clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Friday open thread: Should NFL games be played in limited locations?

New, comments

There might not be a need, but anything could happen comes this fall.

Miami Dolphins v Buffalo Bills Photo by Timothy T Ludwig/Getty Images

Over the past two weeks, the NHL and NBA have detailed their plans to resume the 2019-20 season. Both leagues decided to move into a pre-playoff period, eliminating teams that are too far out of contention and using a modified format to move into the postseason. Both leagues will end their season well after the typical league year concludes.

The NFL is fortunate to not be in this situation, but it could find itself having to make difficult choices like both of these leagues in the coming months. One large aspect of debate has revolved around where games will be played. While the preference is always to use team’s home stadiums, this might not always be a possibility.

Today’s Question of the Day is:

How would you feel if all NFL games were played in limited locations?

My answer: As of now, we are far enough away from the start of the NFL season to not have to make any concrete decisions, but much can change over the next few months. Both the NHL and NBA were clearly not comfortable having players and teams travel all across the country, so their games will be limited to one city (NBA) or a couple cities (NHL) only.

MLB has yet to solidify its plan to commence the 2020 season, but it looks like travel will be a big factor in its decision. A leading proposal would limit teams to only play against nine other opponents, using geography-based divisions to create the groupings.

With the limited number of games in the NFL season, measures this drastic may not be needed. However, if this type of plan needed to be enacted, I think it would be fine. Studies have shown that home-field advantage is not as great as we assume it is, and while diminished atmospheres without fans would be a bummer, it would be worth the trade-off for the season to happen.