London game not fair to Washington fans near Cincinnati

[BengalYankee]

In fact, wtf is the NFL doing when it schedules an AFC vs NFC game overseas???

A team from an opposing conference gets to play a home game once every eight years against the opposing conference.

For instance, the Redskins visit Cincinnati every eight years, this year instead of the game being played in Cincinnati, the game is played in London. That is ridiculous, because people[Redskin fans] who were willing to visit Paul Brown Stadium to see their Redskins play the Bengals are shut out. There are fans of the Redskins that live near Paul Brown Stadium that were waiting years to see their team play here`rather then in London. It would be like me living in the NY area wanting to see the Bengals play the Giants after eight years since the Bengals played the Giants in NY, only to have the game played in London instead. Who the $%&# schedules these games. I understand a division rivalry or even teams from the same conference, because you have a good chance of playing the same conference team soon. But two teams from opposing conferences is unacceptable.
Consider any Bengal moving to a city where the NFL team is a NFC team eg. Atlanta, you would be shut out if the game in Atlanta [Bengals @ Atlanta] was played overseas. Luckily, I can see the Bengals play @ the Jets in NY, or else, I would only be able to see the Bengals in NY, once every eight years unless they played their game in London, then it's once every sixteen years!!!!

[NATI BENGALS]

I wonder if the NFL gives the city any money for stealing the business and sending it over seas? Tax payer dollers built Paul Brown stadium. And the city probably sees a good return during our home games. There are only 8 regular season games a year.

Shits a joke

[*Awful Llama*]

Gonna go out on a limb and suggest that the NFL cares not a whit for the parking attendants, security guards or drinking establishments that will lose money as a result of the game being moved multiple time zones away. It's their business to do with as they please, and who cares who gets impacted.

As for the 1,283 Cincinnati-based fans of the Washington team, meh. They'll get over it. My sympathy in that area lies only with us for getting screwed out of a home game.

[Gamma Ray Tan]

I don't understand why they just don't count it as an away game for both teams and keep the 8 home games....technically it is away and you don't screw over the fans.

[ItsOdellThurman]

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!

[*Awful Llama*]

(10-24-2016, 09:20 AM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: What about all the Jaguar fans that live in other areas?  They have missed out on a ton of games!

Turns out it's just this guy.

[*PhilHos*]

Let's not forget that the team owner gets to allow whether his or her team plays in London.

You want to bash the NFL for having games in London, fine.
You want to bash the NFL for making one of these teams call this a home game, fine.
You want to bash the NFL for making the Bengals play in London? Don't. That's Mike Brown's fault.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

[ItsOdellThurman]

(10-24-2016, 09:18 AM)Gamma Ray Tan Wrote: I don't understand why they just don't count it as an away game for both teams and keep the 8 home games....technically it is away and you don't screw over the fans.

You realize this is impossible, right?  Someone has to be the home team and someone has to be the road team in every game.

My only gripe is that instead of the same teams repeatedly playing in London, they should make it mandatory that it's a rotation over a period and after that period, everyone has an equal number of trips there and home games there.

Unfortunately, the NFL is first and foremost about money and the teams without the best home revenue, get sent there.

We haven't seen any Green Bay, Pittsburgh or New England home games there, have we?

[740Bengal]

I'm more concerned I have to start drinking at 8 am.

[Gamma Ray Tan]

(10-24-2016, 09:37 AM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: You realize this is impossible, right?  Someone has to be the home team and someone has to be the road team in every game.

My only gripe is that instead of the same teams repeatedly playing in London, they should make it mandatory that it's a rotation over a period and after that period, everyone has an equal number of trips there and home games there.

Unfortunately, the NFL is first and foremost about money and the teams without the best home revenue, get sent there.

We haven't seen any Green Bay, Pittsburgh or New England home games there, have we?

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.

[Ctfan73]

(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 won't work.  If you take a current Bengal road game and make it a home game, giving them 8 actual home games, the road team for that game will only have 7 home games and 9 road games.

[Au165]

(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.

Except it's not. If you start looking at the math it won't add up if someone doesn't call it a home game as far as scheduling with all other teams over 17 weeks.

[BengalFanInNJ]

(10-24-2016, 03:07 AM)BengalYankee Wrote: In fact, wtf is the NFL doing when it schedules an AFC vs NFC game overseas???

A team from an opposing conference gets to play a home game once every eight years against the opposing conference.

For instance, the Redskins visit Cincinnati every eight years, this year instead of the game being played in Cincinnati, the game is played in London. That is ridiculous, because people[Redskin fans] who were willing to visit Paul Brown Stadium to see their Redskins play the Bengals are shut out. There are fans of the Redskins that live near Paul Brown Stadium that were waiting years to see their team play here`rather then in London. It would be like me living in the NY area wanting to see the Bengals play the Giants after eight years since the Bengals played the Giants in NY, only to have the game played in London instead. Who the $%&# schedules these games. I understand a division rivalry or even teams from the same conference, because you have a good chance of playing the same conference team soon. But two teams from opposing conferences is unacceptable.
Consider any Bengal moving to a city where the NFL team is a NFC team eg. Atlanta, you would be shut out if the game in Atlanta [Bengals @ Atlanta] was played overseas. Luckily, I can see the Bengals play @ the Jets in NY, or else, I would only be able to see the Bengals in NY, once every eight years unless they played their game in London, then it's once every sixteen years!!!!

First off, they would play the Giants and Jets in New Jersey. The only team New York has are the Bills

Secondly, Goodell et. al. no longer care about the fan in the United States. The NFL wants to go out and make more $ globally and will sell out Americans to do so. They already have us deep in their pockets.

Lastly, you make a good point about the games they decide to play outside of the US. However, if the NFL HAS to put games in other countries, putting teams from different conferences against each other that rarely play each other is the way to go. There is no way they will put the Bengals-Steelers, Pats-Jets, Giants-Eagles, Bears-Packers, etc. in London.

I agree with you that it sucks for a guy who is a fan of an outside team that misses a chance to see his team play locally. Hell, I was that guy for 30 years being a Bengal fan born an raised in New Jersey, so I guess I would be pissed to miss a Bengals-Giants game because it would be played in London. I'm surprised they don't take the team with the worst home attendance and make them play in London the following year.

[Benton]

(10-24-2016, 09:18 AM)Gamma Ray Tan Wrote: I don't understand why they just don't count it as an away game for both teams and keep the 8 home games....technically it is away and you don't screw over the fans.

Agreed. Scheduling-wise it makes a lot more sense. And it would be better received by fans, locals and (I'm guessing) ownership. You get all the participation/revenue from your local games.

[ItsOdellThurman]

Not sure what you don't understand. If 2 teams are at home in London and want to then give them 8 games in their stadium, then it throws off the numbers as they only play on the road for 7 other games.

It's simple math. The home and road games have to be even...

[Essex Johnson]

(10-24-2016, 09:34 AM)PhilHos Wrote: Let's not forget that the team owner gets to allow whether his or her team plays in London.

You want to bash the NFL for having games in London, fine.
You want to bash the NFL for making one of these teams call this a home game, fine.
You want to bash the NFL for making the Bengals play in London? Don't. That's Mike Brown's fault.

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

So if i want to praise anyone for having the Bengals play in london.. i praise Mike Brown not the NFL.. correct ?

[london_bengal]

(10-24-2016, 11:05 AM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. Scheduling-wise it makes a lot more sense. And it would be better received by fans, locals and (I'm guessing) ownership. You get all the participation/revenue from your local games.

Doesn't work mathematically I'm afraid. There have to be 256 matches over an NFL season for each team to end up playing 16 games each (32 teams*16 games played=512. Every match counts as a game played for two different teams so divide by two and we have 256). If every team has 8 matches in their home stadium then there are, not coincidently, 256 matches played over a season in the USA. As there used to be until NFL greed for $$$$$$$ came in.

As soon at the NFL sends games to London, Mexico and wherever else either some teams have to lose games from their home stadiums to keep the total number of matches in the season as 256 (as happens now) or you have to add extra matches to the season which would mean some teams playing 17 games whilst others still only play 16 which obviously can't happen at the moment.

I completely agree the system at the moment is unfair. Although this Sunday I'll be benefiting from it as it will allow me to see the Bengals up close and personal i really don't think it is right overall and if it was up to me either the NFL wouldn't have overseas games or there would be some kind of fair rotation put in place so all teams are effected evenly over a mult-year period.

The thing is the NFL is technically owned by the 32 team owners. The majority of those owners, like our very own Mike Brown, are interested in the most $$$$$$$$ option. If an unfair system, like the current one, makes more money for the NFL and therefore them they'll take it - "and to hell with sporting fairness" they'll say whilst sunning themselves on their yacht in the Caribbean.

[BMK]

(10-24-2016, 09:37 AM)ItsOdellThurman Wrote: You realize this is impossible, right?  Someone has to be the home team and someone has to be the road team in every game.

My only gripe is that instead of the same teams repeatedly playing in London, they should make it mandatory that it's a rotation over a period and after that period, everyone has an equal number of trips there and home games there.

Unfortunately, the NFL is first and foremost about money and the teams without the best home revenue, get sent there.

We haven't seen any Green Bay, Pittsburgh or New England home games there, have we?

N.E. and Pittsburgh both played in London....2012 and 2013 respectively. Green Bay has denied it so far because of the importance home games are to the local economy.  The only teams the NFL can 'make' play in London are teams in temporary stadiums, so look for a west coast match up in London next year or 2018.

[Au165]

(10-24-2016, 12:22 PM)BMK Wrote: N.E. and Pittsburgh both played in London....2012 and 2013 respectively. Green Bay has denied it so far because of the importance home games are to the local economy.  The only teams the NFL can 'make' play in London are teams in temporary stadiums, so look for a west coast match up in London next year or 2018.

I think they will do more Mexico exhibitions for the west coast teams due to the travel going forward.

[grampahol]

Personally I don't care about the scheduling issues other than the time of day it's played. 9:30 am our time seems odd, but revenue issues? I don't live in Cincinnati and never have. If the bars and restaurants in the area are relying solely on Bengals home games for revenue they're in the wrong business. 8 days out of 365 isn't the greatest business plan ever devised.