A message to the NFL

[Justice]

I agree, you will notice an immediate drop off in talent in the beginning, but over time it will no longer be noticeable.

 

What you gain (not losing the Bills) far outweighs the negatives.

[Rivermont Mike]

I like it, BUT...The 32 want LA, Toronto, and London because they see potential for more lucrative sponsorships and the ability to up the $$ for the TV deals by replacing weaker markets. Not sure how willing they'll be to cut in four more owners while keeping the lower-revenue teams.

 

Still think your intraconference focus is spot on.

[GunnerBill]

Not to mention, there would be like 5,000 fans total at those home games if the franchise wasn't immediately championship-caliber. They have their own football.

 

I'm sorry but that bit just isn't true. I don't sit here to make an argument for a London franchise. I, like everyone else, think the logistics are just too unworkable, and ultimately I'm not sure it will ever happen. However, that is not because there is not the interest. I don't think people over there in the States realise how significant the interest in the United Kingdom and in Northern Europe in general. American Football was as of last year the fastest growing sport in the UK and the interest levels in the NFL are at an all time high.

 

Three games in 2014 and the season tickets (tickets to all 3 games) have already sold out, the tickets held back for "single game sales" go on sale in January and for the two games last year were gone within 3 days. I think the NFL will want to do 3 games for a couple of years and then try 4. That's basically half a regular season and if the games continue to sell at record rates then they will try to push the project ahead. Fans from all over northern Europe flock into London for the games here - from Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia and if there wear a team based here these fans would still pick their games and come.

 

As for us having "our own football". I don't think that is an issue. Our football is played primarily on Saturdays, the NFL is played on Sundays there isn't a significant clashing problem. Some people like myself are huge fans of both, there are plenty of NFL fans who don't like soccer but like rugby and the NFL. The bigger issue for me in terms of making a London franchise viable is not getting UK fans to stop watching soccer but getting them to ditch their own NFL teams and follow a London based team. I wouldn't stop following the Bills to become a London fan, the only circumstances in which I'd support the London team is if the Bills move out of Buffalo and stop being the Bills. My friends all feel the same. They are Patriots fans or 9ers fans or Jets fans or Dolphins fans or Rams fans.... they are not going to ditch those teams to support the London team, although they would go to the London games. Therefore what I think you would find would be a London team that had little "homefield advantage" as they would play in front of essentially a neutral fan base most weeks... and at worst when they played the Pats, the Dolphins and the 49ers in particular they would feel like the visiting team.

 

Like I say, I'm not arguing for a London team, nor do I think it will happen but I think the concern about supporter numbers is not valid. As for extra teams diluting the quality of players.... maybe the growth of the game into Europe is a possible antidote for that problem as more and more quality young guys from Europe move over to America to try and make a go of it. That's already happening and I think that trend is only going to increase in the next few years. If the NFL's desire with the London games was to accelerate the games growth in Europe it is working. No question at all about that. 12 years ago when I started following the NFL I knew a handful of other NFL fans. Now I know a lot more.

[NoSaint]

I agree, you will notice an immediate drop off in talent in the beginning, but over time it will no longer be noticeable.

 

What you gain (not losing the Bills) far outweighs the negatives.

 

"You'll get used to watching lesser players matchup and it'll still be fun so who cares"

[Santana]

I think the Idea is good, I can't really hate on it but lets be honest. LA and football just do not go together. It's not a football town at all and IMO that's one of the main problems they have in moving a franchise there. Toronto, I really really do not see that working out at all. I would have to think that the Buffalo series there ruined that whole idea. London would be a very tricky ordeal as well. Especially how the NLF would have to take into consideration that in England they use the Euro and the Pound which are both higher (about 30-40 cents) than the US Dollar. That means the cost of living over there wouldn't equal out on a normal pay scale like it would here in the states. Players would have to be payed a lot higher to play and live there. Another thing to think about is players safety in a foreign country. I can't say for sure somethin would happen but we have to keep it 100, you just never ever know. The players would also have easy access to any surrounding country. I know they have enough money to travel anywhere now but it's not as tempting during the season. Just a few thoughts. GO BILLS!!!

[Prickly Pete]

Gotta have inter-conference play. It keeps the whole league interesting, and I want to see my team compete against all the great players out there. 2 separate leagues is awful, and destroys the cohesiveness of the league.

 

I think it is perfect just the way it is. All the teams in your division play all the same teams from the other conference. One can quibble, but no matter what people will complain.

 

 

I hate the way baseball does it.

Edited December 25, 2013 by Marauder'sMicro

[KollegeStudnet]

The NFL should offer a merger option to the Canadian Football League now you've added another entire country of football fans instead of just a couple of cities.

 

Bills vs. Argos would be huge

[bobobonators]

I think the Idea is good, I can't really hate on it but lets be honest. LA and football just do not go together. It's not a football town at all and IMO that's one of the main problems they have in moving a franchise there. Toronto, I really really do not see that working out at all. I would have to think that the Buffalo series there ruined that whole idea. London would be a very tricky ordeal as well. Especially how the NLF would have to take into consideration that in England they use the Euro and the Pound which are both higher (about 30-40 cents) than the US Dollar. That means the cost of living over there wouldn't equal out on a normal pay scale like it would here in the states. Players would have to be payed a lot higher to play and live there. Another thing to think about is players safety in a foreign country. I can't say for sure somethin would happen but we have to keep it 100, you just never ever know. The players would also have easy access to any surrounding country. I know they have enough money to travel anywhere now but it's not as tempting during the season. Just a few thoughts. GO BILLS!!!

 

Cost of living is a non-factor. A rookie making the league minimum playing for the New York Giants does not get paid more than a rookie making the league minimum on the Green Bay Packers despite the fact that New York is insanely more expensive than Wisconsin.

 

Player safety is a non-factor. London is not a hazard-pay destination. There are no travel restrictions or warnings imposed by the State Department on citizens traveling to London. This would be of concern if the city truly were a potential hazard location (like the Damascus Argonauts).

 

I dont understand your point regarding travel to surrounding countries?? That is akin to being concerned about a players travel to another state during the season. Or a Bills player traveling to Canada during the season, or a texans player traveling to Mexico. Not really following your concern..

 

IMO, at the end of the day the biggest and most obvious hurdle for a London team is the travel. Travel between east coast teams to London wouldnt be bad, as the distance from ny to london is similar from that of ny to the west coast. But to have the london team travel to the west coast and a west coast team travel to london is a bit much. For an entire season, the london team would be at an extreme disadvantage bc EVERY road game it has would be equivalent/worse than an east coast team having to travel to california for every road game. Having to do that trip back and forth 16 times (to and fro) would be taxing and unfair to the london team in my opinion.

 

But then again, plenty of "regular" folks do that trip numerous times a year and dont get paid millions to do it. Good luck attracting free agents though...

 

I think a team in London in the future would be pretty cool.

[Beerball]

I agree, you will notice an immediate drop off in talent in the beginning, but over time it will no longer be noticeable.

 

What you gain (not losing the Bills) far outweighs the negatives.

It seems like your entire premise is built on keeping the Bills. That's not a bad thing, but guaranteeing that any city that can support an NFL franchise already has one is probably not going to work in the real world. Your point on the diluted talent is taken too lightly. Those of us old enough to remember can tell you that each time a league expands the quality of play goes down. If you're ok with mediocrity (as a Bills fan we should be used to this) then you'll like a watered down version of the NFL.

[Justice]

It seems like your entire premise is built on keeping the Bills. That's not a bad thing, but guaranteeing that any city that can support an NFL franchise already has one is probably not going to work in the real world. Your point on the diluted talent is taken too lightly. Those of us old enough to remember can tell you that each time a league expands the quality of play goes down. If you're ok with mediocrity (as a Bills fan we should be used to this) then you'll like a watered down version of the NFL.

 

You're right about that. I'd love to see those cities get their own teams without stealing ours. I'm not going to lie, I worry about losing the Bills. Mr Wilson's time is almost up. Our lease buys us seven years, after that there's no guarantee. I'd take a watered down product over no product at all.

Edited December 26, 2013 by NoJustice

[CodeMonkey]

You're right about that. I'd love to see those cities get their own teams without stealing ours. I'm not going to lie, I worry about losing the Bills. Mr Wilson's time is almost up. Our lease buys us seven years, after that there's no guarantee. I'd take a watered down product over no product at all.

Boy I don't know. I have difficulty watching minor league sports now because the quality of play is low. The talent pool is so shallow already in the NFL that if they dilute it further so that they can make more money it may cross the quality threshold where I won't want to watch anymore.

 

Then again, I haven't stopped watching the Bills these last 14 years so who knows

Edited December 26, 2013 by CodeMonkey

[BackInDaDay]

for those old enough to remember, my favorite piece of the scenario is the elimination of out of conference games.

 

although the game play wouldn't differ, as it did in the old AFL/NFL days, it would re-introduce a rivalry between the conferences that hasn't been seen since the merger. when the realignment dropped the Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Baltimore(Colts) franchises in our beloved AFL. how bland was it watching the NFL's Cowboys lose to the AFL's (duh.. no!) Colts in SB5? that was the beginning of the 'one size fits all' league we have now.

 

if nothing else, thanks to the OP for creating an opportunity to remember how much us old AFL guys hated the NFL, and re-igniting the low spark of our forgotten hope to one day secede from their button-down clutches.

[agardin]

Given the mature nature of NFL revenue streams I would expect expansion sooner rather than later.

 

TV contract is done, NFL network done, nfl.com for merchandizing, ticket prices close to max.

 

Cap on salaries is in place so no money there.

Perhaps a junior league to rival college, they do make a bucket of money off football? But no.

 

Expansion it is.

[BuffaloBill]

The reality today is that there are perpetually only about six or eight QB's that can play at an elite level. If you do not have one then you are stuck being a bad or maybe mediocre team. There is supposed to be parity in the NFL but the game favors the small list of teams with the right guys at QB.

 

I would favor expansion only if the NFL through rules and roster changes does something more to level the field relative to QB talent. I would propose that every team be required to carry an extra developmental QB and maybe there is a league wide rules making it easier for non-starting QB's to move across teams.

 

Here is a really crazy idea ... How about QB only draft? That way "poor" teams do not have to make a choice between quality QB's or other BPA's. You would also force every team to take a QB in the draft and evaluate them. It's an insane idea and would never fly but the current system doesn't work.

[mattsox]

The NFL has their heart set on a team or two in LA, and one each in Toronto and London. No city, not even Jacksonville, should have to lose their football team. The possibility of an 11 & 5 team like Arizona missing out on the playoffs shouldn't happen either. I have the perfect solution that will make everyone happy. Here's my plan that will help avoid these types of situations.

 

Expand the league by four teams, two in each conference. That brings the total of teams in each conference to 18. Next thing you do is scrap the divisions. Each team plays every team within their own conference one time each for 17 games, alternating home games annually. The NFL will be pleased with this because they get an additional regular season game. The players won't mind it either considering the NFL wanted to move to an 18 game schedule, this way they meet in the middle. The top 6 teams in each conference make the playoffs.

 

I love this idea because the best of the best in each conference will make the playoffs every year and it's the fairest way. I also love the idea of avoiding a "Tom Brady type QB" tormenting you two times a year for 10 years. The only downside is you don't see an NFC team until the Super Bowl. I can live with that. The rivalries you develop in your own conference will negate that.

 

What do you think?

 

There isn't enough talent in the league to support 32 teams. We don't need 36!

[bobobonators]

buffalo bill:

 

I think there's plenty of parity in the NFL. Any given Sunday :beer: :

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-parity-graphic-2013-11

 

Neither of the 2 QB's in last year's Super Bowl I would consider elite. 2x Super Bowl MVP Eli Manning looks like garbage this season. If it was only about the QB, Brady, P. Manning, Brees, Rodgers would have been alternating super bowl victories every year. 10 different QB's and 9 different teams have won Super Bowls since 2000 (14 super bowls). Not too shabby.

[Johnny Hammersticks]

 

Not to mention, there would be like 5,000 fans total at those home games if the franchise wasn't immediately championship-caliber. They have their own football.

 

You make a good point here Sage, but it would be interesting to see how London fans would handle the adversity of a down season. From what I have seen, they have had incredible fan support for their annual NFL game. I would suspect that the fan support would be good regardless, especially for the first 2-3 seasons until the shine wore off. After that, I imagine it would be the same as any other NFL franchise.

 

Questions to soccer fans. Does the "European Football" season conflict with the NFL season. Do they play their games on Sundays?

[BackInDaDay]

Questions to soccer fans. Does the "European Football" season conflict with the NFL season. Do they play their games on Sundays?

 

English Premier League has matches throughout the week, and on weekends.

..and London is home to multiple teams

Edited December 26, 2013 by BackInDaDay

[bobobonators]

Hammersticks: yes, the leagues overlap in terms of months and there are games on Sunday. England and other European leagues play league games Saturday/Sunday/Monday (sometimes). Then cup games are normally played during the week (Tuesday/Wed/or Thursday) depending on the type of cup tournament. There aren't cup matches every single week, however. But there are league matches every single weekend for the most part, unless that country's team has an international match.

 

In short, yes. There's considerable overlap.

[CodeMonkey]

English Premier League has matches throughout the week, and on weekends.

..and London is home to multiple teams

In addition, some teams play fairly frequent non-league tournament matches with teams from other countries as well.

Tackle football playing only Sundays and for a short season would not be difficult for a team in London to schedule games and a venue around soccer.