Talk:National Football League

Who owns the NFL?

I came to this page to try and find out who owned the NFL, but could not find this in the text. I assume, given the way the franchise system works, that it is not jointly owned by the teams. Does the money made by the league go back into the sport, or is it skimmed off by a rich owner or shareholders. Maybe somebody who knows these details could add them, if they think it's relevant.212.140.167.99 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question! Here's an excerpt from the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission v. National Football League et al:

"The league was formed in 1966 by a union of the American Football League and the National Football League, and it functions as the governing body of a joint venture of thirty professional football teams producing “NFL football.” The teams are independently owned and managed by different business interests. The league is organized through the League Constitution and Bylaws, an agreement among team members that sets out rules for league management of matters such as game rules, game schedules, team ownership, and location of teams." (emphasis mine)

So the NFL is owned jointly by the (now 32) teams. As far as the distribution of funds, the money the league gets from its TV contract and licensing is distributed to the teams (with some kept for league office functions, I suppose). Most of the money the teams get is used to pay the players. NFL owners typically are people who are very wealthy from other businesses and don't own an NFL team to make money. -- Mwalcoff 02:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Following up with more recent clarification on this topic, the article currently refers to the NFL as simply an "unincorporated association;" however this is not entirely up to date. Unlike many other professional sports leagues (such as the MLB, which more recently switched from a nonprofit to a for-profit), the NFL is organized as an unincorporated 501(c)(6), a designation which is important because it clarifies the NFL's notable (based on independent media coverage) registered structure as a nonprofit association.

A proposed update to the introduction paragraph of this article is currently saved as a sub-section of my user page at User:Jeff_Bedford/NFL. In establishing notability for the inclusion of this information, multiple independent sources (New York Times, U.S. Internal Revenue Service) are cited. Of note, the league's players association is a client of my employer, and given this potential WP:COI, I've been careful to cite WP:RS and structure the revised sentence from a WP:NPOV in this minor update. Recognizing that others may see things differently, I am more than happy to discuss any of the proposed edits. Prior to moving forward, I'd like to reach consensus on the proposed introduction paragraph at User:Jeff_Bedford/NFL. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks neutral to me, though I know nothing about legal information about organizations. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

With this in mind, I've implemented the minor edit as described above. Realizing that Wikipedia is a work in progress, I remain open to continued dialogue as this topic evolves. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Divisional Organization

I can't find anything in any articles about the divisional reorganization back when the Houston Texans joined the league, I believe in 2002. You'd think that the origins of the divisions and their subsequent reorganization would be worthy of comment somewhere on wikipedia. 206.188.10.14 (talk) 14:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

See 2002 NFL season#Expansion and realignment. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

the individual division articles also have details of previous groupings and changes (eg AFC East) 212.20.248.35 (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Brad Childress is no longer the coach at the Minnesota Vikings, as he is listed in the divisional organization section. That proud distinction now belongs to Lezlie Frazier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.171.144 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have made the change. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Australia

Can someone put something in here about NFL becoming very popular here amongst us aussies mainly because of ben graham, kids are playing gridiron on school fields here rather than rugby btw Go cardinals--Gargabook (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

if a football enters the stands during an NFL game, can the fan keep the ball? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.25.38 (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can, players sometimes throw the ball into the stands after touchdowns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.17.102.118 (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"Traditionally, American high school football games are played on Friday...." - true?

Can some Wiki users around the U.S. provide data to support this statement? I live in New York City, and high school games here are scheduled on Saturday, and have been for many years. Friday games seem very unlikely, as players would be in class all day. Elsquared (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Friday nights. Which is where the term "Friday Night Lights" comes from. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Traditionally" does not mean "Everywhere-All the time". Traditionally, High School games are on Friday. College games are on Saturday. Professional games are on Sunday. There are numerous exceptions, but those are the traditional days.

So, the numbers... I went to http://www.highschoolsports.net and selected a city. I chose Atlanta because it is big and has a lot of high schools. All the upcoming football games are on Friday. Next, I looked at a week in Detroit. There are a few games on Thursday and Saturday, but almost all of the games are on Friday. Maybe it is a big-city thing. So, I checked a tiny town named Rolla. All games are on Friday. So, I checked a few high schools in NYC. Most games are on Saturday, with some on Friday, Sunday, and even Monday. So, I hope it is obvious that NYC is an exception, but it doesn't mean that the rest of the nation isn't following a "traditional" day. -- kainaw™ 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Down here in the south High School Football is always on Friday Night. Some schools do it on Thursday night if it's televised. But you will always find high schools playing on Friday Night.--Voices in my Head WrestleMania XXVII 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Scheduling grid

There is a "sample scheduling grid" found in the article. It looks like this:

While this is an extremely good thing to include in the article, it cries out for further explanation. I guarantee you that the majority of people seeing this will be confused. Why? When people think of a "schedule", they are thinking about dates. But of course, the average NFL fan likely understands that, before dates are picked, teams have to be picked, and this grid does that. But its not explained, and indeed, it even lists the finishing places of each team, which would make it appear to someone unaware of how this works that this is the end of the season (and not, as it is, the rankings from the last year's season). Someone who understands it better than I needs to explain it, keeping in mind the person who really wants to understand this stuff, but won't, with this. I wish we could call it something without the word "schedule", but I can't think of what that would be. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a good solution when even the annual Official NFL Record & Fact Book [1] continues to refer to it as the "NFL Scheduling Formula". Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, we can call it that. But we owe it to the reader to explain how it is used, because right now, it's bound to confuse most people. 98.82.190.226 (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who came to this article to find out how the schedule worked (after playing an NFL computer game and failing to grasp it) - I think it explains quite well that the extra two games are based on the positions from the previous season. The last line of the text is [quote]Each team plays once against the other teams in its conference that finished in the same place in their own divisions as themselves the previous season, not counting the division they were already scheduled to play: one at home, one on the road (two games)[/quote] - and the grid helps show that, by highlighting the teams in the same position. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Imma also add info in the article about how,to avoid teams "Tony Dungy-ing," the practice of benching your starters late in the season to get some rest if that team has already clinched all things which are possible to clinch, a practice used a lot in the 2009 NFL season, the NFL has started packing in a lot of divisional games in the end of the season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.246.49.242 (talk) 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is it being described as "american football"?

USA, Austrailia, Canada, and New Zealand do not call "soccer" "football". For predominantely english speaking countries, that's far more people than primarily english speaking countries who call "soccer" "football". Additionally, being an article about "american football", it should be written with American-like style, and that definitely would not be by calling it "american football", 66.190.31.229 (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your question is related to various ongoing debates and discussions on Talk:Football. So far, there is no clear consensus whether to primarily use the name of the particular code uniformly on articles (i.e. the terms American Football, Canadian Football, Association Football, Rugby Football, Australian Rules Football and Gaelic Football would be used in articles instead of "football" in all instances); or merely just use "football" in all cases. My suggestion was that "football" should be treated like an abbreviation: the full name of the code should always be the first reference in an article (for the benefit of any international reader who may not be familiar with all the different football codes), and thereafter "football" can be used elsewhere in the body text. However, that hasn't gotten any consensus either. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Organizations

When I came to this page I assumed that there would be information on the different organizations that the National Football League supported. I know that a large group of the players, coaches, and staff are included in the support of a program called NFL PLAY 60. This program helps encourage kids get involved in physical activity by spending at least 60 minutes a day in outside recreational activities. The cause is leaning towards lessening the number of childhood obesity here in America. There are many programs that the NFL helps bring awareness to, and it could potentially make this article stronger if those programs were mentioned. Hrndfrg13 (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

NFL Creation and "Championships."

If one is going to count the number of pre-NFL era "championships," then they must also include modern NFL era conference championships. Any team that wins say a Lamar Hunt trophy should have that championship added as a separate championship with any Superbowl win.

For example: the Steelers have won six Superbowl championships, they have also won 8 AFC conference championships. Therefore, the Steelers have actually won 14 Championships in the NFL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.34 (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. - BilCat (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Terrible idea; basically redefining a word with a very clear accepted meaning. - Devnull17 (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

1st "Uh, no." is not adequate to refute my recommendation that the article clarify that the Steelers do technically have 14 championships.

2nd It is not a "terrible idea" what is terrible is making an unprofessional assertion such as that that. As it is not changing the definition of any word, it is simply literally interpreting the meaning of the word. If one knows anything about the history of the National Football League that exists today, it is a completely different and separate legal entity than the NFL before the AFL-NFL merger. This modern NFL has only officially existed since the late 60's. The Packers do not have the most championships since the late 60's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.34 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What is "terrible" and "unprofessional" is not following Wikipedia's policies and guideline and instead applying original research, opinions, or assertions like "This current NFL has only officially existed since the merger" and "The Packers do not have the most championships". Wikipedia does not publish original thought. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. And most sources I have seen state that the NFL has existed since 1920; and the Packers have the most league championships. Your arguments sound like you are trying to push undue weight on a minority viewpoint, which is not allowed under Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. How many reliable sources claim that the Steelers have 14 titles? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

1st Just because it is the minority argument, does not make it wrong. 2nd What is a terrible idea is to mis-represent my claims. I had said that the Packers were not the most championed team in professional football since 1966. When the owners of two completely different and separate leagues decided to merge and make one newly expanded league. see http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/history/pdfs/History/Chronology_2011.pdf or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Football_League or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFL%E2%80%93NFL_merger 3rd One must know the legal properties and technicalities of a merger. For example when United Airlines and Continental Airlines merged last year, they established a completely different corporation. The name of the new corporation was still "United," it is only because the ownership of the two corporations agreed to call it "United." Just as the owners of the AFL-NFL decided to call the new league the NFL. They could have easily called it the AFL or the BFL or the CFL or the DFL or the EFL or whatever they would all agree to. 4th A Lamar Hunt or a George Halas trophy is deemed a "Conference Championship" it is not my own personal opinion, it is in the name. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFC_Championship_Game or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFC_Championship_Game or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Football_Conference I think what is needed in this article is to state that the Packers are the most championed team in the history of professional football. But the in the current organization of the "NFL" which began in 1966 and finalized in 1970 it has been the Steelers. If you wish to refute, please do so with multiple sources as I had. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.34 (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I apologize that I originally misread what you meant by "championship". That said: yes, a minority viewpoint does not make it wrong, but again, as I said, Wikipedia needs to reflect what most verifiable, reliable references and sources do. And not put undue weight on an unusual convention or a different way of interpreting what should qualify as a "championship". This is what appears you are doing: advocating your own analysis or synthesis of what a championship is. I'm not disputing the multiple sources you cited. What I am disputing is your interpretation of what should be listed as a championship.

Another rule here on Wikipedia is listed here: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I do not know any reliable source that list a separate championships line by adding up both the Super Bowl titles and conferences titles. This "legal properties and technicalities" component that you suggest is not factored into these interpretations or computations made by the reliable sources. Nor is the interpretation that because "Conference Championship" literally has the word "championship", this automatically qualifies it to be listed equally with Super Bowls.

If we post what you suggest, I guarantee you that your personal analysis or synthesis of what a championship is will sooner or later be reverted by other editors, who in good faith want the article to reflect the common conventions or meanings stated by most reliable sources. And if I originally had trouble trying to fully understand your reasons (I probably still don't), you could expect others having a similar problem. Therefore, to change my mind and others, you need to provide reliable sources that specifically and explicitly add up both Super Bowls titles and post-merger conference titles, and list the Steelers as having 14. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair game, you are correct. I would have to find further, outside sources that back-up my claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.243.34 (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. As I mentioned, I do not know anybody who treats Super Bowls and Conference Championships equally. If one knows the entire complex history of the NFL, the league also had a huge controversy in 1925, that still lingers to this day, involving the now-defunct Pottsville Maroons and the franchise that is now known today as the Arizona Cardinals. This has led to the belief that a curse was placed on the Cardinals, since they hold the NFL record for the longest championship drought, not having won a league title since 1947. I'm pretty sure Pottsville fans would be very angry if many people started counting the Cardinals' 2008 NFC title as a "championship", because that would retroactively end the "curse". Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Rule change - Gameday roster size

Early in the article, it states that teams can only dress 45 players for game day. Per the new (2011) CBA, I'm pretty sure this has been increased to 46. - Devnull17 (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Chart notes

In the Teams section beneath the table is a series of "chart notes" that dives deeper into the details concerning dates, team identity, and team history. In a table that is suppose to clearly and cleanly identify league teams, locations, and other basic information, readers are presented with cluttering symbols (* † ‡ ♠ ^{1 2 3}) that discuss whether a franchise had moved before its present location or the specifics of how a particular team was founded or if it was apart of this league or that league before the NFL or... The point I hope I'm illustrating is all this needless detail is defeating the purpose of a quick, to-the-point table outlining the who's who of the NFL. The fact that Cleveland "suspended" its operations for 3 years or that the Lions weren't always in Detroit or that Tennessee was apart of the AFL shouldn't really matter at the level of the main league article. Those are important points to bring up in a history section or the team's individual articles. I propose doing away with all chart notes and making this important table easier to read. --Blackbox77 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Before we had those footnotes, we had frequent, continuous problems with numerous anon IPs and new users changing the dates listed on the chart – especially regarding the Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens issue you mentioned, with those who continued to modify the dates to reflect the "Modell relocation model" instead of the official league records saying "1996-98 suspension". This is the short, quick alternative to tell these new users what is the basis for these date, rather than keeping the page semi-protected, repeatedly reverting the page, repeatedly leaving messages on their talk pages, or massively blocking people. The histories of most NFL teams are complex, and sometimes disputed by minority viewpoints, and so there is always going to be users who may have different idea of what dates should be listed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  If you want it "simpler", reverting the chart back to what it was 5 years ago would be better.[2] This will remove the two columns listing dates, but it will not be as "detailed" as those on the MLB, NBA, NHL, and MLS articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

  I should also point out that the issues regarding over-excessive citations and footnotes, such as those listed on WP:CITEKILL, WP:BOMBARD, WP:FACTS, are only at the Wikipedia essay stage. As far as I know, there is no actual official policy or guideline regulating it at this time. Therefore, an actual guideline like Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and do whatever necessary to avoid massively posting user talk page warnings, page reverts, and blocks should take precedent. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Those are good points and I can see why some may be necessary to avoid greater problems. But are all the notes vital? In the spirit of finding a middle ground, let's examine each set of chart notes on an individual basis. Your point on keeping notes regarding the Browns/Ravens issue to avoid messy discussion I can certainly understand. What about notes concerning the league the franchise was founded in († ‡ ♠)? Are there frequent misunderstandings that not every team began life in the NFL? It seems with columns titled Founded and Joined, this is a minor issue that can be explored more in team articles. Regarding an asterisk denoting a franchise move, I question the notability of this info in the table. In general, it is certainly important historical background but how critical to a general team overview? To the reader wanting to know the basics of the league, this seems like excessive information. --Blackbox77 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I am neutral on the † ‡ ♠ markings. However, I still insist on the asterisks. There are still people out there who think, for example, the Tennessee Titans began in 1999, and is not really a continuation of the Houston Oilers, and thus will attempt to change the table accordingly. The same with some rabid fans in Baltimore, who view the Indianapolis Colts as a completely different franchise after their relocation from Baltimore in 1984. Those are just two examples of fan bases who have totally disassociated with teams after they move away from their respective cities, and thus treat them as totally different entities (and in fact these people still tend to frequently show up on Talk:Tennessee Titans and Talk:Indianapolis Colts, trying to make us change those articles to reflect this). Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

So for the time being, we at least feel safe getting rid of the † ‡ ♠ markings and notes? I think that's a good first step toward reducing clutter and I appreciate you hearing me out. To address your thoughts on the asterisk, if these over zealous fans really had a problem, wouldn't there be a constant alteration of the founding dates? I find it interesting that whether the asterisk is there or not, the table says the same thing. I'm not a regular editor here but I'd imagine an article like the NFL has a strong editor pool to protect against silly edits like that. In addition, the teams respective articles go into great detail concerning franchise movement and yet there are not mass reverts taking place there. As much discussion as there has been in the past concerning Tennessee and Indy, these points are today well managed. As important as this table is to this article, it just feels like a battle worth fighting. --Blackbox77 (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I attribute both the asterisks and the Browns/Ravens footnote as methods that have prevented such constant alterations on this table for the past year. Such fans have been known to read and modify this main NFL article first before even looking at Cleveland Browns, Baltimore Ravens, Indianapolis Colts or Tennessee Titans pages. If anything, the asterisks should be moved to the "founded" column. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Serious discussion regarding controversial alterations on those 4 talk pages hasn't taken place since Jan 2009 for the Browns, Feb 2009 for the Ravens, March 2010 for the Colts, and June 2009 for the Titans. If we were to experiment and agree to remove the asterisks, how long would it take for an IP or rouge user to come in and mess it all up? If there is minimal interference, it'll be worth it in the end. I say we try that experiment because...after all, this is Wikipedia and we can change it back. ;) --Blackbox77 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have noticed that this article is currently under semi-protection until November 7, so we will probably won't see any significant effects by IPs until after that time. However, other regular users may still be able to edit. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Another thought - instead of asterisks, how about putting the "founded" date in italics? Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll still stand by it being excessive information but italics sounds like a far better solution than markups with an asterisk. I like that. --Blackbox77 (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"United Sport Accounts"

I have an idea for an united account (like the Wikimedia account or the Disney account),that valid on NFL,MLB,NBA,NHL,NCAA Football and NASCAR.Off-course,I can link any of these accounts to a Facebook account,but I need to register to NFL,MLB,NBA etc... Ok,when I a fan of all of these assocations,I need to register 6 six times,that waste a lot of time and when I want a new password for these accounts,I need to make these 6 times etc... The best idea is the United Sport Accounts (USA sports),that will be valid on all six assocations,ok,when I register to NFL,it will be valid also on MLB,NBA,NHL,NCAA Football and NASCAR.This will work also on the shops,off-course (when I provide my bank card information on an NHL shop purchase,it will remember it and I can use on any other shops of the other 5 members,and I can purchase anything,anytime).Is this a good idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidexel2 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you enlighten me on what this suggestion has to do with the NFL article or even more generally with WP? This isn't meant to be used as a personal blog where you can write whatever thoughts come into your head — the purpose of this page is to discuss the NFL article. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro

Does labor "strife" really belong in the introduction? I know the last year or so it has been more than relevant, but over the 80 year history of the league, is this really that noteworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boucher4 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

American Football

To EGG or not to EGG, that is the question. There seems to be a storm on the horizon on whether or not to use the straight link American Football or to redirect through a piped Easter egg link as Football. The question is perplexing, since WP:EGG would require that links should be as direct as possible, but since the article is about the NFL, an American sport, no one in the US actually says American Football and per WP:ENGVAR, we should use the most common name used in the country that is being discussed, based on strong ties to the national variation. In theory, I disagree with the rationale used by User Zzyzx, that number of readers are outside the US. What number would that be? Of English speaking countries, the United States has well over 50% of the population, compared to the combined total of the rest of the English speaking countries in the world. So the question would be this: Why would the majority of English speakers in the world have to placate the minority on an article that has strong national ties to the United States?--JOJ ^Hutton 17:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The general consensus with most football codes is has been to list the full name of the code, and thus the full link, at its first mention in an article, and then to use the unlinked "football" in the remainder of the article, per ENGVAR. I don't see any reason to change that approach here. - BilCat (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Zzyzx's actions are correct, though not necessarily for the reasons he gave. This issue has been discussed on many ocassions, and the consensus is as I gave above. (Note that the Soccer-related articles are often subject to their own POV-pushing on this issue, and thus may not follow the general consensus followed by the articles of the other football codes. That is best dealt with elsewhere, not here.) - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I apologize. When I made that edit, I somehow totally forgot about such discussions like Talk:Football/Archive 16#Naming Standardization In Different Codes and probably should have repeated what BilCat mentioned was consensus: "football" should also be treated more like an abbreviation, and the full name of the code should always be the first reference in an article, and thereafter "football" can be used elsewhere in the body text. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the link to the discussions. - BilCat (talk) 14:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Quoting WP:ENGVAR is one thing, but besides a past discussion, what guideline is used to confirm this use? I agree now, based on what I believe to be a good reason for doing so, but what solid evidence is there to confirm that the format should have what you call football code. I'm one of those who likes to see these things in writing, so that consistency across the project can be obtained.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I myself offhand do not remember where it is officially written other than that discussion. I do not think Wikipedia:WikiProject Football has it explicitly officially written down either, although I have noticed that league articles like Premier League and Fußball-Bundesliga explicitly have the full "association football" written out in the lede section, whereas team articles like FC Bayern Munich do not. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Men's league

The NFL is the elite professional Men's league in the US. There is no denying this, the rule book refers to men, not players, this in it'self implies a men's league. The latest change argues that there is no rule explicitly barring women from playing, sure that's correct, there is also no rule explicitly barring penguins from playing, does that mean the league is open to all penguins? Come on, lets get real, I would love for there to exist a women's professional football/hockey/baseball system, but the reality is that co-ed professional sports will not and can not happen. Men and women are different, they are built differently, men are not better than women, just different. We have traditionally had men's leagues and women's leagues, the NBA is the men's basketball league, the WNBA is the women's basketball league, there is not CNBA (Co-op National Basketball league). Women should, and hopefully will soon, be represented in all professional sports.--UnQuébécois (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be a man's league, but I see no reason for saying so in the lead.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To provide a brief summary that could stand on it's own as a concise version of the article. One three letter word that gives the scope of the league.--UnQuébécois (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The league has stated in the past that it would allow women to play. Thus it cannot be considered a man's league. It would be inaccurate. Wikipedia is not the place for trying to push your point of view about women's sports. I would love to see women's sports get a higher profile but it is not our job here to make it so. -DJSasso (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where I have "tried to push my point of view on women's sports", I have just stated that I would like to see more sports properly representing women, an opinion in a discussion, I'm sorry you think that stating an opinion is the same as imposing my point of view on you. What is and what I would like are two different things. Currently we have men's professional sports leagues and women's professional sports leagues for the most part, there are no co-op major professional leagues in North America (no Curling is not a major pro league in North America). I have not found any reputable sources for your NFL statement that the league would allow women to play, just cause it's on the internet does not make it true. Just because the league would allow women, does not make it a co-ed league at this time, 100% of the players right now are men.--UnQuébécois (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

All the major sports leagues are co-ed. A co-ed league implies that both sexes CAN play, not that they DO play. The fact that only men play in the NFL doesn't mean that it is, by definition, a "men's" league. Starwrath (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The terms "men's league" and "women's league" by definition imply that it is men or women ONLY. There is NO RULE prohibiting women from playing, therefore it is inaccurate to state it is a men's league. Also, many rules refer to players, not men. Why would you cite the rulebook that has no actual rule prohibiting women from playing to back up the statement that it is a "men's" league? That makes no sense. The NBA is not a men's league either. Neither is MLB, and neither is the NHL (where a woman has actually played in a preseason game).Starwrath (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct, there is no rule prohibiting women from playing, I have not said otherwise. The rule book has many rules stating "men", men on the field for example not players on the field, which would preclude women, as they are not men. If the NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL were to start letting women play on a regular basis locker rooms would need to be redone, for starters, one preseason NHL game does not make the standard of competition. The reality is that the NFL is a men's league, no matter what we would like to believe, or have been led to think. If and when this changes, we can update the Wikipedia article to reflect the situation at that time. Now my Opinion, do not take the following as trying to impose anything on anyone: I could not care less if the league allowed women, I think it would be great. I was very pleased that the NHL has had women come and play, try out for their team, etc... --UnQuébécois (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Women have played College Football and the penalty is still "too many men". If there is no rule to exclude women than it is not a men's league. In English the term man and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

UnQuebecois, I think we just disagree on what the term "men's league" means. To me, and to many sports governing bodies, "men's league"/"women's league" means specifically there is a rule prohibiting the other sex from playing. That is why it is the NCAA Men's College Basketball Championship (and ditto for women's) but just Bowl Championship Series - because women are allowed to play. While I agree that de facto it is a men's league because it is extremely unlikely that a woman will ever play in the NFL, technically it is not, and therefore would be inaccurate to call it so. I've been arguing this over at Men's major golf championships for a long time, which has the same situation. There is no rule prohibiting women from playing in those tournaments (and, in fact, women have played in the qualifiers, but not the actual events), but because those events don't technically have an "official" name I couldn't get the name of the article changed. Starwrath (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

New CBA

In the player contracts and compensation section, is the information current for the new CBA? I'm knowledgeable on the new CBA, but I don't know the details of the older CBA, making it difficult to differentiate between the two. After looking over the 2011 NFL Lockout article, it seems like some of the information may be out of date. Can anyone help me out here? --TravisBernard (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Which pieces of information in particular do you feel may be inaccurate? The info that covers definitions of free agents looks more or less correct to me (I'm no CBA expert), as I don't believe that changed much with the new CBA. It seems like some of the salary cap information may be outdated (e.g. "NFL salary cap is calculated by the current CBA to be 59.5% of the total projected league revenue") with the new CBA in place, but I'm not sure I understand the complexities of the new formula (which includes different percentages of various revenue streams). If you want to share specific concerns, I'd be happy to help research answers. If you want to spend some time parsing the CBA, the full text of it can be found in an external link at the bottom of the 2011 NFL Lockout article. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I updated some of the information related to the new CBA, but it's not complete. For example, in the "salary cap" section, there needs to be information on the guaranteed 99%-95% League Wide Spend for the first time in history and 89% cash spend of Salary Cap (also for the first time in history). Also, the free agency section is outdated and doesn't reflect the new CBA. This stuff can be complicated, so I'm trying to figure out which items are the most important to note. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I've noted this on a few other NFL-related pages, so I might as well emphasize it again here. I do have a conflict of interest working on sections of this article, so I'm trying to tread lightly with what I add (the clients of my employer include the NFLPA and the BCS). I always ask for suggestions or a review before adding information as a way to prevent any natural bias. I'm fully aware of Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV and WP:COI, and I hope my edits will be appreciated. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)