London...more games in 2015

[Dave Gray]

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.

[masterfins]

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.

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.

[Dave Gray]

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.

[masterfins]

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

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.  

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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

You were saying?

[masterfins]

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??

[Dave Gray]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

What does San Francisco have to do with it??

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."

[Dave Gray]

^ I think I lost your larger point.

[masterfins]

^^^ 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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[MikeO]

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.

[Sunstroke]

^^^ Yeah, I get it, I was joking a bit.  However, as Spider likes to do he is cherry picking, and slanting the facts.  

Say it ain't so, Joe!!

[masterfins]

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.

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.

[Sunstroke]

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.

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