Is Roger Goodell Good For the NFL?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by hooskins

I hate the isolationist mentality. Why not grow the sport abroad?

I think developing the game overseas only helps the game grow and reach greater heights. It also increases the player talent pool. Hardcore Brits probably hate that the international community has invested hard in US soccer, but we in turn have provided some great talent back to the EPl. The likes of Tim Howard, Stuart Holden, Brad Friedel, Clint Dempsey, etc. A win-win.

The more I talk to people about their concerns the more it seems their main issue is they dislike uk/europe and rather preserve the NFL as a US only brand. It turns more into a globalization vs. isolation debate.

Im only against it because its only Roger only wants to target London. I thinks its ridiculous to have teams fly over to London and back to play a game, its just to far. Maybe if the NFL gave them Lear jets to use id be more for it.

The NFL used to hold games all around the world, why not do that. I think its great that the Bills are trying to expand to Taranto and id rather see a team in Canada or Mexico before I see one in LA. I also thought NFL Europe was a great thing and actually could accomplish everything you mentioned in expanding the game and talent pool but Roger cancelled it his second year on the job.

[hooskins]

I think they are targeting London, from understanding, because its the only countries not in the Americas where the sport could/should grow. ALthough the travel would be a pain, if you cycle all teams it is equal. If there is a way to have the London game before bye weeks, for the teams playing that would ease some of the concerns too. I agree with developing opportunities in Canada and Mexico. Although I think there may be some loops to jump through in Canada due to the CFL?

Also, from all accounts, the large scale effort, that was NFL Europe was a financial failure and mess. I think Goodell feels focusing on the NFL in the US while slowly growing overseas (via a few overseas games) will help the sport develop in the long run. I assume it is also less of a financial burden.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by hooskins

I hate the isolationist mentality. Why not grow the sport abroad?

I think developing the game overseas only helps the game grow and reach greater heights. It also increases the player talent pool. Hardcore Brits probably hate that the international community has invested hard in US soccer, but we in turn have provided some great talent back to the EPl. The likes of Tim Howard, Stuart Holden, Brad Friedel, Clint Dempsey, etc. A win-win.

The more I talk to people about their concerns the more it seems their main issue is they dislike uk/europe and rather preserve the NFL as a US only brand. It turns more into a globalization vs. isolation debate.

Yea, globalization is awesome.
It sure helped keep manufacturing jobs here.

[hooskins]

AW,

Here is a novel thought. Instead of grasping on industries we are inefficient in why not invest in to technologies and fields we would have a global comparative advantage? Continuing to prop up industries (beyond the ones that are needed for national defense) only increases economic inefficiencies in the global market. Also it is very short sighted, because in the LR we are not going to sustain ourselves in the same way we did 20, 30 50 years ago.

No need for drastic changes and hurting families and businesses dependent on manufacturing. But gradual and thought out national policy would go a long way. If we would have thought a bit more in that light, there current economic situation would have been easier to get out of.

[SmootSmack]

We're not going to miss a game due to labor stoppage for at least the next ten years. That's impressive and the league has been actively talking to Germany about playing a game there one day so it's not just London

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by hooskins

AW,

Here is a novel thought. Instead of grasping on industries we are inefficient in why not invest in to technologies and fields we would have a global comparative advantage? Continuing to prop up industries (beyond the ones that are needed for national defense) only increases economic inefficiencies in the global market. Also it is very short sighted, because in the LR we are not going to sustain ourselves in the same way we did 20, 30 50 years ago.

No need for drastic changes and hurting families and businesses dependent on manufacturing. But gradual and thought out national policy would go a long way. If we would have thought a bit more in that light, there current economic situation would have been easier to get out of.

Having worked in an automotive and housing material manufacturing environment for most of my life I have a hard time taking your comments seriously. Coulda/woulda/shoulda.......
Globalization sucks.
And I really dont want to miss any Redskin games because they are playing the Hamburg Schnitzelboys at 3:00 am.

[NC_Skins]

They had the Euro league once before and it failed, so none of the Euro expansion talk bullcrap. I don't mind the overseas game every once in a blue moon, but they care about American football as much as we do soccer.

[hooskins]

AW,

A good amount of my family is from the Detroit area directly employed by the automotive industry. So I completely understand your perspective, but I am not letting my personal ties cloud my economic judgment.

It is not a good policy to prop up an industry by not "allowing" foreign competition. It is not sustainable nor is it sound. As long as the industry is not an infant industry or one pertinent to national security we should welcome foreign competition to make our product better. The proper way to "protect" an industry is to invest in R and D. If R and D is not deemed enough then invest in another industry.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by hooskins

AW,

A good amount of my family is from the Detroit area directly employed by the automotive industry. So I completely understand your perspective, but I am not letting my personal ties cloud my economic judgment.

It is not a good policy to prop up an industry by not "allowing" foreign competition. It is not sustainable nor is it sound. As long as the industry is not an infant industry or one pertinent to national security we should welcome foreign competition to make our product better. The proper way to "protect" an industry is to invest in R and D. If R and D is not deemed enough then invest in another industry.

LOL...you think its that simple?
What textbook did you get that from?

And I never said anything about not allowing anything nor am I for propping up things, like GM if thats what you're referring to.
I'm saying America needs to get back to manufacturing for its own sake.
Manufacturing facilities create a metric feckload of jobs.
And that is what this nation needs now more than anything.

I welcome competition. It drives quality and innovation improvements.
I also want to crush it.

We dont "need" a global market. However we are stuck with it.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by hooskins

I think they are targeting London, from understanding, because its the only countries not in the Americas where the sport could/should grow. ALthough the travel would be a pain, if you cycle all teams it is equal. If there is a way to have the London game before bye weeks, for the teams playing that would ease some of the concerns too. I agree with developing opportunities in Canada and Mexico. Although I think there may be some loops to jump through in Canada due to the CFL?

Also, from all accounts, the large scale effort, that was NFL Europe was a financial failure and mess. I think Goodell feels focusing on the NFL in the US while slowly growing overseas (via a few overseas games) will help the sport develop in the long run. I assume it is also less of a financial burden.

You cant cycle all the teams to London equally or season ticket holders will get PISSED. A lot of people factor in the cost of preseason game tickets into the cost of regular season tickets treating it kind of like a tax. So if the ticket's face value is 100 dollars each with 8 home games many season ticket holders look at it like its really a 125 dollar ticket, because 200 bucks was spent on preseason games. If you loose a regular season home game that 200 bucks is spread out over 7 games now, not 8. So it only makes sense for franchises that have problems selling out to go to London, and why we keep seeing the Bucs going overseas. The funny thing is that by continuing to go overseas you disinsensitive your fan base to become season ticket holders. Its kind of like the paradox of thrift.

Either way Rog loves those limeys (the only derogatory term i could find for brits):

Goodell reiterates that second London game could be coming | ProFootballTalk

At a time when Goodell likes to say that fans prefer 18 regular-season games, he should ask the fans what they think about sending an extra game to London each year.