Sports Illustrated, May 15, 1984
It has been the top issue for the USFL all season, whether to continue to push to make football a year-round sport by maintaining a spring schedule or make the move to the fall and compete head to head with the NFL. Both sides of the debate have their advocates and their skeptics, so just what are the arguments in favor and opposed to a fall schedule? We will try to lay them out, and then give you, and the USFL, our recommendation.
IN FAVOR OF A FALL SCHEDULE
Football is a fall sport. The ethos of the sport aligns with the fall and fans expect football in the fall. This argument seeks to make cultural argument that spring is the home to other sports and that the USFL would garner greater fan attention if it aligned with NCAA and NFL football seasons.
There is a great deal of competition in the spring for viewer and attendee attention, including, but not limited to the start of Major League Baseball, the NBA and NHL playoffs, the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament and one-off events such as the Kentucky Derby and Indianapolis 500. Add to this the spring fever and start of summer and it is hard, particularly in warmer climates to entice fans to either attend games or stay home and view them on television.
The first two seasons of the USFL have shown very uneven attendance, particularly in the initial weeks of the season when snow, cold, or rain have impacted many games. Playing in the fall, the inclement weather arrives during the playoff run and postseason, when fans are most invested in their teams. Having inclement weather during the first few weeks of the season depress attendance for the entire season as fans do not build a connection to the teams in the early season.
Potential merger with the NFL. None of the owners will reference this on the record, but off the record there does seem to be an undercurrent of belief that a fall schedule will push the NFL to consider a merger, as it did with the American Football League back in the 1960’s.
IN FAVOR OF RETAINING A SPRING SCHEDULE
The success of franchises in markets as diverse as New Jersey, Detroit, Denver, Tampa and Birmingham, along with strong attendance in expansion markets Houston, Jacksonville, Memphis and even Pittsburgh proves that a spring calendar can attract fans. Pair this with strong television ratings even when competing with other spring sports, shows that there is an appetite for football even in a part of the year traditionally viewed as belonging to baseball.
The financial issues seen in the league appear to have more to do with some teams overspending and other teams having attendance issues, rather than a lack of sponsorship or potential for television revenue. With sponsorship deals already in the works, and more on the horizon, a move to direct competition with the NFL would likely create significant disruption with sponsors and partners.
Stadium availability in the fall will be a larger issue than in the spring. NFL owned stadiums are not going to be open to a second team using the facilities even if games are scheduled around the NFL. Likewise, college stadiums will also be largely unavailable. Currently the USFL has been able to arrange to use a combination of NFL and NCAA stadiums because they are largely vacant during the spring.
The early timeframe for the season has also meant an earlier draft process for the USFL, an advantage which the USFL has been able to use to sign significant talent before the NFL holds its draft. Were the USFL to move to fall, the prospect of signing talent such as Steve Young, Mike Rozier or Gary Clark become more daunting.
While there are certainly both logistical and financial concerns within the USFL, these are unlikely to be improved with a fall schedule. In fact, several franchises, including strong performers such as Michigan, Tampa Bay, Houston, and Philadelphia, would likely seek relocation in order to avoid direct competition with NFL franchises in those cities. If these franchises believe it will be difficult to compete, how will weaker franchises in Chicago, Boston, Washington or LA fare? Were we to see a mass exodus from these larger markets to smaller ones, what would be the impact on sponsorship or television revenue?
Looking at the big picture, while a move to the fall may benefit a few markets, and create potential for NFL merger for those markets, the larger vision of the USFL as an independent top tier league would almost certainly be damaged. The potential for mass relocation away from large markets would be a financial death knell for a league which already seems to overspend its revenue. And with sponsors and ABC/ESPN already in negotiations with the league, there seems ample opportunity for renewed financial resources if the league opts to retain a spring schedule, resources which may dry up if the league opts to go head to head for fans, viewers, and partners in the fall. We see the USFL future as one where the spring provides greater stability, greater opportunity and greater potential for success. The fall looks more like an attempt by some owners to garner NFL attention at the expense of the remaining members of the league. The question is whether enough owners see this reality, or if many have visions of NFL gold at the end of the rainbow.