Jump to content

Talk:National Football League/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:National Football League

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SheepLinterBot (talk | contribs) at 17:59, 18 February 2023 ([t. 1] fix font tags linter errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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)

Not one mention of concussion. Wow.

Ex-Cowboys sue over concussions, ESPN, Associated Press, April 24, 2012.</ref>

"HOUSTON -- A group of former Dallas Cowboys, including Hall of Famers Randy White, Bob Lilly and Rayfield Wright, joined with other retired NFL players to file the latest concussion-related lawsuit against the NFL.

"The suit, which accuses the league of ignoring a link between concussions and permanent brain injuries, was filed Tuesday in Houston's federal court and includes 28 former players among the plaintiffs. . . "

---

We mention safety only one time in our entire article (other than the defensive position!). This whole thing with post-concussion syndrome, perhaps even cumulative lesser blows, the controversy about whether the NFL has been proactive enough, the fund for former players named after John Mackie, all this is huge. And we need to start including some of it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Another NFL concussion lawsuit filed, UPI, May 10, 2012.

“ . . The NFL now faces about 70 lawsuits involving about 1,800 former players charging it failed to alert players to the danger of brain injury from concussion and head-to-head contact. . ”

Do football helmets really protect?

Head games: football’s concussion crisis from the NFL to youth leagues, Christopher Nowinski, 2007, page 108, citing both Dr. David Halstead and Dr. Michael Levy to the effect that football helmets do not protect from “rotational acceleration.”

Can America Quit Football?, The Atlantic, Patrick Hruby, May 4, 2012. “An interview with filmmaker Sean Pamphilon about his latest work-in-progress, The United States of Football.”

Oversight Group Vows to Pursue Updates to Football Helmet Standards, New York Times, ALAN SCHWARZ, January 23, 2011.

‘ . . “We ultimately came to the conclusion that yes, it would be desirable to look and study and try to understand if we can come up with a meaningful youth football helmet standard,” said Cantu, a clinical professor of neurosurgery at Boston University. He added that a lower-force standard (which Nocsae requires for lacrosse helmets) and tests for more complex rotational forces would be pursued, but said, “The science that tells us where we should set it is not available today.”

‘Cantu was followed by David Halstead, Nocsae’s technical director and top expert on helmet physics, who theorized that football concussions derived from forces too numerous and complex for helmets to protect against them any better than they currently do. He said that testing helmets against rotational forces “will not lead to a reduction” in concussions, adding, “We’ve got a lot of information, but we don’t know what to do next.” . . ’

And I think our goal is to try to neither overstate nor understate either. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Study reveals leather helmets may help reduce concussions, USA Today, Erik Brady, 11/4/2011.

‘ . . a study published Friday by the Journal of Neurosurgery. Cleveland Clinic researchers conducted impact tests in their biomechanics lab comparing two leather helmets from the early 1900s with 11 of today's polycarbonate helmets. . ’

[lead researcher Adam Bartsch, director of the Spine Research Lab in Cleveland Clinic's Center for Spine Health:] ' . . "Unlike cars, in which seat belts, airbags and crumple zones make the choice between a 1920s Model T and modern mini-van a no-brainer, these results tell us that modern helmets have ample room to improve safety against many typical game-like hits." . '

‘ . . Leather helmets provided similar and in some cases better protection for many of the impacts and angles studied, he said.

‘"In our study, that notion that (modern) helmets protect against fracture risk and subdural bleeds, we actually didn't bear that out in every single scenario," Bartsch said.

‘He said helmet safety standards are commonly based on the risk of skull fracture and catastrophic brain injury and do not take concussion risk into account.

‘"Today's safety standards are no longer state-of-the-art predictors of injury," Edward Benzel, chair of Cleveland Clinic's Department of Neurological Surgery, said in a statement. "Of course, preventing skull fractures is vitally important, but concussion prevention needs to be an integral part of the standards as well." . . ’

Why Leather Football Helmets Could Provide a Better Defense Against Concussion, Time magazine, Sean Gregory, November 7, 2011.

‘ . . How could a leatherhead possibly be more protective? One reason, Bartsch says, probably has to with the stiffness of today’s helmets. While these helmets are effective shields against catastrophic skull fractures, they don’t do as good a job absorbing energy from a lower impact hit. These hits might not break the skull, but they can cause the brain to shift a little bit within the skull. And such jiggling causes concussions.

‘Bartsch offers a useful analogy: Think about hitting your thumb with a hammer. If you put, say, a piece of a padded gym mat on your thumb, that padding will absorb the impact from the hammer, and dull the pain. Now, imagine putting a two-by-four on top of your thumb. Whack the hammer against that stiffer surface; your thumb will probably hurt more than the gym mat. Think of the leatherhead as the gym mat, and a plastic helmet as the two-by-four. The hammer is like a football hit, while the thumb is like your head. . ’

Impact test comparisons of 20th and 21st century American football helmets, ABSTRACT, Journal of Neurosurgery, Adam Bartsch, Ph.D., Edward Benzel, M.D., Vincent Miele, M.D., and Vikas Prakash, Ph.D., Jan. 2012 (published online November 4, 2011).

‘ . . Modern varsity helmets, as compared with vintage leather helmets, or “leatherheads,” . . . . In many instances the head impact doses and head injury risks while wearing vintage leatherheads were comparable to or better than those while wearing several widely used 21st century varsity helmets. . ’

Experts skeptical of 'anti-concussion' sports equipment, Los Angeles Times, Alexa Vaughn, October 19, 2011.

‘ . . "I wish there was such a product on the market," Jeffrey Kutcher, chairman of the American Academy of Neurology's sports section, said at a Senate hearing Wednesday. "The simple truth is that no current helmet, mouth guard, headband or other piece of equipment can significantly prevent concussions from occurring." . ’

‘ . . The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation singled out the Brain-Pad LoPro mouth guard, which its manufacturer says creates "brain safety space," and Riddell's Revolution helmet, which is said to reduce the number of concussions by 31%. Riddell, which makes "the official helmet of the NFL," misrepresented research that showed only a 2.6% decrease in concussions, Kutcher said. . ’

standard coaching/play that teaches to use head?

Junior Seau's sudden loss leaves NFL with a lot to think about, The Detroit News, John Niyo, May 3, 2012.

‘ . . former Lions cornerback Lem Barney . . ’

‘ . . But when I hear Barney, now 66, talk about learning of his seven or eight — or more — concussions only after he'd long been retired, I can't help but think the same thing he does: I hope it wasn't football that caused this, but I hope people understand it very well might have.

'"From the time you were a middle-school kid playing with a helmet on, coaches always teach, 'Put your hat on him!'" Barney said. . ’

Mark Emmert, Please Spark Football Helmet Change, Lost Lettermen, College Football and Men’s Basketball, open letter to president of NCAA by Jim Weber, founder and president of Lost Letterman, May 7, 2012.

' . . Everyone knows that football helmets have ironically evolved from protective gear to weapons and are now the cause of massive head trauma instead of the solution. If you’ve ever put one on, Mark, you know the lids worn by current football players feel like having a cement block on your head that could smash through a brick wall.

'The outer shell of a football helmet is so hard and powerful that defensive football players lead with their head on almost every play – just a fraction of which are called for helmet-to-helmet penalties. It’s gotten to the point where certain positions like linemen and linebacker absorb a blow to the head on almost every play. . '

This is an editorial, which is fine. Nothing wrong with Mr. Jim Weber writing an editorial. Perhaps we could phrase it as 'Concern has been expressed that . . ' I don't want to say we can never use an editorial. Perhaps sources additional to an editorial. I do think it's a good idea to pursue a variety of good sources. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody asked me, but ... , Miami Herald, DREW MARKOL, THE SPORTS NETWORK, May 7, 2012.

‘ . . The shoulder is a very useful tackling instrument.

‘(The best solution I've ever heard for helping players learn the right way to tackle came from a long-time high school football coach. While holding a helmet, the coach was asked what could be done to stop the ever-growing problem of concussions on all levels of football. He took the helmet and tossed it in a nearby trash can. He then said, "Get rid of those and players will learn how to tackle. They have no fear when they're wearing one and that's the biggest problem." . ’

NFL scheduling

Can someone with a better understanding of the scheduling formula update this section to include the 2014 season? It used to have the 2012 season, which seems kind of silly at this point, so I removed that. Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Official Rules and notable rule distinctions

Starting with the 2012 season, each team gets one possession to score unless one of them scores a touchdown on its first possession.

Should read: Starting with the 2012 season, each team gets one possession to score unless one of them scores a touchdown or safety on its first possession. 

Also, as of the 2012 season, all turnovers will be reviewed by the replay official.

Should read: Also, as of the 2012 season, all turnovers and scoring plays will be reviewed by the replay official, and teams will be penalized if the red flag is thrown following these plays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.11.44.146 (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Super Bowl

I think we need to change the championship section to Super Bowl victories and remove the Packers and replace it with the Steelers or add a pre merger championship and a post aka Super Bowl championship. The way it is written now is misleading. It is very much known that the Super Bowl is the NFL's current championship game not the NFC championship game and people know this and the way it is written says the Packers lead in Super Bowls which they do not. Also keeping it the way it is no team in the AFC can ever qualify to take over since they can't play in NFC championships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.48 (talk) 04:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


This issue while better still needs improving. Lets face it people the Super Bowl is by far considered the NFL's championship title. But right now the Pre Merger NFL championship (Which is now the NFC championship game) is being portrayed as the title game and the Super Bowl is being portrayed as a secondary game. Example with the current champion section saying that the New York Giants have won their 8th title even though this was only their 4th Super Bowl title. The way it is set up now is no AFC team will ever be able to qualify for this. The Pre Merger championship is almost completely irrelevant in today's NFL and while it should have representation it should be a footnote compared to the Super Bowl. I move that we change the championship section to Super Bowl only and add a Pre Merger section somewhere else in the article to prevent misleading people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.252 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you are saying is not true. Pre-Super Bowl era championships are just as important as the NFL is and was the premier football league in the world. The NFL has used three different championship methods, and all of them are equal in importance. This proposal is completely ridiculous because it wants to reject NFL history and fact. 23:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I strongly disagree. While the history of Pre Super Bowl championships is very important and deserves mention it isn't the championship anymore and leading with the Packers having 13 titles and the Giants having 8 not only diminishes the Steelers, 49ers, and Cowboys successes but also disqualifies any AFC team from ever taking that away from the Packers and the way it is worded now the 49ers should be in the Giant's place now since the 49ers have won the equivalent of the NFL championship. I am not requesting that we reject and delete all history of Pre Merger championships but only that we lead with Super Bowl aka modern championships and explain Pre Merger championships later in the article or in a separate article. We must always assume that the people who come onto Wikipedia have no prior knowledge of the subject the article is about and the way it is written now can be interpreted in many ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.252 (talk • contribs)

The NFL Championship is still the NFL Championship, it is just now called the Super Bowl after the NFL absorbed the AFL teams. Not including the actual championships won is a grave violation of policy and shows a clear violation of WP:RECENTISM. It doesn't diminsh anything to note the number of NFC Championships a team has rightful won. And no, the NFC Championship game is not the equivalent of the NFL Championship - the NFL Championship, since 1970, has been the Super Bowl, not the NFC championship. Toa Nidhiki05 03:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Then with that logic I believe we should honor AFL championships in the same fashion. Since the merger the AFL and NFL are the same and their history should be intertwined. So where it says Pre Merger Championships it should also have a Pre Merger AFL championships. We need to either support both or leave it to just one. But saying that the NFL championship and the Super Bowl are the same is wrong because during the first two Super Bowls the NFL and AFL were two different leagues and during that time the NFL championship was still that and the AFL championship was in the same fashion and it wasn't until 1970 that the AFL and NFL merged that the NFC and AFC championship became what they are today. I will say that we must assume that people reading this article have absolutely no prior knowledge of the sport, the league, or it's history and while I agree the Pre merger championships are important and should be written about they shouldn't be presented as current when it isn't. Also it is unfair to present the Packers as leading in championships when what is considered the championship now is the Super Bowl and they have only won four where as the Steelers have won six and they are not being represented as accomplishing something of great value in which they have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.252 (talk)
See page 668, "Championships" section, in the bottom right corner from the NFL's own 2012 NFL Record & Fact Book. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable by reliable sources, not original research or based on an individual's personal opinion that the years prior to 1970 are "less important", or it is "unfair" or "diminishes" the Steelers, 49ers, and Cowboys successes. Most reliable sources that I have come across state that the Packers have the most NFL titles with 13, and that is what it should be listed here. (Of course, if my personal opinion were actually relevant, I would counter by arguing that if we make the years prior to 1970 "less important", it would whitewash those decades when the Steelers and 49ers sucked most of the time, and both struggled to reach above .500 on a consistent basis -- especially when you consider the plight of the Steelers between its founding in the 1930s to the merger[3] -- if you want to emphasize someone's years of success and triumphs, at the same time don't be trying to downplay their years of futility or embarrassment -- is that what you really want to do, treat a system and a period where the Steelers sucked, and the Packers and Giants were fairly competitive, as a historical footnote?). Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No one wants pre merger championships to be a footnote but as of now the Super Bowl, which is very much considered the championship game and is a separate entity the the NFL championship, is being pushed as aside as a footnote. The modern age NFL is being pushed aside to historical age NFL. Listing the Packers winning 13 titles in the pre merger days whitewashes the fact from 1970 to 1990 the Packers were totally irrelevant and non competitive during a time the Steelers and the 49ers were dynasty's. Neither should be "footnotes" my point from the beginning was they should have equal space and for awhile it did and now it has been changed again which seems like its pushing modern age NFL to the footnote section. Also the pre merger championships don't count anymore so a pre merger championship and a post merger aka Super Bowl championship tab should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.252 (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is the NFL championship and has been since Super Bowl V (it is retroactively applied to Super Bowls I-IV). And the American government seems to recognize them as having thirteen championships:
This is of course in addition to the Pro Football Hall of Fame and the NFL itself. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide what championships count - the NFL does. Toa Nidhiki05 03:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly you again miss my point. I don't argue the Packers have 13 championships. Obviously either I have failed to explain my point clearly or I have touched nerves and no one will listen. I will leave the subject alone then in order to keep the peace and so we can move forward. While I slightly disagree with the representation of championships due to the complicated past of the NFL I can agree to disagree and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.166.252 (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is equal representation - the Packers, Bears, and Giants are noted as having the most overall championships and the Steelers, Cowboys, and 49ers are noted as the leaders in Super Bowl titles, along with the current Super Bowl champions. Toa Nidhiki05 03:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bo Jackson

Bo Jackson is mentioned twice as a player who held out and did not sign with the team that drafted him. However, I don't think the article emphasizes enough that Bo had other options. He also played major league baseball, and was an All-Star in 1989.Marzolian (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Gambling and the NFL

Wouldn't it be legitimate to have at least a mention of gambling in this article? I've read several articles from legit publications explaining connections between founders of the NFL and the gambling world, and the influence of gambling habits in the choice of Sundays as the league's primary game day.
Several fiction and non-fiction works, like Football-themed movie The Last Boy Scout, allude to the fact that pro football keeps disclosing the nature of injuries at the players' risk in order to stimulate gambling. (I know that a Hollywood movie is not a source per se, but the fact that this topic has permeated into pop culture is significant.)
Notable sports journalists like Bryant Gumbel have stated that they believe the league's tacit support of gambling plays a major role in its popularity and TV ratings, the extent of which is specific to the NFL and even more notable than in other sports.
The MLB page on Wikipedia does tackle controversial issues like steroids, so I find it strange that the only mentions of gambling pertaining to the NFL on Wikipedia seem to be about its staunch official anti-gambling stance, when independent observers and sports historians paint a much grayer picture.

Gambling has never been as severe an issue in the NFL as in the MLB or NBA. Let's put it this way - a Packers player, Paul Hornung, was suspended for a whole year for gambling. He returned the following year and eventually joined the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose was suspended for life for gambling and will never get into the Hall of Fame. The reason for the difference is that gambling has no history of affecting football games, but it has a major one of a affecting baseball games. Gambling isn't a major issue in the NFL; however, an article is linked at the bottom of the page, NFL controversies, which would be the place to put such stuff. Toa Nidhiki05 14:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I think Art Schlichter was given a lifetime ban for gambling. ZappaOMati 15:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep, he did get a lifetime ban. He was suspended for one season in 1983 and then for life in 1987; he's the only player with an active suspension for life for gambling, if I recall correctly. Toa Nidhiki05 15:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Toa Nidhiki05, that is not what I was talking about. If you read me, I wasn't referring to players gambling on games. I was talking about the NFL benefiting from, and in at least in its early days, using gambling to foster its popularity. One of the NFL's founders was Tim Mara, a bookmaker. It is said that Sunday was picked for games to encourage gambling. Even today, when the NFL's support for gambling is not as explicit, a lot of people argue that the league's TV ratings owe in large part to fans who have a gambling interests in the games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E96:BA90:E87B:5442:751:3D0B (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
How does Sunday have more gambling than other days? I thought it was picked since college football took place on Saturday. Also, can you provide the sources that you read them off of? If they're offline, just go ahead and list them. ZappaOMati 03:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Just a few but they're not exactly rare. I'm not sure why it would so problematic to mention that gambling is a sizeable factor in the NFL's popularity. I'm not saying that the unequivocal POV should be that the NFL has hypocritically supported gambling. Some say yes, some say no. But few disagree that, whatever the NFL's stance(s), it has made a significant impact.

http://www.covers.com/articles/articles.aspx?theArt=129622 http://books.google.fr/books?id=2Tu1Tlwss_gC&pg=PA251&lpg=PA251&dq=%22tim+mara%22+betting&source=bl&ots=Duzv3Yce-F&sig=gazQsLcdtQBmMYyuYLmWuE6qBZY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LvZ8Ub77Bo-GhQeO0YCIAg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22tim%20mara%22%20betting&f=false http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/sports/football/31gambling.html?_r=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E96:BA90:F1:3444:B05A:8D6D (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Club vs. Team

Under the team section and the chart with the teams Club should be changed to Teams. NFL teams are called teams not Clubs like the NHL, NBA and MLB. This is not international or United States soccer where teams are called Clubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.21.30 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the term 'team' refers to the group of players while the term 'club' refers to the organization itself - it could also be regarded as 'team' being informal while 'club' is formal. While the terms 'team' and 'club' are used almost interchangeably by the media as well as teams/clubs and the NFL itself through both sportswriters and league-posted articles on NFL.com, but the term 'club' is used in the League Constitution. Considering the official term for the organization is 'club', that is what the section is called - this is because it is the term the league specifically sets in the league Constitution, so that is what should be used here. Due to the prevalence of the the term 'team', however, that is also used interchangeably throughout both the section and the entire article. Toa Nidhiki05 00:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Typographical error in article?

In Section 8 of the National Football League article (Free Agency) is the following.

Free agents in the National Football League are divided into restricted free agents, who have three accrued seasons and whose current contract has expired, and unrestricted free agents, who have four or more accrued seasons and whose contract has expired. An accrued season is "six or more regular-season games on a club's active/inactive, reserved/injured or reserve/physically unable to perform lists".[86] Restricted free agents are allowed no negotiate with other clubs besides their old club, but the old club has the right to match any offer. If they choose not to, they are compensated with draft picks. Unrestricted free agents are free to sign with any club and no compensation is owed if they sign with a different club.[86] Clubs are given one franchise tag to offer to any unrestricted free agent. The franchise tag is a one-year deal that pays the player 120% of their previous contract or no less than the average of the five highest-paid players at their position, whichever is greater. There are two types of franchise tags: exclusive tags, which do not allow the player to negotiate with other clubs, and non-exclusive tags, which allows the player to negotiate with other clubs but gives his old club the right to match any offer and two first-round draft picks if they decline to match it.[87] Clubs also have the option to use a transition tag, which is similar to the non-exclusive franchise tag but offers no compensation if the old club refuses to match the offer.[88] Due to that stipulation it is rarely used,[89] even with the removal of the "poison pill" strategy (offering a contract with stipulations that the old club would be unable to match) that essentially ended the usage of the tag league-wide.[90] Each club is subject to a salary cap, which is set at USD 123 million for the 2013 season.[91]

I assume the writer means to say "allowed to negotiate"

Thank you.

 Done ZappaOMati 21:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Cities

Why was the city/town the teams were located in removed from the table? It is important information if a team is located in a suburb and helps describe, for example, where in New England the Patriots are located. All other major US sports league have these listed. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 May 2013

In the "Founding and History" section, the statement "In 1922, the APFA changed their name to the National Football League (NFL).[11] The Canton Bulldogs managed to win the next two titles before the Cleveland Bulldogs won the next one." is followed by "In 1932, the season ended...", leaving a gap from '25 to '32. It would seem relevant to include the 1925 season that still lives in controversy to this day where the Pottsville Maroons were, according to legend, awarded the championship initially after beating the Chicago Cardinals to give them the best league record, only to have it stripped a weak later after committing an alledged rule violation by taking part in an exhibition game with a Notre Dame all star team featuring the legendary Four Horsemen. The exhibition game was at Shibe Park in PA, which was within the territory of another Pennsylvania team (closer to Philadelphia), who stated that this violated alledged NFL territoriality rules, which may or may not have actually existed at the time (there is no official record of the 1925 NFL constitution in existence, and many at the time disputed such a rule.) The NFL stripped Pottsville of the championship and revoked their franchise, awarding the title to the Cardinals despite the Maroons having won it on the field. Additionally, soon later, the Cardinals would schedule late season games to pad their win total, games that would end up in controversy themselves as to having included high school players, short periods on a small field with no fans, etc. Ultimately, the NFL did not officially award the 1925 championship at all, and Pottsville, which was reinstated to the league shortly after the season, assumed their title was also reinstated. It was not until 1933 when the Cardinals, newly purchased by the same family that owns the Arizona Cardinals today, assumed the title and began advertising it as such, starting (or continuing) the controversy. Several attempts have been made by Pottsville to appeal to the NFL for re-consideration of reinstating its championship, including one as recently as 2003. To date, no change to the history has been made and it stands with the Cardinals as the 1925 champions. The controversy is mentioned at the Canton HoF with a display on Pottsville's contribution to the early NFL. Two books have been written in the last five years on the topic and there is talk of a movie.

Additionally, it would be good to add the champions from 1926 to 1931 as well for completeness.

Dmcsoup (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Edit requests are to be used for specific requests for additions or changes to an article, in the form of Add (this specific text) to the section on (foo) or Change X to Y. A broad request like this one is beyond the scope of an edit request. My suggestion would be to spend a few days on Wikipedia and make some edits to other pages, at which point you will probably be able to edit this page yourself. Come back with some reliable sources and do some work on the article! --ElHef (Meep?) 18:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, what he is requesting is not unreasonable; the controversy he is talking about is real, was very controversial, and is notable. I don't think adding the champions from 1926-1931 is very important since this is not a list. I'll see about adding the Pottsville issue shortly. Toa Nidhiki05 20:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:National Football League/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Let me start off by saying how much I appreciate your taking on this core article--too many WikiProjects, and Wikipedians, neglect them IMHO. Here are some comments on the opening paragraphs only--I have to run now, but hope to continue this evening. Let me know your thoughts on these if you get a chance. Looking forward to working with you -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

  • The lead needs slight expansion; ideally, it should touch on every section of the article, including the draft and corporate governance, even if these each only get a sentence. The various numbers of championships may be a little overdetailed for the lead (at least naming the 2nd and 3rd place teams in different categories), but I don't see that as a GA-level issue; I'm just saying that if you want to cut, cut there.
  • "The current champions are the Baltimore Ravens," -- normally WP:REALTIME would discourage a phrasing like "current", but it's hard to believe anyone will forget to update this after the Super Bowl. So I don't see it as a make-or-break issue for GA, but is there any way this can have a year instead -- "the 2012 champions"?
  • ""raise the standard of professional football in every way possible, to eliminate bidding for players between rival clubs and to secure cooperation in the formation of schedules" -- quotation should be followed by an inline citation at the end of the sentence (even if it means repeating a cite)
  • "On August 20, 1920, a meeting was held " -- can this very long paragraph be broken up into two or even three? Long paragraphs are an issue per WP:LAYOUT (criterion 1b)
  • " winning-loss record" seems odd to me. Would "win-loss record" be better here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
First off, I want to thank you for a speedy beginning to the review. I've taken all of these suggestions and applied them; I've modified the lede slightly to fit the first suggestion, so it may be a good idea to look over it again. Aside from that, I appreciate any and all notes of potential issues beyond the GA level; I do intend to bring this up to featured article status at some point (although I have at least one other article I want to get through first), so that sort of advice is certainly welcome. Anyway, I look forward to the rest of this review. Toa Nidhiki05 00:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Great! Your fixes look good so far. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

More I made it to the end of "draft"; this continues to look strong. Suggestions, some of them very optional, below. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • "Corporate structure" should probably be divided into 2-3 paragraphs.
  • "principal executive officer" ... "conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League or professional football" -- quotations should have a citation at the end of the sentence
  • Not a GA issue, but WP:ANDOR discourages use of "and/or"
  • "cancellation or forfeiture" -- quotation should have citation at the end of the sentence
  • I think generally titles like "Commissioner" are only capitalized when they precede a name. (e.g. [6]) In sentences like "the Commissioner can offer recommendations", it should probably be written lower-case
  • "games are run on Sundays" -- would "played" be a better word here than "run"? Football's not really my sport, btw, so I may just not be familiar with this one. Also, please feel free to revert any edits I make directly with which you disagree.
  • Both paragraphs in "Regular season" could potentially be split. I'm a fan of paragraphs of 3-6 sentences, but this one's up to you.
  • "per a rotating four-year cycle" may be redundant. How about "on a four-year rotation?"
  • "with the 3 seed" -- feel free to correct me on this, but I feel like this is normally either "the third seed" or "the No. 3 seed".
  • It's not an issue for GA, but you'll want to add more citations to the discussion of playoff seeding before an FA nomination.
  • "In the United States, the National Football League has television contracts" -- could be broken into 2-3 paragraphs
  • "the most recent Super Bowl" -- I feel like this is another borderline call for for WP:REALTIME. Again, this seems like it will be quickly revised after next year's Super Bowl, but technically that MOS guideline discourages this language. Your call.
    • I've reworded it slightly to mitigate that. It is worth noting it is the most recent, but I have done so in a way where it should be pretty obvious, without violating WP:REALTIME. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • " while playoff teams are ranked the same way but are done so by the round of the playoffs they got to" -- this seems very awkward. How about "while playoff teams are ranked by the round of the playoffs they reached"? Or is there a rule nuance I'm missing?
    • Well, the rule is basically that teams are ranked by overall record, but tere are several groups teams are split into - teams that didn't make the playoffs, and teams that made the playoffs. All non-playoff teams are ranked higher than any playoff team, regardless of record. Similarly, playoff teams are grouped by the round they made it to - so all teams that failed to advance past the first round will be ranked higher than those that advanced to further rounds, and so on. I've tried to word it a bit better, so you should check that and see what you think. There is certainly room for improvement here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I feel like the "Draft" and "Free agency" sections should be next to each other in this article's outline, since both deal with player contract status--what do you think? -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "has the exclusive right to operate to host" -- "to operate" could probably be cut here, seems like excess verbiage
  • "The Cowboys are also the most valuable sports franchise in the United States and are tied with the New York Yankees for the third-most valuable sports team in the world" -- If the Cowboys and Yankees are equally valuable, shouldn't they be tied in both categories?
  • " All 32 NFL teams rank among the top 50 most valuable sports teams in the world" -- this isn't a GA action point--I just wanted to say as an aside that I was astonished by this statistic.
    • Yeah, that is a very big accomplishment, especially for a league that only operates a small number of games, has no international teams, and relatively little international visibility. I think it boils down to the NFL having a fairly decent amount of parity among teams and fan interest in the game of football as a whole. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Jacksonville Jaguars - Best Team in the NFL" -- is this just POV vandalism? Or is that their nickname? Removing for now.
    • That's vandalism; not sure how I failed to catch that. The Jaguars have actually been fairly terrible for the last few years, so it isn't their nickname. :) Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • "Free agents in the National Football League ..." -- divided this into 2 paragraphs if that's okay with you.
  • USD is used inconsistently in the article--sometimes followed by the dollar symbol, sometimes not. I'm actually not 100% sure which is correct, but this should be fixed one way or the other.
    • I'm not sure what the format is either; I don't edit too much on articles relating to money, but I stuck the USD in there to distinguish from international dollars (like the Canadian and Australian dollar). I am not sure if USD is supposed to be used every time, or just once, but I have added the dollar sign to each usage. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Ok, this looks solid and ripe for promotion to me, despite the quibbly points above. Since this is an unusually high-profile article with a diffuse scope, however, I want to briefly check in with WikiProject NFL to see if we can get further comment. I'll also see if I can find how a few other reference works summarize the NFL for comparison just to make sure we're not overlooking a "main aspect". Thanks again for your work here! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me - this is a very important article, so it should be important all aspects are covered. I primarily utilized internet and magazine/newspaper articles in researching this, so any information from reference works would be much appreciated. Toa Nidhiki05 14:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to leave this open for 5-7 days, then, to see if we can attract any further comment. But I feel this is essentially ready to pass.
Two minor points in the Encyclopedia Britannica article that seem worth including in ours: the first NFL president was Jim Thorpe, and only two of the original NFL teams remain franchises today. (There's also a list of the original NFL teams that might worth a mention.)[7]
Good points there. I would mention all the original teams, but that seems a bit excessive given only 2 still exists and there are still minor disputes among sources as to just how many teams played in the NFL in 1920. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This source has some interesting discussion of Pete Rozelle's role in NFL's media dominance [8]. This, too, seems worth a sentence or two. The final paragraph about NFL criminal activity is interesting, but probably doesn't need a mention in the article yet.
Great source. I've added it, since that gives a good overview of post-1960s NFL expansion. If I can find some information of Paul Tagliabue's tenure as Commissioner, that would serve as a good end to the history section for now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
This could act as a source for the end of NFL's segregation, which seems worth 1-3 sentences. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Good idea on that front as well; I have added it to the article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast responses. Your additions look good, and I believe this covers the main aspects based on those comparisons. Given the scope of this topic, I'll leave this open until 6/27 to see if we can attract further comment. Ping me the day after if I forget to return and close this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See minor prose points above
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Some paragraphs might be divided per WP:LAYOUT.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Inline citations need to be added at the end of sentences containing quotations. For FA, more citations may be needed generally.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See above for a few suggestions on aspects that could be touched on. Also requested second opinion on this. Appears to cover main aspects based on comparison to other reference works. Requests for second opinion haven't turned up further details.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

Outside comment

I'm creating a space here for any outside comments (i.e., not me or the nominator). -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 August 2013

' The highest level of professional football in the world,[4]'. This is an inaccurate reference, the source actually identifies the NFL as the highest level of professional AMERICAN football in the world, not football which is a general term which can include Soccer (football in Europe), rugby union and league, and Australian Rules football, amongst other sports. 101.169.85.77 (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The general rule on all football-related articles is to mention the football code in the first line, and then to simply use "football" in the remainder of the article, with it understood that it is only referring to that code. - BilCat (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not an edit about the normal nomenclature of the articles. The edit is about accurately referencing source material. At present the refernce in the article misrepresents the information from the source. That article states that the NFL is the highest level of professional football in the world, this is obviously a fraught statement, and is open to a whole range of arguments regarding the definition of professional. The EPL is a larger competition (30 games a season, compared to 16/17), wages are higher in some of the European or english soccer / football leagues. The 'football' codes played in Australia, NZ and South Africa (amongst others) do not wear offensive armour. A convincing case can be made that using some of these parameters those codes could be argued as 'the highest level of professional football'. But most importantly the actual source is very different and states that the NFL is the highest level of American football. By maintaining the article as it is, is misrepresenting the source. High school students using a reference this badly and so wholly misrepresented would be marked down heavily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.85.77 (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is being misrepresented. In American English, 'football' is understood to exclusively mean 'American football'; thus, using the term 'professional football' means 'professional American football'. If you want a similar example, look at the article on the Premier League, a featured article. It uses the term 'association football' once in the lede, and then uses the term 'football' in all other uses. Toa Nidhiki05 14:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers a non-profit

The page on the NFL states that "each of the individual teams that makes up the NFL is for profit" which is false since the Green Bay Packers are classified as a non-profit organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.30.242 (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Head injuries

Brain damage due to concussions suffered on the field have become a major issue; recently there was a major legal settlement.[9] [10] -- Beland (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

"Current season or competition:" refers to 2013 NFL season and should actually refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_NFL_season — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philmetcalfe (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Declined - the 2013 NFL season is the current, season or competition -- regular season play is ongoing from September 5, 2013 to December 29, 2013 (at the end of this month), and the Super Bowl championship game is not until February 2, 2014 (about two months from now). The 2014 NFL season does not start until September 2014 (about nine months from now). Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2014

provide link to ORPHAN page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_standings_since_AFL%E2%80%93NFL_merger STylerson (talk) 03:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for featured article

I believe that this article is qualified for a featured article, as it covers a very broad subject across United States.Order of the sword (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Order of the sword

Regular season

The second paragraph of the Regular season section seems to contradict itself. If most games are played on Sunday, why can't the NFL play on Sundays until December? Hack (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 18:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The second paragraph states that "federal law prohibits professional football leagues from competing with college or high school football", yet the citation (40) it uses does not support this. Rather, the citation states that the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961("SBA") grants the NFL an antitrust exemption allowing it to "pool" the broadcasting rights to its games (pooling means that the league sells the broadcast rights, rather than the individual teams selling the rights). This exemption, however, is not applicable to pooled broadcasts of games held during times when high school and college games are typically played. So, in effect, the NFL is not prohibited from playing games on Fridays or Saturdays, but it does run the risk of running afoul of the antitrust laws if they pool the broadcast rights to these games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacoman03 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fantasy football

I think the NFL's support of fantasy football is relevant to main article. The NFL offers fantasy on its main website. What is the argument that it is not relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gchuva (talk • contribs) 06:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Founding and history

Original text - "The ban was rescinded in 1947, following public pressure and the removal of a similar ban in Major League Baseball.[15]"

Proposed correction - The NFL broke the ban on African Americans a year before Major League Baseball when the Los Angeles Rams signed Kenny Washington on March 21, 1946,and his Solagbo (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)UCLA teammate Woody Strode on May 7, 1946. Solagbo (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).References: "Forgotten hero: Washington broke NFL's color barrier in 1946". By Adam Rank, NFL.com. NFL Media writer.Published: Feb. 17, 2012. "Kenny Washington (American football)". Wikipedia. Modified 2014-03-21. "History of the National Football League". Wikipedia. Modified 2014-03-23. Young, A. S. (Doc) (May 1969). "The Black Athlete Makes His Mark". Ebony XXIV (7): 119. ISSN 0012-9011. Retrieved 2011-03-20. "First African-American NFL players helped break down barriers". National Football League. 2012-02-17. Retrieved 2013-01-21. Solagbo (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

NFL as a business

The NFL is one of most valuable and profitable sports leagues in the world. Its teams are worth billions of dollars (quick estimate: about $46b total) and it makes more than $9b every year. These estimates are based on a quick Google / Forbes info. But I think the financial side of the NFL should be represented in this article, and probably even in the sidebar. Right now the NFL's finances are not significantly present in the article.

The NFL is not just a sports league. It's a massive business. We should treat it as such. Mxheil (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, there should be more in the article on finances. Toa Nidhiki05 19:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This subject is definitely glossed over in the article. The part discussing its nonprofit status is probably a candidate to be tagged for bias. Anachronos (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit flummoxed by this. The league itself makes no money, and thus is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit. The teams, on the other hand, do make money and thus aren't nonprofits. That's not biased, that is explaining the facts. Toa Nidhiki05 19:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained number changes

Youaretheoneinmymind has changed viewership numbers in the article several times, as per this diff. These changes appear to be incorrect per the cited source, and they seem to be swapping the figures. The section is National Football League#Media coverage. I don't know if the users changes are intentionally incorrect or not, but they are incorrect, as I understand the original date. I have warned the user twise for these incorrect changes.

The original sentence reads:

"According to Nielsen, the NFL regular season since 2012 was watched by at least 200 million individuals, accounting for 80% of all television households in the United States and 69% of all potential viewers in the United States."

The user has change the sentence to read:

"...accounting for 69% of all television households in the United States and 80% of all potential viewers in the United States."

From the cited source here [11], the original data reads:

"According to The Nielsen Company, the 2012 regular season reached 200 million unique viewers, representing 80 percent of all television homes and 69 percent of potential viewers in the U.S."

Updated figures for the 2013 season are now available here, and I plan on updating the sentences with the new source once we've settled the issue here. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I notice that the article makes no mention of either the lawsuit brought by former players against the league, the debate over the handling of frequent concussions, nor the league's handling of domestic abuse/criminality scandals that have surfaced recently. Looking back through the article edit history there was previously a "Controversies" section, but due to style guidelines discouraging these type of sections, it was to be merged with the "History" section. However, reading the history section as it stands there is no mention of any controversy, and especially regarding recent history the article reads like a press release from the league.

I believe this article is incomplete without at least a mention of the criticisms the league has faced in the mainstream national discourse. Indeed, their conspicuous omission from the article could be considered non-NPOV (and possibly whitewashing). Therefore I would propose the creation of a small Criticisms section that collects some of this information together, as is common practice throughout Wikipedia.

I think it's important to remember that the purpose of such a section should not be to demonize the league, as this would clearly be inappropriate. But the criticisms are noteworthy and must be addressed in a factual manner, which the current article does not do adequately.

Regards, 76.220.57.100 (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

we dont do criticism "sections" but the reception and media coverage should be included. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Football_League/Archive_3&oldid=1140146128"