I was reading the developmental league thread and it really got me thinking about all the things that I'd like to see the NFL change over the next several years so that the game I love can continue to get better and even more popular than it already is. The NFL is a league unlike any other in professional sports. It has the largest roster, some of the most extensive, intricate and difficult scheming and coaching, the most variety of player types and (quite significantly) the least amount of interest and development outside of the U.S.A.

If I were Rodger Goodell, these are some of the things that I'd try to implement to improve the NFL and continue to improve what I feel is the best sport in the world (outside of reducing ticket prices, which is within each team's discretion.)

#01. Add another regular season game by subtracting one preseason game.

#02. Expand the league's world-wide presence by having more regular season games played at foreign sites, but stop teasing around with the idea of adding foreign-based teams and/or hosting a Super Bowl.

#03. Expand the league's state-side presence by having more regular season games played at neutral sites and allowing for cities to actually battle it out over the opportunity to host a game.

#04. Implement a concrete rookie pay scale (based solely on draft position) that is the exact same each and every single year.

#05. Increase the roster size to accommodate the advances that the sport has undergone in the past 50 years and make teams more competitive through the full season, and allow all active players to be available to play in the game - no more inactive list.

#06. Create an NFL-based State-side developmental league - a true minor league.

#07. Create a worldwide grass roots developmental system in specific countries around the globe to improve the interest of American Football and to develop foreign talent from a young age to eventually play in the NFL.

#08. Change some of the rules governing free agency and tampering.

#09. Expand the practice squad and change some of the rules governing player protection so that teams can match offers or receive late draft picks as compensation for another team to sign a player off of a practice squad.

#10. Extend the trading deadline until the first week of December.

#11. Change the overtime rules so that each team gets at least one possession.

#12. Change the rules for pass interference to a maximum of 15 yards and an automatic 1st down.

#13. Change the playoff rules so that the teams with the best records host the games.

#14. Create some positive buzz by having a spring-game type of practice and scrimmage schedule in the middle of the dead months.

. . .so there's my ideas. Which do you like or dislike and is there anything else that you think should be done to make the NFL a better league?

Here's some of my reasoning. . .

1, 2 and 3 are kind of a package deal. The NFL needs to expand itself to a global market like it has been doing, but it not at the expense of alienating local fans. The London experiment has shown that the NFL does have some foreign appeal and that there is a market to utilize outside of the U.S. - but it's time to realize that it is an American Based game and all other past efforts to mainstream it to the world have failed. Adding a team in a foreign country would be a colossal and expensive failure that would hurt the league severely in the long run. There is money to be made in other countries if it's handled the "right" way. Teams and fans are loathe to lose an ever-important home game by playing overseas and "hosting" a game away from their home location. Fans especially hate the idea of paying so much for season tickets and losing a game like that. It will be even worse for the NFL to export the Super Bowl to a foreign location because it's a revered U.S. institution that should stay here.

By subtracting a worthless preseason game (which don't sell out and the players aren't paid for) and replacing it with a 17th regular season game, teams are still able to play 8 games at home and 8 games on the road, with the one extra game being played at either a foreign location or at a neutral location here in the U.S. The NFL would win majorly from this arrangement because they could really make some money and get some exposure from other markets while not disrupting a team's home schedule and pissing off local fans (which are the lifeblood of the NFL.) Everyone wins, because the league gets exposure outside of it's 32 franchise cities, the teams get good money for going outside their market and bringing in new fans and the players win because increased revenues mean more money to go into their pockets (if they're smart enough to keep the salary cap intact) and the cities that host the games get a big boost in the economy from fans coming into town and spending money.

So that's sixteen games per season that can be played in London, Wales, Mexico City, Paris, Beijing, Tokyo, Rio De Jinero, Madrid or any other city U.S. or abroad that has the needed facilities and shows the desire to bring an NFL game to it's locals. I'd have all of the games played during the same week of the season (early on. . . like week 3 or 4) and promote it as an NFL worldwide experience. Fans all over would love to attend games that they wouldn't normally be able to and the NFL wouldn't be stepping on the toes of local fans like they are now. There's a number of things that would help to make this successful. Pimping out the best teams to the top bidders each year. Putting poor teams into a market that will help to support them despite their failures. (I'd be willing to bet that even the Raiders or 49ers could sell out a game in Mexico. ) I'd especially take advantage of the extra game in the schedule to renew old rivalries or develop new ones (outside of divisional games of course.) Local rivalries could play more often, past foes could renew their battles on a more regular basis and new rivalries of successful teams could be established. Then teams could also be rotated through locations and the league would get even more exposure.

Rookie pay scale kind of speaks for itself. It's about time that the NFL got this thing under control. I'd say that the League and the Union both need to come to a common ground for making rookie wages much more fair and balanced. I'd prefer to see a set scale that is entirely based upon draft position. Forget the rookie cap and make it so that the top players are paid less money and the rest of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd round players get more money. Make it concrete and set in stone. Take it or leave it. This would basically eliminate holdouts and guarantee that players make it into camp as early as possible. No more major increases in guaranteed money or overall contract from one year to the next. Make it the same year in and year out. Stable. Right now, bad teams are penalized by having top draft postions. That needs to change.

Rosters should be increased anyways, but especially if they add another regular season game. Players are bigger, stronger and faster than they were twenty years ago and the 53 player roster just is no longer relevant. They need to have deeper rosters to account for injuries, player development and especially for specialization. There are certain needs that each team has that they didn't in the past. The game has gotten bigger and more specialized. A few more roster spots would IMO improve gameplay and make teams more competitive throughout the entire season.

I've got more to say about the developmental league issues than I have time. I'll just have to address that one tomorrow. I think that a true minor league is important, but it needs to be done right if it's going to be successful and really help the league to the maximum amount while still being a good thing for veteran players. I have some ideas about that. Later though.

I think the rookie slotted pay scale is a must.

I'm curious why so many people are trying to spread interest in the NFL worldwide. I don't think that's such a great idea. I think all that will accomplish is that the NFL will overextend itself and not really get good results anyway. I'm totally happy with the majority of the interest being in the US and to a lesser degree Canada. I really don't believe that expansion is necessary to the survival of the NFL. Just my $.02

This would cause every touchdown threatening long pass to result in interference. In fact, it would probably result in most long passes resulting in pass interference.

However, I would agree that some difference in judgement when it comes to long passes could be implemented. Based on the comment by mikebpackfan, which is a valid point.

Otherwise, I like the ideas.

Isn't this the rule currently in place in the NCAA? I don't watch much college football, but maybe those who do could comment on whether PI happens downfield more often because of this rule? I see the point that it might--but if you are close enough to pass interfere, you are usually close enough to make a legitimate play for the ball, so the desperation of "hell, I'll just take a 15 yard penalty and he won't catch it" should be fairly limited I would think. And it would put the onus back on the offense to actually make the durn play (ie, catch the lousy ball regardless if you are interfered with or not, a la DD in the AZ game)--instead of just granting them the yardage as if it should have happened anyway. Which is another part about NFL PI that annoys the hell out of me, other than the aforementioned throw it up there and just hope for a PI call play.

#03. Expand the league's state-side presence by having more regular season games played at neutral sites and allowing for cities to actually battle it out over the opportunity to host a game.

It sounds like a good idea but you can't take away revenue from the teams. They depend on hosting eight games a year to pay for their stadiums and keep their fan base happy.

I'd love to go see a game in Omaha or Des Moines, but can you imagine if the Packers had even just one less home game a Lambeau each season? People would go nuts, and righfully so. It's hard work to keep an NFL team in your town and taking away games would have a bad effect on business.

I wish they'd stop taking regular season games overseas, as well. I understand why the league wants to do it, but it seems like a loss for the teams involved.

If I were Roger Goodell...

I would suspend Kevin and Pat Williams for Weeks 2-5.



This one just kills me. It's so obvious and yet the current rule remains. Have a coin toss to decide who receives first and who defends which endzone, but it doesn't become sudden-death until each team has had one possession.

There are examples of circumstances that would have to be clarified as far as possession, though:

* Team A elects to receive. At some point in their opening possession they turn the ball over, but Team B subsequently turns the ball back over before the play is dead. Was that possession for Team B?

* Team A elects to kick. They onside kick and recover. Was that possession for Team B?

* Team A elects to receive and their drive stalls. They punt and Team B muffs the punt and Team A recovers. Was that possession for Team B?

I'm not necessarily looking for answers to those as I have my opinion on all those scenarios already--merely pointing out that "possession" would have to be defined for overtime. It can and should be done, though. Each team should have an overtime possession.

College football doesn't have it right either. Each team does get a possession at least but overall their system is even more flawed, imo.

The solution to this would be to add 1 regular season game and have each team play one of their games on neutral turf. I just don't think that a non-NFL city would have the turnout equal to a normal game though and the NFL wouldn't like that. Who would get the revenue from this 'neutral site' game, also?

The games played in foreign locations or at neutral locations would be the extra game added to the schedule. The 17th game of the year if you will. Football is the most popular sport in the United States right now. . . by a long shot. High school, college and the various pro (or pro wannabe) leagues.

College football games are played at neutral sites often and there doesn't seem to be any problem filling seats and selling merchandise (like the BYU upset over Oklahoma this past weekend in the Cowboys new stadium). It's all in how you schedule it.

For instance. . . Salt Lake City (where I lived for several years) has a huge following for the 49ers (because of Steve Young's connection with the area) and the Denver Broncos (because of the relative similarities of the two mountain communities.) Since they aren't in the same Division they would be eligible to play in one of the neutral-site games each year. Salt Lake or Provo would certainly sell out in a heartbeat if these two teams played in that area, plus there would be an enormous amount of merchandise bought before, during and after the game. Plus, the community gets a big boost in it's economy for that one event. I'm sure that there's other examples as well. It's all in how you package it.

London, Tokyo and Mexico City have all shown to be good places to play football games based on past experiences. It's going to happen one way or another, I just think that this way would be the best way.

The teams would just split the revenue like they have done in the past and the league gets a big shiny star for going global.

Thanks for the food for thought, Ellis269. Many good points made.

But add me to the list of people who don't care so much about the globalization of the NFL. Soccer is probably bigger in Europe than football is here, and I think that most Europeans and Americans are fine with that arrangement.

I don't really like it when certain sports are shoved down my throat (soccer here in the USA and NASCAR come to mind...it's fine for plenty of folks but it will never rival the NFL no matter how hard they try). I don't expect many foreign sports fans would particularly care to have NFL football shoved down their throats, when they're perfectly happy with Champions League soccer, Formula 1 racing, and the like.

Ah. . . but that's why the NFL should work to develop football at the grass roots outside of the U.S. on a level that meets the demands of the countries hosting it. There's actually a great following for American Football in Mexico, Australia, Germany and to a lesser degree in England. There are leagues and clubs at the collegiate and semi-professional level in all of those countries (or continent if you wish), but not so much below that. If the NFL were to help with the development of high school aged programs in just a few other areas, they would not only have a new fan base to market themselves to, but they could eventually have a new pool of talent that is developing at an NFL level which would make their league that much stronger. Basketball, baseball, hockey and soccer all have strong athletes from foreign countries that end up being some of the best in the world. With the exception of soccer, many of those players choose to play in the NBA, MLB and NHL. Some soccer players (although not many) even choose to export themselves to the U.S. and play for the MLS. Why aren't there more foreign-born football players? Because they don't play football as children and there is no place for them to develop their talents in their home countries. How many star NFL players were born in Africa or the Polynesian Islands and immigrated to the US when they were children; who then play football in high school and then U.S. colleges and end up in the NFL? Those players are certainly a huge part of the success of the NFL and they would be wise to figure out ways of establishing ties with new programs get organized for more foreign children to play American football. Tonga, Hawaii and Samoa all have a great youth and high school football system that develops thousands of college and professional players. Why can't more European, Latin American and other programs be developed in a similar fashion? Granted, they still have to compete with other local contests like soccer, rugby and Australian Rules Football. . . but with the continued efforts of the NFL's globilization (which will continue whether we like it or not) more and better athletes will begin playing American football from a younger age if the programs are available. After that, it's just a matter of helping them continue their careers until a legitimate star player is exported. One NFL version of Mao Ying (China), Dirk Nowitzki (Germany) or Iricho Suzuki (Japan) and a whole new world of talent could start to be developed. That is exciting to me. I've coached many Polynesian players and I love 'em. I think that more foreign players would be good for football. I bet that if a real effort was attempted from the high school level upward, that legitimate German professional football players could be developed and end up playing at the NFL level. U.S. colleges would recruit them, and they'd get the experience they need stateside, but they need to have some tape to garner interest up to that point.

Some good thoughts. Enjoyed reading and responding. Thanks!

mikebpackfan - Thanks for the comments. I'll try to clarify some of my thoughts.

Like it. I think 3 is a good number for pre-season games.
Three and 17. They already play 20 games, they might as well make one of them earn some money for everyone and leave the 3 preseason games to properly evaluate players, form a roster and get everyone up to speed.

I know this is big with the league, but I just don't care. Whether it is popular globally or not is no concern of mine and I hate it if the Packers have to play overseas or lose a home game to a neutral site.
Nobody loses home games if they add another game, which looks likely. It also looks likely that Goodell is going to go overseas more. This plan IMO would be the best way for the league to do that.

Like it.
A rookie cap is a must. I don't care if it has completely guaranteed contracts for first rounders, but something has to be done. There should be less money at the top and more money for the rest of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders.

Reasonable, but it would cost the owners $$$ so I doubt they'd do it.
Again, this is something that's being discussed already. If the salary cap stays intact, then the new players salaries will just need to be figured into the equation. Players might feel like they're cutting a few more slices out of the pie, but extra games would help to make the pie that much bigger. It's all about total revenues. Another regular season game per year (especially ones played in other locations) helps increase those revenues. Also, it's stupid to have 53 players being paid while only 45 can play. If they're good enough to be on the roster, let them play. Fans suffer from bad football when the full roster is not utilized for substitutions, injuries and special teams.

It would be cool and interesting, but football costs so much money to play, that I don't know if they could do it. Maybe something like the NFL-E where you can put a few guys per teams might work out.
Again, it's already happening with the attempt to create several start-up pro football leagues in the making right now. Most will fail because they play in the spring (which just isn't very successful) or because they are competing with the NFL with inferior players. What I'd like to see is a start-up league that is it's own entity, but is affiliated with the NFL and aids in the development in a number of their young, raw players.

Again, mostly ho-hum from me. Don't really care if the NFL is worldwide or not.
Already stated my case above on this one.

They need to enforce the ones they have first.
I'd like to see them change the rules so that they don't need enforcement. Allow Free Agents to have contact with teams and negotiate the terms of a contract up to a month in advance of the free agent signing period. Allow low level UFAs to organize a "free agent combine" to show off their physical attributes and garner some buzz prior to the signing period. An early negotiation period allows players an opportunity to test the market without all the tampering that is running rampant currently. Alter the system to fit the reality.

I doubt this would change a whole lot. Maybe if the cap goes away, there would be more trading.
It probably wouldn't increase the amount of trading in the NFL dramatically because of the salary cap implications, but it would make for exciting moments if a contending team were to make a key acquisition heading into the stretch-run of the season. October is just way too early in my opinion.

Like it. I hate coin flips.
I hate that a coin toss decides a game more often than not. One offensive possession per team makes for a better conclusion IMO.

Like it. I hate intentionally underthrown balls that end up in 40 yds of PI.
It doesn't seem to be much of an issue at the college level, but I still think that the increase in penalties would be better than 40-50 yards on a fluke. 15 yards for an NFL offense is still 15 yards closer to scoring.

I don't mind if division winners get priority. Winning a division should mean something.
I can appreciate that, but I hate seeing an 8-8 or 9-7 team hosting a team that won more games. You want home field advantage in the playoffs. . . win your games during the regular season. Tied records should go to the Division champs. . . but not lesser records.

Would be interesting. Wouldn't mind seeing it.
I think that it would actually be a good way for the NFL to make some money and for young or inexperienced players to get some buzz going. It's more or less about raw talent at that point and would be a good way to break up the slow months after the season ends and before training camp.