Over the years, the powers that be in the National Football League have had a lot of good ideas. Revenue sharing. Salary caps. Television contracts.
Sadly, the latest thing tossed around by NFL owners isn't one of those.
It's a terrible idea, and needs to die a quick death. No further discussion needed. Just a quick are you friggin' kiddin' me? followed a loud and emphatic loud NO!!
That idea? As if the NFL isn't making quite enough money as it is, the owners got to mulling over this one: How about we play the AFC and NFC title games at a neutral site?
That came about because, this year, the Buffalo-Cincinnati game was scratched after Damar Hamlin's injury, thus impacting which team would have the home field advantage. With no clear-cut winner (Buffalo would have had it with a win against Cincinnati) the NFL opted to play the AFC title game in Atlanta should Buffalo win in the playoffs. No home field advantage, no perk for having the best record in the conference. With neutral sites, all the NFL teams would share revenue, etc. And the league would probably figure out a way to make it a three-day money-making venture with lots of corporate cash flowing in.
That went out the window Sunday when Cincinnati's Bengals went into snowy Buffalo and stomped on the Bills. Now the Bengals will play in Kansas City and the neutral site fiasco falls by the wayside (for now).
Teams having something to play for, like that feeling teams get from their home field crowd? Screw it. The fans don't really count anyway. Or so it seems.
Well, here's one NFL owner -- okay, shareholder -- of a team that says NO WAY to the neutral site proposal. There's just something magical about the home crowd, the elements and weather impact for a game in Green Bay or Buffalo or Cleveland or any northern, non-dome city.
Totally understand the need for warm weather or dome sites for the Super Bowl (although even that doesn't preclude poor weather. I think back to the monsoon game in Florida won by Peyton Manning and the Indianapolis Colts in 2007. But that would seem to be an outlier.
TALKED ABOUT THE Name/Likeness/Image deals for college athletes a while ago. I think my fears have been proven with the news that a highly recruited football player de-committed from Florida because his $13 million NIL deal fell through.
Florida, of course, is part of the SEC, a football conference ruled by the likes of Alabama, Georgia, and LSU, among others. Seems like the big money in the SEC talks loud and often.
It does with certain Big Ten schools as well, mind you. But not to the extent in the football-mad world of the South.
DON'T WATCH A LOT of NBA games, but this is a trend that bugs me -- superstar players sitting out road games to "rest". Am of the opinion that, if Team A only makes one trip to Team B during the course of the season, then Team A's superstars oughta play. After all, you can bet a lot of tickets sold by Team B were to fans who wanted to see Team A's stars.
Seems like a bit of false advertising to promote a game to see, say, LaBron James in action with the Los Angeles Lakers on their only trip to Milwaukee, then have LaBron sit out.
Agree or disagree?