Comments on: London won't get Super Bowl without NFL team

By: Nevasleep

Nevasleep — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:23:34 +0000

Having a conference, or division in Europe wouldn’t work. The interest is with the American teams and players. London vs Patriots or dolphins, jets etc would be far more popular than London vs Munich.
If it could be possible, I think a trial of a franchise in London for a season would be great idea. If it doesn’t work, then it doesn’t work!, give the franchise to another city in the US/Canada.
Having the Superbowl in the UK anytime soon?, terrible idea, it would be an insult to the american nfl fans.

By: Mr. Green

Mr. Green — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:31:59 +0000

First off, I think putting a team in London is a rotten idea.
But for a moment I will pretend that I think that it’s an idea worth exploring. So IF the NFL were to seriously consider putting an NFL franchise in London, it would have to be under these conditions:
1) A London NFL franchise could not be an expansion team. It would have to be a currently existing franchise that is relocated (the London Jaguars anyone?).
The NFL is watered down enough as is with 32 teams, and it’s not as if American football has foreign hot beds of talent (like baseball, hockey and basketball) to draw from. Expanding any further will begin to have dire effects on the quality of the product on the field.
2) If the NFL places a franchise in London, I believe it needs to put a franchise in one other European city in order to provide some geographic balance. The London franchise having a fellow European rival that it played twice a year would generate more regional interest for both franchises. The Frankfurt Vikings anyone? Or, perhaps, the Amsterdam Dikings?
3) There must be a guarantee of selling 70,000 season tickets sold at Wembley Stadium for ten years before the NFL commits a team to London. My guess is that the novelty of NFL football will fade quickly, so the NFL needs to ensure that season ticket sales and revenues are concrete for the foreseeable future.
Now I’m done pretending that I’m even entertaining this idea. Roger Goodell and Robert Kraft have big ideas for the NFL, which I like. But in this case, they may need surgery to remove their world sized heads from their narrow sphincters.
I don’t believe the NFL can commit to London without an even greater commitment to the European market as a whole. I don’t believe the NFL can flourish in London without some regional rivalry. And I don’t believe that it’s possible to establish that without expanding to 34 teams. I’m entrenched in my belief that the NFL should not expand beyond 32 teams, otherwise we’re going to see a serious dropoff in the quality of the game.

By: Deb

Deb — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:11:43 +0000

Heaven help us.
@BoudreauxnThibideaux … You want the world to enjoy American football? Buy the world a satellite dish. I lived in the UK for years. They find American football an entertaining novelty but it won’t replace soccer in their hearts and minds. If the NFL wants to bring our style of football to them, let them start another European league. As CKL said, it made for a nice farm system. And don’t hold your breath waiting for those lower ticket prices.
@FrankGreg … You’ve given me a headache. When our Sunday night game kicks off at 8:15 p.m. est, it will be 1:15 a.m. London time. Think a lot of London fans will be watching those Sunday, Monday, and Thursday night games? It’s going to be hard for them to keep up, don’t you think? Here’s a thought: Why don’t you commute from London to the U.S. to play a knock-down-drag-out pro football game eight times in 17 weeks, then tell me how easy it’s going to be for the chumps lucky enough to be drafted to the Brits?
@Kevin from Philly … That says it all
@NoHomeTeam … Saw it. Read it. Loved it. Gotta run!

By: NoHomeTeam

NoHomeTeam — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:33:55 +0000

Guess this is what I get for actually working when I'm at work -- I miss out on the chance to comment on an interesting topic. I'm this will be buried so far down on the page no-one will see it, but I just had to address a couple of the comments made above. purpleloki says: It is becoming clearer everyday what needs to happen. Goodell has to go . . . Just go away and get a competent commissioner i.e. Tagliabue to preserve the integrity of the NFL Really? Tagliabue? That's your idea of a competent Commissioner? Let's see . . . under his watch, St. Louis, which supported the Cardinals for far longer than they deserved, is passed over for an expansion franchise -- in favor of the sprawling metropolis of Jacksonville; not one, but two teams disappear from the second largest market in the country; the Cleveland Browns pack up and move to the other former NFL city passed over for Expansion, a pooch-screw so epic the League had to go to the extraordinary extent of promising to replace the team. Still with me, here? Let's add to that the fact that it was under his administration that the game saw a tremendous upsurge in thugism, substance abuse, and prima donna "stars". The Commissioner's office is the final authority on discipline in the League, is it not? How about the approval of a Labor contract so poisonous to the League that it may lead to a complete work stoppage and possibly the end of revenue-sharing as we know it. Competence? Integrity? eddiegriffinlives says: Could we possibly see an expansion of 2 teams? LA & London to get back to 34 teams which, as an even #, would get the league back to a balanced schedule... Two wouldn't really do it. 34 teams ÷ 2 Conferences = 17 teams / Conference. No way to divide that up evenly into either 3 or 4 teams per Division. You'd need to go to 36 teams; 18 teams per Conference divided into 3 Divisions of 6. London, Los Angeles, Toronto (sorry, Ralph), Mexico City, and . . . I dunno, Berlin, maybe? crex43 says: Why don't they just move the Oakland Raiders to LA? Do. Not. Want. Seriously. Most of here would rather have no team.

By: texasPHINSfan

texasPHINSfan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:00:26 +0000

i think many of you are shortsighted.
expansion to Europe can only grow the sport, and games like “tokyo samurais versus the rome emperors” won’t be happening in your lifetime, so let’s be serious here.
the NFL moves slowly, they’re talking about adding ONE team to london, and it probably won’t be for awhile.
you guys are acting like the NFL is america’s right, and no one else deserves to watch it. enjoy the fact that the rest of the world is asking to see it, and help spread its successes.

By: hayward giablommi

hayward giablommi — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:45:07 +0000

Do that many of you travel to see your teams in other stadiums? Probably not. I have Giants season tickets and have only been to 2 other stadiums in my life. No big deal about fan base.
^^^^^^^^^
I travel to at least 2 or 3 road games a year and have been to games in 17 different cities. As a Pats fan who has been to 5 neutral games in Tampa for the last 4 years, I have been looking forward for years to heading down to Tampa to finally see the Pats play there (which last happened in 1997).
Not the case now, obviously, that won’t happen for another 8 years. I refuse to use my passport to see the game of American football played overseas. It’s appalling.

By: JRPatsFan

JRPatsFan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:39:49 +0000

A first I just thought this was a kind of lame idea, but figured I would get used to it if it happened.
Then I realized that the other teams in whatever division the London team would be in would be absolutely screwed. The other teams in the division would have to make that trip every year, while other NFL teams would only have to make the trip every four years or so.
And as a Patriots fan I think that would suck. After all it would either be the AFC East or the NFC East the London team would end up in, right?
I agree with some of the other posts….leave it alone, or at worst move a team or two to Canada.

By: DuluthFan

DuluthFan — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:38:30 +0000

Nickname: London RedCoats
There jerseys would be, you guessed it, red.

By: FrankGreg

FrankGreg — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 15:34:15 +0000

Wow, i don’t think that the idea is a no brainer or even a good idea but some of you are just dumb. First thing, West coast games are shown at 1pm EST not 10Am. Stupid.
Also the timing of the games in London would be fine. The games would be played at home games at 6pm or 9pm London time.
That would be 1Pm EST and the usual 10am PST for 6pm games.
Then 4pm EST and 1pm PST for 9pm games.
That is not any different.
When the League scedules games in London they would make sure to have any west coast team have their bye week the week after and east coast teams would not be any different then having to fly to seatle or out west. It just a plane ride.
Also as far as destroying your fan base? What the hell are you all talking about. I am a Giants fan and having a team in London would only affect me because its another team that i will want my team to beat.
Do that many of you travel to see your teams in other stadiums? Probably not. I have Giants season tickets and have only been to 2 other stadiums in my life. No big deal about fan base.
You would be creating a fan base there and not diluting American fan base at all. Jacksonville doesn’t have a fan base that supports the team so what the big deal.
Super Bowl in London now thats different. Unless they have a Dome or have a Franchise there they need to think about other stadiums first, The last time i checked London is not a tropical location for an outdoor Superbowl.
London Team would be intresting, think about laughing at them when they talk about the calls on the field with the accents.
DFS

By: MAMALO

MAMALO — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:59:03 +0000

HEY THIS IS FOOTBALL AMERICA….. I MEAN “NORTH AMERICA, USA”, SO…GIVE A BREAK………………………

By: BoudreauxnThibideaux

BoudreauxnThibideaux — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:51:47 +0000

FYI, NFL Europe was very popular in Germany and London even after many of the other teams folded. People only stopped going b/c none of the top flight talent was coming over. Still the success of the German and London teams merits the NFL considering planting franchises over there. It would be wise though, if they do put teams in Germany, that the Euro teams get their own 4 team division.
While they’re at it, the NFL should develop a stronger relationship with AFL2 and use it as a farm league. LEAVE the UFL alone! Here’s my last proposal for the day – trade the Raiders for the Tuskers….

By: Kevin from Philly

Kevin from Philly — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:48:02 +0000

I was just reading an NFL page on the BBC website. One of the Scots who’ll be watching the game, posted his drinking game rules for the afternoon:
“Official Football Drinking Games Rules
1) Two teams
2) Two team captains
3) Team captains flip a coin for who’s pats/bucs
4) Half time event is the beer Olympic 100m, downing a beer whilst running 100m
5) Losing team has to go out with a Harry Potter scar drawn on their foreheads
6) Trash talk is encouraged!
Rules
1) 1st down means opposing team takes a shot of beer each
2) Touchdown means opposing team players take a shot of liquor
3) Interception means opposing team has to funnel one beer
4) Penalty means team captain nominates a member of their team to take a shot of liquor
5) Time out means a relay of flip cup
6) Sacked quarterback means body shot out of the team captains belly button
7) Field goal is a shot of beer
8) Fumble is each player of your team is head stand down a beer through a straw
9) Any 30 yard play opposing team does a strawpeedo or Smirnoff each
10) Blocked punt is a shot of liquor
11) Two point conversion is a shot a liquor for defending team
12) Can only go to the toilet at designated breaks (time outs or quarter breaks) otherwise a shot of liquor penalty
13) Anyone who throws up subjects the whole team to a shot, including themselves!
14) If you literally cannot take anymore alcohol, you are a total girl and must wear a female bikini for the remainder of the game. Includes sitting outside the apartment for around 10 mins”
No idea what a “strawpeedo” is, and I probably don’t want to know. No WONDER they have riots at soccer games!

By: finsbooyah

finsbooyah — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:40:25 +0000

BoudreauxnThibideaux says:
October 23, 2009 11:27 AM
The NFL should expand to London – especially if the Euro keeps value over the dollar and the NFL keeps a revenue sharing plan (sorry jerry jones – it works). If the league makes more money that should lower ticket prices.
==================================
Hahaha, yea right. If you actually believe owners will lower ticket/parking/concession prices because they are making more money you are as niave as a 5 year old girl.
A London team is the ABSOLUTE WORST IDEA I’ve ever heard concerning the NFL. There are about 1,000 reasons why but I’m only going to mention one…
Competitive advantage. The London team will have a comeptitive advantage over any team flying out there to play (as will the opponent of said road team the following week). And the London team will be at a tremendous disadvantage for the 8 games they have when they travel to the U.S. This is just pure common sense.

By: WashingtonRedstorms

WashingtonRedstorms — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:33:52 +0000

The Buccaneers will be the team to either L.A. or London.
This franchise is being run into the ground for a reason. Glazers own a soccer franchise in the UK.
The Bucs would be welcomed in London.

By: Patsfan1776

Patsfan1776 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:32:14 +0000

Goodell can’t put a team in the US let alone the UK. It is the owners’ decision and they will decide what they want to decide.
I would think the biggest problem would be to get players to play. If there is a salary cap and all the teams can only pay $X, a London team may be at a disadvantage trying to get players to relocate. The UK is more expensive to live, weather sucks, and taxes may be a bit crazy too.

By: Deb

Deb — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:05:25 +0000

Is London springing for a domed stadium to accommodate a Super Bowl once every five to seven years? If not, Roger & Bob K., you might want to spend time in the UK in February before scheduling a Super Bowl there.
And how are you going to handle the television issues? How will London fans follow U.S. games each week? By the time our Sunday night games are played, they’ll be asleep. They can’t watch the next day because they’ll be at work. They can’t watch a tape delay the next night because that will interfere with MNF. And with the Internet, they’ll already know who won.
Then there’s the injury issue. I don’t want my Steelers traveling to London for regular season games. I don’t want them tiring themselves, risking injury, and jeopardizing their performance for that week and the week after. And you expect the London players to make that trip 8 times a year? What about playoffs? And what if an American player is seriously injured in London. Will he have to stay there–away from family and teammates–to be treated long-term?
Has anyone thought this stuff out? Do the views of your bread-and-butter fans count for anything???

By: Free_Tramopoline

Free_Tramopoline — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:05:11 +0000

So, once again, my idea for a Hawaii team doesn’t seem so dumb anymore by comparison…

By: tk444

tk444 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:56:26 +0000

As a Giant fan I went to the first game in London. Fans from all around Europe come to see this one game. I saw jerseys for every team and spoke to many of them asking where they were from..Germany, Netherlands, Scotland, etc. This game was considered an event in itself which is why it attracted so many. I was actually surprised how knowledgable the fans were at the game. On one hand a team franchise may work because there is large fan base across Europe who may be hungry for more NFL games. On the other hand a full slate of games may dilute the importance of games. I don’t believe the London fan base could support a franchise by itself.

By: CKL

CKL — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:48:24 +0000

I feel they purposely got RID of NFLE in order to advance this cockamamie idea of having NFL franchises play overseas. I loved NFLE and it provided a much needed (IMO) “farm team” type league for the NFL.
This idea of having overseas NFL franchises and a SB over there is so horrible it’s hard to come up with where to start criticizing it. Part of being a good business is keeping your profitable customer base (and employees like coaches and players) happy and knowing which customers are more and less valuable to pursue. To alienate the majority of fans to pursue the minority of fans in Europe does not seem to be a good business strategy, along with reeking of arrogance (“Oh NFL fans in America will never get so mad they will withhold their $$$ support”).
How about trying to gauge if there’s any real interest overseas by giving them more TV access to the NFL first? But no, that might make sense.

By: maxinquaye

maxinquaye — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:41:40 +0000

PFT reacts...just substitute 'teams' for 'jobs': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI

By: crex43

crex43 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:29:45 +0000

Why don’t they just move the Oakland Raiders to LA? It’s close enough, the San Fran area doesn’t need two football teams in close proximity, and we can finally disband the entire organization when LA doesn’t support its own team.

By: Nard100

Nard100 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:28:29 +0000

This is all very interesting speculation from a league that is continually crying about its mendicant status. Apparently is does have money to throw away on risky ventures after all.

By: GoBrowns19

GoBrowns19 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:30:55 +0000

Wow. There is only one thing that could EVER ruin the NFL. And that would be moving a team out of the United States. It would set a tragic precedent. There are alot of rich countries in the world. Alot wealthier than most U.S. cities. Half the teams in the league would be in Europe and Asia in ten years.
The Tokyo Browns vs. Rome Chiefs on Tuesday Morning Football!
Yeah, when the Browns play the Monarchs, what time will the game be? Do I have to call in sick to work to catch the game that starts Monday morning at 5:00 a.m.?

By: leatherneck

leatherneck — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:26:39 +0000

Global expansion should be done differently.
First, the NFL should buy the UFL and keep it as “minor league football.” Let each UFL owner keep the team, but make them junior partners to the NFL partners.
Second, the NFL should create “UFL Europe” and keep it limited to four teams. There should be European owners for each of the teams. If there is a team in London, that team should be owned by an Englishman living in or near London. You need a local owner to establish local identity. Don’t worry about the nationality of the players, as that will just happen eventually.
Each year, there should be a “UFL Ultra Bowl” between the best American and European UFL teams.
It will slowly take off. The long-term plan can be to merge the whole thing together, or to do a “World Cup”-like world championship every four years.

By: Fan_Of_ Four

Fan_Of_ Four — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:21:05 +0000

Might as well see if we can get a game in Iran as well. Goodell needs to go before he totally fks up the NFL.

By: db3300

db3300 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:18:02 +0000

… because NFL Europe worked out so well.

By: Pdono1985

Pdono1985 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:12:40 +0000

Messed up above – Miami to the AFC South – then thought it could be the Toronto/Buffalo Bills to the AFC North, but realized that would be a complete mess.

By: MikeMcDPhilly

MikeMcDPhilly — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:08:52 +0000

It’s bad enough when east coast teams have to play west coast games at 10AM EST. If the London team played the day game against the Niners in San Fran, that’s 4AM London time. Way too much jet lag. No league can span nine hours in time zones. It’s an idiotic idea that should not even be discussed. I’d give more merit to the debate on whether or not the NFL should replace the endzones with four feet deep swimming pools… which would be sweet.

By: Pdono1985

Pdono1985 — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:58:24 +0000

Well without question, we are going to see a Los Angeles franchise and a London franchise somewhere down the road. Everyone seems to think the L.A. team is going to be the Jags, but I think without question, it is going to be one of the teams that are already on the West Coast. I would not be shocked to see the Chargers end up in L.A. at all.
The Jaguars, I think would be the most likely candidate for a move to London. And as a person supposed above – it would have to be either in the NFC East or AFC East – which would probably lead to a realignment for one of 4 teams – Washington, Dallas, Buffalo/Toronto, Miami.
I think they would elect to move Miami to the AFC South specifically if they move to Toronto to the AFC North. Miami to the AFC South is another possibility. I can’t see them touching the NFC East, although Dallas is certainly geographically out of place.
As for scheduling I would think the London team would play a slate of 4 home/4 away and then 4 home/4 away.
The problem with this is that a team playing in London would almost certainly have to have their bye week following the London game, which puts the bye weeks into Week 12/13, which may or may not be a bad thing, considering, having Week 4 bye weeks, is a little ridiculous. Or this will possibly lead to two bye weeks a season, which may help get the season to 17 or 18 games.
Maybe that’s Goodell’s intention – having all of these moves intertwine – the London team necessitates expansion of the season.
Roger Goodell, you think you know me

By: muchmaligned

muchmaligned — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 11:55:31 +0000

Uh, what would be the “logistical nightmare” for those of you watching the game sitting on the couch you found in the trailer park “grab pile”?