The NFL Thread

[Deano]

Fucking mental decision, that.

The QB position is a problem but I don't think one of the top 3 QB in this draft is going to fall to 8th pick. They can't trade up as there's so many positions the Vikings need to fill.

Cassel is at least better than the awful Ponder and so they will probably start Cassel and draft a rookie to sit behind him in the 2nd round.

If one of the top 3 QB's are available at 8 they will take them no doubt.

 

[Alan]

Surely they could have worked out something better for, say, Matt Flynn (who I will viciously defend until I die). Resigning Cassel is essentially anointing him the starter and starting Cassel is throwing away the season.

Poor Adrian Peterson. Putting a bunch of miles and hits on his frame for very little reward in Minnesota.

I'll be curious to see if the Mike Vick rumors have any weight.

 

[Deano]

Surely they could have worked out something better for, say, Matt Flynn (who I will viciously defend until I die). Resigning Cassel is essentially anointing him the starter and starting Cassel is throwing away the season.

Poor Adrian Peterson. Putting a bunch of miles and hits on his frame for very little reward in Minnesota.

I'll be curious to see if the Mike Vick rumors have any weight.

I think it was Vick or Cassel personally. I'm pretty sure they'll draft a QB somewhere. I don't think there was much in the free agents at QB really.

 

[Alan]

The league has been thin at QB for quite a while now. It's a bit concerning for the level of competition on the whole.

Out of curiosity, how popular is the NFL over there and what do you (personally, wouldn't ask you to speak for all Brits) think of the American draft system?

 

[Deano]

The league has been thin at QB for quite a while now. It's a bit concerning for the level of competition on the whole.

Out of curiosity, how popular is the NFL over there and what do you (personally, wouldn't ask you to speak for all Brits) think of the American draft system?

Getting more popular, you only have to look at the games held at Wembley which sell out easily. I've only just got into it really but since I have I've watched loads of stuff and read up on a lot as I really like the game.

The draft system is very good and the competitiveness of the league is second to none really.

 

[Alan]

Do you prefer the relative equity of the NFL, the club system of European football, or is it too apples to oranges to compare?

 

[Deano]

Do you prefer the relative equity of the NFL, the club system of European football, or is it too apples to oranges to compare?

NFL but that system can't work in European football unfortunately.

 

[Alan]

Of that I have no doubt. Just like it would be impossible to introduce relegation into our sports.

 

[Johnny75]

Of that I have no doubt. Just like it would be impossible to introduce relegation into our sports.

I can't agree with that Al, it would be easy to do but then you would need more teams. Could be implemented in Baseball as the abolition of the silly draft system and minor league club affiliation could easily be put into practice and would look like the football league pyramid. It would also keep the big clubs honest. Basketball it would be difficult for but the setting up of a second division of the NFL could be easy as there's enough stadia and players coming out of the college system to do it. It's the TV rights that would need sorting so it didn't devalue the college system but I don't see that as a problem. A one in one out system at division level would work quite well and stop the blow out games at the end of the season. The appetite is there for more teams too.

 

[Alan]

It would never work, in any sport, because no franchise organization would find the monetary risk necessary for a relegation/promotion system. The money would go out of the games; there are only a handful of owners here that pour money into their franchises (not clubs, franchises) for reasons other than business. The entire monetary structure of all leagues would have to be scrapped and rebuilt. The equity which is so brilliant in American sports would disappear.

It would never happen and never work.

 

[Johnny75]

It would work but I agree the Americans don't want it to happen. A little bit small minded IMO. The equity in the sports you talk about only exists in the NFL. Basketball has it's luxury tax and Baseball no tax and the big market teams buy their way to the top so no equity there. But the owners wouldn't allow it to happen so it's a closed shop and why the American sports will never be seen other than minority in other countries.

 

[Alan]

Basketball's equity is limited only by city size and player power; the biggest stars want to go to the biggest markets, which inevitably leads them to LA and New York. Baseball has different monetary restrictions but because of the playoff system you don't see those teams always dominating, unlike the Chelsea's and United's of English football. Perfect example would by the Tampa Bay Rays a few years back. In fact, since 1992, five teams have won the Premier League, and in that same time, eleven different teams have won the World Series. Money doesn't mean as much here because the acquisition of players is overwhelmingly completed through player-for-player deals. The rich franchises, like the Yankees, cannot simply go out and buy the best players from the smaller franchises (like the Kansas City Royals). The league system also ensures that no franchise is in need to sell off star players because league revenue is divided up among the teams on a relatively equal scale.

Saying that the lack of promotion/relegation in American leagues is the reason they won't gain steam overseas is jumping to quite a conclusion. You can already see that the NBA and MLB are remarkably popular in East Asia and South America/Central America, respectively.

Promotion/relegation has its place but implementing it here would destroy the entire American sporting culture, particularly in terms of player and youth development.

 

[Johnny75]

Basketball's equity is limited only by city size and player power; the biggest stars want to go to the biggest markets, which inevitably leads them to LA and New York. Baseball has different monetary restrictions but because of the playoff system you don't see those teams always dominating, unlike the Chelsea's and United's of English football. Perfect example would by the Tampa Bay Rays a few years back. In fact, since 1992, five teams have won the Premier League, and in that same time, eleven different teams have won the World Series. Money doesn't mean as much here because the acquisition of players is overwhelmingly completed through player-for-player deals. The rich franchises, like the Yankees, cannot simply go out and buy the best players from the smaller franchises (like the Kansas City Royals).

The bit in bold interests me the most because it is out and out untrue. The Yankees can of course go and buy who they want it depends what they want to give up to do it and plenty of deals have cash considerations. The equity you talk about doesn't exist in terms of money and star players and Moneyball proves that theory. John Henry, Billy Beane and Paul Depodesta have written as much too. Surely the one of the biggest markets is Chicago and they've been in sporting limbo for as long as the bulls fell off Denis Rodman false eyelashes.

The reason these teams fail with big budgets and the anomalies have been there for all to see is the prevalence of a good team and management (Cardinals), some really bad injuries to star players (Cliffs Lee and Carpenter), phenomenal years from contract players (Josh Hamilton) and in some cases (Braun et al) drug use. The prevelance of the Rays was one big long term project where they flooded their farm system with talent so not all of them could fail to succeed. No risk but if they did have relegation they would've gone a long time ago.

Most of the time it's just rank bad management but the mistakes are forgiven because there's no punishment for it. Nothing to do with equity between clubs as you point out, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.

The league system also ensures that no franchise is in need to sell off star players because league revenue is divided up among the teams on a relatively equal scale.

Saying that the lack of promotion/relegation in American leagues is the reason they won't gain steam overseas is jumping to quite a conclusion. You can already see that the NBA and MLB are remarkably popular in East Asia and South America/Central America, respectively.

Baseball is popular in those countries not so much the MLB (ask Yu Darvish fans who think he should never have left Japan). Crowds are just as big and revenues just as high. The Japanese also proved that they don't need MLB and that MLB needs them far more. The Dominican and latin countries provide 60-odd% of the league so baseball is always going to be popular in those countries, especially as the populous look for it as a way out of relative poverty, a la Yaisel Puig.

Promotion/relegation has its place but implementing it here would destroy the entire American sporting culture, particularly in terms of player and youth development.

It wouldn't destroy it, that's just hyperbole. It just hasn't been tried successfully as the owners aren't going to allow it. Turkeys voting for Thanksgiving and all that.

 

[Alan]

I can see you won't be swayed but I must stress that you are oversimplifying the effect that system would have to a huge degree.

 

[Johnny75]

I can see you won't be swayed but I must stress that you are oversimplifying the effect that system would have to a huge degree.

No oversimplification on my part. It wouldn't work for all sports but then the MLB franchises take youth out of the college system in the first place and have done for decades. You state it would be huge but have given no consequences, am I supposed to take your word for it?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Interesting stuff chaps. I don't know enough about American sports to get involved but I can never quite buy into the concept of a closed shop. We succeeded in Mick's early days and were rewarded; we failed abysmally between 2011 and 2013 and were punished. That's sport to me.

 

[Alan]

Investment goes out of the pro leagues, the college system becomes obsolete, the sporting pyramid becomes bloated with clubs, leagues must be rebuilt from the ground up (with no money to do so), de-unionization of players, etc etc

It would create years of turmoil that some sports and many franchises would not recover from.

 

[Alan]

Interesting stuff chaps. I don't know enough about American sports to get involved but I can never quite buy into the concept of a closed shop. We succeeded in Mick's early days and were rewarded; we failed abysmally between 2011 and 2013 and were punished. That's sport to me.

It's lovely in theory, and I'd love for it to work (especially in the NBA where teams regularly "tank" when it becomes obvious the season is lost), but it's simply not a change we could make without essentially hitting the reset button on the structure in place here. It's just not feasible. Imagine the uproar that it would create in England if the Premier League suddenly removed relegation. It would be somewhat the same ruckus here, albeit on a different scale.

 

[Johnny75]

Investment goes out of the pro leagues, the college system becomes obsolete, the sporting pyramid becomes bloated with clubs, leagues must be rebuilt from the ground up (with no money to do so), de-unionization of players, etc etc

It would create years of turmoil that some sports and many franchises would not recover from.

Why would the investment go? The college system is already obsolete in Baseball but I don't see why the NFL would change it, just add more teams to the second tier, it's not as if there isn't the quality of college player who may have been missed on draft day doesn't get picked up afterwards. If anything it would highlight the importance of the college system and two drafts would be TV heaven for some networks. BBall still have March madness and again I don't see how that changes as they, by and large, follow the NFL system.

Why would the players be de-unionised? They aren't in football or rugby or in fact any other team sport. And I can't see why having more owners doesn't create more competition.

Even if you were to have divisions in the college system akin to the class system (I, II, II, etc) and turn into promotion/ relegation rather than the fudge they have now the BCS bowl games would be much clearer. At the moment the college system is crying out for a restructure so why not promotion/ relegation.

You just have more clubs for younger players to try to make a living out of. Probably means there will be wages disparity, much like there is in football. As Deutsch says, sport is about winning and losing.

 

[Deano]

Interesting stuff chaps. I don't know enough about American sports to get involved but I can never quite buy into the concept of a closed shop. We succeeded in Mick's early days and were rewarded; we failed abysmally between 2011 and 2013 and were punished. That's sport to me.

On the other side of the coin though, Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich can't rock up in the NFL and buy numerous Superbowls.

The way the structure is anyone can win, anyone can have a good season. It's competitive unlike most of Europe's top football leagues which I like.