Get rid of the Thursday night game. There are two problems with this game. The first is that the teams haven't been very good or the games have not been good. There have been blow outs and defensive battles (also known as offensive struggle games). Now, I know that the schedule is made before the season and you cannot predict how a team will do from year to year, but here is a list of the teams and the final score from the Thursday night games so far this season:
- Denver/Baltimore (49-27)
- New England/NY Jets (13-10)
- Kansas City/Philadelphia (26-16)
- San Francisco/St. Louis (35-11)
- Cleveland/Buffalo (37-24)
- Chicago/NY Giants (27-21) *arguably the best game so far*
- Seattle/Arizona (34-22)
- Carolina/Tampa Bay (31-13)
Stay out of London. Starting in 2007, the NFL has played at least one game in London. While this had been well received when it was first started, I feel that the uniqueness of it has really worn off. Between 2007 and 2012 there was just one game played in London, so it was special in that way. However, this year they will be playing two games and next year there are three games scheduled. There are games slated in 2015 and 2016 as well. It is hard to get a good read on how the players and coaches feel about playing over there because when they are interviewed, they need to be upbeat and positive for the sake of the game and the league. How would the players feel about playing for a team in London all year. Eight weeks out of the season they would have to travel back to the United States in order to play a game. The other eight weeks, other teams would have to fly to London. I have not done any international traveling, but I would think that going back and forth like that would put some wear and tear on your mental state. With time zone changes and jet lag being a major factor, I would think that players and coaches would get sick of it real quick.
Earlier this week, Roger Goodell talked about expanding the NFL with a team in Los Angeles and London. Los Angeles I understand. Los Angeles has had a team in the past. A couple of teams actually. The Rams were there (1946-1994) as were the Raiders (1982-1994). The Rams packed up and moved back to St. Louis while the Raiders moved back to Oakland. Again, I don't understand the need or want to have a team in London. Having a team move back to Los Angeles is no problem. I'm sure the NFL can take a look at attendance and television ratings and whatever else they look at and they could make that decision. There has been plenty of talk since the two teams moved away from L.A., but they moved away for a reason. How long could the city sustain a team there? Would they be looking at moving away in another fifteen or twenty years again?
Addition by subtraction. Are thirty two teams necessary? Are seven draft rounds needed to fill out a team's roster? Historically speaking, how many seventh round draft picks make it on an NFL team? I know this idea would not go over well with the NFL because it would mean less teams and less money, but the product would be better. And that idea is to get rid of two teams. Go from thirty two to thirty teams in the NFL. So why would they want to do this? It would make their games better. It would make the games better because the teams would be better. The teams would be better because there would be a smaller talent pool to choose from. Because of the smaller talent pool, the better players would make the teams. The NFL season is half over right now and there are two teams that have yet to win a game: Jacksonville and Tampa Bay. It doesn't matter what year, there always seems to be the bottom of the barrel in the NFL and different teams find themselves there at different points of their franchise history. For example, the Lions in 2008 did not win a game. It was terrible. Now, they are an okay team with glimpses of promise. Several teams that were playoff teams last year have losing records this year so far. So you cannot base what team to get rid of based on their record, but you would have to look deeper into things like television ratings and financial gains. It would not hurt the brand by getting rid of two teams. In fact, it would enhance the sport.