Which Division would a London team go in?

[BringBackThatOleTimeBoys]

The AFC East would have the shortest road trips, as everyone is on the East Coast. The NFC East might be the 2nd best....that brings a point. Tex Schram intentionally put Dallas in with media centers like Washington, NYC, Philadelphia. Add London to that.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The AFC East would have the shortest road trips, as everyone is on the East Coast. The NFC East might be the 2nd best....that brings a point. Tex Schram intentionally put Dallas in with media centers like Washington, NYC, Philadelphia. Add London to that.

Don't really see it as an option. I would think that it would have to be a Division that was created from all Euro teams.

 

[BringBackThatOleTimeBoys]

^ That would be the best solution, but the talk so far seems to be start in London, then wait for the rest of Europe to follow.

The logistics of road games that span eight time zones is not only challenging for the teams, but for the fans - how do you find a viewing time suitable for both cities?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

^ That would be the best solution, but the talk so far seems to be start in London, then wait for the rest of Europe to follow.

The logistics of road games that span eight time zones is not only challenging for the teams, but for the fans - how do you find a viewing time suitable for both cities?

I could see a tape delay situation on Monday Night or NFL network. That's about the only way it would work I think.

 

[Rogah]

Any team based in London would be abysmal from a competitive standpoint. This is too grueling of a sport for every road trip to be 5,000 miles on average - and the people who think that simply scheduling long road trips (like a 3 game road trip so they spend those weeks entirely in the U.S.) so they don't have to go back and forth across the pond so often are clueless. There is a reason every team gets a bye week after their London game, but there's only 1 bye week so a London based team would be totally screwed.

Also, no players would want to go to London so they would have to overpay for each and every free agent.

Any franchise in London would be a total joke from a competitive standpoint. I almost hope it happens so that the NFL will look like the fools they are for ever thinking of this in the first place.

 

[BringBackThatOleTimeBoys]

The NBA is also looking at European expansion.

Al Davis complained about playing four time zones east - don't have the article, but West Coast teams took a hit playing on the East Coast.

Maybe a Belichick could figure out a way to deal with such jet lag, but again the fans are going to be in a pickle

Say, Seattle @ London at 8pm will be noon on the West Coast.

Money is driving this - the US market is mature, so export the NFL to other countries. Easier said than done.

 

[FootballFan1]

Any team based in London would be abysmal from a competitive standpoint. This is too grueling of a sport for every road trip to be 5,000 miles on average - and the people who think that simply scheduling long road trips (like a 3 game road trip so they spend those weeks entirely in the U.S.) so they don't have to go back and forth across the pond so often are clueless. There is a reason every team gets a bye week after their London game, but there's only 1 bye week so a London based team would be totally screwed.

Also, no players would want to go to London so they would have to overpay for each and every free agent.

Any franchise in London would be a total joke from a competitive standpoint. I almost hope it happens so that the NFL will look like the fools they are for ever thinking of this in the first place.

I agree with your post 100%. This is just ridiculous and I simply do not understand it. One game a year, even that I do not like - get rid of this whole "project" to earn more revenue. Imagine any team in a division that has a London based team. That would be a game a year in London, and a London based team would have to go to the US eight times a year for just regular games. Anyone hear of jet lag - it is real.

Goodell is losing it. And soccer is "the" game in England and Europe, not US football. So they can fill a stadium for one game a year - how about for the year?? This whole discussion and thought is utter nonsense.

As it is said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Goodell seems he has to continually change the game to the determent of the game. All these rule changes, and more injuries. And the list goes on.

 

[daschoo]

Goodell is losing it. And soccer is "the" game in England and Europe, not US football. So they can fill a stadium for one game a year - how about for the year?? This whole discussion and thought is utter nonsense.
.

The whole thing with filling Wembley 3 times this coming year is fairly irrelevant in my opinion. A lot of folk will be going to these games because of the novelty of having an NFL game. Push that to 8 games a year and you'll struggle to fill it.
I'm flying down this season for the Dallas game because it's Dallas. That illustrates the second reason I don't think a London team would be a success. People over here who follow the sport already have a team, I'm not going to stop following Dallas just because they give London a team and I would imagine mostpeople would have a similar sentiment towards their team.
That leaves your pool of "customers" to fill a 90,000 seater stadium 8 times a year with the cheapest seats at around $70 being, casual fans there for the novelty, fans who've turned their back on their original team and fans of the visiting team. I'm less than convinced that's a recipe for long term success and that's before you start taking into account how competitive the team would be (or the fact they'd probably be called the London Royals or something hideous like that).

 

[casmith07]

Put a farm team there. Start the NFDL.

 

[Nomad]

The simplest way would be for the Jaguars to move to London and be in the AFC East, and then move Miami to the AFC South where Jacksonville was. That sets it up where London has a rivalry with New England New York and Buffalo (who will probably eventually be Toronto).

But I don't think they should do it and I really don't like the idea. I also really don't want them to add any new franchises 32 is perfect with 4 4-team divisions.

 

[FootballFan1]

The simplest way would be for the Jaguars to move to London and be in the AFC East, and then move Miami to the AFC South where Jacksonville was. That sets it up where London has a rivalry with New England New York and Buffalo (who will probably eventually be Toronto).

But I don't think they should do it and I really don't like the idea. I also really don't want them to add any new franchises 32 is perfect with 4 4-team divisions.

Good point about the division imbalance, if they add a team. That would create some problems, and in particular with the schedule and playoffs. Maybe Goodell thinks he can add a team from London for every division. LOL, now that would be a disaster. Would probably ruin football as we know it. I would not put anything past this guy - me, I want him GONE before he destroys a game many of us really enjoy. I know Goodell is also thinking about changing how teams make the playoffs - better record, versus just a division winner. But a better record in what division? Some divisions are stronger than others, we all know that. For example, the Pats get a break being in a weak division, but their record would still be better. Does that make them a better team than San Francisco?? Leave it alone Goodell. Teams change yearly, and new teams arrive as winners - Seattle comes to mind. Again, if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it. The cap is always an issue - at least that is going up next year when they increase the cap - something good for the players and teams trying to keep players they want - not lose them to the cap.

As far as putting the Jaquars in London in the AFC East - well, I would prefer we play the Jags over Miami (as a Pats fan), but not at the expense of having to go to London once a year. Plus we have a good rivalry with Miami, and enjoy the games. And the owner of the Jags may have something to say about that, like I want some guaranteed money from the league if they made the move - that would go over well, NOT.

I hope this thought all goes away, and soon. The 18 games a year that Goodell wanted, that went away, now it is time for this to go away. Another dumb idea - teams can barely field a team toward the end of the season with all the injuries. And that impacts the playoffs.

Sorry, I have a very strong opinion on this whole issue with what Goodell is doing, or trying to do. Time for him to GO.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

The idea is just a money grab. And a dumb one at that.

 

[MonsterD]

If they ever make the hyperloop, then it would be a 5 hour trip between here and the U.K. Of course that is at least 100 years off in the future.

 

[landroverking]

AFC east is the only option without major realinement.

 

[burmafrd]

Good point about the division imbalance, if they add a team. That would create some problems, and in particular with the schedule and playoffs. Maybe Goodell thinks he can add a team from London for every division. LOL, now that would be a disaster. Would probably ruin football as we know it. I would not put anything past this guy - me, I want him GONE before he destroys a game many of us really enjoy. I know Goodell is also thinking about changing how teams make the playoffs - better record, versus just a division winner. But a better record in what division? Some divisions are stronger than others, we all know that. For example, the Pats get a break being in a weak division, but their record would still be better. Does that make them a better team than San Francisco?? Leave it alone Goodell. Teams change yearly, and new teams arrive as winners - Seattle comes to mind. Again, if it ain't broke, don't "fix" it. The cap is always an issue - at least that is going up next year when they increase the cap - something good for the players and teams trying to keep players they want - not lose them to the cap.

As far as putting the Jaquars in London in the AFC East - well, I would prefer we play the Jags over Miami (as a Pats fan), but not at the expense of having to go to London once a year. Plus we have a good rivalry with Miami, and enjoy the games. And the owner of the Jags may have something to say about that, like I want some guaranteed money from the league if they made the move - that would go over well, NOT.

I hope this thought all goes away, and soon. The 18 games a year that Goodell wanted, that went away, now it is time for this to go away. Another dumb idea - teams can barely field a team toward the end of the season with all the injuries. And that impacts the playoffs.

Sorry, I have a very strong opinion on this whole issue with what Goodell is doing, or trying to do. Time for him to GO.

amazing how many gomers here do not get it: Goodell does not wipe his rear end without orders from the owners.

This is coming from the OWNERS. Just cannot believe how many are not smart enough to figure this out.

 

[BringBackThatOleTimeBoys]

The idea is just a money grab. And a dumb one at that.

Yes, it's all about money - The US market is saturated.

 

[FootballFan1]

amazing how many gomers here do not get it: Goodell does not wipe his rear end without orders from the owners.

This is coming from the OWNERS. Just cannot believe how many are not smart enough to figure this out.

Part of what you say is true, but it is being driven by Goodell. Otherwise, why not the 18 game schedule - the owners most likely put up some resistance. Revenue is the key, and some teams have a tough time filling their stadiums even with a 16 game schedule. Plus the injury issues. I know with the cost of the Pats tickets, it would scare some season ticket holders off - 18 games. The prices are already off the wall, and only people with money to burn can really afford good seats. How many people can afford to go to a game and pay $245 a seat, plus the parking, and food and drinks?? Yes, they changed the way tickets are priced, but still managed to raise prices. They are already OVERPRICED. But they fill the stadium every year and have a 99% renewal rate, but if they keep raising ticket prices, and after Brady and Belichick retires, how long will that last??? And in particular if they have a losing record and are no longer competitive. If my memory serves me correctly, your team has even higher prices - the highest in the league. Yes, I do think the owners were involved with that decision, and shut it down. But remember there are 32 owners, and they are not all going to agree.

As far as the rule changes, I think Goodell played the major role, not the owners. Plus the whole referee situation - it was ugly for a while with some of the calls being made as they tried to adjust to some of the changes. So yes, the owners are involved, but not the driving force. And this idea with a London team, I honestly think this will go away. What benefit does a team have if they cannot fill a stadium and have to travel to the US more than 8 times a year - and other division teams have to travel to London every year. And it is not just the time of the flight - for me it was 6 hours out of Boston, but what really does you in is the time change. It is a killer - you leave in the afternoon and show up right before morning. It does you in. I know I slept the next day just to adjust. And that was after sleeping on most of the flight. Jet lag is real, and the time change for me was the hardest.

So bottom line, to me Goodell is a negative as the commissioner and I think he needs to go. But you are correct the owners are involved, and I am sure are always looking toward more revenue. But a London based team is not going to achieve that. How exactly is that going to happen?? In order to get more money they need a better TV contract (which they already have), higher ticket prices (what good does that do for teams that cannot fill their stadium), more games (not going to happen), what else am I missing?? $10 for a hot dog and $15 for a beer?? You tell me. But to say that the owners are driving all of this is simply not accurate. But yes, they are involved. I do like the idea of raising the cap, that is fair to the players - and they are the ones that are out there playing the game.

 

[burmafrd]

only proof you have is your hatred of Goodell. Show evidence that this is not coming from the Owners. Guess what? You have squat.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

Jerry said he's all for it. That let's me know right there it's about money.

 

[FootballFan1]

only proof you have is your hatred of Goodell. Show evidence that this is not coming from the Owners. Guess what? You have squat.

Was going to let this go, but one comment. I do not hate Goodell. Hate is a very strong word, and one I would not use for something like football. Not that football is not important, it is something many of us enjoy. I just think he is bad for the game, and do not like him or want him as the commissioner. He is always thinking he has to continually change the game, and to me many of those thoughts turn out to be negatives for the game. Don't "fix" what is not broken.

Obviously the owners have something to say about what goes on - where we differ is the extent of that influence. We have 32 owners, and you are never going to get 32 owners to agree on anything. And in particular many powerful and wealthy people. Check out this article, they are not suffering. http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/the-top-7-richest-nfl-team-owners.html/?a=viewall

Better to just let this go and see where it all plays out. I am strongly opposed to any team in London or Europe. And do not see in any possible scenario where that would bring more revenue long term to the NFL.

This will go away.