HawkShack.com

The other day when I was listening to SiriusNFL, there was a discussion about the league's future in London. They were contending that if London does not get a team that the league would opt to have a full 16 game schedule across the pond. If we must have football overseas, I'd be OK with it if the following were done:

That the London bye, the 17th week, come in Week 17. That means that all teams are stateside the week preceding the playoffs.

16 games means that all 32 teams will be traveling across the pond once a year, which seems fair. But it will also mean that 16 teams must forfeit one home game. IMO one conference should have all their teams forfeit a home game each season, the opposite conference being the visitor in all games.

So, that means that all London games would be inter conference games, such as the one between the Lions and Chiefs this morning.

The only problem is with the byes. Currently they are scheduling teams with a bye the week following their trip to London, but that probably isn't possible given the current scheduling with the byes occurring between Weeks 4-11. It's probably not fair to schedule some teams with bye weeks after Week 1 and others in more conventional spots later in the season.

Comments?

I never liked the overseas games, too much on a team even from the east coast. You comments do make sense but I would only have exhibition games overseas. I also would eliminate Thursday night football and make the bye for every team this coming week. Mid season break.

Screw London.

yeah screw londen. But if they really want to play in londen they may need to look at second bye week for teams so they can schedule it that way so both teams are playing a away game. let's face it, it really is

Distant Relative wrote:Screw London.

This.

I don't think it's indefensible to want a game in London to "grow the game"- I just think it's stupid. The rigors of playing a game half a planet away outweigh any benefit gained giving Brits a novelty to watch. IMHO and all that.

Also, I don't want to lose a home game.

Uppercut wrote:I never liked the overseas games, too much on a team even from the east coast. You comments do make sense but I would only have exhibition games overseas. I also would eliminate Thursday night football and make the bye for every team this coming week. Mid season break.

I always thought that The Thursday night game should be switched over to Friday Night (for so many good reasons) if the NFL insists on a week night game other than Monday.

I agree with you guys, I don't like exporting our product overseas anymore than you guys do. But once we've accepted the fact that it's going to happen, the next question would be which is better, having a franchise there or playing 16 games involving all 32 teams?

And burr, they're not doing this just for the Brits. One of the things that'd driving this is the early-early starts here in the states, ie 6:30 am PT. It's the only way they can squeeze another game in on Sundays. Not that I am supporting it.

And savvy, the league observes the unwritten rule about Fridays, that they are reserved for the high schools.

Why do you think they are considering adding a single game each year?

http://cle.247sports.com/Article/Is-a-1 ... L-40564014

A 17 game schedule doesn't work unless one game a year is on neutral turf.

Is it possible to schedule it such that all teams play games that would normally be away games?
It sounds like it can't work, but maybe if they are games between AFC and NFC it might.

Other than that, it's an incredibly long trip for a game for West Coast teams, so they should try to schedule it around Bye weeks so they get the best product on the field.
There's little point trying to grow a fan base of a game when one or both teams are jet lagged and can't perform at their best.

They could have east coast international games in London and west coast games in Calgary or something? That would also help with the mission of spreading the game or whatever...

UM.... NO! If they want football, that can have their own league.

I hate the whole idea. Its stupid. Play the games here. If Brits want to be fans get the NFL package. Its interesting the Hawks are one of the most popular teams overseas and have never played there.There are ways to grow the fan base without all this nonsense.

I agree, but the owners want to make it a global game. More revenue, I guess.
The questions (IMO) are will it hurt the American fan base in the long run and will it ever be considered a major sport outside of North America? Football is part of our culture and will never be that for the rest of the world, so will it ever be more than a novelty for them?

c_hawkbob wrote:Why do you think they are considering adding a single game each year?

http://cle.247sports.com/Article/Is-a-1 ... L-40564014

A 17 game schedule doesn't work unless one game a year is on neutral turf.

That's the first I've heard of a 17 game schedule, and yes, it would solve a couple of problems, particularly the competitiveness issue and season ticket holders getting jaded. But that's a long ways down the road, at least until after the current CBA expires in 2022, if at all. IMO we'll be seeing 16 overseas regular season games way before then.

You guys might as well get used to it, London is here to stay. The league signed a 10 year agreement starting in 2018 to play 2 games per year in a new stadium in London, and the league is considering other venues around the UK for more games.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... artnership

savvyman wrote:I always thought that The Thursday night game should be switched over to Friday Night (for so many good reasons) if the NFL insists on a week night game other than Monday.

By agreement the NFL leaves Friday nights for High School football. The concern being that professional football on Fridays would take away support for HS ball. No doubt it would.

You guys might as well get used to it, London is here to stay. The league signed a 10 year agreement starting in 2018 to play 2 games per year in a new stadium in London, and the league is considering other venues around the UK for more games.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... artnership

Holy smokes. Hadn't heard a word about that, and I suspect I know why.

I can't wait for the backlash to start (I could be wrong, but I predict it will).

"Yeah, we're meeting at my place for pre-game at 3am- kickoff in New Delhi is at 4am pacific- GO HAWKS!"

FolkCrusader wrote:
By agreement the NFL leaves Friday nights for High School football. The concern being that professional football on Fridays would take away support for HS ball. No doubt it would.

I was wondering if that was the reason - to show support for HS football - However I did not know that there was an agreement.

burrrton wrote:Holy smokes. Hadn't heard a word about that, and I suspect I know why.

I can't wait for the backlash to start (I could be wrong, but I predict it will).

"Yeah, we're meeting at my place for pre-game at 3am- kickoff in New Delhi is at 4am pacific- GO HAWKS!"

And it won't make a nickel's worth of difference to them. I mean, what are we going to do, refuse to watch games televised from London? They could play their games on Mars and we'd still tune in. The NFL is a monopoly, meaning that they can thumb their noses to their customers and do whatever they damn well please.

The games in London start at 9:30am on the East Coast, so they won't lose all of their audience in NA.
Actually, it seems like those in the east like the early starts like we have enjoyed since the beginning.

I think the London thing is dumb as well.
Throw a bone to our friends south of the border, and have the 49ers and Cowboys play down there.

And any talk of actually having an NFL team across the Atlantic is positively b.s. lip service by the NFL.

Zorn76 wrote:I think the London thing is dumb as well.
Throw a bone to our friends south of the border, and have the 49ers and Cowboys play down there.

And any talk of actually having an NFL team across the Atlantic is positively b.s. lip service by the NFL.

As much as they'd like to, I doubt if they get a team in London, too. And I think that the league realizes that a franchise in London isn't in the cards for some time, if ever, which helps explain why the league seems to have changed course with this talk of a 16 game traveling circus concept.

There's a number of things that's driving the London move. First is the opening up of the European market, which the NFL has been eyeing for the past couple of decades. Secondly, there's the early-early Sunday time slot in the US that having a team in London creates. And third, with the baby boomer generation hitting retirement age, there's going to be more and more American tourists looking for a reason to take a trip to Europe. There probably won't be a lot of people going over there in December, but I could envision a healthy number traveling to Europe for Oktoberfest, something that's on my personal bucket list. It would be really cool to go watch the Seahawks as part of a European vacation.

I don't think much of that exists in Mexico City. If you're going to go to Mexico, you're going to go to Cancun or one of the Pacific coast cities. And with the political situation in such a mess, Mexico is pretty much down on the list for tourist destinations and has been for some time, with no end in sight. Plus it doesn't add anything to Sundays in the US like London does.

I think they are really trying to force this London issue and it just seems weird. Why London in the first place?

It's not going to undo the NFL to have these London games but I think this mentality that they can just shoehorn anything they want will end up hurting the league in the long run if they keep doing business like this.

kalibane wrote:I think they are really trying to force this London issue and it just seems weird. Why London in the first place?

It's not going to undo the NFL to have these London games but I think this mentality that they can just shoehorn anything they want will end up hurting the league in the long run if they keep doing business like this.

I love the NFL and I wouldn't want to see anything happen to the league that would hurt the product they put out, but they truly have become a monopoly. They can charge whatever they want for ticket prices, demand what they want out of the networks, play their games where ever it will make the most money for them rather than satisfy their core customers.

But I really think that the time has come for them to be investigated by the Justice Department for possible anti trust violations.

I was under the impression that they have an exemption from antitrust laws - or is it other laws that I am confusing it with?
With the big money and deep pocketed owners, it wouldn't surprise me if they hired some type of lobbying group to thwart any attempt by congress or others in Gov't to investigate how they do business and if they should continue as they are.

Mexico City was a tongue in cheek comment on my part, though I know they've played a couple of games down there with the Cowboys and Cards being one of them (maybe both?)

Anyway, yea, you can't have an NFL team overseas anywhere. I'll never work.

NorthHawk wrote:I was under the impression that they have an exemption from antitrust laws - or is it other laws that I am confusing it with?
With the big money and deep pocketed owners, it wouldn't surprise me if they hired some type of lobbying group to thwart any attempt by congress or others in Gov't to investigate how they do business and if they should continue as they are.

Their anti trust exemption can be taken away if the government feels it's being abused. If it is taken away the league is effectively over because it is decidedly a trust.

My point is money is a big influence in government goings on these days so I doubt it would happen.