Expenditures by original organizers to attract investment not to count as expenditures or time of operation.
- Players at least 16 YO.
- No big political development such as the loss of tax exempt status by college sports to make it possible.
Everything else would be completely flexible. I had in mind 11-a-side, but I wrote "at least 10" just to indicate great flexibility. The players could be men, could be women, could be teens. Ownership of the entire league could be in the hands of a single entity, lock, stock and barrel, or their could be franchises. Teams could be spread across the USA, Canada, and Mexico, or they could all be within 50 miles of each other. The season might be any time of year, spread out in time or compressed. In particular, the operation could be of any size, subject to the initial investment limit. Doesn't matter whether it winds up netting $100 or $100 million a year, as long as the rate at least equals a money market fund for whatever the total investment is. So, do you think it would be possible? If so, what would it look like, in terms of any details of operation? If not, which criterion makes it impossible?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 4, 2009 18:26:36 GMT -6
Good, legitimate question, how would a league FIRST handle the initial barriers every other startup league has encountered (what happened to that league in 2008 that was supposed to use ex graduates and NCAA stadiums?). and I do appreciate the responsible, fiscal control you outlined (that would set it apart from others).
If you had a kid 16-18 would YOU let him play on this team, or would it be safer for him to play for HS?
If you were a woman, why would you play with men? If you were a man, why would you play with women (well, wait....I know why I would....er...)?
I would definitely suggest starting in Texas or the Gulf South in the Spring (competiting with HS,NCAA,NFL in the fall would be a disaster), as I don't believe any other region could consistently support such an idea from the jump (though, the weather would be so nice, how do you DRAW fans into a stadium?).
What else would bring people to your games, though? No band? That is 1/2 of most HS stadiums reason for people showing up.
|
|
|
Post by touchdownmaker on Oct 4, 2009 18:54:10 GMT -6
Bring back "HE HATE ME"
|
|
|
Post by coachks on Oct 4, 2009 20:13:31 GMT -6
I've always felt a spring/early summer league would work. Franchises in the most "football crazed" areas just before HS/college startup (The South, Texas, Ohio) playing in small college/large high school (roughly 20,000 seat). Play the games on a Saturday night (minimal competition with baseball, which plays primarily day games) and get FSN to pickup the games (unless they could convince ESPN 2/U to pick them up).
If high school teams are profitable, and there are some profitable semi-pro teams than there is no reason why a football league couldn't be profitable. The issue with most of these startup leagues is that they aim for BIG markets and try and use big stadiums. They try and fish out new markets (NFL europe, AFL) and find new fans. They won't just go to where they have a built in fanbase.
Get "college heros" from schools like LSU, 'Bama, Ohio State ect. ect. who didn't get a shot in the NFL, put them in the biggest football markets when there is no other compeition and people will show up.
|
|
|
Post by cmow5 on Oct 4, 2009 22:32:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by airraid77 on Oct 5, 2009 8:52:22 GMT -6
Imo you have to start small. barn storming small. every team for themselves. dont try to be revolutionary. Keep the game what it is. keep salaries low. let the game build it self. If you try to with big names, it will fail imo. take the players that WANT TO PLAY.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 5, 2009 11:05:06 GMT -6
Good, legitimate question, how would a league FIRST handle the initial barriers every other startup league has encountered (what happened to that league in 2008 that was supposed to use ex graduates and NCAA stadiums?). What are the barriers? Lack of success may point to a barrier but is not proof a barrier exists. A barrier has to be some thing, not just a poor record. Huh? I was just defining "money making" to answer the yes/no question, not saying it'd have responsible fiscal control. Depends who's running the school team, and who's running the non-school team. I meant men's or women's teams, not mixed play. That's a good Q. Many of the same factors that'd operate in your favor or disfavor would be the same as your competition would face. So how would it figure into the calculation, business-wise? If the band is the draw and football's the side show, then if the aggregate makes money, you can't say it was the football that made money. So the band would be treated either as a concession -- i.e. the band would sublet the facilities from the team, which would be income for the team -- or the team would pay the band for their performance, which would be an expense for the team but add to their gate income. In some cases I've seen it was a no-money trade. The band was a garage band that just wanted exposure, or there was a volunteer cheerleading team that was allowed to solicit donations from the audience. Don't neglect the possibility that the football team could be the side show. The Rose Bowl game started as a side show for the Tournament of Roses; they also tried chariot races. However, projections can't be extrapolated from a time when football was a novelty. You can't expect that because some teams managed to make money a century ago, they could do so under the same conditions now -- when people can find other football on TV or locally.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 5, 2009 11:15:05 GMT -6
What are the barriers? Lack of success may point to a barrier but is not proof a barrier exists. A barrier has to be some thing, not just a poor record. + competing with NFL, NCAA, AF2, HS footballthose markets competing means they would subvert any upstart (see AFL / WFL). Imagine a new soft drink....what would Coke & Pepsi do to counter customers from pulling away from THEM to choose a newer product? + No draw - third-rate product: there is no incentive to choose this league what athletes/coaches/owners/trainers/sponsors would choose this over the more mainstream venues? There is all the risk and none of the reward + financial irresponsibility - most alternative leagues have failed because of a lack of clear cut financial objectives or profit-win for sponsors (= in the red) + lack of consistency / quality destroys the 'brand'with {censored} coaches and throw-away players, what you get is glorified rec league football. It isn't worth watching even if you know someone on the team. + no capital - how do you get a wide-reaching $$$ burning venture off the ground when its future is uncertain and you do not already have a draw? Unless you have T.Boone Pickens bankrolling this adventure, getting it off the ground may be an unsurmountable obstacle to overcoming the previous 4 challenges + Attention competition - in this day and age with so much to do, who/what is your target demographic? With the Internet, Gaming, vast social outlets, increased recreational sports, and a shakey economy.....how can you generate a completely NEW following in the midst of so many different competing venues of a region? In the 'old days' you had sport monopolies (baseball/footall), now there is everything under the sun to support and/or spend your time enjoying (rather than plopping down in a stadium for 3 - 4 hours)
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 5, 2009 11:20:55 GMT -6
If high school teams are profitable, and there are some profitable semi-pro teams Are there now, by the criteria I laid out? Then the question would already be answered "yes" by simply collecting those semi-pro teams. (Remember, I didn't say the players had to be full pros, only that they'd at least break even on their personal expenses.) But my understanding is that there have not been any profitable semi-pro teams in 20-30 yrs. now. There are a few profitable amateur teams whose major source of income is the players; they operate like any for-profit gym or athletic club where you pay to play. People may call them semi-pro, but they're lying or misinformed. Or I am misinformed. And scholastic and collegiate teams don't count because their tax status gives them a competitive advantage. I should've specified that in my criteria, sorry.
|
|
|
Post by davecisar on Oct 5, 2009 12:26:38 GMT -6
Semi-pro is fancy name for pay to play adult football. Almost all are money losers, even those that charge $$ to play. They rarely draw more than family and close friends for all the reasons Matt Brophy mentioned. Back in the day when every town had it's own team and there wasnt competition for the enertainment dollar, they were viable. Not today as a money maker. I know 1 local team, you pay for your own equipment AND pay $500 to play.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 5, 2009 18:59:33 GMT -6
Semi-pro is fancy name for pay to play adult football. Right, and I don't know why they resist the word "amateur". Maybe they want people to understand them as a continuation of the actual semi-pro clubs that existed up into the 1970s, maybe the 1980s. But did "amateur" get a bad name?? (If so, is that partly the fault of the AAU?) I've seen some football leagues and teams with "Amateur" in their name, but more than that with "Professional", inappropriately, as part of their name. It's true that most are not money makers even though the players pay most of the expenses. But if they're money losers, who takes the loss? My understanding is that most of them are cooperative ventures, no investor, so there's nobody left who could take a loss. Is my understanding incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 5, 2009 19:34:10 GMT -6
You start a league, who / what is going to cover these expenses from a 10-year perspective?
Team jerseys / uniforms Player equipment Practice facility / equipment Coaching salaries / stipend / compensation Training staff / orthopedic specialist Game facility / stadium costs Travel/lodging/meal costs incurred by the team Team liability insurance policies
After you tackle that, how do you handle; Merchandising Gate workers Concessions Half-time entertainment / draw
I have seen this handled before with owners investing $20-30k upfront to handle the initial expenses and entry into the league and became hostage to getting players to front up $500 for equipment, then pony up $$$ for each road game. This is consistent with many amateur leagues I've seen (there are quite a few, and none of them have a quality product). Some of these leagues were televised (IWFL) , while others (particularly in the MidWest) relied on regional teams that really were nothing more than beer leagues. The successful business models were setting the team up as a non-profit (for tax purposes) and claiming stipends for the COOs and CEOs of the organization (team)....covering all expenses and donating whatever was left over to some cause (regardless of how little it was).
Here's the scheme; The league is created. The league commissioner solicits teams to join with promises of keeping all gate receipts and how cool it would be to own a team. You front up the $$$ to join the league(union) for games and recognition, and it is their job that consistency in the league (teams don't fold right away).....but once they have your money and your LEGAL commitment for a franchise, your {censored} is on the line / indebted to them until you can get out of the contract. It profits the commissioner and league executors.
And HERE is where the bottom line is at (not the general ledger)......this league will NOT be putting out a quality product, so why would you start a league to showcase baaaaad football?
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 5, 2009 20:01:10 GMT -6
And HERE is where the bottom line is at (not the general ledger)......this league will NOT be putting out a quality product, so why would you start a league to showcase baaaaad football? And yet, top quality entertainment has not taken all the money out of lesser quality entertainment in other fields such as music and theater, or even in movies. Are the fixed costs of football so much greater that the same economics could not apply -- the break-even point being that much higher? Or is the problem the competition from varsity sports for audience, or the physical risk to adults playing contact sports?
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 5, 2009 20:12:18 GMT -6
Why would people want to go and see it?
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 5, 2009 20:17:48 GMT -6
Why do people go to HS athletics? Why do people go to NCAA athletics? Why do people go to NFL games?
The only way you could get people in to REGULARLY attend third-rate football would be if there was a gimmick (ala WWE or some crazy fast-paced rule change like AFL/AF2).
Why would a college graduate (ex player) or experienced player play for free and not just move on with their (adult) life?
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Oct 5, 2009 20:44:55 GMT -6
Here is a league I would pay to see -
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 6, 2009 19:05:42 GMT -6
Why do people go to HS athletics? Why do people go to NCAA athletics? Mixture of reasons, including to some degree school or community spirit. To get drunk! But seriously, folks, it's mostly so they can see the best current players who also have the most practice time. But "best current" is significant. If the NFL expanded to 200 teams, they'd still get the best current players, but not as good on avg. as they have now. The other thing is, at the margin, the NFL isn't a huge step up in playing ability. How much worse than the worst players on the team are the last 10 players who got cut? The NFL is selling the entire game on the appeal of their star players, and fans just think the rest of the team is so good because they get to be on the field with the stars, and get as much practice time. That's why I put in the proviso that the officials would have to do some homework. There'd almost surely be some distinction to the game that differentiated it from the competition. "Fast paced" might be such a selling point, especially if it finishes the game in less time -- which could easily be done if, for instance, the teams forego commercial breaks. That's actually the easy part: for fun. It's a participant sport too, just not to the extent that it's a spectator sport. We know because there are adults already doing it for free, more commonly paying to play. And who says they have to have graduated from college, or played in college? Or even be old enough to have graduated from college? Or that they went to college at all? True, if they had a prominent varsity career, that would help attract a following. But I'm allowing for other possibilities. It would, however, be hard to start a circuit similar to, while competing directly with, major college varsity football, just because of the tax advantage the colleges have. It would be hard to develop the same income because the colleges can take advantage of tax deductible donations, and their program can also be profitable yet untaxed as long as the money stays in the institution. I would, however, love to see a bidding war for HS graduate talent between the colleges and a young-adult pro league. Anyway, the question remains, where are the break-even points? How much can you cut costs before your revenues are cut even more? Is it get big or get out? Or are there possibilities to nickel-and-dime it the way independent films can sometimes have huge rates of return on investment? Did TV make it impossible for the little guy to compete? Or does webcasting turn that around?
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 6, 2009 19:11:11 GMT -6
Why do people go to HS athletics? Why do people go to NCAA athletics? Why do people go to NFL games? The only way you could get people in to REGULARLY attend third-rate football would be if there was a gimmick (ala WWE or some crazy fast-paced rule change like AFL/AF2). Why would a college graduate (ex player) or experienced player play for free and not just move on with their (adult) life? All good questions.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 6, 2009 19:24:39 GMT -6
Why do people go to HS athletics? Why do people go to NCAA athletics? Mixture of reasons, including to some degree school or community spirit. To get drunk! But seriously, folks, it's mostly so they can see the best current players who also have the most practice time. But "best current" is significant. If the NFL expanded to 200 teams, they'd still get the best current players, but not as good on avg. as they have now. The other thing is, at the margin, the NFL isn't a huge step up in playing ability. How much worse than the worst players on the team are the last 10 players who got cut? The NFL is selling the entire game on the appeal of their star players, and fans just think the rest of the team is so good because they get to be on the field with the stars, and get as much practice time. That's why I put in the proviso that the officials would have to do some homework. There'd almost surely be some distinction to the game that differentiated it from the competition. "Fast paced" might be such a selling point, especially if it finishes the game in less time -- which could easily be done if, for instance, the teams forego commercial breaks. That's actually the easy part: for fun. It's a participant sport too, just not to the extent that it's a spectator sport. We know because there are adults already doing it for free, more commonly paying to play. And who says they have to have graduated from college, or played in college? Or even be old enough to have graduated from college? Or that they went to college at all? True, if they had a prominent varsity career, that would help attract a following. But I'm allowing for other possibilities. It would, however, be hard to start a circuit similar to, while competing directly with, major college varsity football, just because of the tax advantage the colleges have. It would be hard to develop the same income because the colleges can take advantage of tax deductible donations, and their program can also be profitable yet untaxed as long as the money stays in the institution. I would, however, love to see a bidding war for HS graduate talent between the colleges and a young-adult pro league. Anyway, the question remains, where are the break-even points? How much can you cut costs before your revenues are cut even more? Is it get big or get out? Or are there possibilities to nickel-and-dime it the way independent films can sometimes have huge rates of return on investment? Did TV make it impossible for the little guy to compete? Or does webcasting turn that around? My question stands- why would people pay to see this? As a HS coach, could I in good conscience advise a kid to play for that league rather than go to college? No. Are you planning to compete with HS programs for players? OK, here's a question- who will be your friends? Who's going to help you? How will you recruit? You say that your best players will be borderline NFL guys. You expect them to play for free for the fun of it. I don't think it'll work.
|
|
|
Post by coachinghopeful on Oct 7, 2009 3:57:34 GMT -6
Well, the big thing is money. If you want to attract real football players and coaches, you have to pay them something. Then there's all the equipment, etc. It adds up and I don't think the $1,000,000 Bob Goodman set out in his original post would be enough to cover what I think it would take to work.
Borderline NFL guys might play for free or close to it, but only if they feel they have a shot at parlaying their success to a lucrative NFL (or at least CFL) career. You already see this happening now with players in some semi pro leagues. Guys play to stay in shape and hopefully be discovered by an NFL scout. No, it's not the most realistic dream, but it's a dream. It's still probably not in the best interests of developing a league for the long-term because your most popular players may actually get snatched up by the NFL, if for no other reason than to hurt your league before it beomes real competition.
I disagree with all the "play in the spring or summer" talk. Football season is in the fall. That's when people want to go see football games. You don't see independent minor league baseball teams playing in the winter to avoid competition because if they did nobody would come out. I don't think it's just a coincidence that the XFL, World League, USFL, etc. all tried to play in the spring or summer and quickly folded. People think if it's the spring or summer, it's not "real football" so they don't care. I think a new league should capitalize on the general enthusiasm for football built up in the fall by its "competition."
Really, the calendar is sort of a catch 22 for minor league football. You play in the spring or summer and nobody takes you seriously. You play in the fall and the weekends, when people are most likely to come to games, are already booked up with High School, College, and the NFL.
IMO, the key would be to get a sizeable investment up front and locate the league in markets not served by the NFL or major college teams yet supportive enough of football to support the teams. Play in small HS or College stadiums at first (maybe 2,000 seat capacity) to provide a more intimate atmosphere--nothing drains enthusiasm faster than row upon row of empty bleachers. You could always move on to bigger stadiums as the league grows.
Also, I'd like for the teams to be owned by the league, which would appoint the GM and HC for each franchise (may be the same person) and actually pay them as much as a typical HS HC. That would help you to find competent coaches, and by having the league name them (and fire them) the league itself would have better control over the product on the field.
For example, in order to make games more interesting, they could pick coaches who would run diverse styles of offenses. You could have a Run and Shoot team, a Wishbone team, a SW team, an Air Raid, a Wing-T, etc but everyone should do something a little different so the teams stand out from one another. That would also help maximize the distribution of talent because there'd be less competition for specific types of players.
I would also try to put the teams fairly close together to save on travel costs and build a sense of rivalry among fans. Specifically, if I were setting up such a league, I'd go for a regional 9 team league with an 8 game schedule plus a championship game, located in the Southeast or Texas because that's where football fans are. That would yield 4 games a week with one team getting a bye. I'd spread the games out on Thurs.-Sun, being careful not to conflict with local HS or college football.
Size of the league is a concern early on, as a league that's too small won't be taken seriously by anyone and, obviously, one that's too large would just collapse under its own weight. I think a 9 team league with 8 game schedules, which starts its games a week before HS ball and has its championship game before HS playoffs is the way to go, but this would require lots of money, especially when some of the franchises are duds.
Now, as for the marketing and putting butts in seats... a lot of it would be very similar to the problem of marketing a newly built HS team to the local community. You would have to make a very creative use of limited resources, and you have to do things in a way that the community sees a connection with the team. To encourage this, I'd steal some of the secrets the NFL used back in the leather helmet days: sign local players with some name recognition or washed up college/NFL types people remember. This is something the indie wrestling feds know they have to do to survive. Even if he's not the best player or the easiest guy to work with, a draw is a draw. Any indie sports league is going to be painfully short on those.
As far as the quality of product on the field... that, to me, depends more on the coaching and personalities of the players involved than the athletic ability. If you could pick players and pay them, say, $18-24k a year, you'd have no problem finding competent players to stock your teams (they could always work second jobs in the offseason or even hold down a full time job during the season) and they would look good relative to each other. We might not have many big fish, but we'd have a much smaller pond, too. It's all relative. The big thing is having them be able to execute.
To get players people want to see, I'd be willing to take anybody over the age of 18 if he's willing to play. That opens up possibilities to recent HS graduates who couldn't make the grades or test scores for college or a kid who's flunked out of HS before his senior season. Obviously if a kid can get a scholarship he would be foolish not to take it but college right out of HS is not always the best choice for everybody. We all know of great athletes who fall through the cracks for whatever reason, or sign a scholarship and quit within a week because they're homesick. It would really be a struggle for the GM of each franchise just to stock the team with players worth seeing, but people can be loyal to hometown heroes when they're successful. I'd even get the hometown boys out making appearances at the schools, malls, etc. They would be the faces of the franchises.
Also, to better market the league, I'd get a 30 minute TV and radio show broadcast on local TV where the teams play. I'd also put it on youtube. Basically, anything to get in the paper or on popular blogs would be good, too. Exposure would be TOUGH.
In terms of the game itself, I'd go with 11 man football, played with modified NCAA rules on NCAA fields. I'd drop the "ineligible numbers" and "anti-Fumblerooski" rules to allow for lineman eligible plays. I'd ban cut blocking entirely in order to better protect players from injury (when they're paying for nothing or next to it, this is the least you can do).
For crazier on-field gimmicks, maybe institute the "multipe motions and a running start" rule from the CFL. I'd also toy with the idea of allowing forward passes from anywhere on the field, though this might cause the game to quickly degenerate into a Rugby-ish, unrecognisable version of itself.
I'd also maybe even allow a losing team to play with a 12th man if they go down by 21 points so that the game becomes instantly more competitive. Even more radical, make a TD worth more if it's scored from further out: say, anything over 50 yards is worth 7 points. If we're re-writing the rules, why not have fun with it? The possibilities are wide open there.
I like a suggestion Brophy made in the other thread of limiting the size of the rosters so players have to go both ways. I'd go with maybe a 22 man roster, but institute a rule that no more than 4 players can be substituted at a time and have a 30 second play clock, with no headsets allowed anywhere (even on the coaches). That means most players have to go both ways and know multiple positions, which would keep offenses and defenses simpler by necessity. This might actually help a fledgeling pro league to put a better product on the field by stressing execution over some owner or player's idea of a great complicated offense.
Another idea... REALLY smokin' hot stripper-esque cheerleaders. And cheap beer at games. Lots of cheap beer. I like Brophy's muppet idea, too. And give away lots of novelty stuff at each game--cheesy t-shirts and all sorts of cheap keepsakes, while keeping the ticket prices low ($5-10, but no more than that). Maybe even give away tickets for games with various promotions (team colors day or something) in hopes of making it back at the concession stand.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 7, 2009 17:17:15 GMT -6
You say that your best players will be borderline NFL guys. Not necessarily, that's just one possibility I brought up in response to a previous post. Another possibility would be a light weight league; I think I heard of one post-collegiate lightweight league in the 1970s, but my memroy might be playing tricks. But that's just one example of players who might never be NFL types.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 7, 2009 17:56:09 GMT -6
You say that your best players will be borderline NFL guys. Not necessarily, that's just one possibility I brought up in response to a previous post. Another possibility would be a light weight league; I think I heard of one post-collegiate lightweight league in the 1970s, but my memroy might be playing tricks. But that's just one example of players who might never be NFL types. It's still there. It's called Sprint Football. My college dropped their football program and now plays that. I don't know how many people will pay to see it.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 7, 2009 18:24:26 GMT -6
Well, the big thing is money. If you want to attract real football players and coaches, you have to pay them something. Then there's all the equipment, etc. It adds up and I don't think the $1,000,000 Bob Goodman set out in his original post would be enough to cover what I think it would take to work. And I put that "lid" on to preclude the trivial answer of someone's out-NFLing the NFL and displacing them. Then they would become the "NFL" and the question would still remain of whether anything less than that could make even money-market-fund money. Actually the USFL did pretty well when it played in the spring. It folded quickly only when it tried to move to the fall at Trump's insistence and gambled everything on an antitrust lawsuit. They might still be around had they kept playing in the spring. The women's leagues now all play in the spring, into the summer. The only fall league folded while the spring leagues took off. Of course they're pay-to-play, but they play in the spring to get away from the competition for fields & coaches. There's some men's play in spring too, but mostly it starts in the summer and goes into fall. Super League rugby plays in the spring in the USA & Canada and had been organized with the hope of its turning pro. (The question I asked starting this thread could be applied to rugby too.) But then you can't call it a "franchise"! "Division", "department", or "unit" maybe. Single entity ownership would also allow certain arrangements that would run afoul of antitrust laws if the teams were clubs/franchises. That's what the AAFC did in 1946. I think that since about 1960, the NFL has built up its audience mostly from people who don't care about those details, who are just interested in the spectacle. They don't care as long as there's a ball in there and the play ends with a tackle. They couldn't tell the difference from rugby, except that they're mesmerized by the pretty helmets. This means that there's still potential to appeal to "the fan of pro football from 1946", i.e. the aficionado who'd care about "diverse styles of offense", divorced from consideration of school spirit. (Pro football didn't overtake varsity football for att'n until years later. Very different history of marketing compared to baseball or boxing.) A lot of them, yes. I think Ohio and the area immediately around it (taking in W. Pa., most of W. Va., SE Mich., some of Ky. & Ind.) has actually been more supportive of football at all levels, but Tex. & the SE would be next best for fan support as regions. However, you might pick an area that just has greater popul'n density so you could pack the teams into a smaller area for even less travel cost. Even if the percentage of the population who are nuts about football is less, there might still be more people to support it, just because there are more people, period. Maybe even a single metropolitan area or two. So 9 weeks of season. A reason to keep the season short would be so the personnel wouldn't have to take as much time off their regular jobs. However, if the season were too short it would diminish interest. Plus, there are certain fixed, per-season costs. The trick there is that if you make the game too similar to what already exists, then you can compete only on $quality$, which is a losing proposition, but if you make the game too different from what already exists, then you don't get enough carryover interest from the existing "product". I have my own ideas for what I'd like to see, but I don't pretend that version of the game would be the most saleable. Arena football, inspired by indoor soccer, started with the idea of product differentiation, but immediately hedged things by adopting rules to make the game artifically like 11s. 8 a side was way too many for that amount of space, but Jim Foster fold me they made it that many to look like the outdoor game, which led to restrictions on the defense to make it playable. He also told me the reason the rebounding screens weren't extended to the floor as he wanted was the fear a player would get a hand caught in the links and sue. Works for wrestling. But this points to one handicap that may make money-making (or breaking-even) minor league football unsupportable these days. I mentioned that the existence of big stars in entertainment didn't stop small timers from making money in music or theater, for example. However, in many cases those performers are themselves the side show, not the main attraction, playing in bars, dinner theater, etc. I mentioned the possibility upthread of football's being the side show, but it's hardly practical in any but unusual circumstances. You can't fit a football field in a bar. I suppose a pair of football teams might travel with a circus; well, maybe they might've done so 100 years ago! Of course it could be argued that today with TV, everything becomes a side show -- that as long as someone glances at the screen occasionally while a commercial might be on, in the middle of vacuuming the couch, talking on the phone, arguing with the spouse or children, etc., that it's worth sponsoring.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 8, 2009 16:21:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by spreadattack on Oct 8, 2009 17:00:10 GMT -6
Besides being super popular, the NFL has a lot of legal exemptions (particularly anti trust) that are not available to other industries. The NFL can do a lot of thing to rob you of both marketing opportunities and players in a way that, say, a rival soap maker or plumbing service or theater couldn't.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 8, 2009 20:10:32 GMT -6
There've been some individual games played like that, but I didn't hear that they made money. But maybe the league will. It would be interesting if the LFL was profitable, for the effect it'd have on women's football. Some of the "serious" teams & players might be tempted to convert to "skinny", although they joke about it now.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 8, 2009 20:13:13 GMT -6
Besides being super popular, the NFL has a lot of legal exemptions (particularly anti trust) that are not available to other industries. Name one. They have no antitrust exemption, and I'd like to read of any other "legal exemption" they have.
|
|
|
Post by phantom on Oct 8, 2009 20:13:16 GMT -6
There've been some individual games played like that, but I didn't hear that they made money. But maybe the league will. It would be interesting if the LFL was profitable, for the effect it'd have on women's football. Some of the "serious" teams & players might be tempted to convert to "skinny", although they joke about it now. Boy, I've seen some pictures of some of the women's teams. You don't want lingerie. You really don't.
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Oct 8, 2009 20:20:25 GMT -6
There've been some individual games played like that, but I didn't hear that they made money. But maybe the league will. It would be interesting if the LFL was profitable, for the effect it'd have on women's football. Some of the "serious" teams & players might be tempted to convert to "skinny", although they joke about it now. Boy, I've seen some pictures of some of the women's teams. You don't want lingerie. You really don't. It would have an effect on the composition of the teams, of course. One player I'm friendly with is good looking, and many others of them are as well, but if you cut those who aren't, that would surely cut out a lot of players, and some teams would be affected more than others. However, the effect might be less than we think because the helmet & face guard, especially with a visor, cover up a lot.
|
|
|
Post by brophy on Oct 9, 2009 8:56:36 GMT -6
|
|