WHAT ARE YOU DOING TODAY - WAYDT (PICS)
-
I think the end game of having teams several time zones away (IN Europe) is ridiculous.
-
Europe has so many sports as it is. The NFL should keep it to exibition games IMO.
-
I think the end game of having teams several time zones away (IN Europe) is ridiculous.
Gotta agree, i think doing what they are doing is a good thing though and certainly a audience for it here. The national football (soccer) team can't even fill Wembley these days yet NFL was sold out.
-
Yeah. I enjoyed having a game that early and seeing the enthusiasm. But one team in London for example means teams have to make intercontinental flights at least 8 times a season.
-
New York to London is 7 hours. DC to London is 8 hours. Miami to London is 8.5 hours.
New York, DC, and Miami to Seattle is 5.5-6 hours.
This isn't a huge difference on a large, privately-chartered jet.
Next season, there will be 5 games played in London, which means 10 teams will make that trip. If there were a permanent team in London, 9 teams would make the trip (although the London team would make it 8 times).
I truly believe that there will be a London team in the next 5 years. The NFL is the healthiest (from a financial perspective) organization in American professional sports. I think the owners see international expansion as the only way for their profits to continue to steadily grow.
-
It IS a huge difference though, because it effectively doubles the worst-case travel scenario. Seattle to Miami is 6 hours. San Diego to London is about 11 hours. Seattle to London is 10 hours. Those are significant differences and would place the road team at a huge disadvantage not just due to air time, but due to offset and how early they'd have to play, how it would mess up practice, etc. And it would be far worse going east than going west, but bad either way.
In exhibition games, both teams suffer these disadvantages. Not so if there's a London team.
-
I agree the travel would be very tough for west coast teams, and I don't discount the effect travel has on a team, in general. A lot is made of how much the travel effects teams when they visit Seattle.
There are more than enough teams on the east coast to schedule a full slate of away games in London, however. I admit London would have an advantage at home, but they would also have that same disadvantage when they play on the road.
They would just be another team to add to the "split personality" home/away list (who dats, hawks).
To me, the evidence is impossible to ignore. You don't start with one game in London, and eventually expand to five, unless you are trying to test the feasibility of a permanent home base there. The NFL is not a tradition-based sport. It moves quickly, and changes year-over-year. They aren't always successful, but their flexibility is a large component of their business model.
Imagine the additional revenue of expanding your TV contract to a new country? I'm willing to bet those $$$ are impossible to ignore for the 32 current owners.
Also, remember that the Buffalo Bills just sold for $1.4 billion, in a small market. I can't even imagine what an expansion team in London would sell for. A new team there would create a Ballmer/Clippers effect, that would instantly increase the value of every team in the league.
-
I'm not sure if England thirsts for American football that much–how much of the appeal is based on its novelty? Would it "get old" after a while? Remember that has happened not once but twice in one of America's largest sports markets (LA).
Traveling TO Seattle (aside from the 12th man stuff) isn't the worst, it's going West to East that's really hard. You're gaining hours going the other way. And going all the way to England would really suck, especially for afternoon games.
I don't disagree that this is the NFL's long game, I just disagree that it should be, particularly since it would most likely not be expansive, but a relocation of an American team offshore.
-
@mclaincausey sorry for the late reply. I was distracted and lost my place with this debate.
Mods, please feel free to move the last few posts (and this one) to the NFL Football thread.
mcl, I can't disagree with your points. I think most of us remember how NFL Europe faired. To my knowledge, Germany was the only European nation that actually maintained mediocre attendance for that league. I think your argument that the current games in London being a novelty is reasonable. I can't confidently argue that there is an appetite for the sport in that region. The endorsement of local government is one thing, but fans continuing to spend their hard-earned pay, week after week, is another.
I am also curious to know how much attendance in London actually matters to the NFL's long-term plan. I suspect the prime UK airtime is what they are really after. If the NFL can attract decent ratings, that might be all they really want. I think that's what the league is gauging by continuing to export more games there every year.
As a fan of the sport and the league, I am actually quite excited to see the sport grow globally. Every year, college coaches take trips all over the world to expand the reach of the game. Japan is actually one of the nations that has shown strong (relative to zero) interest.
I admit that I may be too idealistic in thinking that a global league would be great for fans, and great for the sport; but I think the league is strong enough to take these chances, and recede back to the status quo if they fail.
I mean, come on, a Green Bay, Wisconsin versus London, England Super Bowl doesn't sound exciting to you?
-
-
Can't beat a 99 and pumpkin carvin'. Enjoy!
-
My day feels like
-
Apologies for the offensive picture above, it was meant to be a gif which was 10x more disturbing.
-
What is that from?
-
Ahh fuck that's were I have seen it Cronenberg has always been a sick fucker
-
My friends wife told us that we could do what we wanted with their yard, so we're building a darts and pool room, and micro brewery.
::)
