Bring NFL Europe back

[Charles Romes]

When the league closed NFL Europe in 05 less than 20 percent of US homes had the NFL Network. Now it's up to 62 percent and it's a favorite channel of any football fan. It would be much easier to stay informed about player story lines of NFL Europe teams. Who wouldn't want to check in on a few games to see how the Bills allocated players are doing during the long offseason. The league has been missing opportunities to develop new stars. The time is right to bring it back.

[Nick the Greek]

It was probably done away with because it wasn't profitable. Soccer is the game Europeans love, not football. I doubt Europeans really even understand the rules of football.

[White Linen]

Yes but do it here in the US where it would work.

[playman]

as a season ticket holder of rhein fire i want it back too. and for the profits: galaxy made money as well as rhein fire. galaxy from the start, fire after 3 years iirc.

 

if the league wouldve put another team to hamburg and one to dresden instead of cologne and berlin we by now COULD have a profitable developmental league. hamburgs gfl team plays in front of around 20k people.

 

and i am pretty sure 2/3 of the london game tickets are sold to germans.

 

so, an NFL germany could work very well. but the NFL just must understand localities.

[sodbuster]

Yes but do it here in the US where it would work.

An NFL "D" league would be sweet. My ideas:

 

Scrap NFL Thursday night series. Play the developmental league games on Thursday on NFL network.

 

16 teams, each co-owned by teams in opposite conferences who are somewhat close to each other. SF and Oakland. Miami and Tampa. Dallas and Houston. That kinda deal.

 

Two conferences. Ten game season. Four teams make the playoffs. After NFL week twelve, rosters expand to 60 and they can pull a few guys up.

Edited February 16, 2014 by sodbuster

[GunnerBill]

It was probably done away with because it wasn't profitable. Soccer is the game Europeans love, not football. I doubt Europeans really even understand the rules of football.

 

Plent of people here in Europe who understand the rules of football thanks. Europe has sold out 3 NFL games in two weeks for next season. However, I don't want NFL Europe back, because ultimately the quality just wasn't there. Unless they could guarantee it was going to be better... and the increased interest in Europe is starting to lead to European players capable of playing in the league and might get us to that point eventually... not sure it's there yet though.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

How many teams were in the old NFL Europe? Maybe just make it a 6-team league-- improve the quality of the product.

[GunnerBill]

I think it was a 6 team league by the end 5 in Germany and 1 in Amsterdam. Id be in favour of maybe 4 teams... play each other twice.... 6 weeks of summer competition. A team in the UK, one in Germany, one in Holland and one in Spain if they were going to bring it back.

[MrLocke]

I know the rules are different , but what about closer ties with the CFL?

[playman]

I think it was a 6 team league by the end 5 in Germany and 1 in Amsterdam. Id be in favour of maybe 4 teams... play each other twice.... 6 weeks of summer competition. A team in the UK, one in Germany, one in Holland and one in Spain if they were going to bring it back.

 

nope. all 4 in germany

 

not only for better attendance but also cost-cutting on travels. but make sure players from all over europe have a chance. like 10 per team with 55 roster spots.

 

really, no one in spain or netherlands cares about football, and very few in england.

[GunnerBill]

There are plenty in England who care. It's currently our fastest growing sport both in terms of viewing figures for the NFL and in terms of grassroots participation (unless you include womens soccer as a separate sport to soccer). There are plenty of Germans that come over for the Wembley games but it is nowhere near 2/3s. The majority are British fans. I said Netherlands and Spain because they supported NFL Europe teams for decent periods in the first incarnation.

 

I do think you have a point about keeping down travel costs though. Localising the teams in Germany would make sense from that perspective. But there is zero chance that the NFL would consider a new NFL Europe without a London based team.

[playman]

really? the monarchs didn´t seem to be much of a draw to people then. its some time though. well, frankfurt-düsseldorf-hamburg-london then

Edited February 17, 2014 by playman

[GunnerBill]

The Monarchs drew decent crowds the first couple of years and then the interest quickly waned and the decision to "tour Britain" with the team rather than have a base was the final nail in the coffin. But it was a long time ago. The fan base is much stronger here now. And part of the problem was the product which was not great.

 

I've been to all but two of the Wembley games and there is no question that they are Europe's games rather than just the UK's but there a lot of British people at the games and every year you meet people who are there for the first time and love the whole experience and say they will definitely be back.

 

Last year the Steelers - Vikings game had a distinctly European feel, but at the 49ers game it was overwhelmingly British voices in the stadium and the concourses.

[Drop Kick Flutie]

It was probably done away with because it wasn't profitable. Soccer is the game Europeans love, not football. I doubt Europeans really even understand the rules of football.

 

The whole Euro league lost almost $20 million a year, that's lass than what Joe Flacco makes in a year, from a player development aspect, each NFL team can pony up $625,000 in my opinion, not to mention airing it in the US, the NFL can really tap into the spring/early summer TV market, especially with the NFL network as another poster mentioned. I say bring it back.

 

How many teams were in the old NFL Europe? Maybe just make it a 6-team league-- improve the quality of the product.

 

Make 8 teams, one made up of all AFC East, West, North, South and NFC East, West, North, South.

[Mr. WEO]

I just don't see the appeal of this, especially in the US. Who wants to watch this? History has repeatedly said "few people".

 

It could be argued the talent currently in the NFL is already diluted. Who would want to watch a league of guys who couldn't make it into the League?

[ndirish1978]

I just don't see the appeal of this, especially in the US. Who wants to watch this? History has repeatedly said "few people".

 

It could be argued the talent currently in the NFL is already diluted. Who would want to watch a league of guys who couldn't make it into the League?

 

The point would be to act as a farm system for the NFL much in the way that baseball has. Some players need more time to develop than others. Some smaller school players specifically could really benefit from an intermediate step up before being able to make it in an NFL roster. Personally, I believe a minor league system would really raise the average quality of players on an NFL roster. Maybe not on the top end, but definitely the bottom.

[KGUNBILLS]

Yes but do it here in the US where it would work.

Yeah, not Canada either!

[PromoTheRobot]

I cant believe the NFL can't find potential owners for D league franchises that would be endorsed by the NFL. 10 game spring/summer season. Top 3 teams go to the playoffs. #1 seed gets a bye. Season wraps up just in time for training camp.

 

Make it just 6 teams. Stock them with college UDFAs. Consider it an extended combine. You are bound to uncover some gems.

 

PTR

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

The point would be to act as a farm system for the NFL much in the way that baseball has. Some players need more time to develop than others. Some smaller school players specifically could really benefit from an intermediate step up before being able to make it in an NFL roster. Personally, I believe a minor league system would really raise the average quality of players on an NFL roster. Maybe not on the top end, but definitely the bottom.

 

This has been tried in many forms. It doesn't really work as a D league. And fans don't buy it.

[PromoTheRobot]

 

 

This has been tried in many forms. It doesn't really work as a D league. And fans don't buy it.

Fans didn't buy it because they were halfassed, underfunded attempts with no legit TV deal.

 

Do it under the NFL brand in the USA. Put the games on NFL network and it's a different story. (I could see networks like NBCSN, CBSSN access Fox 1 wanting games too.)

[Mr. WEO]

 

Fans didn't buy it because they were halfassed, underfunded attempts with no legit TV deal.

 

Do it under the NFL brand in the USA. Put the games on NFL network and it's a different story. (I could see networks like NBCSN, CBSSN access Fox 1 wanting games too.)

 

By definition, it IS half assed football. America has voted on this several times over the decades. Even if the NFL was behind it, fans would not look forward to games filled with players who, the vast majority anyway, will never play in the NFL because they aren't very good players. That's not must see TV and no network is going to blow ad budget on that.

 

Also, there's nothing in it for NFL owners--it would only cost them money. There's no upside for the league

 

The XFL aired on NBC and TNN

[boyst]

Yes but do it here in the US where it would work.

stole the words right from me. A 8-16 D-league would be great. Played in the Spring and acting as a farm team for NFL teams. Play out of smaller non NFL towns.

 

Set it up in a way that each division can allocate players to a team. The AFCE uses players to make up one team. Each AFCE must send XYZ players "drafted" by the sub-league. Rules set up where the candidates are not more then 3 years in the league, not started ## games or played in as many. And each team can put 4 locks on players they want to protect. Maybe the Bills send players like Graham, Goodwin, Bradham, Meeks, Robey and Tuel. Maybe more.

 

Or similar to above but each minor league team is derived from a candidate pool of NFL teams, one per conference paired with an opposite conference team. Maybe the Syracuse Steamboats are pooled from the Giants and Bills. The Titans and Rams play in Birmingham. Falcons and Jags play as Charleston Pirates.

 

At the end of the season the Charleston, Syracuse and other teams are released and the NFL parent teams get first rights to sign the players. The Bills offer a contract to the player and he can either sign it or wait to see if another team will better that offer, and that must be by, say like $50k each time it is upped.

 

Of course, players who get an NFL gig get rewarded and earn $100k if they meet certain criteria. This would come from the NFL itself.

 

The rules would have to be soft. No helmet to helmet, no bad stuff. Instead of fines you get cards like soccer. Acquire enough cards and you're suspended. Eventually banned.

[Mr. WEO]

stole the words right from me. A 8-16 D-league would be great. Played in the Spring and acting as a farm team for NFL teams. Play out of smaller non NFL towns.

 

Set it up in a way that each division can allocate players to a team. The AFCE uses players to make up one team. Each AFCE must send XYZ players "drafted" by the sub-league. Rules set up where the candidates are not more then 3 years in the league, not started ## games or played in as many. And each team can put 4 locks on players they want to protect. Maybe the Bills send players like Graham, Goodwin, Bradham, Meeks, Robey and Tuel. Maybe more.

 

Or similar to above but each minor league team is derived from a candidate pool of NFL teams, one per conference paired with an opposite conference team. Maybe the Syracuse Steamboats are pooled from the Giants and Bills. The Titans and Rams play in Birmingham. Falcons and Jags play as Charleston Pirates.

 

At the end of the season the Charleston, Syracuse and other teams are released and the NFL parent teams get first rights to sign the players. The Bills offer a contract to the player and he can either sign it or wait to see if another team will better that offer, and that must be by, say like $50k each time it is upped.

 

Of course, players who get an NFL gig get rewarded and earn $100k if they meet certain criteria. This would come fr

om the NFL itself.

 

The rules would have to be soft. No helmet to helmet, no bad stuff. Instead of fines you get cards like soccer. Acquire enough cards and you're suspended. Eventually banned.

 

You would send guys who are active on current rosters to the D league (if so, keep Robey and send EJ-- he needs a lot more development)? And replace them with...who?

 

And your league would need 400 to 800 players per year, turning over completely every 3 years. Where are all these guys coming from?

[boyst]

You would send guys who are active on current rosters to the D league (if so, keep Robey and send EJ-- he needs a lot more development)? And replace them with...who?

 

And your league would need 400 to 800 players per year, turning over completely every 3 years. Where are all these guys coming from?

the draft would be earlier in April, maybe late March. The NFL would complete a D-league draft the following weekend wit the NFL clubs have reps at their D-league teams. The make up would be 6-8 players from NFL team 53 man rosters. The rest would be other college players and non-veteran players (>4). Sure, the teams would have several players who go to NFL camps but they won't last. The D-league roster would be small, to create more turnover and give more chances to young players. Maybe 36 players per roster. 400ish players for a 12 league team. Players can stay in the D-league up to 8 years, or their 30th birthday (if that date falls before the opening season game). And maybe something about graduating college to play, too.

[justnzane]

The point would be to act as a farm system for the NFL much in the way that baseball has. Some players need more time to develop than others. Some smaller school players specifically could really benefit from an intermediate step up before being able to make it in an NFL roster. Personally, I believe a minor league system would really raise the average quality of players on an NFL roster. Maybe not on the top end, but definitely the bottom.

 

This is exactly it. Viantieri, Kurt Warner, Brian Finneran, Dante Hall, Fiedler, Kitna, Jermaine Lewis, Brad Johnson, David Akers, Brandon Ayenbadejo, Fred Jackson, etc.... all got their feet wet in NFLE. Many decent to legendary players in that list. The who notion of chewing up 21 year olds and spitting them out seems like bad business as the NFL is the only pro sports league without a true development plan of young talent in place.

[GunnerBill]

I don't think anyone denies that there are benefits from a developmental perspective. What Mr Weo is saying, and I happen to agree with him, is that around those undiscovered gems there is a lot of sub standard footballers and hence the product is sub standard football. That was the problem with the World League / NFL Europe.... ultimately the product just wasn't very good.

 

If the NFL felt that there was room for a development league based in Europe I think 4 teams (rosters limited to 45 players), play each other twice have a third meeting of the top 2 in a bowl game at the end if you must - 6/7 week season to run in May / June would be the way to go. At least that way you are trying to keep the standard as high as possible.

[CodeMonkey]

I cant believe the NFL can't find potential owners for D league franchises that would be endorsed by the NFL. 10 game spring/summer season. Top 3 teams go to the playoffs. #1 seed gets a bye. Season wraps up just in time for training camp.

 

Make it just 6 teams. Stock them with college UDFAs. Consider it an extended combine. You are bound to uncover some gems.

 

PTR

The NFL wants to expand its market to increase profits and pay for ever inflating player salaries. A D-League in the US will not do that. If they have any hopes of keeping the inflation going, they need to start bringing in revenue from outside of North America. I don't think they have a chance in hell of making that work, but it is their only hope.

 

This is not about development at all, it is strictly a business issue.

Edited February 17, 2014 by CodeMonkey

[Buftex]

College football already serves as the D-leauge for the NFL. Personally, I think the NFL, as profitable as it is, is about to see the floor fall from underneath it. I think they should hold on to what they have before trying (again) to branch out into Europe..

Edited February 17, 2014 by Buftex

[PromoTheRobot]

The NFL wants to expand its market to increase profits and pay for ever inflating player salaries. A D-League in the US will not do that. If they have any hopes of keeping the inflation going, they need to start bringing in revenue from outside of North America. I don't think they have a chance in hell of making that work, but it is their only hope.

 

This is not about development at all, it is strictly a business issue.

 

I disagree. There is no reason why the NFL can't pursue the D-league concept while also mining for gold elsewhere. And while a D-league won't mint billions it can certainly be profitable and provide other benefits like creating NFL-branded content in the off-season and allow further development for "bubble" players.

 

The NCAA is not an NFL D-league. College ball is a showcase for young players but it doesn't really develop players. Besides some players need longer to mature. 350 UDFA's would be enough fill 6 "NFLD" roster. 350 players not signed to NFL rosters, or 250 non-signed players and 100 NFL UDFA's that teams would assign for seasoning. If out of that 10 players emerge as NFL-capable that is great thing.

 

Want to save more money? Have all 6 teams play in the same region so they can travel by bus, and where the weather is decent from March to June. Plus this is not just about developing players. You can use the league to promote coaching talent too. You want full-time NFL officials? Here's something they can do in the offseason.

 

And the NFL does not have to cover the entire nut of a D-league. Just like minor baseball and hockey, you have local owners that manage the business end of the franchises but the "parent" organizations run the player end. Plus you not only have the NFL Network, but three other new national sports channels (NBCSN, CBSSN and Fox One) that are all desperate for programming in the spring and summer. To me this is a no-brainer.

 

PTR

Edited February 17, 2014 by PromoTheRobot

[CodeMonkey]

I disagree. There is no reason why the NFL can't pursue the D-league concept while also mining for gold elsewhere. And while a D-league won't mint billions it can certainly be profitable and provide other benefits like creating NFL-branded content in the off-season and allow further development for "bubble" players.

PTR

Fair enough. A development league would certainly have value to the existing teams talent pool. But at the moment Roger has his hands full trying to find new revenue streams to keep the NFL inflation going. Both things concurrently is probably too much.

Edited February 17, 2014 by CodeMonkey

[T master]

When the league closed NFL Europe in 05 less than 20 percent of US homes had the NFL Network. Now it's up to 62 percent and it's a favorite channel of any football fan. It would be much easier to stay informed about player story lines of NFL Europe teams. Who wouldn't want to check in on a few games to see how the Bills allocated players are doing during the long offseason. The league has been missing opportunities to develop new stars. The time is right to bring it back.

 

That would be great, then we could do away with all this BS of having a London team & 3 games a year being stolen from the home fans of different franchise around the NFL .

 

We as Bills fans know all to well what it's like to have games stolen & revenue taken from the area around the stadium just to feed the NFL's collective paycheck while leaving the fan base at a lose for their yearly NFL fix !!

 

If they do continue to take games away from the fans let Roger take the money out of his $44 million salary to repay each of the franchise that lose their home games ...

[Mr. WEO]

This is exactly it. Viantieri, Kurt Warner, Brian Finneran, Dante Hall, Fiedler, Kitna, Jermaine Lewis, Brad Johnson, David Akers, Brandon Ayenbadejo, Fred Jackson, etc.... all got their feet wet in NFLE. Many decent to legendary players in that list. The who notion of chewing up 21 year olds and spitting them out seems like bad business as the NFL is the only pro sports league without a true development plan of young talent in place.

 

Bad business? The NFL's 10 billion a year haul and the fact that it is FAR more lucrative and popular in this country than any and all other pro sports should convince you that it is actually very, very good business and has been the dominant business model for over 40 years.

 

 

The NBA's D league is a joke. No one watches. The NCAA is absolutely the D league of the NBA.

 

 

I disagree. There is no reason why the NFL can't pursue the D-league concept while also mining for gold elsewhere. And while a D-league won't mint billions it can certainly be profitable and provide other benefits like creating NFL-branded content in the off-season and allow further development for "bubble" players.

 

The NCAA is not an NFL D-league. College ball is a showcase for young players but it doesn't really develop players. Besides some players need longer to mature. 350 UDFA's would be enough fill 6 "NFLD" roster. 350 players not signed to NFL rosters, or 250 non-signed players and 100 NFL UDFA's that teams would assign for seasoning. If out of that 10 players emerge as NFL-capable that is great thing.

 

Want to save more money? Have all 6 teams play in the same region so they can travel by bus, and where the weather is decent from March to June. Plus this is not just about developing players. You can use the league to promote coaching talent too. You want full-time NFL officials? Here's something they can do in the offseason.

 

And the NFL does not have to cover the entire nut of a D-league. Just like minor baseball and hockey, you have local owners that manage the business end of the franchises but the "parent" organizations run the player end. Plus you not only have the NFL Network, but three other new national sports channels (NBCSN, CBSSN and Fox One) that are all desperate for programming in the spring and summer. To me this is a no-brainer.

 

PTR

 

Of course it is. It has been for generations.

 

So if a team sends down a few guys from a 53 man roster for "reassignement" to the D league during the season, who do they replace them with?

 

And you think the NFL would essentially create a workfare program for 350 or more (plus coaches, trainers, equipment, etc. staff) substandard football players so they reap maybe 10 guys who make an NFL roster?

 

The badness of this idea is best demonstrated not by only by its intuitively unappealing nature, but also by the fact that the NFL has never bothered to create such a product. You should be able to quickly concede that, given the ability of the NFL to squeeze every penny from their brand that they can, the League has concluded there is no interest (money) in this.

[PromoTheRobot]

Of course it is. It has been for generations.

 

Not all players emerge from college NFL-ready.

 

So if a team sends down a few guys from a 53 man roster for "reassignement" to the D league during the season, who do they replace them with?

 

No one. It's an off-season league. Obviously assigned players would miss OTA's but you wouldn't send top prospects. Mostly guys on the bubble who you want to see in game settings.

 

And you think the NFL would essentially create a workfare program for 350 or more (plus coaches, trainers, equipment, etc. staff) substandard football players so they reap maybe 10 guys who make an NFL roster?

 

How is operating a for-profit league "work-fare?" First of all if you read my post, the NFL would have local franchise owners who would assume a portion of the cost. Second, even if no one emerged ready for the NFL the league still has offseason TV programming for NFLN.

 

The badness of this idea is best demonstrated not by only by its intuitively unappealing nature, but also by the fact that the NFL has never bothered to create such a product. You should be able to quickly concede that, given the ability of the NFL to squeeze every penny from their brand that they can, the League has concluded there is no interest (money) in this.

 

So you are saying the NFL is already doing everything they will ever do? Was NFL Network a bad idea that became good because they decided to do it? NFL Europe was sunk by the logistics of running a wholly-owned league in another continent. If it were USA-based I'll bet it would still be around..

 

PTR

Edited February 17, 2014 by PromoTheRobot

[Mr. WEO]

Not all players emerge from college NFL-ready.

 

 

 

No one. It's an off-season league. Obviously assigned players would miss OTA's but you wouldn't send top prospects. Mostly guys on the bubble who you want to see in game settings.

 

 

 

How is operating a for-profit league "work-fare?" First of all if you read my post, the NFL would have local franchise owners who would assume a portion of the cost. Second, even if no one emerged ready for the NFL the league still has offseason TV programming for NFLN.

 

 

 

So you are saying the NFL is already doing everything they will ever do? Was NFL Network a bad idea that became good because they decided to do it? NFL Europe was sunk by the logistics of running a wholly-owned league in another continent. If it were USA-based I'll bet it would still be around..

 

PTR

 

Oh, so "top prospects" are naturally "NFL ready". So you wouldn't send a "project" like EJ Manuel to the D league...

 

It's workfare because it would cost money and generate no extra revenue.

 

The NFLN was a great idea because...that's right--it brought in more revenue! A lot more. (See? this isn't hard!)

 

The NFL won't make any more money from adding the "NFDL" to the content of NFLN. They can only lose money by having programming costs go up. This can't be offset by inceasing subscribers (the only way the NFLN generates revenue).

[justnzane]

Oh, so "top prospects" are naturally "NFL ready". So you wouldn't send a "project" like EJ Manuel to the D league...

 

It's workfare because it would cost money and generate no extra revenue.

 

The NFLN was a great idea because...that's right--it brought in more revenue! A lot more. (See? this isn't hard!)

 

The NFL won't make any more money from adding the "NFDL" to the content of NFLN. They can only lose money by having programming costs go up. This can't be offset by inceasing subscribers (the only way the NFLN generates revenue).

 

Bad business? The NFL's 10 billion a year haul and the fact that it is FAR more lucrative and popular in this country than any and all other pro sports should convince you that it is actually very, very good business and has been the dominant business model for over 40 years.

 

 

The NBA's D league is a joke. No one watches. The NCAA is absolutely the D league of the NBA.

 

 

 

 

Of course it is. It has been for generations.

 

So if a team sends down a few guys from a 53 man roster for "reassignement" to the D league during the season, who do they replace them with?

 

And you think the NFL would essentially create a workfare program for 350 or more (plus coaches, trainers, equipment, etc. staff) substandard football players so they reap maybe 10 guys who make an NFL roster?

 

The badness of this idea is best demonstrated not by only by its intuitively unappealing nature, but also by the fact that the NFL has never bothered to create such a product. You should be able to quickly concede that, given the ability of the NFL to squeeze every penny from their brand that they can, the League has concluded there is no interest (money) in this.

 

It is bad PR when you have former pro athletes being destroyed at 23 and destitute later in life. Thus it is bad business when these players sue as they have no life skills and are drain bamaged to boot.

 

What you fail to recognize is that these minor leagues aren't really designed for making big $. This is why quite a few minor hockey and baseball teams are owned by the parent club. The ones that aren't are given a certain amount of $ to maintain sustainability. Any minor league is supposed to be about talent development and not much more. For the parent clubs, you expect to lose money in the short term, with the long term promise that you end up with players that will contribute in the future.

 

Soccer teams have subsidized local youth teams and built their own youth academies so that they have players from 8-18 in the grasp and groom them for the system. The vast majority of these kids end up not turning pro and are able to get their education going. Many of the 18-21 year old players that aren't quite ready to play on the big stage play for a reserve squad or are sent to a lower level team to get first team experience. Thus, the soccer teams realize the value of a good youth program as they either use the players in the future or they sell them to other squads in a manor that one sale can pay for the entire youth program for a couple years.

 

Translating this to football where many players are not ready for prime time, a minor league to groom these players allows for the team to not put a player in a position to fail as quickly. It allows for the NFL teams to keep more vets on the active roster in depth and ST roles, thus raising the quality of game late in season after starters go down with injuries. The reality is the investment pays long term dividends by producing higher quality.

 

WRT to the idea of the NFLN not making $ on these games, you could put a D-team of announcers together and allow ads all over the place like AFL does. Then again, it is not about making big coin on this, and the network will still get people to watch moreso than a rerun of A Football Life.

[Cynical]

It is bad PR when you have former pro athletes being destroyed at 23 and destitute later in life. Thus it is bad business when these players sue as they have no life skills and are drain bamaged to boot.

 

What you fail to recognize is that these minor leagues aren't really designed for making big $. This is why quite a few minor hockey and baseball teams are owned by the parent club. The ones that aren't are given a certain amount of $ to maintain sustainability. Any minor league is supposed to be about talent development and not much more. For the parent clubs, you expect to lose money in the short term, with the long term promise that you end up with players that will contribute in the future.

 

Soccer teams have subsidized local youth teams and built their own youth academies so that they have players from 8-18 in the grasp and groom them for the system. The vast majority of these kids end up not turning pro and are able to get their education going. Many of the 18-21 year old players that aren't quite ready to play on the big stage play for a reserve squad or are sent to a lower level team to get first team experience. Thus, the soccer teams realize the value of a good youth program as they either use the players in the future or they sell them to other squads in a manor that one sale can pay for the entire youth program for a couple years.

 

Translating this to football where many players are not ready for prime time, a minor league to groom these players allows for the team to not put a player in a position to fail as quickly. It allows for the NFL teams to keep more vets on the active roster in depth and ST roles, thus raising the quality of game late in season after starters go down with injuries.

 

No, it will not. There are these things called a "salary cap" and the "collective bargaining agreement".

The reality is, a 10 year vet that is earning vet minimum is still more expensive than a 7th round draft pick playing out his rookie contract.

[justnzane]

No, it will not. There are these things called a "salary cap" and the "collective bargaining agreement".

The reality is, a 10 year vet that is earning vet minimum is still more expensive than a 7th round draft pick playing out his rookie contract.

 

This is in part because there is no place for talent development. You keep a minor league around and that 10year vet will probably make less (due to a restructuring of the CBA next time around) but have a job. The reason there is an escalator like that was to promote new blood getting in and keeping less players from earning their pensions.

[Mr. WEO]

It is bad PR when you have former pro athletes being destroyed at 23 and destitute later in life. Thus it is bad business when these players sue as they have no life skills and are drain bamaged to boot.

 

What you fail to recognize is that these minor leagues aren't really designed for making big $. This is why quite a few minor hockey and baseball teams are owned by the parent club. The ones that aren't are given a certain amount of $ to maintain sustainability. Any minor league is supposed to be about talent development and not much more. For the parent clubs, you expect to lose money in the short term, with the long term promise that you end up with players that will contribute in the future.

 

Soccer teams have subsidized local youth teams and built their own youth academies so that they have players from 8-18 in the grasp and groom them for the system. The vast majority of these kids end up not turning pro and are able to get their education going. Many of the 18-21 year old players that aren't quite ready to play on the big stage play for a reserve squad or are sent to a lower level team to get first team experience. Thus, the soccer teams realize the value of a good youth program as they either use the players in the future or they sell them to other squads in a manor that one sale can pay for the entire youth program for a couple years.

 

Translating this to football where many players are not ready for prime time, a minor league to groom these players allows for the team to not put a player in a position to fail as quickly. It allows for the NFL teams to keep more vets on the active roster in depth and ST roles, thus raising the quality of game late in season after starters go down with injuries. The reality is the investment pays long term dividends by producing higher quality.

 

WRT to the idea of the NFLN not making $ on these games, you could put a D-team of announcers together and allow ads all over the place like AFL does. Then again, it is not about making big coin on this, and the network will still get people to watch moreso than a rerun of A Football Life.

 

Having a D league will do absolutely nothing to prolong a pro football player's healthy life or reduce injury--unless you are planning a non-tackle league.

 

Hockey and baseball need minor leagues because the NCAA does not supply them with enough adequate pros. The NCAA provides the NFL with an over abundance of players.

 

Simply put, there is no need for the NFL to wait 3 years for a safety or CB or RG to "develop" in some minor league after the NCAA. If the guy can't play in the NFL after college, they will release him and draft another guy. There is an infinite supply of players.

 

As for the NFLN, the programming doesn't sell more subscriptions. It's not like HBO.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Mr. WEO

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

They're planning on bringing the USFL back next year. It wouldn't be the same USFL as the one with Flutie and Kelly. Their goal isn't to compete with the NFL this time. It's not NFL sanctioned, but they're goal is to be a developmental league during the NFL Offseason. Apparently it was supposed to start this spring, but weren't ready, so they're aiming to start next spring.

 

 

http://www.theusfl.com/about.html

[RevWarRifleman]

Great. They could have teams like: the Milan Cheynies, the Berlin Walls, the Rome Lions, the Munich Drafts, the London Jaguars (formerly Jacksonville), the Aps Otzies (that 5,000 yr old frozen guy), the Liverpool Beatles, oh wait, that's been done. And so am I.