London game not fair to Washington fans near Cincinnati

[yellowxdiscipline]

Just do away with the London games. Its so dumb.

[OrlandoBengal]

(10-24-2016, 01:31 PM)yellowxdiscipline Wrote: Just do away with the London games. Its so dumb.

I know that the idea is to expand globally, but I don't see how London could ever be an option.  Just based on the travel and the time zones, I don't understand why they don't try to focus on Mexico and South America.

[ItsOdellThurman]

I believe those were both ROAD games for NE and Pittsburgh. Big different between playing there and losing a home game that sells out years in advance.

When the teams who have season tickets sold out years in advance are losing a home game to London, wake me up.

[ItsOdellThurman]

(10-24-2016, 01:34 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I know that the idea is to expand globally, but I don't see how London could ever be an option.  Just based on the travel and the time zones, I don't understand why they don't try to focus on Mexico and South America.

Nobody gives a crap about football there?

Europe is starting to love American football, but the logistics of having a team there and having to travel to the United States eight times a year is a nightmare.  The ONLY way it really would work is if all the road games were on the east coast.  A team like Washington or Baltimore going to London is way different than Oakland or Los Angeles going there.

[OrlandoBengal]

(10-24-2016, 02:27 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: Nobody gives a crap about football there?

Europe is starting to love American football, but the logistics of having a team there and having to travel to the United States eight times a year is a nightmare.  The ONLY way it really would work is if all the road games were on the east coast.  A team like Washington or Baltimore going to London is way different than Oakland or Los Angeles going there.

Actually, American football is very popular in Mexico.  It is also becoming more popular in Brasil.  If the NFL had put the resources into those markets that it has Europe, it would be even more so.

[*rfaulk34*]

(10-24-2016, 10:16 AM)Gamma Ray Tan Wrote: You realize London isn't "home" for any NFL team. You could still designate a "home team"yet still keep the 8 actual home games for the season ticket holders that paid for those games. ....it seems like common sense.

It doesn't matter. Bengals V Redskins only happens once this year. Someone has to be home and someone has to be away for the schedule to work out. 

256 games scheduled a year. 128 home team, 128 away team. 

[london_bengal]

(10-24-2016, 02:32 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: It doesn't matter. Bengals V Redskins only happens once this year. Someone has to be home and someone has to be away for the schedule to work out. 

256 games scheduled a year. 128 home team, 128 away team. 

Technically 256 matches means 256 home teams and 256 away teams (because each match has one home team and one away team).

But your general point is 100% correct :-

256 matches with one team the home team in each means 256 home team slots and 32 teams means (256/32) 8 home games per team at the end of the regular season.

256 matches with one team the away team in each means 256 away team slots and 32 teams means (256/32) 8 away games per team at the end of the regular season.

If the three London and one Mexico City game counted as away games for both teams as some have suggested there would be 252 home team slots and 260 away team slots at the end of the season. I.e. you couldn't mathamatically finish with each team having had 8 home and 8 away matches.

The only way every team gets 8 actual home matches in their own stadium is if there are no international matches (my preferred option). But the NFL doesn't want that because it's 32 owners (the team owners) don't want that because they see more $$$$$$ to be made by whoring the league out around the world.

[*bfine32*]

NFL should expand the season to 17 games and each team plays one off-sight game in places where they do not have NFL football (like Cleveland).

[BMK]

(10-24-2016, 02:26 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: I believe those were both ROAD games for NE and Pittsburgh.  Big different between playing there and losing a home game that sells out years in advance.

When the teams who have season tickets sold out years in advance are losing a home game to London, wake me up

The fan's beef with losing a home game is mostly with the team's owners, not the NFL. I'm pretty sure they are not forced to go.

But if you're Mike Brown you could be looking at it like: I could have a home game at PBS and make 60% of the revenue of 65,500 seats, or I can have a 'home' game in London and make 60% of the revenue of 85,000 seats....assuming sell outs at both venues. Who knows what other financial incentives the NFL throws in to entice a team to play a game there. 

So while it's a slap in the face to loyal fans, and costly for the local economy, in some situations, the team itself could potentially come out ahead by playing away...from a strictly dollars and cents perspective.

That said, I think the overriding attitude of the owners is that they'll 'take one for the league' now and then to help expand the product globally, which will surely make each owner / team  much richer in the long run.

Business is business.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

Never liked the idea of doing overseas games and it is even worse like you said Bengal Yankee cause both teams
are from different conferences and never get to see eachother. Goodell is the worst NFL commish of all time.

Everyone knows it too, everyone complains about how the NFL has been handling everything and yet, he is still
around. He must have something on someone very powerful. He is not held accountable for anything.

[BengalFanInNJ]

(10-24-2016, 01:34 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: I know that the idea is to expand globally, but I don't see how London could ever be an option.  Just based on the travel and the time zones, I don't understand why they don't try to focus on Mexico and South America.

Looking forward to the next Colombia Cartels-Nicaragua Neckties game myself.

[OrlandoBengal]

(10-24-2016, 03:50 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Never liked the idea of doing overseas games and it is even worse like you said Bengal Yankee cause both teams
are from different conferences and never get to see eachother. Goodell is the worst NFL commish of all time.

Everyone knows it too, everyone complains about how the NFL has been handling everything and yet, he is still
around. He must have something on someone very powerful. He is not held accountable for anything.

Have you seen the revenues?  That is what he "has on them".  The Bengals went from $900 million to being worth almost $1.7 billion in four years.  Goodell makes them piles and piles of money.

[BengalYankee]

(10-24-2016, 09:20 AM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: I'll go out on a limb and say that the NFL also doesn't care about the 200 bandwagon Redskins living in the Cincinnati area either.

What about all the Jaguar fans that live in other areas?  They have missed out on a ton of games!

Not just Redskin fans. Fans that live in an area that their respected team visits every eight years.

The Rams just played the Giants @ London. That is ok, because depending on their records, they could play each other next year, since they are both in the same conference.

[BengalYankee]

The Home Teams


Designated Home                                     

 
  Miami Dolphins                          
  New Orleans Saints 
  Tampa Bay Buccaneers 
  San Francisco 49ers 
  Tampa Bay Buccaneers 
  St. Louis Rams 
  Minnesota Vikings 
  Jacksonville Jaguars 
  Oakland Raiders 
  Atlanta Falcons 
  Jacksonville Jaguars 
  Miami Dolphins 
  Jacksonville Jaguars 
  Kansas City Chiefs
  Jacksonville Jaguars 
  Los Angeles Rams 
  Cincinnati Bengals 
  Oakland Raiders 
  Jacksonville Jaguars 
  Los Angeles Rams 


The Road Teams

Designated Visitors

New York Giants
San Diego Chargers
New England Patriots
Denver Broncos
Chicago Bears
New England Patriots
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Francisco 49ers
Miami Dolphins
Detroit Lions
Dallas Cowboys
New York Jets
Buffalo Bills
Detroit Lions
Indianapolis Colts
New York Giants
Washington Redskins
Houston Texans


Notice the difference  
 

[BengalYankee]

(10-24-2016, 02:27 PM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: Nobody gives a crap about football there?

Europe is starting to love American football, but the logistics of having a team there and having to travel to the United States eight times a year is a nightmare.  The ONLY way it really would work is if all the road games were on the east coast.  A team like Washington or Baltimore going to London is way different than Oakland or Los Angeles going there

49ers-Cardinals Game In Mexico City Sets NFL Attendance Mark


Published October 3, 2005

 Last night’s 49ers-Cardinals game at Azteca Stadium in Mexico City, the NFL’s first regular-season game outside of the U.S., set an all-time attendance record of 103,467. 

[Benton]

(10-24-2016, 03:02 PM)london_bengal Wrote: Technically 256 matches means 256 home teams and 256 away teams (because each match has one home team and one away team).

But your general point is 100% correct :-

256 matches with one team the home team in each means 256 home team slots and 32 teams means (256/32) 8 home games per team at the end of the regular season.

256 matches with one team the away team in each means 256 away team slots and 32 teams means (256/32) 8 away games per team at the end of the regular season.

If the three London and one Mexico City game counted as away games for both teams as some have suggested there would be 252 home team slots and 260 away team slots at the end of the season. I.e. you couldn't mathamatically finish with each team having had 8 home and 8 away matches.

The only way every team gets 8 actual home matches in their own stadium is if there are no international matches (my preferred option). But the NFL doesn't want that because it's 32 owners (the team owners) don't want that because they see more $$$$$$ to be made by whoring the league out around the world.

I'm admittedly bad at math, but if you expand it to eight games, I was thinking it worked out to where nobody loses a real home game.

Regardless, though, it's a horrible direction. Not like re-instituting the military draft or handing out cigarettes to preschoolers, but horrible enough. It's one more thing to distance traditional fans from the sport in hopes of adding more. NFL Europe didn't work out for a lot of reasons, mostly because the talent level wasn't there. That doesn't mean you should take actual NFL talent and try to wedge it into the market a few times a year. I'd have less of an issue if they just added two expansion teams (London and Mexico, or London and some other European city) and go that route.

[BengalYankee]

(10-24-2016, 10:54 AM)BengalFanInNJ Wrote: First off, they would play the Giants and Jets in New Jersey. The only team New York has are the Bills 

The only team in New York has the same amount of Super Bowl Champions as the Bengals??? 

Card Name: Just Hello

 

[PV Bengal]

(10-24-2016, 12:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: I think they will do more Mexico exhibitions for the west coast teams due to the travel going forward.

Actually, the travel time between, say, Seattle (and London) and Cincinnati (and London) are virtually equal

[london_bengal]

(10-24-2016, 06:10 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm admittedly bad at math, but if you expand it to eight games, I was thinking it worked out to where nobody loses a real home game.

Under the current Collective Bargaining Agreement there can only be 16 games played per team per season - the player's union wouldn't let the NFL expand the season above that during the last lockout.

For each of the 32 teams to have 8 matches in their actual home stadium that would be 256 matches in a season. But they need other teams to come over to play against so if the obligation of being the away team in those 256 matches was split evenly between the 32 teams then each team would play 8 away games as well. And that's your 16 games played per team so there would be no room for the league to have overseas matches.

As soon as the NFL decided they wanted to have overseas matches something had to give. There either had to be
a) no overseas matches (but the league and owners want the money), or
b) not limiting the season to 16 games (see below for how that would work if it became a 17 game season) (but the player's union wouldn't agree to that), or
c) some teams losing home games every year (which is what has happened because the NFL doesn't care about fans).

No way around that unfortunately - you can't have 32 teams each having 8 true games at home (for the fans) and there being overseas games (for the league and owners) and each team only playing 16 games a year (for the players) - it just doesn't work out mathamatically.

Now as I said I would just ditch the overseas games but when it comes to owners vs players vs fans and someone losing out - well only one group of people it's going to be.

Now if the next CBA allowed for 17 games played per team then you could have each team having 8 true games at home, 8 true away games at an opponent's home and 1 neutral-site game. But for that to work, as well as getting the agreement of the player's union, the league would also need to find places to hold 16 neutral matches for each of the 32 teams to play 1 neutral-site game each.

You could carry on doing three or maybe four in the UK, two or three in Mexico should sell well with the fanbase and some US fans willing to travel and have a holiday at the same time, two or three in Canada too for the same reason. But then 6-8 more? You could do places in the US that don't have NFL teams but could you find 8 sell outs? I don't know enough about major US cities without NFL teams to have an informed opinion.

(10-24-2016, 06:10 PM)Benton Wrote: Regardless, though, it's a horrible direction. Not like re-instituting the military draft or handing out cigarettes to preschoolers, but horrible enough. It's one more thing to distance traditional fans from the sport in hopes of adding more. NFL Europe didn't work out for a lot of reasons, mostly because the talent level wasn't there. That doesn't mean you should take actual NFL talent and try to wedge it into the market a few times a year. I'd have less of an issue if they just added two expansion teams (London and Mexico, or London and some other European city) and go that route.

I completely agree - it's wrong to alienate your existing fanbase in this way - the Bengals/Cowboys/Jaguars/Steelers/RedSkins/Packers etc fans who go to matches rain or shine, win or lose, year-in and year-out are the heart of the NFL and the NFL's teams. It is their dollars and support that have made the teams and the league the phenom that it is. But most professional sports teams and leagues these days are run by owners who are looking to expand their wallets in the way they see best and at the moment it looks like this is the way they want to try to do it.

[*Awful Llama*]

Cut a pre-season game. This year we got two pre-season games and seven regular season games. Would have gladly accepted one pre-season game and eight regular season games. And, everyone needs to take turns at losing a home game, including the precious NFL darling Packers.