If I Were NFL Commissioner Part Two: Expansion, Relocation and Parity

As the NFL nears the end of its collective bargaining agreement, it is in danger of swallowing more than one poison pill.

There are three attributes of the NFL that have led to its current status as the most successful professional sports league in the world. With success comes overconfidence, complacency, even hubris.

The NFL must be wary of dying from its own success. It is the responsiblity of the commissioner to ensure that this does not happen, even if he has to stand up to some obstinate owners.

The first hallmark of the NFL that must be preserved is parity.

Parity is the league's stock in trade. It is what makes the NFL more interesting to watch game by game, division by division, and season by season than any other professional or major college sport.

Parity is preserved by the salary cap and by revenue sharing. These are the two pillars of parity and both must be preserved.

In order to ensure the preservation of parity, if I were commissioner, I would insist on the following policies and threaten to resign if overruled (and would be prepared to fulfill my threat).

1. No single franchise can make its own licensing deals. All revenues must be shared according to the current formula.

2. Any latitude in the salary cap must be given only to teams under .500, and/or an alternative proposal (see No. 3).

3. Any major market team that wishes relief from the salary cap must apply for a waiver each time for each player involved and place a matching amount of money in a fund to be redistributed to small market teams. (Major market teams would be defined as teams representing the ten largest media markets.)

4. The NFL scheduing process must continue to be structured according to the team's division standings from the previous year.

5. A major expansion program will be undertaken to futher ensure parity by requiring a broader distribution of talent, and by offering more opportunities for lower division teams to play each other.

The second hallmark of the NFL is relative franchise stability in the modern era.  

It makes sense that the more franchise stability there is in a league, the more overall success the league will enjoy over the long term. Franchise stability creates a stronger fan base for the league and for each individual franchise. It also creates long-term rivalries that contribute to league strength and vibrance.

In the 40 years since the merger, there have only been seven franchise relocations. There have been none in more than a decade. Three of these moves involved Los Angeles, which is a special case, as we will discuss in a moment. Other than Los Angeles, only the Cardinals, Colts, Oilers/Titans and Browns have moved in four decades.

Ironically, there are NFL franchises in St. Louis, Cleveland, Houston and Baltimore today. So what was accomplished by moving storied franchises from their legendary homes, only to put a new franchise in the cities they abandoned?

Part of the issue with franchise relocations is that owners have played games with the local fans, attempting to get a new stadium or a better stadium deal, or both, or have been lured by a hungry city with incentives beyond that with which exisiting towns can compete. 

Often, a loss of fan support has been cited as the rationale for a move, yet the only reason fan support dwindled is because of the double dealing of the ownership.

As commisioner, in an attempt to preserve franchise stability, I would add to my non-negotiable, threaten/promise to resign list, the following must's: 

1. There must be a zero tolerance policy for franchise relocation.  

Any owner who is unhappy with his or her franchise is free to sell or swap the franchise, but not move it. There would have to be a very few exceptions to the rule that would require a unanimous vote of the ownership to approve, but I can't imagine anything short of a community just turning its back on its team without provocation, and I can't imagine that happening anywhere.

The one thing that can't be allowed is ownership sabotage of a franchise in order to claim fan disinterest as a rationale for exception.

2. In extreme cases, a second nearby city could share an existing franchise, such as Buffalo/Toronto, Baltimore/Washington, etc. as a means of increasing revenue and market size. In rare occasions when a city loses its ability to financially support a franchise exclusively, yet retains a strong emotioinal degree of support, this would be a better alternative than moving a franchise.

3. The attempt to sabotage a franchise to facilitate a move would be grounds for rescinding ownership rights.

Despite the provisions above, there will still be a few attempts to surreptitiously sabotage a franchise in an attempt to win an exception. Therefore, the league must have the authority to revoke an owner's rights for franchise abuse.

The league would pay minimum assessed value for the franchise in a mandatory buyout and would re-sell the team to ownership committed to invest in its existing location.

The third hallmark of NFL success is strategic expansion.

In 1959, the AFL was created because of the NFL's unwillingness to expand. There were 12 NFL teams and eight AFL teams. By the time the merger agreement was complete in 1967 (for purposes of combined draft, personnel policies, and a combined championship game), there were 10 AFL teams and 16 NFL teams, for a total of 26 franchises.

In 1970, when the two leagues began full integration, the AFL became the AFC. Three NFL teams were shifted to the AFC for mathematical balance. The remaining teams became the NFC. The two conferences played with 13 teams each.

The original Cleveland Browns (now Baltimore Ravens), the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the Baltimore Colts were the three teams realigned.

The NFL now has 32 teams. Six are new since the merger was completed: Seattle, Carolina, Jacksonville, Houston, Cleveland (new), and Tampa Bay. 

As an interesting aside, I quoted a California developer who is intent on moving a smaller market team to LA as saying that, along with Buffalo, Jacksonville "is a terrible place for a NFL franchise."

Since Jacksonville was selected by the NFL as the ideal location for expansion in the late 80s, it seems hard to believe that the league would agree with this viewpoint. Not that much could have changed in Jacksonville since the franchise was awarded.

Which leads me to the Los Angeles problem.

The NFL should rightly plan to have at least one franchise, and perhaps two, in the nation's second largest (and perhaps most affluent) market.

At one time, not so long ago, LA had two franchises. It had the Rams, who were moved to Los Angeles from Cleveland in the early 40s, and for a few years, it had the Raiders, who came to LA on the promise of a new stadium, never built, in the 80s.

Fortunately for the league and the Bay Area, the Raiders are back in Oakland where they belong.

As I mentioned before, virtually every city that has lost an NFL franchise since the merger has aquired a replacement franchise either by relocation or expansion. Hence, we have the awkward situation of an aptly named St. Louis Cardinals franchise now residing in Arizona, while a franchise with a lengthy history in Los Angeles as the Rams now resides in St. Louis. 

At least when the Browns left Cleveland, the league made sure the rights to the nickname, the colors, and even the stats, remained in Cleveland, and the Ravens were treated as an expansion franchise in every respect except for the personnel that went with them to Baltimore.

The departure of the Colts from Baltimore, however, was not handled so well.

We now have a franchise in Indianapolis named for the Colts that run at Pimlico. If the franchise was going to be moved, it should have been renamed to something associated with Indianapolis.

Of course, had that been done, the rich tradition of the Colts would have been lost. But wasn't it lost anyway?

Nobody in Indianapolis cares about Johnny Unitas. And the Baltimore fans are in a position to root against the familiar colors and logo that represented them since Baltimore entered the NFL.

What's the benefit of that?

Therefore, the solution to the risk of franchise instability is to satisfy the needs of any city that might want and be able to afford to join the NFL with a massive expansion the likes of what was done by the NHL when the league doubled its size from the original six to twelve teams all at once.

The NFL doesn't need to double its size, but there are several cities that would be in a position to attempt to lure away an existing franchise without relief via expansion. We would recommend an immediate expansion to eight teams with another round of eight planned for 5-10 years hence.

See part three of this series for details on expansion ideas. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/238413-if-i-were-nfl-commissioner-part-two-expansion-relocation-parity