Skip to content

Some think Bucs should move to L.A.

New+England+Patriots+v+Tampa+Bay+Buccaneers+ebWL8bH16Rml Getty Images

Plenty of Jaguars fans have forwarded to PFT a new column from Mike Bianchi of the Orlando Sentinel regarding the possibility of a Florida NFL team not named the Jags moving to L.A.

Bianchi says that the Buccaneers, not the Jaguars, should be the team that moves out of its current town.

“When there is a discussion about moving a team to L.A., why aren’t the Tampa Bay Bucs ever brought up?” Bianchi writes.

Here’s why I never bring it up:  I think the Bucs are more likely to move to London.

It’s no coincidence that the Bucs are playing two home games in London in three seasons.  If the Bucs build a fan base abroad — and if the attendance issues in Tampa don’t improve soon — the Bucs could be bound for not just a new city, but a new continent.

We know, we know.  Plenty of you think it’s inconceivable for a team to be headquartered in London.  During their recent visit to Charlie Rose’s show, both Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and Panthers owner Jerry Richardson acknowledged that London remains a very viable market for the league.

The reasoning is simple.  The new, post-HDTV NFL will be taking teams to where the people and the money are.  One of the easiest ways to fill a stadium is to have the stadium in a place where there are so many people that there’s no way the stadium wouldn’t be filled.

So when it comes to the chronic struggles of the Jaguars and the Buccaneers to sell tickets, the question isn’t whether one or the other will go.  The question is whether they both will.

Permalink 85 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Jacksonville Jaguars, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
85 Responses to “Some think Bucs should move to L.A.”
  1. jpb12 says: Aug 26, 2011 2:49 PM

    Inconceivable?

  2. darthvader89 says: Aug 26, 2011 2:50 PM

    I don’t understand how they could fairly play 8 away games while based in London. That would be hell. They’d be constantly jet-lagged. Teams don’t like traveling to the opposite coast much less across an Ocean.

  3. Exiled1 says: Aug 26, 2011 2:51 PM

    It makes me cringe to think an NFL team would be based out of London. I’m no xenophobe or anything but it just doesn’t seem logistically possible for a team to handle the jet lag/time constraints.

    Would they play their first eight in the U.S. and last eight in England. Then wouldn’t that put an advantage to the London based team.

  4. derekjetersmansion says: Aug 26, 2011 2:51 PM

    Does anyone know what the Glazers’ fascination with England is about?

    It’s like Goodell is allowing them to tank.

  5. eastsideballa says: Aug 26, 2011 2:51 PM

    Greed will destroy the NFL, and I cant wait until it goes up in flames just to see these greedy ***** go broke.

  6. skolvikes1 says: Aug 26, 2011 2:53 PM

    Moving an NFL team anywhere outside of the United States is just plain dumb. And to think they would actually consider moving it to another continent is just asinine. I already hate the fact that they play NFL games in London. Screw you Roger.

  7. vaporiizz3r says: Aug 26, 2011 2:54 PM

    I think its a great move for a NFL team thats not filling the seats to move to london because out there it would be packed everytime. Aswell as FL allready has 3 teams out there so maybe taking one of them out of the markey would increase other teams ticket sales…With all that being said I would still feel sorry for the fans of whatever team decided to leave to go to london because it would allmost make it impossible to go to a game.

  8. kliplee says: Aug 26, 2011 2:55 PM

    thats a noble idea

  9. freemantowilliams says: Aug 26, 2011 2:58 PM

    Look we cant help that were poor down here. Yeah i could afford to buy the 45 dollar tickets but ive been down that road before. Not fun at all the players look like ants. If the greedy @ss owners would get rid of the blackout rule and just collect money from advertisements I bet once they see the revenue stuff would change. Besides our owners dont even pay for the stadium WE DO!!!!

  10. evilboy128 says: Aug 26, 2011 2:58 PM

    one problem with that last paragraph…THERE IS NO CHRONIC STRUGGLES TO SELL TICKETS IN JACKSONVILLE….just because you continue to yell it and yell it, it does not make it true…Jacksonville WILL NOT be blacked out this year. Now in Oakland, San Diego, Tampa, Buffalo, Just to name a few…THOSE are CHRONIC problems…jeez…research USED to be a part of reporting…now it’s just opinion and ignorance.

  11. big007hed says: Aug 26, 2011 2:59 PM

    Bucs are not going anywhere due to the stadium deal…. As sad as it is that is the only reason they aren’t leaving…. oh well GO BUCS

  12. buckeye2280 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:01 PM

    Wouldn’t a move to London cause a huge fight with the NFLPA and trying to move players to Europe. I don’t know about you but I would think a change like that might cause players who don’t wish to move to automatically become FA’s.

  13. granadafan says: Aug 26, 2011 3:03 PM

    You’d think the Glazers would never want to show their faces in England (Manchester anyways) after the terrible way the ran Manchester United and left the team with huge debt.

  14. shackdelrio says: Aug 26, 2011 3:03 PM

    An NFL team in London would be a total disaster. Players would not want to play there. Coaches would not want to coach there. It would be a failure.

  15. Richard Dickson says: Aug 26, 2011 3:03 PM

    Weren’t there so many people in Los Angeles? How’d that work out for the Rams?

  16. trbowman says: Aug 26, 2011 3:05 PM

    I thought moving a team to LA was bad, but London?

    I bet most Bucs players would hate playing in London too.

  17. bucsfan5000 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:05 PM

    It won’t happen because Tampa is one of the most popular Super Bowl cities, plus they built a new state of the art facility for the Bucs a few years ago, but the Bucs would make the playoffs every year if they played in the NFC West. Go figure!

  18. bucnut says: Aug 26, 2011 3:05 PM

    As a Buc fan i pray this doesn’t happen. also what would they be called Buccaneers where Pirates hated by the royal navy. doesn’t make sense

  19. jaypace says: Aug 26, 2011 3:06 PM

    One the glazers own Manchester united. The bucs aren’t going anywhere. I lived in ny most of my life and when I moved to Tampa I had never seen such fair weather fans. Not a knock there was a stretch where the product being put out was brutal. But what’s funny to me anytime there is an attendance issue the first thing everybody talks about is moving teams out of the bay area. Games haven’t even been played yet and they are talking about attendance issues. There would be rioting in the streets if the bucs moved out of town.

  20. schmitty2 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:07 PM

    London=bad idea. Beer and hot dogs would be replaced by tea and crumpets

  21. hystoracle says: Aug 26, 2011 3:07 PM

    . . . And some people think you should wear a tin foil hat. both are nuts.
    Bianchi isn’t the best source for knowledge on anything. Anyone who has read the Sentinel more than once can tell you that.
    Bucs aren’t going anywhere they would actually have to pay a lease. And they wouldn’t be able to skim $2mil off the top of everything else that happens in the stadium like in Tampa.
    NFL can sell out 1 game a year inLondon because of the novelty – good luck with 18 when it becomes ho-hum. How well did the world league do (notice the past tense)? The Premier League is king in England.

  22. professorcolumbus says: Aug 26, 2011 3:08 PM

    Bianchi is a d-bag who takes any chance he gets to rip on the Bucs. Irrelevant ‘column.’ I somehwat agree with you on the London issue though (far more than LA,) but I think a move is unlikely in the end.

    As a Tampa resident of 34 years, and a Bucs fan through thick and thin, I have to say that it is tough going around these parts. We have such a high amount of transplant population and a great deal of them do not give up their previous affiliation (trust me, I have seen them move here for decades.)

    Add on top of that, the media’s constant negative portrayal of the team (both local and national media) and it it is difficult for the team to maintain traction and grow a solid fanbase. This is not limited to the Bucs, obviously, and it is a sore subject that is beaten to death, and only makes the issue worse.

    People make all sorts of excuses, some are more valid than others, as to why Tampa sports cannot consistently draw fans. But the fact is, Tampa is a great place, where people move to because they like it better than wherever they used to live. But for one reason or another, most people will always see the Bucs as their second favorite team, as best. Many of them will outright hate the Bucs, and the overall media portrayal does nothing to help that issue.

    The fan issue probably wont change anytime soon, but I think the Bucs moving is a long-shot, mostly based on the Glazer’s sweet stadium deal here.

  23. paulitik74 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:09 PM

    I hate the Bucs, but this would be a huge mistake. Not only would it be at a disadvantage for the Bucs, but for their division rivals. Namely my Falcons.

    If the NFL wants more international viewership, have the 32 NFL teams get a a sister city and play 2 games a year overseas. One at the sister city and one away.

    So you have the Amsterdam Falcons play the London Bucs in London, then play the Mogadishu Saints in Amsterdam.

  24. tampabucsfan says: Aug 26, 2011 3:09 PM

    Yawn. Always with the Bucs moving. Maybe after the lease expires in 2028 they can move, but until then ask the Rays how easy it is to get out of a lease agreement.

  25. derekjetersmansion says: Aug 26, 2011 3:09 PM

    @ bucsfan5000

    What do the Glazers want ultimately? They want to spend as little as possible. Last year was great for them in that young, cheap players made them successful.

    It seems like they don’t want the risk of high-priced talent and a lousy record.

    What amazes me is that this franchise WON a Super Bowl. With talent.

  26. FinFan68 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:10 PM

    The automatic filter on this site is garbage. How about letting us know what the hell is not allowed. I, and others, have attempted to post that were in no way controversial, vulger or disparaging yet they disappear into thin air while others spew racially tainted crap all day long. What gives?

  27. milkmandanimal says: Aug 26, 2011 3:13 PM

    The Bucs have a phenomenal lease situation in Tampa, a stadium that’s reasonably new and nice enough to regularly host Super Bowls, and they’re one of the most profitable franchises in the league; why would they move? The local economy is awful, so people stopped buying tickets. When the economy rebounds, they’ll buy tickets again.

    Really, the London idea is patently ridiculous and will be for many years.

  28. marvsleezy says: Aug 26, 2011 3:13 PM

    Why should Atlanta Carolina & Saints be punished with a trip to London every year just because Tampa Bay cant support NFL football?

  29. seneca1ss says: Aug 26, 2011 3:13 PM

    Don’t threaten me……just move. I can still watch for FREE on the internet

  30. derekjetersmansion says: Aug 26, 2011 3:13 PM

    @ buckeye2280

    Simmons brought this up on a podcast. It’s conceivable that they only 3 road trips. 2 for 3 games, 1 for 2 games.

  31. adlent says: Aug 26, 2011 3:14 PM

    I really have a hard time seeing a team outside of North America. Imagine how coaches are going to feel about taking teams on plane rides and adjusting biological clocks to such far flung time zones. You already see the “statistics” on teams like Arizona, Seattle, San Fran, etc making east coast trips and how they generally struggle. Now take those same West Coast teams and send them an additional six hours with barely any time to get adjusted. I just think you would see very poor performances and a lot of complaining about competitive advantage/disadvantage.

  32. saintswillwin says: Aug 26, 2011 3:18 PM

    It’s no coincidence that the Bucs are playing two home games in London in three seasons. If the Bucs build a fan base abroad — and if the attendance issues in Tampa don’t improve soon — the Bucs could be bound for not just a new city, but a new continent.

    England is not a continent.

    Just sayin’

  33. tunesmith says: Aug 26, 2011 3:19 PM

    The other thing is that they could have two teams in the same division go overseas at once. One less overseas road game.

    Or one entire division. Each team would have half their road games without having to go overseas. And the teams from the division that plays them could each have a two-game swing.

  34. smarterthantheauthor says: Aug 26, 2011 3:25 PM

    Ridiculously stated article with little fact to back it up.
    It’s ridiculous to assume that of all the potential teams to move the LA that the Bucs would even be mentioned in this discussion.

    #1 – The Bucs have always been a popular team in the Tampa Bay area and up until the complete dismantling of the team two years ago by Raheem which saw the dismissal of some hugely popular Bucs like Derrick Brooks. It’s not like the Bucs were poorly supported for 20 straight years. Let’s be honest here.
    #2 – The Bucs are in a strong DMA.
    #3 – Raymond James stadium is still one of the premier stadiums in the NFL – a location routinely reviewed year in and year out to host another Super Bowl for the NFL.
    #4 – Tampa Bay has very strong corporate support – Outback, Publix, Raymond James just to name a few.

    Just because the Glaziers own Manchester United does not mean there is a correlation to move the Bucs there – even the Glaziers know that the NFL would be a very hard sell in a Soccer mad country like the U.K.

    My recommendation is for the author to get off his lazy butt and find something more meaningful and deeply researched to write about.

  35. Lou Pickney says: Aug 26, 2011 3:25 PM

    I doubt we’ll see the Buccaneers move to Los Angeles because of their stadium deal, as mentioned above. Those with stadiums built in the modern era (beginning with Carolina’s stadium circa 1994-95) are at a distinct advantage because of the way that luxury box placement changed at that point.

    Tampa Bay isn’t the easiest market to draw in with sports, since there is so much other stuff to do there (like going to the beach) but there was a time that their season ticket waiting list was 30,000 deep. Being a consistent winner again would help change their ticket situation in a hurry.

  36. luckynumberlucas says: Aug 26, 2011 3:26 PM

    Why wouldn’t players and coaches want to live and work in London?

    London is one of the most beautiful and culturally diverse cities around the globe, almost like Europe’s NY… ;)

    No, seriously, I don’t see players and coaches having too much problems with playing in London.

    And you can arrange the road games to blocks.

    Let’s say, 4 home, 4 away, 4 home, 4 away.

    And the visiting teams have their bye week after the London game.

    And to all American ignorants, saying this is Americas Game yada, yada, yada…

    Football is getting BIG in Europe, there are hundreds of thousands of fans AND teams and players, so why not expand?

    What difference does it make, whether you watch a road game from Buffalo or London?

    I’d say none, except the time difference…

  37. Uncle Leo says: Aug 26, 2011 3:26 PM

    @saintswillwin

    England is part of the continent called Europe.

    Just sayin’

  38. edukator4 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:27 PM

    saints will win: europe is a continent, and england is in europe. the sentence reads fine, you do not.

  39. cbrady2k says: Aug 26, 2011 3:28 PM

    Go eat a big one. What a stupid stupid article written by a stupid stupid person.

    Tampa sold out every game from 1998 until the end of the 2008 season. The lack of sellouts had to do with two important events… ONE: The Bucs record dropped to 3-13 and TWO: The much more important event of the local economy completely collapsing. The local unemployment rate is much much higher than the national average, it’s housing market is the 3rd worst in the nation. People in Tampa didn’t suddenly forget about football or stop liking it, but same as baseball, people can’t afford to do anything here. Orlando is trying to stir up crap since they’re a Mickey Mouse city. Instead of talking about the Bucs why don’t you talk about how nice that new arena is going to be completely empty once Howard leaves.

  40. adlent says: Aug 26, 2011 3:28 PM

    “England is not a continent.

    Just sayin’”

    England is part of Europe though, which is most definitely a continent…

  41. techstar25 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:31 PM

    The Buccaneers hadn’t had a blackout since 1997 prior to 2010. Sure, the ownership bought up tickets for some of those games, but they sold out nonetheless. That’s 12 seasons of football without a blackout. Then they had one rough year. Isn’t it a little soon to be moving them to L.A.? If this Bucs team wins some games right out of the gate this year, those fans from 1997-2009 will come back, and we’ll all laugh at the idea that we ever considered them for relocation.

    The media just needs to leave the Jags alone. They are selling out games, and the ownership is happy with where they stand financially. They are about to enter the Blaine Gabbert era, so they are excited for what the future holds. Give them a break.

  42. 504in860 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:31 PM

    saintswillwin says:
    Aug 26, 2011 3:18 PM

    England is not a continent.

    Just sayin’
    ——————————————–

    No, but Europe is…which is where England is located.

    Come on.

  43. btintampa says: Aug 26, 2011 3:32 PM

    As a Tampa resident, I see a lot of “house divided” shirt, license plates, etc., usually with two college teams. The Bucs should start incrementally winning over the transplants with similar marketing tools, like shirts with one half Bucs, the other half Steelers, Bears, or Giants, etc. Go halfway first, then win them over totally down the road.

  44. gfan8611 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:35 PM

    London loves having one game a year. Just the one game makes it a big event. If the league is stupid enough to move a team there once that team has a few bad seasons the fan base will bail and the league will have the headache of getting the team moved back to the U.S. where it belongs.

  45. smarterthantheauthor says: Aug 26, 2011 3:35 PM

    Despite the ramblings that the NFL and owners will be taking the NFL to where the people and the money are – London isn’t it.
    It’s well documented in every issue of the Wall Street journal that England’s economy is more on a respirator than that of the U.S.

    NFL is a TV sport – let’s face it. It’s meant for the HD Tv’s in everyone’s home where they can sit and see all aspects of the game and enjoy the refreshments from their own fridge at a much cheaper rate than what they’d pay at a game: $20 parking, $10 drinks, $9 hotdogs….
    The NFL is going to have to evolve if it wants to survive with the fans. I can see more games going to a pay per view type scenario for the NFL to continue to chase the past and think it’s always going to make billions every year. Moving teams from town to town will only serve to reduce the number of fans.

  46. fmwarner says: Aug 26, 2011 3:37 PM

    saintswillwin says: Aug 26, 2011 3:18 PM

    England is not a continent.

    Just sayin’
    ================================

    No, but last I checked, England is in Europe, which is a continent. And a different one from North America, to boot.

  47. luckynumberlucas says: Aug 26, 2011 3:40 PM

    schmitty2 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:07 PM

    London=bad idea. Beer and hot dogs would be replaced by tea and crumpets
    ——–
    What you ‘Mericans call “beer” isn’t much more than water with some beer flavour…

    Come to Germany or the Czech Rep and have some good beer…

    Cheers!

  48. cbrady2k says: Aug 26, 2011 3:42 PM

    Sorry about my post earlier, I should have read the other comments in here and realized this forum is filled with nothing but the same idiots that listen to sports talk radio and I shouldn’t have wasted my time. I’ll go ahead and deactivate my account now.

  49. ericbruning says: Aug 26, 2011 3:42 PM

    I’ll say it again – If they would just get that darn Tebow on the Jacksonville Jaguars roster they would have no problem selling tickets! How can anyone disagree with that…and how can the Jaguars not see that. Now for Tampa, we aint going… it’s too hot, food/drinks are too expensive and big sexy TV’s are cheap now-a-days! PLUS, I can’t monitor my FANTASY team from the nose bleeds now can I!! =)

  50. Ratpee1 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:43 PM

    Los Angeles Bucs and Los Angeles Raiders.

    I like it!

    Battle of the Pirates.

  51. nineroutsider says: Aug 26, 2011 3:43 PM

    I think a NFL team in Europe is unfeasible due to the travel issues.

    However, clearly Tampa deserves to have no sports team. That fanbase is a joke. The Bucs and the Rays are good clubs that deserve to play in a city that wants to come out and watch them.

    There are a few viable US markets besides LA that the NFL and Bucs should look at. A few games in London is fine, but it shouldn’t have a NFL team, nor should Tampa.

  52. smarterthantheauthor says: Aug 26, 2011 3:53 PM

    nineroutsider: LA is only viable as “leverage” for an existing NFL owner to threaten his current hometown with that he’ll move his current team to LA if the city doesn’t give him X, Y or Z…

    LA has lost 3 NFL teams so why would anyone think that another NFL team there would fare any better?

    As far as Tampa not deserving an NFL team – do you base that on two seasons of non-sellouts or do you base that on your own myopic view of being a hater? Your post has all the hallmarks of being uneducated about the area so I’ll safely assume the latter.

  53. bukes111 says: Aug 26, 2011 3:55 PM

    Just because the Glazers own Manchester, the Bucs aren’t moving to London. And I don’t see the Bucs moving anywhere. for alot of the reasons stated by smarterthantheauthor.

    And I think the first non-US team will probably be Toronto as opposed to London. The new team may have to pay some dues to Buffalo when they move in much like the Nationals did to the Orioles or maybe Buffalo just packs up and just moves there themselves.

    One place I’ve always been curious about is Honolulu. Get rid of the pro-bowl and give them a team. Players would love to play there and I’m sure they can fill the stadium 8-11 times a year.

    If the league ever got to the point where they had franchises in London and Hawaii, they would need atleast two bye weeks a season. And maybe re-work the schedules so teams in the east coast and beyond don’t play teams on the west coast and beyond.

  54. insertrandomletters says: Aug 26, 2011 3:56 PM

    Wouldn’t having a team in London take the “National” out of the National Football League?

  55. EJ says: Aug 26, 2011 3:57 PM

    On the border of Canada is one thing, Mexico is pushing it, but Europe…

    Just plain out asinine.

    NFL fans, it will take too much for Roger Goodell to get this done. I wouldn’t worry.

  56. falconsfan says: Aug 26, 2011 4:02 PM

    If there isn’t a problem selling tickets in Jacksonville, why do they still have tarps over the upper-decks?

    The Bucs moving is ludicrous as is the idea of a team in London.

    NFL soon to be INFL? International Football League.

    No thanks.

  57. theytukrjobs says: Aug 26, 2011 4:03 PM

    The flight to London from the East coast is about 7-8 hours. Reasonable.

    But the time difference is like 6 hours so you’d almost have to play Sunday evening their time for every game. And it would be a rather long flight if you were coming from the West coast.

    The Bucs had an alright team last year and still couldn’t sell out a game. And the team won a superbowl not that long ago so it isn’t like they’ve sucked forever. I’d rather they moved to LA though so my Vikings wouldn’t be on the hook for a stadium.

  58. scudbot says: Aug 26, 2011 4:08 PM

    London is just too stupid an idea even for the Eurodreamers at the NFL. LA’s already been too stupid an idea for three pro football teams but probably isn’t too stupid for the current NFL. Toronto waits in anticipation…

  59. romoscollarbone says: Aug 26, 2011 4:10 PM

    A big stumbling block, would be taxes/healthcare etc. A London based team would have to be headquatered in the US I’m guessing, and those guys granted work visas. Then you’d get into issues with convicted felons getting granted access. Not too long ago Snoop had to cancel a show in London bc he couldn’t get a visa. Would getting Mike Vick over there for a week 6 game be a problem? Who knows?

    I think the London experiment has been cute, but when they play that game down in Mexico City, it draws a crazy amount of fans too. I think the NFL would be wiser, to promote travel packages for European fans, where they could maybe go to like 3 games in a row of their fav team, do a little meet and greet etc. The logistics on playing games 7hrs away from NYC would be immense. You’d ask west coast teams to go on the road for 2 or 3 weeks, to play an East coast team followed up by the London squad. IDK. seems a bit much for American’s game.

  60. jimmylions says: Aug 26, 2011 4:14 PM

    So we’d get 2 teams in LA? Minnesota *and* Tampa? Starting to sound like the old NFC Norris division.

  61. jbniner says: Aug 26, 2011 4:24 PM

    Novel idea on the way…

    The owners of teams who struggle with attendance need to do three simple things to avoid blackouts

    1. Put a product on the field that the fans can enjoy watching.

    2. Charge reasonable ticket prices so that fans can afford to attend the good product being provided. Also, provide reasonably priced consessions that are somewhat edible. I cannot even imagine what the mark-up is on the $8 hockey puck they try to pass off as a hamburger.

    3. If you play in a crappy stadium, get your ass into a new one, and not at the taxpayers expense. Afterall, your poor product and exorbinant prices don’t engender loyalty, especially when you want 7 cents of every dollar to fund your own personal Taj Mahal.

  62. hateonjags says: Aug 26, 2011 4:29 PM

    No way in hell London gets a team, the only reason games in London are sold out is because its ONCE /year and people show up to see something new, only game in the NFL where every jersey is represented in the stands,yes including the Jaguars, Brits love their Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham etc.

  63. rajbais says: Aug 26, 2011 4:44 PM

    I am okay with them in Tampa or Los Angeles.

    I empathize with the economically distraught people in the Tampa/St. Pete area, but there are more economically ravaged cities that have football stadiums packed. Those kinds of cities are showing us that the Bucs’ regional fans are doing them a disservice.

    How could you not blame someone to have a thought for a Los Angeles move???

  64. blackngold4life says: Aug 26, 2011 4:52 PM

    If any country gets a NFL team it will be an expansion team..being a LA resident id take the Bucz over the Jagz and any team over The Raiders…

  65. staffordsyear says: Aug 26, 2011 5:00 PM

    Cmon nfl were moving the vikings remember?..let’s stay focused here.

  66. Richard Dickson says: Aug 26, 2011 5:00 PM

    Oh, and judging the level of Buc fandom in Orlando by saying no local radio stations are carrying their games fails to take into account what a complete disaster Orlando radio is. One of the classic rock stations just got converted into a simulcast of a AM talk station, and the ESPN affiliate gets drowned out by what sounds like a pirate Cuban radio station after dark. Besides, WDAE’s signal is usually strong enough to reach us, so I don’t really need a local station to carry the games.

  67. tbtrojan says: Aug 26, 2011 5:25 PM

    Can we all just give it rest with the idiotic London franchise idea.

    The NFL sells out 1 game a year in London, ONE, and that somehow translates to a franchise being placed there. You throw in another 7 games with the same team each and every time at the same high prices and you’ll see plenty of blackouts there too.
    Fans of all 32 teams spend the money to go to one game a year because it feels like an event, once it becomes a full season people will soon get bored of traveling to London (a place that nobody north of London even likes, how about a game somewhere more central?), getting ripped off, etc.
    Plus those fans of the other 31 teams can’t be relied upon to attend every game so the fanbase would need to be built up almost from scratch. It would be worse than the situation in Tampa.

    Then when you throw in the logistics of a team having to fly all the way over the Atlantic mutiple times just reach their nearest away games (imagine the travel for a London Bucs @ Seattle Seahawks game), draft picks refusing to sign with the Bucs due to location and UK tax.

    A London franchise is more laughable than the idea that Matt “Melted Ice” Ryan is an elite QB.

  68. tjacks7 says: Aug 26, 2011 5:31 PM

    Honestly, they can move the whole league overseas and it wouldn’t bother me. Between $6 hotdogs and $9 beers and how incredible TV has become in both quality of the games and putting every game on TV- I save a boatload of time and money.

  69. theduuuuuuuuuude says: Aug 26, 2011 5:51 PM

    Correct: The Rams were in L.A. for almost 50 years. Typo, my bad.

  70. iplaybingowitholdpeopleandwin says: Aug 26, 2011 5:52 PM

    Cumulatively speaking what’s written below will never happen but is good fodder for speculation:

    London only makes sense if the NFL re-organizes the AFC or NFC East to pull it off. If Buffalo relocates elsewhere, swap their position with whatever franchise sent to London. It’d be cool to have the Pats play the Brits; may even be like an old school college rivalry on geographic location alone.

    Geographically speaking, the NFC East could also bear a European team, wherein Dallas would move to the NFC South. Although it’s doubtful Jerry would go for this, it would make for some interesting games/fan interaction with Washington DC, Philly and NY teams going against a Euro team.

    It could be a real boost in economics and interest across the board since the East conferences host cities with huge population centers. Regardless what the league does,
    there should be 2 teams in Europe for it to be worth while.

  71. marty2019 says: Aug 26, 2011 6:01 PM

    falconsfan says:
    Aug 26, 2011 4:02 PM
    If there isn’t a problem selling tickets in Jacksonville, why do they still have tarps over the upper-decks?

    ======================

    Because without the tarps, the stadium seats 77,000 and that is just too big for most NFL markets. With the tarps, the stadium holds 67,000, and that is still not small for an NFL stadium.

    I don’t know how many times we have to explain this, but I guess we’ll keep doing it, because the tarps aren’t coming off, and the Jags aren’t leaving Jacksonville.

  72. NoHomeTeam says: Aug 26, 2011 7:10 PM

    darthvader89 “I don’t understand how they could fairly play 8 away games while based in London. That would be hell. They’d be constantly jet-lagged. Teams don’t like traveling to the opposite coast much less across an Ocean.”

    Exiled1 says: “ . . . Would they play their first eight in the U.S. and last eight in England. Then wouldn’t that put an advantage to the London based team.”

    The NFL would have to adopt something other than the traditional “Home-Road-Home” game rotation for a London-based team. It might be a little strange, but doing so would eliminate quite a bit of the transatlantic air time. Say the HM Privateers played three games in Wembly Stadium; then flew to Charlotte to play the Panthers. From there, it’s a short hop to Atlanta (probably about a 90 minute flight?) for a game against the Falcons, and then another maybe two-hour flight to New Orleans. Then back to London for another three Home Games. This year the Bucs are scheduled to play the Vikings, the 49ers, the Packers, and the Jaguars for their nondivisional “away” games, so let’s work with that schedule for the sake of this argument. The Privateers take their “Bye” week after the second round of “Home” games, then fly to San Francisco for the 49ers game. Yeah, that’s a really long flight, but that’s why it would coincide with the “Bye.” The team then flies to Minneapolis for the Vikings game, puddle-jumps to Green Bay for the Packers, and finishes out the trip in Jacksonville for the Jaguars. After that, they’re back to London to finish out the season with three more home games.
    My guess is that the team would be flying private or charter for the transatlantic trips, so they could probably shave what would be an 11- or 12-hour trip on a commercial carrier down to about 9 hours. It seems like it would all be fairly workable.

    **************************
    eastsideballa says: “Greed will destroy the NFL, and I cant wait until it goes up in flames just to see these greedy ***** go broke.”

    I suspect that if the NFL “goes up in flames” you will be devastated. There’s too much emotion in your post to think otherwise

    **************************
    buckeye2280 says: “Wouldn’t a move to London cause a huge fight with the NFLPA and trying to move players to Europe. I don’t know about you but I would think a change like that might cause players who don’t wish to move to automatically become FA’s.”

    You presume that there are a significant number of players who would be opposed to playing and/or living in Britain for part of the year. How many players currently reside year-round in the city in which they play home games? Of those that don’t, how many of them are allowed to “fly home” during the season? I seem to recall that Gus Frerotte had an arrangement like that with the Vikings, and that was quite a notable exception to the rule

    **************************
    shackdelrio says: “An NFL team in London would be a total disaster. Players would not want to play there. Coaches would not want to coach there. It would be a failure.”

    And you base this on what, exactly? How many players or coaches have you spoken with about this issue?
    **************************
    schmitty2 says “London=bad idea. Beer and hot dogs would be replaced by tea and crumpets”

    Watery Anheuser-Bush products and hot dogs replaced by superior beer and banger sausages. Seems like a pretty fair trade.

  73. gforce21 says: Aug 26, 2011 7:17 PM

    how about we just leave this as an american game? i already hate the thought of a possible super bowl there let alone team(s) jumping the pond. if the owners and players weren’t so greedy these stadiums would be more full than what they are. granted, fl has 3 teams but we all know money is the driving force here. jax should be the one to move if any from down there. tampa bay and miami are classic teams so i’d hate to see them moved. moving to la seems like a waste because then there’ll be 3 teams there and we all saw how that worked out. my vote goes for somewhere in the plains states, virginia, or canadia.

  74. damayan5 says: Aug 26, 2011 8:03 PM

    The real reason no one brings it up is because the Bucs are legally bound to Tampa until 2026 as part of the Community Investment Tax Agreement.

    A little research does wonders…

  75. blitzburghgator says: Aug 27, 2011 5:44 AM

    @Evilboy

    As of a few days ago, Jacksonville stations were reporting that the Jags still needed to sell 12,000 tickets to avoid a blackout in game one.

    I dont think they are going anywhere either, but get your facts straight….

  76. gcryall says: Aug 27, 2011 8:57 AM

    Move a team to London?? Are you kidding me?? If you think there is too much fan violence now, just wait till they move a team there.

    New term……NFL Hooligans

  77. opie333 says: Aug 27, 2011 10:13 AM

    The LA Yuccaneers! LOL sounds great!

  78. bukes111 says: Aug 27, 2011 10:52 AM

    Well here’s the bottom quartile of average attendance last year. The Jags may not be able to sell out the upper deck, but they outdrew Tampa last year (63k vs 49k in avg attendance).

    RK TEAM GMS TOTAL AVG
    24 Jacksonville8 504,262 63,032
    25 Arizona 8 502,197 62,774
    26 Chicago 8 497,561 62,195
    27 Cincinnati8 482,917 60,364
    28 Minnesota8 470,009 58,751
    29 Detroit 8 450,286 56,285
    30 St. Louis 8 423,383 52,922
    31 Tampa Bay8 394,513 49,314
    32 Oakland 8 371,448 46,431

    ESPN

  79. MichaelEdits says: Aug 27, 2011 12:09 PM

    Please get a clue, people. Tampa supports the Bucs. I lived in Tampa during the creamsickle days. Damn loyal fan base.

  80. machomaniac says: Aug 27, 2011 4:57 PM

    I dunno why people talk London. Teams will move to LA and Toronto first

    The NFL is the only major league not in Toronto n that’s only cuz the CFL n the bills prevented it before

  81. egetto says: Aug 27, 2011 6:30 PM

    Why not spread your crap stories about the “chronic struggle” of the 8 other teams below the jags in avg attendance? Not even adjusting for the small market and this wonderful economy the jags will avg over 60K fans again in a metro area of a little over a million, but your website has created a nation of ignorance about jaguar attendance issues. Couple that with W Weaver continued insistence that the team is going nowhere. Why don’t you write an article about how you have been wrong about Jax, little man?

  82. bucsfan420 says: Aug 28, 2011 2:02 PM

    Check it out folks, of all citys with atleast one profesional sports franchise, the Tampa Bay area has the highest unemployment rate of any of them, Detroit included. I understand that the bad economy is a global/national problem, but if you do not live here you cannot see how our local economy is struggling to provide the bare essentials for the working class. People here are deciding to put clothes on their kids backs, gas in their cars, food in their families mouths and trying to continue paying mortgages rather than spend money at profesional sporting events. The average ticket price to a Bucs game is roughly $110. $15 minimum to park, but as high as $30. I do not need to talk about concessions ,we all know how much you can spend there, but they are optional. So try to bring a family of four to an NFL game for under $600-$700 x eight home games. Tampa loves the Bucs, 2003-04 was an amazing time here and the community has not forgotten what this team means to us, but the last few years of the Chucky era was hard to stomach. It seemed like the Glazers let Jony Boy run this team into the ground with over priced, over rated aging free agents that put this team behind the eightball for several seasons after SB XXXVII. Gruden might know something about offense, but he knows nothing regarding player personel or player relations (see Keyshawn Johnson) So now it seems this team has finally found its franchise quarterback it has saught since drafting the likes of Spurrier, Williams, Testeverde, etc, and found a young head coach that communicates well with this very young team. The national media hates to admit or even think about what this team could potentialy do over the next few seasons, continuing to draft with Mark Dominik’s philosophies and baring injuries to the young- already stars they have in place, this team will be a force to be reckoned with for many seasons to come. Hopefully the economy will start to turn around. When that happens and folks have extra money for leisure activities, RJS will be filled again, just like 1995-2006 with some of the loudest and proudest blue collar fans this side of Pittsburgh.

    PS. We dont use tarps to cover empty seats Jacksonville

  83. egetto says: Aug 28, 2011 2:45 PM

    bucsfan – were you wiping your eyes with a tissue when you wrote this or just drip on your keyboard? Funny, Tampa is much bigger in market size and probably income average, and show up “loud and proud” 49K strong to Jax 63K. Then take a shot at using tarps to pare down a 77K seat stadium to 67K, which is still larger than most small markets. Clown.

  84. bucsfan420 says: Aug 28, 2011 10:52 PM

    You are correct, Tampa is a larger market then Jacksonville. 13 to 47 it means absolutley nothing when the unemployment rate is higher here. Hell, average income might be higher too but that’s only because a small part of our population makes most of the money and those few people can’t fill a 65k stadium every other Sunday…..Don’t forget ego, we have a Superbowl trophy in our case and I promise we are closer to another one then the Jags are.

  85. johnj87 says: Aug 29, 2011 3:45 PM

    Thats str8 BS. Where do y’all get ur info. Y’all Stupid!!!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!