Whatever happened to the proposed 2 preseason games cut and an 18 game schedule?

[Rob0729]

I disagree with this. How many star soccer players have we produced and sent to Europe since the advent of the MLS? Basically, a high class football game would be 3 hours of entertainment but I highly doubt youth football leagues will be popping up all over Europe.

Why does this league have to basically be such an absurd money-grab? They should do one of three things.

1) Nothing.
2) Get rid of two preseason games.
3) Get rid of two preseason games and add two regular season games.

Look at the NBA. How much talent to the NBA get from overseas? Some of the league's best players are from other countries and that was due to Daniel Stern globalizing the sport in the 90s. Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki, Tony Parker, Steve Nash, etc. All these guys wouldn't be playing in the NBA if the NBA didn't make an effort to globalize the sport.

Also, there are plenty of basketball leagues in Europe now because of a direct result of the NBA's globalization. They are so strong now that they are offering top NBA players ridiculous amounts per season to come to play with them. There is talk now that LeBron could get $50 million a year to play in Europe.

 

[JoePats]

Look at the NBA. How much talent to the NBA get from overseas? Some of the league's best players are from other countries and that was due to Daniel Stern globalizing the sport in the 90s. Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki, Tony Parker, Steve Nash, etc. All these guys wouldn't be playing in the NBA if the NBA didn't make an effort to globalize the sport.

Also, there are plenty of basketball leagues in Europe now because of a direct result of the NBA's globalization. They are so strong now that they are offering top NBA players ridiculous amounts per season to come to play with them. There is talk now that LeBron could get $50 million a year to play in Europe.

They actually play basketball over there and have been playing basketball for 50 years. It's different than football, where they don't play at all. And it's the same season as their big sport, soccer. Apples/oranges.

 

[Rob0729]

They actually play basketball over there and have been playing basketball for 50 years. It's different than football, where they don't play at all. And it's the same season as their big sport, soccer. Apples/oranges.

In China? For 50 years? In Canada? Basketball in Europe has been mostly an obscure sport until the last decade. Now it has been a major sport because of globalization.

Basketball is as valid as your soccer references. Your reference is apples and oranges too. The fact of the matter is that people around the world copy our culture, yet Americans are usually closed off to other countries cultures. That is a huge reason why soccer has never really caught on here.

When was the last time you went to a foreign film? I'm guessing it has been a while. For some people, the answer is never. Yet, U.S. movies staring certain stars like Angelina Jolie are more popular abroad then they are here. Look at that craptaskic movie 10,000 BC. It did $94 million in the US and $174 million abroad. The rest of the world loves our culture.

Besides, soccer has never been universally adopted by the public or the media in this country because no network would carry Soccer matches on a regular basis because they cannot make money off them since there is no opportunity for comericals. Without the media buying into MLS, there is no chance for mass adoption of soccer in this country.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Soccer is not culturally isolated. They have been pushing it for 30 years.

Soccer hasn't caught on because... well.. it sucks.

How are Americans suppose to like a sport where the players fake injury and lie on the field pretending to be hurt?

Penalty kicks to determine the champion? WTF?

Also, Americans don't watch foreign films because they really suck. Foreigners aren't stupid, they would rather watch our films too.

Why watch a French film produced in a country that loves Jerry Lewis?

 

[stinkypete]

My question is: with such a logical and well established scheduling system, how would the league determine the 17th opponent?

Do you assign each team a non divisional rival? New England vs. Indy? Pittsburgh vs. Tennessee? Green Bay vs. Tampa Bay? etc. This would create imbalance in the strength of schedule each year. For example, an additional Patriots/Colts matchup would open the door for the Steelers or Chargers to take a top seed, by virtue of having an easier schedule.

Do you have each AFC team play an NFC team of equivalent record or seeding? New England vs. NY Giants? San Diego vs. Green Bay? Miami vs. St Louis?

 

[Sicilian]

My question is: with such a logical and well established scheduling system, how would the league determine the 17th opponent?

Do you assign each team a non divisional rival? New England vs. Indy? Pittsburgh vs. Tennessee? Green Bay vs. Tampa Bay? etc. This would create imbalance in the strength of schedule each year. For example, an additional Patriots/Colts matchup would open the door for the Steelers or Chargers to take a top seed, by virtue of having an easier schedule.

Do you have each AFC team play an NFC team of equivalent record or seeding? New England vs. NY Giants? San Diego vs. Green Bay? Miami vs. St Louis?

You do something mathematical like the rest of it. Pats for example. Every year they play:

6 games against the AFC East
4 games against a rotated AFC division
4 games against a rotated NFC division
2 games against the equivalent ranked team in whichever AFC divisions they don't pull in the rotation.

What you would do, is rotate a second AFC division, and if the Pats are #1, they play the #1 AND #2 team in that division. The third and fourth place teams across these division would play each other as well. These added games would be played in the neutral site.

Complicated, but not that much more so than the current system, and the schedule makers only have to deal with it once a year.

 

[JoePats]

Besides, soccer has never been universally adopted by the public or the media in this country because no network would carry Soccer matches on a regular basis because they cannot make money off them since there is no opportunity for comericals. Without the media buying into MLS, there is no chance for mass adoption of soccer in this country.

I recently read an article about the 50th anniversary of some European basketball leagues. China has contributed what, 3 players to the NBA? Yao, Yi, and that guy who was on the Mavericks and Heat.

As for the media, while that's valid, you could have a very similar problem over there because of the focus on "soccer". And while one NFL game a year in Europe is a big deal, 16 of them, not so much. It dilutes the meaning of each game. I just don't see the NFL getting non-specialists from Europe, because I don't see the game catching on from a youth standpoint.

Sicilian, you could do that, as I would favor because it's important to get an extra game against a conference team for tiebreaker purposes. But you could also play a team from the same line (ie 1st vs 1st, 2nd vs 2nd) from one of the other NFC divisions. I have a feeling the league might want to do that just to get some matchups they don't normally see. Of course perhaps the most likely scenario is have the networks pick.

 

[stinkypete]

Look at the NBA. How much talent to the NBA get from overseas? Some of the league's best players are from other countries and that was due to Daniel Stern globalizing the sport in the 90s. Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitzki, Tony Parker, Steve Nash, etc. All these guys wouldn't be playing in the NBA if the NBA didn't make an effort to globalize the sport.

Also, there are plenty of basketball leagues in Europe now because of a direct result of the NBA's globalization. They are so strong now that they are offering top NBA players ridiculous amounts per season to come to play with them. There is talk now that LeBron could get $50 million a year to play in Europe.

There is the end result of globalizaton. While globalization is responsible for an influx of international talent in the NBA over the past 10 years, the sport has become so popular overseas that the NBA stands to lose its 2 biggest stars, LeBron and Kobe, to the international market. When the highest profile of the stars begin defecting overseas, the league loses legitimacy. Can we claim that the NBA features the "best in the world" if the best in America are playing in Europe.

How would you feel this offseason if a team from Amsterdam in an uncapped league offered $20 million per year to Randy Moss?

Another thing to consider is that basketball had been a traditionally popular sport in Europe for decades before David Stern began tapping into the global market. Players like Detlef Schrempf and Vlade Divac predated this international influx of talent by a decade. While American football is beginning to establish itself in parts of Europe, is there enough tradition/competition there to produce players great enough to star in the NFL?

Consider even Canada...which has had professional football for decades. Who is the best Candadian player in the NFL? Nick Kaczur?