More Needless Spring Football

On Saturday night, something happened for the first time for the first time since 2007.  The same sporting event was shown live on two different broadcast networks at the same time.  Back then, it was the NFL regular season finale as the Patriots were going for the perfect regular season and both CBS and NBC agreed to simulcast the NFL Network broadcast.  This time, it was FOX and NBC teaming up for the debut of USFL 2.0.

That's right.  The USFL is officially back.  It's the third attempt at a spring football league in the last five years.  Will it fare any better than the AAF or XFL 2.0, neither of which made it a full season?  History suggests the answer is "No."

Despite the fact that America doesn't seem to want it and all previous attempts have failed, that hasn't stopped these intrepid entrepreneurs from thinking their league is the one that will actually succeed.  Why they think that is beyond me.  Because all of the evidence suggests it's a venture that's destined to fail.  It's really just a matter of time.

Ratings for the opening game were solid when combining the numbers between FOX and NBC.  Which was to be expected.  There's always the curiosity factor when something new debuts.  Sustaining that viewership is the real challenge.  Especially since the USFL is playing all of its games in Birmingham, Alabama, so it's not like they'll be able to rely on the money from ticket sales.  They need the TV ratings to be solid if they're to have any hope at survival.

FOX seems invested in USFL 2.0, which you would think will buy the league some time.  But that doesn't guarantee anything.  Twenty years ago, NBC was an equal partner in XFL 1.0.  That didn't stop them from pulling the plug after one season.  Likewise, CBS having a vested interest in the success of the AAF wasn't enough to save that league from declaring bankruptcy in the middle of its only season.

Each of these leagues has touted their relationship with multiple TV partners in their promotional materials.  Frankly, without TV deals locked up, none of them would've ever been able to get off the ground.  So, I don't consider the fact that they've got committed TV partners to be any sort of sign of long-term stability.  Frankly, it might be just the opposite.

TV networks cancel low-rated shows all the time.  And low-rated sports programming is really no different than any other low-rated program.  And therein lies the challenge of each new spring football venture.  It's not an established product, so they need to draw eyeballs.  But, in order to keep those viewers, the product needs to be watchable.  If it's not, people won't watch.  And if people aren't watching, there's no point in continuing to put it on the air, whether the network's directly invested or not.

USFL 1.0's biggest problem was its attempted move to the fall, which would've seen it in direct competition with the NFL.  USFL 2.0 has no such delusion.  They don't see themselves as a competitor to the NFL.  They're just looking to put out a quality product, which frankly is the biggest reason why these leagues keep failing just as frequently as they pop up.

Simply put, the football in these leagues just isn't that good.  It's certainly not good enough to keep America's interest piqued when the NBA and Stanley Cup Playoffs are in full swing, Major League Baseball has just started and, perhaps most significantly, people are doing things outdoors again since the weather's turning nicer.  Just because there's no football being played in the spring doesn't mean there's a void that needs to be filled.  America doesn't have the appetite for second-rate football in the offseason.  That memo's been sent over and over again, yet some people still seem to have not gotten it.

Another element at play here is the fact that people have no attachment to the league or any of its teams.  All of these teams are new, so they don't have any history to draw people in.  And, since there won't be any games held in the home markets of these teams, it's not like people can just go to the games to check them out.  They're relying almost entirely on TV ratings as a measure of success, which is such a gamble.

I'll give USFL 2.0 the benefit of the doubt and assume they make it through the season.  Combined with the XFL's planned return next year (XFL 3.0?), there could potentially be two mediocre football leagues in action at the same time in the spring of 2023.  There aren't enough decent players to make one spring football league watchable.  Now you're saying there's possibly gonna be two!  Frankly, that's a recipe for them both to fail.

And when USFL 2.0 and XFL 3.0 inevitably fail, somebody will be right there to announce the formation of the next spring football league.  Because apparently America can't get enough football.  At least in their eyes.  Even though it's been proven time and again that isn't actually true.

Whether it's a year or two or more, USFL 2.0's fate does seem to be inevitable.  The appetite simply isn't there for second-rate football, whenever it's played.  I'm still not sure America wants football in the spring as much as FOX, NBC and ESPN seem to think, but we'll never get a chance to really find out.  Because, unlike the original USFL, none of these leagues are of high enough quality to warrant people's attention for more than those first few weeks.

It's been the same story for the better part of five years now.  First the AAF went bankrupt.  Then XFL 2.0.  Now it's USFL 2.0.  America keeps getting spring football...whether we want it or not!  Even though we've shown we don't want it, that doesn't stop them from trying, hoping there's is the one.  Spoiler alert: It isn't!