It's become abundantly clear that Roger Goddell is a big fan of London. There's been a game there ever year since 2007, two this season, and three next year. Goddell loves the enthusiasm of the London fans and the fact that the games, no matter how crappy the teams sent over are, are always sold out. He even said during his media session in the lead up to last week's 49ers-Jaguars game that he can see a Super Bowl played in London, and would even consider putting a franchise there. Neither idea is a good one.
The first thing that needs to be considered when debating the merits of a London franchise is the travel logistics. London is an ocean away from the East Coast. I don't even want to know how long the flight would be from San Francisco. It wouldn't be fair to ask teams to repeatedly make that trip. Even worse, if a franchise were based in London, they'd have to play eight road games. That's eight trips back-and-forth across the Atlantic. I'm sure they'd schedule the road games in blocks so that they wouldn't have to cross the ocean as often, but that doesn't make it much better. And again, you've got the potential London-to-West Coast travel to think about. The West Coast teams always struggle in 1:00 road games. Imagine how much worse it would be when the flight's that much longer and the time difference is that much greater.
Another thing about the schedule that needs to be taken into account is the return trip. Ever since the NFL started going to London, the two teams playing in the game would have their bye the following week. The reason for this is, obviously, to give their bodies time to get back to normal. If there was a franchise London, they wouldn't have the luxury of scheduling the games directly before the bye. Imagine playing in London Week 16, then flying home for your final game with a playoff berth potentially on the line. Even worse, how about playing Week 17 in London, then turning around and playing a playoff game somewhere in the United States the following week. Not only does that not make any sense, it would be totally unfair to do to teams.
Then there's the time difference. As we learned during the 2012 Olympics, when people got all over NBC for their tape-delayed prime time coverage, London isn't exactly in a U.S. TV-friendly time zone. The games that are played in London have to be early games on Sunday because of the time difference. 1:00 in the afternoon on the East Coast is 7:00 in London. They could theoretically start a 4:30 game at 10:30 in London, but Sunday, Monday and Thursday night games are out. Unless the NFL wants the teams playing in the middle of the night London time!
That's why a London Super Bowl would never work, either. Kickoff of the Super Bowl is at 6:30 p.m. Once again, with the six-hour time difference during the fall/winter, that's 12:30 in the morning in London! Could you do it? Sure. Would it make sense or be fair to the players playing in the game or the fans attending the game (which would then be on a Monday morning)? Absolutely not!
Keep in mind, major events from Europe that are televised live in the U.S. are shown in the middle of the afternoon. Do you really think the NFL and whatever network was covering the game would actually move the Super Bowl to an earlier time? The likelihood of that seems about as likely as my playing in the Super Bowl. These are the same people who added MORE night games to the schedule. They're not going to make the biggest game of the year, the one that's an event across America, any earlier. So, the only option would be to make it in the middle of the night in London. And that's not exactly the best solution.
As for the logistics of operating a league with franchises on two different continents, I don't even want to begin to imagine how the NFL thinks that might work. The short answer: it wouldn't.
During his press conference, Goddell said that he doesn't have a preference between London and LA. This is flawed thinking. Goddell is more concerned with expanding the game internationally than he is about putting a team back in the second-largest media market in this country. The one where the league is based and the sport is king (the other football will always be No. 1 in England). Sure, the NFL hasn't had an LA team in nearly 20 years. That's all the more reason to want to go back. Not to mention all the logistical advantages of LA over London. To me, the choice is a no-brainer.
I'm not saying the NFL needs to abandon the London experiment entirely. Just the opposite. I think the annual London game has been an outstanding showcase for the league. But that doesn't mean they should expand the London series any more than they already have or even consider placing a franchise there permanently. The novelty would wear off. That's one of the reasons why NFL Europe ultimately failed.
London is one of the world's great cities. I have nothing against London. But does it deserve an NFL franchise? Absolutely not! It simply wouldn't work. Hopefully the NFL is smart enough to realize that.
No comments:
Post a Comment