(11-22-2019 08:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To me the more important news there is about London. It's pretty clear to me the NFL wants to add two expansion franchises in London and Dublin. They're travel partners which helps make things a little more sane. It's a beach head to work into European markets. And if you're the CFL you've gotta be terrified of the prospect of a NFL franchise in Toronto or Calgary/Edmonton or even Regina/Winnipeg. NFL franchises in any of those markets would be super successful and instantly suck all the air out of the room for the CFL right as they were trying to take on an expansion franchise with limited profitability in the Maritimes.

London, yes. The league wants into London bad. They've floated so many rumors of moving struggling franchises there, the latest of which is the Chargers. These rumors keep getting denied, but where there's smoke, there's fire. The NFL is going to be more of a player in London, not less. The question is: will they be able to build a fan base there? Currently, if I understand it correctly, they're drawing fans from all over Europe for these London games, primarily Americans. Can they sell the NFL on a large scale to the English? I personally like the idea of an expanded London schedule, enough to sell a season ticket package, but not moving a team there permanently. It would, however, involve more teams taking trips to London more often.

If the NFL is going into Canada, they only need one team, and that one team would be in Toronto. It would function as a national team, similar to the Blue Jays and Raptors, who have a national television footprint in Canada. The Toronto area would support their own team in a much better way than they did the few Bills home games that were played there. With major league sports in Toronto, the local market has turned its nose up at the Argonauts and the CFL, viewing them as an inferior product to the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB. The Argos have moved from Rogers Centre to the smaller BMO Field, and have a hard time filling up the soccer stadium. An NFL team would do well in Toronto, but would seriously damage the CFL. However, there is an immediate stadium issue, as Rogers Centre is already 30 years old and only seats 54,000 for American football. An ownership group would need to come up with a way to finance a stadium.

(11-23-2019 12:22 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 08:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To me the more important news there is about London. It's pretty clear to me the NFL wants to add two expansion franchises in London and Dublin. They're travel partners which helps make things a little more sane. It's a beach head to work into European markets. And if you're the CFL you've gotta be terrified of the prospect of a NFL franchise in Toronto or Calgary/Edmonton or even Regina/Winnipeg. NFL franchises in any of those markets would be super successful and instantly suck all the air out of the room for the CFL right as they were trying to take on an expansion franchise with limited profitability in the Maritimes.

London, yes. The league wants into London bad. They've floated so many rumors of moving struggling franchises there, the latest of which is the Chargers. These rumors keep getting denied, but where there's smoke, there's fire. The NFL is going to be more of a player in London, not less. The question is: will they be able to build a fan base there? Currently, if I understand it correctly, they're drawing fans from all over Europe for these London games, primarily Americans. Can they sell the NFL on a large scale to the English? I personally like the idea of an expanded London schedule, enough to sell a season ticket package, but not moving a team there permanently. It would, however, involve more teams taking trips to London more often.

If the NFL is going into Canada, they only need one team, and that one team would be in Toronto. It would function as a national team, similar to the Blue Jays and Raptors, who have a national television footprint in Canada. The Toronto area would support their own team in a much better way than they did the few Bills home games that were played there. With major league sports in Toronto, the local market has turned its nose up at the Argonauts and the CFL, viewing them as an inferior product to the NFL, NHL, NBA, and MLB. The Argos have moved from Rogers Centre to the smaller BMO Field, and have a hard time filling up the soccer stadium. An NFL team would do well in Toronto, but would seriously damage the CFL. However, there is an immediate stadium issue, as Rogers Centre is already 30 years old and only seats 54,000 for American football. An ownership group would need to come up with a way to finance a stadium.

They won’t expand into Canada, the CFL is entrenched and the NFL owns a good chunk of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right now, the NFL has a perfect scheduling formula; home and home within your division, another division in your conference, two games in your conference against the teams which ended up in the same division place as you did in the previous season and a division from the other conference. The 17th game doesn’t exactly fit the NFL’s parity scheduling concept. And the 17th game will have to be an intra-conference game just for playoff tie breaking criteria.

First, I don’t think the NFLPA will sign off on this. The players are getting beat up now and a 1/17th raise might not be enough incentive for a extra regular season game.

Second, the assumption that colleges will make their stadiums available for an NFL game is not a given. I highly doubt that Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, et. al. will make their stadiums available to the NFL during the regular season and the bowl prep practice window.

Finally, I really don’t think the demand for an expanded NFL season is there. Unless you are an NFL owner.

(11-23-2019 12:22 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 08:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To me the more important news there is about London. It's pretty clear to me the NFL wants to add two expansion franchises in London and Dublin. They're travel partners which helps make things a little more sane. It's a beach head to work into European markets. And if you're the CFL you've gotta be terrified of the prospect of a NFL franchise in Toronto or Calgary/Edmonton or even Regina/Winnipeg. NFL franchises in any of those markets would be super successful and instantly suck all the air out of the room for the CFL right as they were trying to take on an expansion franchise with limited profitability in the Maritimes.

London, yes. The league wants into London bad. They've floated so many rumors of moving struggling franchises there, the latest of which is the Chargers. These rumors keep getting denied, but where there's smoke, there's fire. The NFL is going to be more of a player in London, not less. The question is: will they be able to build a fan base there? Currently, if I understand it correctly, they're drawing fans from all over Europe for these London games, primarily Americans. Can they sell the NFL on a large scale to the English? I personally like the idea of an expanded London schedule, enough to sell a season ticket package, but not moving a team there permanently. It would, however, involve more teams taking trips to London more often.

You would only need 8 teams to travel to London per year if you had a London franchise. 8 teams made the trip this year and in 2017. 6 teams have made the trip every other year, going back to 2014.

Last month, it was reported that the NFL is considering to have one team play back-to-back games in London in 2020 - with the Jaguars as the likely candidate. They would play one game as the designated London home game and the second game as a designated away game.

The NFL attracted 60-85K per game over 4 games this year in London. That's half a home schedule with good attendance. They've had over 80K for each game in Wembley for the past 8 years.

Under the 17th-game proposal, I could see the league send 10 or 11 teams to London each year, plus the Jaguars 3 or 4 times. That would set it up to build the season-ticket base and to eventually move the Jaguars.

(11-27-2019 01:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-23-2019 12:22 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 08:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To me the more important news there is about London. It's pretty clear to me the NFL wants to add two expansion franchises in London and Dublin. They're travel partners which helps make things a little more sane. It's a beach head to work into European markets. And if you're the CFL you've gotta be terrified of the prospect of a NFL franchise in Toronto or Calgary/Edmonton or even Regina/Winnipeg. NFL franchises in any of those markets would be super successful and instantly suck all the air out of the room for the CFL right as they were trying to take on an expansion franchise with limited profitability in the Maritimes.

London, yes. The league wants into London bad. They've floated so many rumors of moving struggling franchises there, the latest of which is the Chargers. These rumors keep getting denied, but where there's smoke, there's fire. The NFL is going to be more of a player in London, not less. The question is: will they be able to build a fan base there? Currently, if I understand it correctly, they're drawing fans from all over Europe for these London games, primarily Americans. Can they sell the NFL on a large scale to the English? I personally like the idea of an expanded London schedule, enough to sell a season ticket package, but not moving a team there permanently. It would, however, involve more teams taking trips to London more often.

You would only need 8 teams to travel to London per year if you had a London franchise. 8 teams made the trip this year and in 2017. 6 teams have made the trip every other year, going back to 2014.

Last month, it was reported that the NFL is considering to have one team play back-to-back games in London in 2020 - with the Jaguars as the likely candidate. They would play one game as the designated London home game and the second game as a designated away game.

The NFL attracted 60-85K per game over 4 games this year in London. That's half a home schedule with good attendance. They've had over 80K for each game in Wembley for the past 8 years.

Under the 17th-game proposal, I could see the league send 10 or 11 teams to London each year, plus the Jaguars 3 or 4 times. That would set it up to build the season-ticket base and to eventually move the Jaguars.

They should just expand the NFL to 36 or 40 teams. In 1977 the NFL had 28 teams with a US population of about 210 million people. We now have close to 350 million but only 4 more teams?

They could totally put a team in (or back in) some of these markets:

St. Louis
San Diego
Oakland
San Antonio/Austin

A co-worker asked me this question the other day. How much are fans in London paying for their tickets to the NFL game?

(11-27-2019 01:58 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  They should just expand the NFL to 36 or 40 teams. In 1977 the NFL had 28 teams with a US population of about 210 million people. We now have close to 350 million but only 4 more teams?

They could totally put a team in (or back in) some of these markets:

St. Louis
San Diego
Oakland
San Antonio/Austin

Who in those cities is going to satisfy the NFL's greed for new NFL-caliber stadiums paid for with taxpayer money?

The Rams, Chargers, and Raiders wanted new stadiums built at little or no cost to the team owners, and left because no one gave that to them. San Antonio also has an aging stadium that the NFL would not deem adequate.

OT a little here, but, IMO, the Chargers and the Raiders made out like bandits!!! The Rams, not so much.

(11-19-2019 12:38 PM)Rube Dali Wrote:  This idea of playing in college stadiums is incredibly dumb on so many levels.

The Rams are right now.

(11-29-2019 01:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 01:58 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  They should just expand the NFL to 36 or 40 teams. In 1977 the NFL had 28 teams with a US population of about 210 million people. We now have close to 350 million but only 4 more teams?

They could totally put a team in (or back in) some of these markets:

St. Louis
San Diego
Oakland
San Antonio/Austin

Who in those cities is going to satisfy the NFL's greed for new NFL-caliber stadiums paid for with taxpayer money?

The Rams, Chargers, and Raiders wanted new stadiums built at little or no cost to the team owners, and left because no one gave that to them. San Antonio also has an aging stadium that the NFL would not deem adequate.

If the NFL loses this huge lawsuit filed by St Louis, they may have to buy us a new stadium. On the other hand, they may settle for a new expansion team, and substantial building assistance. They are begging the courts to settle, which have said no.

(11-29-2019 01:00 AM)TardisCaptain Wrote:  A co-worker asked me this question the other day. How much are fans in London paying for their tickets to the NFL game?

I found this link related to the 2018 season. It shows premium sideline seats at about 150 pounds (about $225) and general admission from about 40 to 120 pounds (about $60-180).

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/5351433/n...s-playing/

If I were NFL commissioner ... I'd expand the 32 to 40 (5 per division) with the following cities:

- Toronto (CA)
- Calgary (CA)
- London (UK)
- Dublin (IR)
- Salt Lake City
- Honolulu
- Oklahoma City
- Anchorage

Permanent teams abroad is just too much of a fiasco waiting to happen. Neutral site games needs to be the norm. You could conceivably give British/European audiences exposure to 16 different teams a year by hosting 8 of the Neutral Site games there. They’ll see all the stars and good and bad teams alike. Heck, in a two year cycle everyone could play a London game. I think that does far more to grow the game abroad than multiple Jags games. if you try to force the Jags on them as their pseudo adopted team I’d the Jags play is in the gutter attendance and interest will suffer.

(11-26-2019 12:55 AM)RutgersMike Wrote:  Right now, the NFL has a perfect scheduling formula; home and home within your division, another division in your conference, two games in your conference against the teams which ended up in the same division place as you did in the previous season and a division from the other conference. The 17th game doesn’t exactly fit the NFL’s parity scheduling concept. And the 17th game will have to be an intra-conference game just for playoff tie breaking criteria.

First, I don’t think the NFLPA will sign off on this. The players are getting beat up now and a 1/17th raise might not be enough incentive for a extra regular season game.

Second, the assumption that colleges will make their stadiums available for an NFL game is not a given. I highly doubt that Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, et. al. will make their stadiums available to the NFL during the regular season and the bowl prep practice window.

Finally, I really don’t think the demand for an expanded NFL season is there. Unless you are an NFL owner.

In return for the 17th game, preseason games go away entirely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

(11-27-2019 01:58 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 01:40 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(11-23-2019 12:22 AM)johnintx Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 08:29 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To me the more important news there is about London. It's pretty clear to me the NFL wants to add two expansion franchises in London and Dublin. They're travel partners which helps make things a little more sane. It's a beach head to work into European markets. And if you're the CFL you've gotta be terrified of the prospect of a NFL franchise in Toronto or Calgary/Edmonton or even Regina/Winnipeg. NFL franchises in any of those markets would be super successful and instantly suck all the air out of the room for the CFL right as they were trying to take on an expansion franchise with limited profitability in the Maritimes.

London, yes. The league wants into London bad. They've floated so many rumors of moving struggling franchises there, the latest of which is the Chargers. These rumors keep getting denied, but where there's smoke, there's fire. The NFL is going to be more of a player in London, not less. The question is: will they be able to build a fan base there? Currently, if I understand it correctly, they're drawing fans from all over Europe for these London games, primarily Americans. Can they sell the NFL on a large scale to the English? I personally like the idea of an expanded London schedule, enough to sell a season ticket package, but not moving a team there permanently. It would, however, involve more teams taking trips to London more often.

You would only need 8 teams to travel to London per year if you had a London franchise. 8 teams made the trip this year and in 2017. 6 teams have made the trip every other year, going back to 2014.

Last month, it was reported that the NFL is considering to have one team play back-to-back games in London in 2020 - with the Jaguars as the likely candidate. They would play one game as the designated London home game and the second game as a designated away game.

The NFL attracted 60-85K per game over 4 games this year in London. That's half a home schedule with good attendance. They've had over 80K for each game in Wembley for the past 8 years.

Under the 17th-game proposal, I could see the league send 10 or 11 teams to London each year, plus the Jaguars 3 or 4 times. That would set it up to build the season-ticket base and to eventually move the Jaguars.

They should just expand the NFL to 36 or 40 teams. In 1977 the NFL had 28 teams with a US population of about 210 million people. We now have close to 350 million but only 4 more teams?

They could totally put a team in (or back in) some of these markets:

St. Louis
San Diego
Oakland
San Antonio/Austin

Would love to see St Louis, San Diego, and Oakland get new teams, and San Antonio is due for an NFL team. Out of all those though, I see St. Louis as the only one likely to get another team due to the NFL's stupidity on the Rams move. I do like how St Louis wisely went after the NFL's pocket. Oakland and San Diego though are like, "You want to continue to play here and you want a new stadium?? Build it yourself.".
The reality is that only a handful of NFL owners can do that to begin with, and the NFL remembers what the old owners did and how they were treated.

San Diego got a very rare second chance with Spanos, but still insisted that he pay for everything himself, including the land. Most cities will give owners land, but sometimes require them to pay for building the stadium themselves. San Diego was not like that, neither was Oakland, whose stadium is now older than Philly's Veterans Stadium. The Oakland A's want a downtown site for their stadium, but they want the Coliseum site to build a development that basically kicks $$'s back to the A's for building their own stadium. Oakland wanted the Raiders to share Levi's Stadium with the 'Niners, knowing that there is a huge, bitter rivalry between the Raiders and the Niners. Mark Davis wisely told Oakland to pound sand, and looked at Las Vegas. Now the A's are trying to use Las Vegas as leverage as well, but Mark Davis isn't having that at all. He doesn't care for the A's owners one bit.