Conf. Championship on neutral site?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Your making this out to be more than it is. Every year they shoot around a bunch of ideas to see what the owners think about them. Then out of all these ideas maybe a couple will take hold and will get talked about for a couple of years then fade out or get voted on. These guys are just making news, I could here one of the owners suggest this as the other owners boo and laugh at them.

Perhaps but from a business standpoint it is not a bad idea as it will enable the NFL to create mini-SBs. And from competitiveness standpoint it's not a bad idea either.

Ultimately this idea will be shot down because of the fans. People don't like change.

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

Perhaps but from a business standpoint it is not a bad idea as it will enable the NFL to create mini-SBs. And from competitiveness standpoint it's not a bad idea either.

Ultimately this idea will be shot down because of the fans. People don't like change.

I would actually argue that this is not a great business idea. The "neutral" site will likely not have anywhere near the number of box and luxury seats that the home team would have because they would likely be playing in a college stadium since it has to be a neutral site. Also, the home team would lose out on significant revenue, expecially big market northen teams like the skins, giants, chicago, that will never get to host a game due to climate.

Also, who gets the seats? Season ticket holders for the "home" team, or is it all up to grabs like the SB? The latter would REALLY stink since the superbowl is usually a lousy crowd since it is more about money than true fans.

I appreciate your position, but I stand by my opinion that this is a bad idea for both competitive, financial, and fan-centric reasons.

[hooskins]

If the new commish is actually thinking about this then he is going way overboard. Many of you will not agree with me, but in general I feel he is trying really hard to make changes and whatnot. If he keeps it up, it could be too much. There is a fine line between cleaning up the league, and turning into one of the Devil's associates like David Stern.

[BigSKINBauer]

That would just be dumb. No way that a logical group of people will ever change this.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

I would actually argue that this is not a great business idea. The "neutral" site will likely not have anywhere near the number of box and luxury seats that the home team would have because they would likely be playing in a college stadium since it has to be a neutral site. Also, the home team would lose out on significant revenue, expecially big market northen teams like the skins, giants, chicago, that will never get to host a game due to climate.

Neutral site means site neutral to both teams. For example, if the game was between WAS and DAL the game could be played in Miami (the 'Fins stadium) or Indianapolis (Colts' stadium).

Also, who gets the seats? Season ticket holders for the "home" team, or is it all up to grabs like the SB? The latter would REALLY stink since the superbowl is usually a lousy crowd since it is more about money than true fans.

Like I said in my first post, the biggest impact would be on the fans. Any serious discussion of change would have to remedy concerns of the fans whose team has home field advantage.

[GusFrerotte]

No way will the owners go for this, or at least the owners with the real power. Do you think Jones or Snyder with the most lucrative sports franchises in the US and the world for that matter are going to give up all that $$$$$$$ if their teams make the conference title game and have to play in Tampa with a smaller seating capacity, etc. I don't think so. HOme field advantage throughout the playoffs is a major plus to teams vying for Mr. Lombari's trophy and should be given to the teams that have performed the best as a reward for thier excellence on the field. The NFL has already watered down their product way too much with the salary cap and the parody it has created