Mark Cuban: NFL 10 Years from Implosion

[spursup]

How is adding more viewable games going to chase away the casual fan? That's what the casual fan watches. The casual fan doesn't watch the combine or draft, they watch games.

Fans want more NFL. That's why the popularity of offseason events continues to grow.

And the games in England aren't hurting teams, it's helping them. They take home games away from teams that struggle to sell tickets. It eliminates a game from being blacked out. It is one less game that team has to pay to staff an empty stadium.

Eventually, if the NFL starts having games on Tuesday or Wednesday nights, people are going to get bored of watching the same stuff every day and the NFL would start losing ratings.

The games in England aren't helping teams. They are simply losing their home fan base by giving them less games to come to.

[PP]

Im on the over-saturation side. I like how games were 2 days. Sunday was the focal point.I would watch 3 games no matter if it was my team. Dont need games during the week. Plus the short week with less practice/injury rest waters down the shit.

[cmnelson87]

Eventually, if the NFL starts having games on Tuesday or Wednesday nights, people are going to get bored of watching the same stuff every day and the NFL would start losing ratings.

The games in England aren't helping teams. They are simply losing their home fan base by giving them less games to come to.

The teams losing the home games can't get fans there to start with. That's why they are doing it. What is going to cost you more fans: keeping the game in your city and forcing fans to either go or not see the game (blackout), or moving the game to England and allow the game to be shown on tv? If it was hurting teams, they wouldn't be happy to get those games.

[Hasselbeck]

How is adding more viewable games going to chase away the casual fan? That's what the casual fan watches. The casual fan doesn't watch the combine or draft, they watch games.

How is taking away what is believed to be the best Sunday matchups and playing them on a shorter week helping the product? The Thursday games are typically shit. Not to mention, how often do the "best teams" from the year prior continue that the following year with all the roster turnover and injuries that happen in a typical season.

Fans want more NFL. That's why the popularity of offseason events continues to grow.

What offseason events are really popular now that weren't 10 years ago? The draft has always been big for football fans.. free agency during the salary cap era has been exciting to follow for football fans..

The scouting combine though? The schedule release? Yeah.. I guess it gets some pop, but the large percentage of NFL fans probably don't care too much.

The NFL right now is almost at a point where it cannot really go further up the mountain anymore, and now when you begin to oversaturate your own market, you start taking away from that amazing amount of interest that it has.

And the games in England aren't hurting teams, it's helping them. They take home games away from teams that struggle to sell tickets. It eliminates a game from being blacked out. It is one less game that team has to pay to staff an empty stadium.

You say this now, just wait until Goodell decrees every team will be playing a game in London during the year.

[Guest]

The London thing is what gets me. As it stands right now, some teams require you to pay a license fee for season tickets that doesn't even factor into the price per game. I only know what the Redskins do, but I imagine most other teams do it, but when you purchase season tickets, you also HAVE to buy the pre-season tickets in your package as well.

So, if you are requiring those extra purchases, how are you going to explain to season-ticket holders that you are going to take a game away from them?

[cmnelson87]

How is taking away what is believed to be the best Sunday matchups and playing them on a shorter week helping the product? The Thursday games are typically shit. Not to mention, how often do the "best teams" from the year prior continue that the following year with all the roster turnover and injuries that happen in a typical season.



What offseason events are really popular now that weren't 10 years ago? The draft has always been big for football fans.. free agency during the salary cap era has been exciting to follow for football fans..

The scouting combine though? The schedule release? Yeah.. I guess it gets some pop, but the large percentage of NFL fans probably don't care too much.

The NFL right now is almost at a point where it cannot really go further up the mountain anymore, and now when you begin to oversaturate your own market, you start taking away from that amazing amount of interest that it has.



You say this now, just wait until Goodell decrees every team will be playing a game in London during the year.

The draft has been popular for a while, but not like it is now. Free agency has become much more popular because of NFL Network. Same with the combine. Everyone talks about those pointless 40 times.


The NFL isn't going to schedule games every night of the week. It simply wouldn't go through for the reasons many are stating. They are pushing safety to much to undo it by making such short weeks. But they have smart people formulating these schedules, and they could easily add more prime time games while balancing things so teams aren't playing a bunch of short weeks. Not saying I like it, but it wouldn't stop me from watching.

And maybe he does put 16 games in England. But it will be the teams with poor attendance losing the home games. Teams constantly selling out aren't going to lose their home games.

[cmnelson87]

The London thing is what gets me. As it stands right now, some teams require you to pay a license fee for season tickets that doesn't even factor into the price per game. I only know what the Redskins do, but I imagine most other teams do it, but when you purchase season tickets, you also HAVE to buy the pre-season tickets in your package as well.

So, if you are requiring those extra purchases, how are you going to explain to season-ticket holders that you are going to take a game away from them?

NFL is discussing changes to that in Orlando this week. Apparently the hope is to have it implemented by 2015, so you aren't paying full price fr preseason games.

As far as teams playing in London, I would assume it is factored in to the season ticket price. These contracts are typically signed prior to anything done with season tickets (Just like Buffalos contract with Toronto). Or, like in Green Bay, we have a separate package (1 preseason, 2 regular season games) for fans that were season ticket holders in Milwaukee when we played games there each year, so the regular season ticket holders aren't paying for a full home season.

[Guest]

NFL is discussing changes to that in Orlando this week. Apparently the hope is to have it implemented by 2015, so you aren't paying full price fr preseason games.

As far as teams playing in London, I would assume it is factored in to the season ticket price. These contracts are typically signed prior to anything done with season tickets (Just like Buffalos contract with Toronto). Or, like in Green Bay, we have a separate package (1 preseason, 2 regular season games) for fans that were season ticket holders in Milwaukee when we played games there each year, so the regular season ticket holders aren't paying for a full home season.

I would hope that they would adjust those prices, because most people give them away or sell them for cheap just to make something back on them. If MLB can do different prices for "prime" games, then NFL teams can do different prices for pre-season games.

My second point isn't paying for a game that isn't there. I'm saying that people are paying all of this money before you even get to regular season games, and you are just going to take one away. You don't pay for it, but you should be getting the right to go to 8 games, not 6 or 7.

[cmnelson87]

Just to clarify, I'm with you guys about not wanting it to expand. I don't like the Thursday night games myself. I liked Sunday and Monday, with special occasions other days (ie: thanksgiving). But, I don't think anything the nfl will actually do will hurt them. I won't like changing the games, but I will still watch and buy tickets and apparel.

[cmnelson87]

I would hope that they would adjust those prices, because most people give them away or sell them for cheap just to make something back on them. If MLB can do different prices for "prime" games, then NFL teams can do different prices for pre-season games.

My second point isn't paying for a game that isn't there. I'm saying that people are paying all of this money before you even get to regular season games, and you are just going to take one away. You don't pay for it, but you should be getting the right to go to 8 games, not 6 or 7.

I get what you're saying with the second part now (misread it the first time). But, the counter to that is go to the games and it won't get taken away. The only teams losing home games are the teams that have poor attendance. While it sucks for the fans that actually go, it's the fan base as a whole that brought it on.

[spursup]

The teams losing the home games can't get fans there to start with. That's why they are doing it. What is going to cost you more fans: keeping the game in your city and forcing fans to either go or not see the game (blackout), or moving the game to England and allow the game to be shown on tv? If it was hurting teams, they wouldn't be happy to get those games.

The Rams obviously weren't happy to get those games.

[cmnelson87]

The Rams obviously weren't happy to get those games.

Oh really?

http://m.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-move-a-home-game-to-london-next-seasons/article_dd9d3468-4330-11e1-aa72-001a4bcf6878.html?mobile_touch=true

The Rams wanted those games. They had to back out for reasons other than not wanting them.

[spursup]

Oh really?

http://m.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/rams-move-a-home-game-to-london-next-seasons/article_dd9d3468-4330-11e1-aa72-001a4bcf6878.html?mobile_touch=true

The Rams wanted those games. They had to back out for reasons other than not wanting them.

That article is from before they backed out of the deal, and in fact from before they even played a London game. So if you think there were other reasons for them backing out, go ahead and post them.

[cmnelson87]

That article is from before they backed out of the deal, and in fact from before they even played a London game. So if you think there were other reasons for them backing out, go ahead and post them.

Ask and you shall receive:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/14/st-louis-rams-nfl-london

[spursup]

Ask and you shall receive:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/201...ams-nfl-london

"and ease fan discontent"...London was alienating the Rams and their fanbase which was my point to begin with.