The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11767027/nfl-play-five-london-games-2015

NFL needs to just move a team there and stop with this. Would just be easier to move a team there at this point.

^^^ And what city would lose their team??  Can't even get one for LA.  One comment I heard today is that they could move towards having (8) or (16) games there per year, all different teams, and sell season tickets like that.  I don't think they would support a team, just an occasional fun thing to do for the Brits.

Rams, San Diego or Raiders all want out of their current city

One moves to LA the other to London and be done with it. London can support 1 team and 8 games a year.

^^^ Not Jacksonville?

They can't. Iron-clad lease keeping them in Jax for many many more years. What they could do is play "HALF" their home games in London which has been talked about. 4 in Jax and 4 in London. That could happen but they can't leave Jacksonville totally per the lease.

Vikings got a new stadium and can't move
Bills won't move with their new local owner and promises of a new stadium by the state of NY
Dolphins got stadium upgrades in process and can't move per their deal with the state of Florida

Only the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders are able to move now. Every other team is locked in

NFL should look towards Canada first instead of London. English Football (Soccer to us Americans) is the biggest sport in the world, I just don't think the market is there to sustain an NFL team unless they were the best. They should probably look to Canada first.

You're right, and wrong, but probbaly not for the reasons you think. I shall explain why...(i could write an essay on this but will keep it short)

Lets move Jacksonville to London...for 8 games a year (because the owner also owns a "soccer" team here and the team is struggling). Who would turn up? There are enough NFL fans here to sell out Wembley for 8 games a year, no question if the quality is there. The issue is that Jacksonville is not one of the more well supported teams in the UK, because it came along with the expansion you don't have the core majority of the fans which picked it up during the 80's so you're reliant on newer fans, expect because there isn't a team in the UK, new fans tend to bandwagon or support along family lines. Jax fans as it stands are not going to sell out Wembley so now you're relaint on the opposition fans, of the remainder of the AFC South only Indy have a significant following and the remainder of the schedule is already set.

But surely the UK will rally behind their new franchise?! Well, maybe, the problem is that our culture is not to change team allegiences, most fans will stick with their existing team. When Wimbledon moved from London to Milton Keynes the fans set up their own team to replace it in London rather than support the team which moved. I wouldn't stop supporting the Dolphins and I won't be paying the train fare to get to London 8 times a year to watch non-Dolphins teams play.

The London team are going to need to develop new supporters VERY quickly if they are going to sell out Wembley 8 times a year, if the team they bring is Jax, well, would you pay to go and watch Jax play, because from what I can see, people aren't at the moment so why would that be any different over here?

The market COULD support it, but in my opinion only if the team is built from the ground up and has a core of British players which is VERY unlikley which the fans could attach to, parachuting a franchise is going to end in disaster.

I think the NFL is misjudging the attendance, what it is currently seeing is people from all over the UK coming to see one game whilst the people in and around London are taking advantage of the excellent value "season tickets" boosting the numbers. If they can sell out 5 games for the next 2-3 years maybe I'll give them a chance of pulling it off, but the test is what happens to the attendance at the "worst" games to see what an 8 game package will look like.

As usual, if the NFL wish to use my analysis, that will be $50,000 please, or you can employ me full time, contact the board admins for my contact details.

^^^ Thanks for your analysis.  Just like in the U.S., if you have a winning product people will come; or you must have a long team history to attract fans to a losing product.  Of the three teams MikeO mentioned, only San Diego is halfway decent.  Not to mention, moving anyone of those three teams would require a re-alignment of the divisions, otherwise the team moved would be traveling across multiple time zones for games in their own division.

Um, if you have a team in London, you would be traveling a minimum of 5 time zones no matter what.  Realignment wouldn't help.

Also, Dallas is in the NFC East, Indy is in the AFC South, etc.

I feel like its more likely to have existing teams play a game each week in London, than to move a team there.  That's 17 games in London, and a variety of teams.  They could probably work it out so that its 16 weeks (London gets a bye week 17) and every team plays 1 game over there.  The NFL would max out their revenue by raking in all the money all of England has to offer, and every NFL fan in the UK, including that of every NFL team, would get to see their favorite team play.

The problem I see is that it will lose its luster.  I think currently the London games do so well because they are rare.  You look in the stands and you see fans wearing 32 different jerseys (OK, maybe 31 since no one likes Jacksonville).  Why would a Dolphins fan go see the Falcons play the Lions, if they knew that the Dolphins were coming in 3 weeks.

The NFL could sell a season ticket package including every game played in Wimbley Stadium.  16 games for some exorbitant price.  Some people will pay for it.

The NFL could play games at 10:00 AM ET, thus ushering in a new football time slot.  This sucks for the west coast but imagine the TV revenue?  Now Sunday morning football is a thing, and stations bid for the rights to cover it.

There is a lot of money to be made, and don't think the NFL isn't moving in that direction.  Within 5 years, this will likely be the model.

Well, that's wrong.  Let's take Oakland or San Diego currently playing in the AFC West, and one of them moving to London.  There would certainly be less travel if the London Beefeaters (my name for the new team) played in the AFC East,  Miami would move to the AFC South, and the Texans would move from the AFC South to the AFC West.  So the Beefeaters flying to/from Foxboro, NYC, and Buffalo, would be much shorter than staying in the AFC West and flying to/from Denver, KC, and whatever California team remained.  Obviously this would probably never happen, BUT the realignment would help.

You're presuming that there is any meaningful difference between a 5-time-zone trip and an 8-time-zone trip.

The NFL has already shown that they care more about preserving rivalries than they do about reducing travel; otherwise Dallas would be in the NFC West, Indy would be in the AFC North, and Miami would be in the AFC South.  Breaking up the Dolphins/Jets/Patriots/Bills doesn't actually make the London flight reasonable.

Once more for emphasis: the NFL had a clear and easy road towards fixing intradivisional travel in 2002.  They emphatically decided against it; 5 of the 6 existing divisions kept 4 of the same teams, and the 2 new divisions each have 3 teams with old division ties.  The only real breakup was the NFC West.

I'm sorry but if they are called anything other than the London Monarchs it will be a travesty  ;D

Teams only get 8 home games. If London got more than that they are getting better treatment then at the Americans.

yup, and they'd be paying more money for it, presumably.

I think playing games overseas is cool and a good idea.  But I'm still not on board with a London team.  I think that the travel advantage/disadvantage will be prohibitive.  I also think the novelty will wear off.

I wouldn't mind seeing an overseas game each week in a different part of the world.  Maybe 8 weeks of that or something.  I also like the idea of playing games at "off times", likes early in the morning.

Yeah I am "presuming" that it would make a difference between flying from London to the west coast, versus flying from London to the east coast for games, do you actually disagree with that???  Take this years' Miami vs Oakland game in London.  For Miami it was no different than flying to the west coast for a game, but for Oakland it was double the travel time.  Oakland headed to London on Tuesday or Wednesday to get acclimated to the change.

As for the rest of your post, I don't disagree that teams would want to protect their rivalries, which is the reason I said "Obviously this would never happen".  Although after thinking about it, I wouldn't mind Miami moving to the AFC South, then they would avoid some of those pesky winter games in the north.

Having been on super long flights to London, China, etc -- there comes a point where the distance is so long that it doesn't really matter anymore.

So, I don't think there's much of a competitive advantage from being on a plane 9 hours (from Miami) vs 13 (from Oakland).  At that point, you're going to be exhausted and need to acclimate either way.  That's a totally anecdotal opinion, though. 

This actually plays to my larger point -- as is, now -- both teams have to get over jet-lag and being over-tired.  But if London was the home team, I imagine it would be a great advantage.  Similarly, every time the London team had an away stint, it would likely be very tough.  You already see this with Thursday night games, where prep time affects games to be "off".  This would probably be similar.

Well the Monarchs do have some former Super Bowl players in their alumnus, with Brad Johnson and William "The Refridgerator" Perry.  Not to mention the very first WFL Title.  ;)

Miami to SF (2,585mi) is ~5h45m.
Miami to London (4,425mi) is ~9h15m.
SF to London (5,351mi) is ~10h50m.

You were saying?

What does San Francisco have to do with it?? ::)

I think that his point is that flying from the West or East coast to London is essentially the same, so it doesn't really matter where they are, division-wise.

Nobody in the Bay Area would fly from Oakland to Miami, as you can easily get a nonstop from SFO.  Therefore, googling "Oakland to Miami flight time" gives you a meaningless number (something like 8 hours).  The real time is from SF to Miami.

The distance from the Bay Area to Miami is just over half the distance from Miami to London.  A trip from Miami to London isn't remotely near "no different than flying to the west coast."

^ I think I lost your larger point.

^^^ Yeah, I get it, I was joking a bit.  However, as Spider likes to do he is cherry picking, and slanting the facts.  The times he gives are actual flying times, based on constant speed of a commercial airliner going 500 mph; and do not take into account the actual plane used, wind or stops for re-fueling, in other words the best possible scenario.  Not to mention he is using Miami is the location point, when I indicated the cities of NYC, Buffalo, and Foxboro, which if you use the middle length NYC to London would be approximately 7 1/2 hours (an hour & 45 minutes shorter than the London to Miami route).

But I was mistaken on the travel time from Miami to London, vs. Miami to the West Coast, so give me 30 lashes.

I'd still rather spend three hours less on a plane.

In point of fact, your chosen example was specifically that of the Dolphins going to London, the Raiders going to London, and the Dolphins going to Oakland.  So those were the flights I googled (with the modification of flying into SFO, which is a reasonable oversight on your part).

And if you want to compare San Diego to Boston (or Seattle to Miami) and then Boston to London, sure, the most extreme flights in the NFL kind of seem similar to the absolute shortest flight to London, maybe.  But that's not really a serious argument for realignment.

The logistics isn't as bad as some think to play more games overseas without putting a team there. And London isn't the only city the NFL wants to run over there. One idea (one that they might do in 2015 actually) is to do a 4 team pod system. So, the key is too do 2 games overseas at once. So lets say Week 4 you got (just making teams up for the sake of example) Miami vs Raiders in London and Pats vs KC in Berlin. Then the following week, Week 5. do Miami vs KC in London and Raiders vs Pats in Berlin. So you send 4 teams over for two weeks and each of the 4 teams would lose 1 home game.

The other experiment that will happen next year is that after teams come back from London, they won't get a bye week. So, like next week Atlanta and Detroit wouldn't be off they would have games to play. The NFL wants to see how the players react and hold up. It's a work in progress and the NFL is testing stuff out. That's why they need more games overseas to see how this stuff goes.

There are 2 things you can take to the bank and its not debatable. The NFL will have a team in London by 2020 or 2022. And there will be at least 1 Super Bowl played in London within the next 10 years or so. The majority of the owners (especially the powerful owners) are all on board for both ideas. It's just a matter of putting a plan together and sitting down and executing it.

Say it ain't so, Joe!!

In a related story Santa Claus will no longer be giving chunks of coal to misbehaving kids due to the effect on the atmosphere when they burn it.

Anything that hasn't happened yet is debatable... You're slipping back into "anything I think will happen is guaranteed to happen" mode again.

Slipping back implies he left it at some point.  :D

Because it is going to happen. Believe what you want, live in a bubble. I'm sure you will be here to admit you are wrong when both things do happen though.  ::)