All things offseason discussion part II

So I see that Mr. Commish is running off at the mouth about putting a team in London. I can not believe that they're considering doing this. Just a terrible awful idea. I'm confused as to why they're not looking at US cities as there are plenty that would get behind a team. You mean to tell me a city like Portland wouldn't support a team?

Talking about putting a team in London has been around since Tagliabue, if not Rozelle. Maybe it will happen soon, but it's already been 20+ years theyv'e talked about this. And what makes you think Portland would support/could support a team?

Portland.....? Is there not a requirement under the NFLPA/NFL agreement stating a potential NFL host city must have at least 32 days of sunshine p/yr?

I would think it would bake sense to get a team in LA before they worry about Europe

I would think it would bake sense to get a team in LA before they worry about Europe

LA has little interest in professional football. Which is why multiple teams have already left LA. That is a Lakers and Dodgers city first and foremost. They get their fill of football from UCLA and USC. The LA Rams (Now St Louis Rams) games were usually blacked out in their local market due to not selling out. They eventually moved out of LA to Anaheim to get into a smaller stadium hoping they could get sellouts. Which helped for a few years with new fans, but that ran dry eventually as well, and they started the blackouts again. If you are not the Lakers or Dodgers, LA wont support you unless you consistently win championships.

The NFL is fighting putting a team in LA anyways. They dont want a team there. If there is one in LA, it ruins any attempts by the NFL to pressure other cities to build a stadium for the local team. Because every time there is a problem about stadium funding, the NFL and local team immediately threaten to move to LA. If the possibility of that specific move is gone, due to a team there, less taxpayer money is used to build stadiums elsewhere. The NFL makes more money without a team in LA than they would with a team in LA since every taxpayer dollar used to build a stadium means one less NFL dollar used to build a stadium.

LA has little interest in professional football. Which is why multiple teams have already left LA. That is a Lakers and Dodgers city first and foremost. They get their fill of football from UCLA and USC. The LA Rams (Now St Louis Rams) games were usually blacked out in their local market due to not selling out. They eventually moved out of LA to Anaheim to get into a smaller stadium hoping they could get sellouts. Which helped for a few years with new fans, but that ran dry eventually as well, and they started the blackouts again. If you are not the Lakers or Dodgers, LA wont support you unless you consistently win championships.

The NFL is fighting putting a team in LA anyways. They dont want a team there. If there is one in LA, it ruins any attempts by the NFL to pressure other cities to build a stadium for the local team. Because every time there is a problem about stadium funding, the NFL and local team immediately threaten to move to LA. If the possibility of that specific move is gone, due to a team there, less taxpayer money is used to build stadiums elsewhere. The NFL makes more money without a team in LA than they would with a team in LA since every taxpayer dollar used to build a stadium means one less NFL dollar used to build a stadium.


Lets not forget the California still has three other teams ,so it's not like there is no Pro football at all out there add in UCLA and USC they have all they need
The league wants this sport to be a world wide sport .

The few games the NFL played in London have been well received but would the city support 16 games per season? Also, the travel burden to and from London with a full schedule would be insane. What happens when the London team plays a non-division slate of games versus one of the divisions from the west?

LA is a huge market so it's no wonder that the NFL keeps trying to find a way to make it work with a team located there. In a way, it's a blow to the NFL's credibility to not have a team in LA.

I guess it could work for the 49'ers and Raiders to share a stadium. It doesn't seem to be a problem for the Giants and Jets. I admit that these type of arrangements have surprised me because it would seem that some teams would start to spread out a little more as the population grows.

I would have thought that the Raiders would have made the first move towards the San Jose area to try to add the rich Silicon Valley to their fan base before the 49'ers did so. I suppose that circumstances prevented that from happening. The Raiders should look at Las Vegas as a possible landing place. What team could be more perfect for Vegas than the Raiders?

Some day, I would expect the Redskins to build a stadium in Northern Virginia. I think the Bills should definitely consider a move to Toronto which is a much larger and wealthier city than Buffalo. I wonder if the Jets will some day want their own stadium, perhaps north of NYC.

p.s. Two of the three most populous metro areas in NA do not have NFL teams. They are Mexico City (Ranked 1st at 23.3M) and LA (Ranked 3rd at 18.0M). Toronto is ranked 8th at 6.5M whereas Buffalo is ranked 56th at 1.6M.

As I stated a couple of times already, being European and living in Europe I am against a Team here.

That said, a possible solution against the travel problems could 4 away games in the U.S. in a row, then 8 home games in London (the opponent coming out or going into the bye week) and then again 4 games in the U.S. And then hope for not-changing homefields throughout the playoffs.

As said, I´m against it - but the travel problem could be solved.

Goodell isn't the only one talking about this idea

Robert Kraft: NFL should strive for London team by decade’s end | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/17/robert-kraft-a-london-team-by-decades-end-should-be-an-nfl-goal/)

Not sure how it would work & they've talked about it forever, but the NFL is smart and the world is much more global now. It's all about money, and it would seem they've just about maximized income potential in the U.S. If it grew internationally, it could get ridiculously more $$. Not sure how much they would care about it there, but at least england already knows rugby. Canada also seems like a natural expansion.

If football became global, it could reach the stratosphere of financial success. They'd just have the name-problem (football vs futbol, etc).

[edit] Did some research, looks like World Cup last month hit records with ~20 million viewers, although the SuperBowl is usually ~110 million. Still, that means there are millions (if not billions) worldwide that are still possible new viewers for NFL.

US World Cup game pushes ESPN past Super Bowl streaming record | The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/26/5847778/us-world-cup-game-helps-1-7-million-streaming-record)[/QUOTE]

I think the NFL is trying to copy FIFA because of all the viewers/sponsors the World Cup gets. Plus the power FIFA has is unmatched.

Not sure how it would work just because of the time difference though. Maybe they should consider starting a European League versus having a single team in Europe.