wildbill@ucbvax.ARPA (William J. Laubenheimer) (07/12/85)
Recently I was kicking the future of the USFL (aka Useless Football League)
around with a couple of fellow sports buffs (even though none of us are
crazy enough to take the league seriously, despite living in a metropolitan
area represented by one of the teams playing for the league championship).
We all agreed that if the USFL actually thinks they can take on the NFL
in the fall without a TV contract, the resulting bath of red ink will make
the First Plague of Egypt look like a fraternity prank. Thus, it seems most
realistic for the USFL to follow the lead of football conferences of the
past, give up its independence, and merge a small number of teams in with
the Big Boys. If done right, this would also clothe the NFL in an aura of
respectability, at least in Congress, and maybe help get the antitrust
guys off their backs at the same time. Thus:
The USFL consolidates into four franchises, which will be accepted into
the NFL. These franchises, which will use the named USFL team as their
nucleus, are ARIZONA, BALTIMORE, BIRMINGHAM, and
OAKLAND. These are mostly the strongest teams in the league, either in
fan support or player strength, and have the additional advantage of
replacing NFL teams in two cities which have recently lost NFL franchises.
The original player pools from which these franchises will have first rights
to consist of a roughly geographical, and approximately equivalent,
grouping of USFL franchises:
ARIZONA: Arizona, Houston, Memphis, San Antonio
BALTIMORE: Baltimore, Jacksonville, New Jersey
BIRMINGHAM: Birmingham, Orlando, Tampa Bay
OAKLAND: Oakland, Denver, Los Angeles, Portland
The NFL team holding the rights to a USFL player would lose those rights
if the consolidated franchise signed that player to a contract, but would
retain their rights if the player was not signed initially. Players signed
and then cut would have to clear waivers in the same manner as a current
player.
Now you've got four new franchises, and they aren't all that bad. Give them
an early draft choice or two, and they certainly shouldn't start off 0-16.
Baltimore and Oakland join the AFC, and Arizona and Birmingham join the
NFC. Everybody else stays where they are. Now reorganize each conference into
four 4-team divisions. The geography is mostly very reasonable.
NFC
East Central South West
Detroit Chicago Atlanta Arizona
NY Giants Green Bay Birmingham Dallas
Philadelphia Minnesota New Orleans LA Rams
Washington St. Louis Tampa Bay San Francisco
AFC
East Central Midwest West
Baltimore Cincinnati Denver LA Raiders
Buffalo Cleveland Houston Oakland
New England Miami Indianapolis San Diego
NY Jets Pittsburgh Kansas City Seattle
The regular season lends itself to a parity formula much like the current one,
only better (assuming you like scheduling parity): In a 16-game season each
team plays home-and-home against the other three teams in its division
(6 games); the 1-4 or 2-3 finishers (same group as last year's finish) in
the other three divisions in its conference (6 games); and four teams from
the other conference (either another division, or perhaps one team from
each division; in any case, in a four-year rotation covering the entire
other conference).
Playoffs work well, too. There are three reasonable possibilities:
1 (My favorite, but don't bet on it): The eight division champions play.
Worst record at best record, second worst at second best in each
conference. Winners play at home stadium of team with better record for
conference championship.
2 (Most likely; I could live with it): The eight division champions qualify,
along with the two remaining best records in each conference. Wild-card
team with best record plays at division champ with worst record (if both
in same division, use division champ with second-worst record). Other
wild-card team plays at remaining division champ with worst record.
Rest of playoffs as currently.
3 (Grotesque): The eight division champions qualify, along with the four
remaining best records in each conference. First-round pairings are
best champ against worst wild-card not in same division, etc. Second-
round pairings are best record against worst record not in same
division.
Any comments? Am I out of my tree? Would the NFL sit still for this? Would
the USFL buy it if they did?
Bill Laubenheimer
----------------------------------------UC-Berkeley Computer Science
...Killjoy thinks spring FB's silly ucbvax!wildbillroth@ut-sally.UUCP (Mark Roth) (07/13/85)
As is always the case when you suggest divisional realignment you are going to hear it from the traditional rivalry people. For example, you moved Miami away from the Jets. Dallas from Washington. and others. These games bring in lots of viewers and lots of money, so it would be hard to convince the powers to be to change them. I like your first choice for playoffs. Wild card teams are usually has beens anyway. One good reason to have them is you might catch a team that got hot at the end of the season but had a bad start...maybe we should look at the last 10 games of the season win/loss record to see who should play? I don't think so, as another purpose of wildcards is to reward runner ups who are really good but had an even hotter team finish ahead of them. But then with only 4 teams in a division this is less likely to happen. Less than a month till preseason starts!
bobn@bmcg.UUCP (Bob Nebert) (07/15/85)
> > The USFL consolidates into four franchises, which will be accepted into > the NFL. These franchises, which will use the named USFL team as their > nucleus, are ARIZONA, BALTIMORE, BIRMINGHAM, and > OAKLAND. >> I agree, Birmingham has demonstrated that it can support a Major Level >> football team. I for one could never understand why the NFL never >> located a team in ALABAMA. ( home of Bear Bryant and all) > > NFC > East Central South West > Detroit Chicago Atlanta Arizona > NY Giants Green Bay Birmingham Dallas > Philadelphia Minnesota New Orleans LA Rams > Washington St. Louis Tampa Bay San Francisco >> I would put the Lions back in the Central and keep that division as >> it was. > > Playoffs work well, too. There are three reasonable possibilities: > > 1 (My favorite, but don't bet on it): The eight division champions play. > Worst record at best record, second worst at second best in each > conference. Winners play at home stadium of team with better record for > conference championship. > >> This sounds good to me also. I never liked the wild-card concept. >> >>--------------------Bob Nebert -----Burroughs Corp. >> Rancho Bernardino >> Calif.
mcal@ihuxb.UUCP (Mike Clifford) (07/15/85)
> The USFL consolidates into four franchises, ... > ARIZONA: Arizona, Houston, Memphis, San Antonio > BALTIMORE: Baltimore, Jacksonville, New Jersey > BIRMINGHAM: Birmingham, Orlando, Tampa Bay > OAKLAND: Oakland, Denver, Los Angeles, Portland > Now you've got four new franchises, and they aren't all that bad. Give them > an early draft choice or two, and they certainly shouldn't start off 0-16. > Baltimore and Oakland join the AFC, and Arizona and Birmingham join the > NFC. Everybody else stays where they are. Now reorganize each conference into > four 4-team divisions. The geography is mostly very reasonable. > > NFC > East Central South West > Detroit Chicago Atlanta Arizona > NY Giants Green Bay Birmingham Dallas > Philadelphia Minnesota New Orleans LA Rams > Washington St. Louis Tampa Bay San Francisco > > AFC > East Central Midwest West > Baltimore Cincinnati Denver LA Raiders > Buffalo Cleveland Houston Oakland > New England Miami Indianapolis San Diego > NY Jets Pittsburgh Kansas City Seattle > Any comments? Am I out of my tree? Would the NFL sit still for this? Would > the USFL buy it if they did? > Bill Laubenheimer > ----------------------------------------UC-Berkeley Computer Science Alot of great traditional rivalries would be terminated or shortened to one regular season meeting a year: Wash-Dallas, StL-Dallas, Det-MN or Chgo or GB. I bet the NFL and TV would balk because of this alone. Mike Clifford
wildbill@ucbvax.ARPA (William J. Laubenheimer) (07/16/85)
Regarding the breakup of current rivalries such as Dolphins/Jets,
Cowboys/Redskins, etc.: When moving from mostly five-team divisions to
four-team divisions, something obviously has to give. If you're selling
out your stadium every week anyway (what percentage of capacity does the
NFL average, anyway?), and most teams involved in rivalries of this
nature seem to be able to do this, the only difference would be in the
TV ratings, which might be somewhat lower as compared to a grudge match.
But in many cases, there would be compensations. Maybe the Dolphins don't
get to play the Jets every year, but they would get two games against the
Steelers. Cowboys/49ers and Cowboys/Rams twice a year seems like adequate
compensation for Cowboys/Redskins and Cowboys/Cardinals. Other relocated
teams would quickly find opponents to create rivalries with. Also, in those
years when you match up with a former rival, interest would probably be
substantially up as compared to when the rival used to be around each year.
I also like the eight-team division-winners-only format, as I indicated in
my original article. The problem, though, is that fewer playoff games
mean less revenue from playoff games, which means less money in the owners'
pockets and less salary and playoff awards for the players -- which is why
it's about as likely to happen as Jim Brown making a successful comeback.
In other words, don't count on it. That's why I think a twelve-team format
is the most likely one.
Bill Laubenheimer
----------------------------------------UC-Berkeley Computer Science
...Killjoy went that-a-way---> ucbvax!wildbilljeff@dciem.UUCP (Jeff Richardson) (07/17/85)
Are even Arizona, Baltimore, Birmingham and Oakland strong enough franchises
that the NFL would be willing to take them in? If I was a NFL owner, I'd
probably hold out for another season, figuring that the USFL would die after
that.
I've never understood the USFL's move to the fall anyway. I always thought
that the league was created because, after observing the growing popularity
of the Canadian games on ESPN, somebody got the idea that Americans wanted
to see more football than just September to January. (The Canadian regular
season starts on the first weekend in July.) However, I heard for the first
time a few months ago that the original intent was to play in the spring
until they got their feet on the ground, and then move to the fall. There
are two things about that attitude that don't make sense: 1) If the spring
is good for getting their feet on the ground, then it should be even better
for keeping their feet on the ground, and 2) They don't yet have their feet
on the ground anyway. The league is still not that solid.
On a related subject, when the move to the fall was announced, Tampa Bay
Bandits owner John Bassett, realizing that playing in the fall would be
suicidal, said that he would pull his team out of the USFL and start a new
league in the spring. Was he bluffing or is he even more insane than the
other USFL owners? If the latter, then have any details been announced?
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeffgdave@ubvax.UUCP (Dave Guertin) (07/19/85)
In article <8994@ucbvax.ARPA>, wildbill@ucbvax.ARPA (William J. Laubenheimer) writes: > > The USFL consolidates into four franchises, which will be accepted into > the NFL. These franchises, which will use the named USFL team as their > nucleus, are ARIZONA, BALTIMORE, BIRMINGHAM, and > OAKLAND. These are mostly the strongest teams in the league, either in > fan support or player strength, and have the additional advantage of > replacing NFL teams in two cities which have recently lost NFL franchises. > The original player pools from which these franchises will have first rights > to consist of a roughly geographical, and approximately equivalent, > grouping of USFL franchises: > > ARIZONA: Arizona, Houston, Memphis, San Antonio > BALTIMORE: Baltimore, Jacksonville, New Jersey > BIRMINGHAM: Birmingham, Orlando, Tampa Bay > OAKLAND: Oakland, Denver, Los Angeles, Portland > > The NFL team holding the rights to a USFL player would lose those rights > if the consolidated franchise signed that player to a contract, but would > retain their rights if the player was not signed initially. Players signed > and then cut would have to clear waivers in the same manner as a current > player. > > Now you've got four new franchises, and they aren't all that bad. Give them > an early draft choice or two, and they certainly shouldn't start off 0-16. > Baltimore and Oakland join the AFC, and Arizona and Birmingham join the > NFC. Everybody else stays where they are. Now reorganize each conference into > four 4-team divisions. The geography is mostly very reasonable. > > NFC > East Central South West > Detroit Chicago Atlanta Arizona > NY Giants Green Bay Birmingham Dallas > Philadelphia Minnesota New Orleans LA Rams > Washington St. Louis Tampa Bay San Francisco > > AFC > East Central Midwest West > Baltimore Cincinnati Denver LA Raiders > Buffalo Cleveland Houston Oakland > New England Miami Indianapolis San Diego > NY Jets Pittsburgh Kansas City Seattle > > Any comments? Am I out of my tree? Would the NFL sit still for this? Would > the USFL buy it if they did? > > Bill Laubenheimer > ----------------------------------------UC-Berkeley Computer Science > ...Killjoy thinks spring FB's silly ucbvax!wildbill Instead of Oakland I would rather see Memphis and I beleive this would work to preserve some of the current riverlys. Also I like the Idea of four divisions within a conference. It allows for more parity and gets rid of one of the current problems in the NFL where you have some divisions with only four teams and others with five. The reason I would rather see Memphis, is that the 49ers already have a strong foothold here in the bay area and it's very dificult to support two teams here. All you have to do is examine the past to see that when one of the two teams was doing better than the other the other was losing money. However Memphis also had a strong fan following and not to bad of a team. Also by preserving some of the current riverlys the NFL would be more acceptable to the Idea and as far as the USFL goes it would be the only way for many of the owners to save face. Because as you said it is only a matter of time before they go bankrupt. My line-up would be as follows: NFC East Central South West NY Giants Chicago Atlanta Arizona Philadelphia Detroit Birmingham Dallas St. Louis Green Bay New Orleans LA Rams Washington Minnesota Tampa Bay San Francisco AFC East Central South West Baltimore Cincinnati Houston Denver Buffalo Cleveland Miami LA Raiders New England Indianapolis Memphis Seattle NY Jets Pittsburgh Kansas City San Diego Well theres probley a number of ways it could be done but at least this way a lot of the riverly match ups would remain. The most evident that would not are the Dallas vs. everyone in their present division and Miami vs. New England or NY Jets. These old riverlys could be played once a year or so and of course new riverlys would be made in no time at all. The best thing about all of this is that it would re-align the NFL and at the same time create new parity. Both things the NFL is badly in need of in my opinion.
davest@daemon.UUCP (Dave Stewart) (07/19/85)
I liked the possibility of the USFL joining the NFL as another conference, much as the AFL turned into the AFC. Anybody for a USFC? -- David C. Stewart uucp: tektronix!davest Small Systems Support Group csnet: davest@TEKTRONIX Tektronix, Inc. phone: (503) 627-5418
tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) (07/22/85)
> Regarding the breakup of current rivalries such as Dolphins/Jets, > Cowboys/Redskins, etc. > etc., etc. > > I also like the eight-team division-winners-only format, as I indicated in > my original article. > etc., etc. > Bill Laubenheimer > ----------------------------------------UC-Berkeley Computer Science > ...Killjoy went that-a-way---> ucbvax!wildbill I think a better alignment might be six-team divisions with a total of 36 NFL teams. How about an AFC West realignment featuring the Chargers, Raiders, Invaders, Seahawks, Chiefs and Gamblers? The Raiders/Invaders rivalry would pack 'em in in Oakland alone. The only real problem with the NFL absorbing some of the USFL teams is how to deal with the Generals. I can't see how you could have three teams play out of the same stadium (Giants, Jets and Generals). By the way, an AFC East realignment could feature the Baltimore Stars and Indy Colts. Wouldn't the Baltimore fans L_O_V_E(!) to get a chance to boo them Colts? -- " For every word there is a song upon which inspiration lies ..." Ed Tankus Net : {noao!ihnp4!yale!}!hsi!tankus Snail: Health Systems Int'l, 100 Broadway, New Haven, CT 06511 Bell : (203) 562-2101
tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) (07/22/85)
> > The USFL consolidates into four franchises, ... > > ARIZONA: Arizona, Houston, Memphis, San Antonio > > BALTIMORE: Baltimore, Jacksonville, New Jersey > > BIRMINGHAM: Birmingham, Orlando, Tampa Bay > > OAKLAND: Oakland, Denver, Los Angeles, Portland > > Now you've got four new franchises, and they aren't all that bad. Give them > > an early draft choice or two, and they certainly shouldn't start off 0-16. > > Baltimore and Oakland join the AFC, and Arizona and Birmingham join the > > NFC. Everybody else stays where they are. Now reorganize each conference into > > Bill Laubenheimer > > ----------------------------------------UC-Berkeley Computer Science I think the only real survivors from the USFL would be: Arizona, Houston, Memphis, Birmingham, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, New Jersey and Oakland. -- " For every word there is a song upon which inspiration lies ..." Ed Tankus Net : {noao!ihnp4!yale!}!hsi!tankus Snail: Health Systems Int'l, 100 Broadway, New Haven, CT 06511 Bell : (203) 562-2101
rjv@ihdev.UUCP (ron vaughn) (07/24/85)
hmmm, all of this talk about NFL/USFL merger is interesting. anyone out there AGAINST it? i mean completely, let the USFL die it's certain death? i'm not 100% sure what i'd like to happen, but have you noticed that right now with NFL and USFL teams staffed, there are a lot more mediocre players playing? also, there are only so many superstars to go around, and they are certainly being spread thin. e.g. the heisman(sp?) winners all flocking to the USFL. except flutey, who won the trophy for all the wrong reasons. he can stay and rot in the USFL after it has died. yuchh gak pftpftpft! i think we are getting to the point where there are going to too be many teams, too many so-so players out there on the field. then again, i'm originally from dallas, so i've got MY team :-) boomer sooner!! (errr...uhh... i'm from OU also) ron vaughn ...!ihnp4!ihdev!rjv
45223wc@mtuxo.UUCP (w.cambre) (07/25/85)
REFERENCES: <8994@ucbvax.ARPA> <260@ubvax.UUCP>, <283@ihdev.UUCP> I don't care if it is a USFL team or a new NFL team, but there are definitely some cities that should have pro football teams that don't currently have NFL teams, i.e. Birmingham. I'd like to see teams in Jacksonville and Memphis, too.
gdave@ubvax.UUCP (Dave Guertin) (08/02/85)
>I think the only real survivors from the USFL would be: > > Arizona, Houston, Memphis, Birmingham, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, > New Jersey and Oakland. > > Ed Tankus > Net : {noao!ihnp4!yale!}!hsi!tankus > Snail: Health Systems Int'l, 100 Broadway, New Haven, CT 06511 > Bell : (203) 562-2101 True! But only four of those teams are in markets that current NFL teams are not. Good choices are Arizona, Baltimore, Birmingham, and Memphis. All are large cities with a strong desire for a NFL team.