What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Inexorable move toward a new NFL franchise in London? (1 Viewer)

Sammy Traveller

Footballguy
LINK

Goodell expects multiple games in Britain soon

By MATTIAS KAREN, AP Sports Writer 35 minutes ago

LONDON (AP)—NFL commissioner Roger Goodell expects the league to start playing multiple regular-season games in Britain in the next few years—an expansion that could lead to putting a franchise in London.

Goodell said Friday that “every indicator” shows the British market can support more games and that having a franchise here is of “tremendous interest” to the league. But he stopped short of giving a timeline for expanding the NFL’s overseas presence.

“The interest and the enthusiasm for our game continues to grow, and we want to feed that,” Goodell said. “We want to respond to that by hopefully bringing more to the UK.”

Goodell spoke at a sports conference Friday ahead of Sunday’s game between the New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Wembley Stadium. It’s the third year in a row the NFL is staging a regular-season game in London, and the league is now looking into playing at least two games a year in Britain, he said. Aside from London, Manchester and Glasgow, Scotland, are being looked at as potential venues.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I expect that sometime in the next couple of years, we could be playing multiple games here,” Goodell said. “If we brought more than one game here, and it continues to have the same kind of enthusiasm and growth of interest, I think that is about as good of an indicator you can get that it could successfully support a franchise. And that’s what we’re looking at.”

Staging a Super Bowl abroad, however, “is not something that is under active consideration,” Goodell said.

The league is considering expanding the regular season to 17 or 18 games, with a possibility for every team to play one game abroad. Patriots owner Robert Kraft said if the league wants more of the current franchises to travel internationally for games, the regular season should be extended so that teams can keep the same number of home games. The Bucs are giving up a home game this season.

“I’m not sure our fans would appreciate us giving up a regular-season (home) game, and I know I wouldn’t like to do that. But eventually I think there’s a chance of that if we expand the schedule,” Kraft said.

Kraft said placing an NFL team in London “would be the right thing to do some time in the next decade.”

Goodell said he would prefer a potential London-based team was a completely new franchise, rather than moving one from an existing market.

“We would like to keep all our teams where they are,” he said.

Patriots quarterback Tom Brady(notes) didn’t sound too enthusiastic about playing for a team based in Europe.

“That would be challenging,” Brady said. “But I don’t see that happening any time soon.”

The league is also eyeing having a team in Los Angeles again, especially after California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill this week allowing the construction of a 75,000-seat stadium that developers hope will lure an NFL team back to the Los Angeles area.

“I think there are some positive developments going on there,” Goodell said. “But now we have to figure out how to pay for it. And in our economic system, that is a big challenge. It’s at least an $800 million stadium.”

He would not venture a guess as to what would come first, a team in London or Los Angeles.

“I don’t know about the timing as far as the sequence,” he said. “I would tell you that both markets are of tremendous interest to us.”
Poor move to set up a team in London. Remember the Montreal Expos?And the Phoenix Coyotes?

Putting a football team in a city that doesn't have a natural football market (of the American football kind) is going to ruin the NFL.

I've always thought 32 was a perfect number of teams. Why expand more? If a team is set up in London, this is an experiment that's going to end disastrously.

 
it's a nice novelty now but setting up shop in Europe just makes no sense. I can understand the desire of the money hungry NFL to get people outside of the US to like the sport as much as Americans but it ain't happenin.

 
West Coast teams are going to love having to travel to London. And London will love having to travel to the West Coast.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They should just do what they did with GB back in the day to get Milwaukee fans involved - have "New" England play one home game in London each year. Push them to have a rooting interest without ruining the league.

 
not a big fan of the idea. it would be hell for the players/coaches/staff on the London team, what with travel and departure from all the conveniences of being located in the US. plus, like the OP said, the current 32 team setup is perfect for the league.

I think Goodell should focus on the cities here that could support a team first. Los Angeles, San Antonio, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, etc.

plus, wouldn't it be the "International Football League" then? that doesn't really have a nice ring to it.

 
I think the travel issues can be taken care of with creative schedule.

They could schedule their season in blocks of three: four road games to start the season (all on the east/west coast); eight home games (and a bye) in the middle; four road games to end the season (all on the east/west coast).

Let's say the NFL added a team in LA and one in London. That would mean 17 teams per conference. They could realign the divisions as follows:

AFC East - Jets/Bills/Pats/Dolphins/London

AFC Central - Steelers/Ravens/Browns/Bengals/Colts/Jaguars

AFC West - Chiefs/Raiders/Broncos/Chargers/Texans

They could have the London team face a schedule that looks like:

@NYJ

@Buffalo

@Philly

@Washington

vs. NYJ

vs. BUF

vs. NE

vs. Mia

vs. Pittsburgh

vs. Dallas

vs. NYG

vs. Oakland

@Miami

@NE

@Kansas City

@San Diego

That would involve minimal travel. It would also allow teams that play in London to have a bye week immediately following their game against that franchise.

 
I really hope they would come to Toronto first before England. Come on Goodell have you been talking to Gary Bettmen or something?

 
West Coast teams are going to love having to travel to London. And London will love having to travel to the West Coast.
That will rarely (but not never) happen.IMO, any West Coast teams who have a road game in London will likely have it sandwiched between a road game on the East Coast and their BYE week.The only problems you'd have with that would be games in London where there is no BYE week either before or after the game for the visiting team, so maybe they'd be on the road for three weeks, something like West Coast home game, East Coast, London, East Coast, West Coast Home game...
 
The product should speak for itself. If it is good enough, consumers will demand a local franchise. If it is not good enough, the league will make poor decisions only for the sake of making money, not for improving the product. Isn't this sort of how the USFL failed? They started with what a lot of people thought was a better product than the NFL but they got greedy and expanded beyond what they were capable of.

I can see the NFL making itself irrelevant by trying to grow larger than 32 teams. We already have several franchises that are a joke, imagine if the talent pool is thinned even more. I really don't think there is enough supply of the expected quality players in today's NFL to support more teams, even for only 1 more team.

 
Expansion...Europe..... :confused: Besides the obvious horrid travel issues, let's just talk about the fact that right now, the NFL can't even field 32 quality teams. There are 3 0-6 teams and a good chance 2 of them don't win a game this year. Cleveland should be 0-fer except for inept Buffalo. Plenty of totally inept 1-5 teams too. Washingto is only 2-4 because tehy got to play the 0-fer schedule.

Where will the quality come from to support expansion?

 
shredhead said:
bicycle_seat_sniffer said:
expand by one? Or add LA and London to the league. 34 teams!
Or better yet cut 2 of the existing teams. The league was best with six 5 team divisions.
it's easier to expand than to contract.that's why expansion is going to be a disaster.focus on the product and improve it. the old truism: "less is more" rings true.
 
Chase Stuart said:
Let's say the NFL added a team in LA and one in London. That would mean 17 teams per conference. They could realign the divisions as follows:AFC East - Jets/Bills/Pats/Dolphins/LondonAFC Central - Steelers/Ravens/Browns/Bengals/Colts/JaguarsAFC West - Chiefs/Raiders/Broncos/Chargers/Texans
but is it fair if the conference/division setup isn't equally divisible by the number of teams? should 1 team have to better the record of 4 other teams to win a division when another team has to be better than 5 teams?
 
This would be such a colossal mistake. If NFL fans here were polled on whether they are in favor of this, it would be about 95-5 against. The league has 32 franchises playing 16 games each in 8 divisions of 4 teams each. Perfect symmetry that they're going to screw up by adding more teams and/or games.

Plus, humoring the commish for a sec about Euro expansion, why is it that London is always the city where this will happen? The Monarchs (and, ultimately, the Scottish Claymores) were a failure in NFL Europe. Meanwhile, Germany supported FIVE teams until the league folded (Berlin, Frankfurt, Cologne, Hamburg, Rhein Fire) - why don't they get the expansion team?

 
Chase Stuart said:
Let's say the NFL added a team in LA and one in London. That would mean 17 teams per conference. They could realign the divisions as follows:AFC East - Jets/Bills/Pats/Dolphins/LondonAFC Central - Steelers/Ravens/Browns/Bengals/Colts/JaguarsAFC West - Chiefs/Raiders/Broncos/Chargers/Texans
but is it fair if the conference/division setup isn't equally divisible by the number of teams? should 1 team have to better the record of 4 other teams to win a division when another team has to be better than 5 teams?
I'm not a fan of expanding to London and I like the even divisions, but an uneven number of teams per division has been the case far more often than not since 1970. Only 12 of the 40 seasons played from 1970-2009 have featured "even" divisions, from 1995-1998 and from 2002-2009.
 
Chase Stuart said:
I think the travel issues can be taken care of with creative schedule.They could schedule their season in blocks of three: four road games to start the season (all on the east/west coast); eight home games (and a bye) in the middle; four road games to end the season (all on the east/west coast).Let's say the NFL added a team in LA and one in London. That would mean 17 teams per conference. They could realign the divisions as follows:AFC East - Jets/Bills/Pats/Dolphins/LondonAFC Central - Steelers/Ravens/Browns/Bengals/Colts/JaguarsAFC West - Chiefs/Raiders/Broncos/Chargers/TexansThey could have the London team face a schedule that looks like:@NYJ@Buffalo@Philly@Washingtonvs. NYJvs. BUFvs. NEvs. Miavs. Pittsburghvs. Dallasvs. NYGvs. Oakland@Miami@NE@Kansas City @San DiegoThat would involve minimal travel. It would also allow teams that play in London to have a bye week immediately following their game against that franchise.
Good example of creative thinking here, Chase. But I still think it would be a tremendous advantage to have every visiting team travel across five time zones to play the London Goodells, especially when your team can be at home for a month or longer. Huge competitive advantage. There has been a lot of whining in recent seasons about the plight of AFC/NFC West teams playing games in the Eastern time zone at 1 pm. I agree that it is a disadvantage to play at what is normally 10 am or 11 am local time, but it's more than just the start time that factors into performance. Travel in general is tiring and for me at least it is always more difficult traveling east as far as jet lag is concerned. After several trips to Europe, I eventually learned how to minimize its impact on my job performance, but it still left me feeling more tired than normal.Anyway, let's say that somehow a plan somewhat similar to yours is enacted for the regular season and teams adjust to the travel during the regular season. How's it going to work when the London Goodells are the #3 or #4 seed in the playoffs (assuming same as current playoff structure)? They host the wild card game, then travel to San Diego or San Francisco, depending on conference to play the #1 or #2 seed in the divisional round. If somehow they win that game (across eight time zones), conceivably they could then host the conference championship game against the #5 or #6 seed (think PHIL/ATL in 2008).How's that travel schedule?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the two biggest issues would be the timing of the games and the residency of the players, but couldn't those issues be resolved?

The duration of the flight isn't a deal breaker IMO. I'm sure they wouldn't be preferred, but spending a few hours on Thursday morning to do a non-stop, 1st class flight to/from London wouldn't be much of a disadvantage by Sunday. The big thing with west coast teams traveling east is the time of the game. If feels like 9 in the morning to those guys and the body doesn't peek until a few hours later in the day. If the games were played on Sunday Nights in London, the games would occur along with the regular noon games.

The residency issue is pretty tricky. It'd be a disadvantage in free agency and signing draft picks. the tax and financial issues would be a problem as well. But what if the team was based out of New Jersey and only played the games in London? The team headquarters, practice facilities, weight training, and training camp could all be done on the eastern seaboard. It would offset alot of the travel disadvantages A separte complex could be created in London for use during the week of the 10 home games. The players would have to spend 10 weekends in London year, but that beats being forced to live there.

I haven't really thought any of this all the way through and I don't think there's any need to force the issue, but I think there are some solutions to the biggest complications. And I admit, an eventual world-wide football league would be a pretty incredible thing if the sports popularity continues to grow and the means of travel continue to improve.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think the two biggest issues would be the timing of the games and the residency of the players, but couldn't those issues be resolved?

The duration of the flight isn't a deal breaker IMO. I'm sure they wouldn't be preferred, but spending a few hours on Thursday morning to do a non-stop, 1st class flight to/from London wouldn't be much of a disadvantage by Sunday. The big thing with west coast teams traveling east is the time of the game. If feels like 9 in the morning to those guys and the body doesn't peek until a few hours later in the day. If the games were played on Sunday Nights in London, the games would occur along with the regular noon games.

The residency issue is pretty tricky. It'd be a disadvantage in free agency and signing draft picks. the tax and financial issues would be a problem as well. But what if the team was based out of New Jersey and only played the games in London? The team headquarters, practice facilities, weight training, and training camp could all be done on the eastern seaboard. It would offset alot of the travel disadvantages A separte complex could be created in London for use during the week of the 10 home games. The players would have to spend 10 weekends in London year, but that beats being forced to live there.

I haven't really thought any of this all the way through and I don't think there's any need to force the issue, but I think there are some solutions to the biggest complications. And I admit, an eventual world-wide football league would be a pretty incredible thing if the sports popularity continues to grow and the means of travel continue to improve.
So New Jersey is a preferable place to live to London these days, eh?
 
They aren't going to put a team there. They just want to play more games there so as to show Europe what professional football looks like. When that gains popularity they might bring back NFL Europe. There is no way a professional team is going to be that far away. Not happening. The Bills might move to Toronto. There is your international team. Mexico is far too dangerous and unstable to put a team there.

 
I think the two biggest issues would be the timing of the games and the residency of the players, but couldn't those issues be resolved?

The duration of the flight isn't a deal breaker IMO. I'm sure they wouldn't be preferred, but spending a few hours on Thursday morning to do a non-stop, 1st class flight to/from London wouldn't be much of a disadvantage by Sunday. The big thing with west coast teams traveling east is the time of the game. If feels like 9 in the morning to those guys and the body doesn't peek until a few hours later in the day. If the games were played on Sunday Nights in London, the games would occur along with the regular noon games.

The residency issue is pretty tricky. It'd be a disadvantage in free agency and signing draft picks. the tax and financial issues would be a problem as well. But what if the team was based out of New Jersey and only played the games in London? The team headquarters, practice facilities, weight training, and training camp could all be done on the eastern seaboard. It would offset alot of the travel disadvantages A separte complex could be created in London for use during the week of the 10 home games. The players would have to spend 10 weekends in London year, but that beats being forced to live there.

I haven't really thought any of this all the way through and I don't think there's any need to force the issue, but I think there are some solutions to the biggest complications. And I admit, an eventual world-wide football league would be a pretty incredible thing if the sports popularity continues to grow and the means of travel continue to improve.
So New Jersey is a preferable place to live to London these days, eh?
It is when your family and friends all live there.
 
Chase Stuart said:
AFC East - Jets/Bills/Pats/Dolphins/LondonAFC Central - Steelers/Ravens/Browns/Bengals/Colts/JaguarsAFC West - Chiefs/Raiders/Broncos/Chargers/Texans
Titans?
Would most likely be complete realignment with AFC/NFC lines being blurred. Northeast: New England/NYJets/Buffalo/NYGiants/London/PhiladelphiaNorth: Vikings/Green Bay/ Detroit/Cleveland/Pittsburgh/ChicagoSoutheast: Carolina/Atlanta/Jacksonville/Tampa Bay/MiamiSouth: New Orleans/Dallas/Houston/Kansas City/St. Louis/TennesseeWest: Oakland/San Fransisco/Arizona/San Diego/Seattle/LA(maybe)Central: Indianapolis/Cincinatti/Baltimore/Denver/WashingtonBest I could come up with but kind of works out. Lose a lot of rivalries though.
 
Goodell has turned into some #######. The London game is horrible and he is basically trying to ruin the draft.

Get him out

 
They aren't going to put a team there. They just want to play more games there so as to show Europe what professional football looks like. When that gains popularity they might bring back NFL Europe. There is no way a professional team is going to be that far away. Not happening. The Bills might move to Toronto. There is your international team. Mexico is far too dangerous and unstable to put a team there.
This is a fairly over-the-top statement. Don't get caught up in the media hype. Mexico has ~10-11 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. The United States has ~5.8 homicides per 100,000 residents. But, many U.S. cities have considerably more than 10-11. Here's a list of U.S. cities with football teams with higher homicide per capita than Mexico:

Detroit

Baltimore

St. Louis

Washington

Philadelphia

Oakland

Atlanta

Cleveland

Buffalo

Miami

Milwaukee

Cincinnatti

Houston

Pittsburgh

Dallas

Chicago

Jacksonville

Phoenix

san Fransisco

Indianapolis

Minneapolis

Nashville

By your rationale, more than 2/3 of the NFL teams would be better off by relocating to Mexico.

Also, when expanding to all crime, not just homicide, the U.S. leapfrogs Mexico and is #8 per capita in the world; Mexico is 39th.

 
Goodell has turned into some #######. The London game is horrible and he is basically trying to ruin the draft.Get him out
pretty harsh words. but yes, you got the sentiment right. Goodell is damaging Tagliabue's legacy. Wish Tagliabue could stay on.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top