LA will get a franchise before London does. I think London could probably support a franchise but Wembley is too big a stadium for it, the new Spurs ground, or the Emirates would make more sense.
I read somewhere the Rams were there for just under 50 years, Raiders a dozen, LA pax were indifferent to both teams even when they had winning seasons, although maybe significant the Rams owner has bought land in the LA area & is keen to build a stadium fit to host modern NFL games, the current stadiums in LA are antiquated for NFL games.
The Raiders who are desperate to move from, Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum which is outdated & was leaking raw sewage a couple of years ago, are most likely to move to LA.
I read somewhere the Rams were there for just under 50 years, Raiders a dozen, LA pax were indifferent to both teams even when they had winning seasons, although maybe significant the Rams owner has bought land in the LA area & is keen to build a stadium fit to host modern NFL games, the current stadiums in LA are antiquated for NFL games.
The Raiders who are desperate to move from, Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum which is outdated & was leaking raw sewage a couple of years ago, are most likely to move to LA.
Yeah, I remember when the Raiders played in LA. They tapped into the Hispanic and African-American parts of LA quite well, but they only averaged 45,000 or so, which in a city the size of LA was horrendous. There are still a lot of Raiders fans in LA, and also a lot of Rams fan still in LA, but Los Angeles is one of those cities where the weather and the massive range of other lifestyle options means that neither team seem to be massively missed.
USC tapped into the market for game-going American football fans when they were red-hot under Pete Carroll, and they averaged over 90,000 when they were a national championship contender, but as soon as they slipped from the upper echelon their crowds dipped substantially. For an NFL team to be a massive success in LA (which is a city with a lot of people who weren't born or raised there) you have to be very good and consistently very good. An 8-8 team will die there very quickly, and of course that's what happened to the Raiders and Rams.
The Raiders may move back there, and lots of people who still follow them will be delighted, but I can't see them ever consistently getting the types of crowds that the NFL wants, because the way the NFL is it is really hard to be really good year after year. LA has gotten used to not having a team. People have gotten out of the habit of going to NFL games.
LA as a city should have an NFL team because it is a huge city and a huge market, but whether or not that team will be a success is another matter.
I don't particularly like American Football (prefer our own and Australian) but some of the arguments in this thread have been brilliant to read and are reminiscent of why AFL-mad Tasmania doesn't have its own side due to the fans already having their own team. I also had no idea about Nick Halling and subsequent googling also revealed Kevin Cadle to be a very successful basketball coach in the UK.
A quick question if I may: why is Neil Reynolds seemingly quite unpopular?
That will never happen. If they can fill 80,000 (and they can) why would they prefer to fill 50-60,000 in stadiums with less hospitality areas, less VIP areas and less aura to Wembley? Plus, those clubs you mention will never allow their pitch to be destroyed 8 times a year during the football season. It's a complete non-starter.
Selling out for 3 games a year is pretty different than selling out for 8 though - espcially if the team is struggling.
A quick question if I may: why is Neil Reynolds seemingly quite unpopular?
LOL
I don't think he is unpopular. I find him to be a passionate English observer of the NFL whom knows his subject extremely well. Clearly expansion of the NFL to these shores though the International Series opens up more avenues for him and you would expect him to be 100% positive about that. I do wonder if he would really want an NFL franchise in the UK. I've never really heard him answer that specific question and I've never heard anything remotely critical from him about the NFL's UK ventures.
On a separate note, this weekend is the Pro Bowl. Coverage on Sky Sports One. The commentary is provided by ESPN's Monday Night Crew.
01:00 Monday - Irvin @ Carter - ESPN - Mike Tirico, Jon Gruden, Lisa Salters.
Ok not strictly broadcasting but it is illustrative of how inept NFLUK are that their forum has been down for days as we enter the biggest week of the NFL year. This is after they wrecked the forum at the start of the season by having the wicked idea to do a forum redesign to coincide with Week 1 which surprise surprise left the forum out of action.
NFLUK does not exactly inspire confidence (mind you nor does the NFL New York office given heir awful handling of the 'deflategate' pseudo-scandal).
Ok not strictly broadcasting but it is illustrative of how inept NFLUK are that their forum has been down for days as we enter the biggest week of the NFL year. This is after they wrecked the forum at the start of the season by having the wicked idea to do a forum redesign to coincide with Week 1 which surprise surprise left the forum out of action.
NFLUK does not exactly inspire confidence (mind you nor does the NFL New York office given heir awful handling of the 'deflategate' pseudo-scandal).
Suspect Sky won't mind the plugs for NFL at Wembley if they keep getting good ratings for the big games,
Green Bay/Seattle in the NFC Championship game drew 163,000 viewers according to BARB, the biggest audience for a non-football programme on Sky Sports 1-5 or BT Sport that week
Suspect Sky won't mind the plugs for NFL at Wembley if they keep getting good ratings for the big games,
Green Bay/Seattle in the NFC Championship game drew 163,000 viewers according to BARB, the biggest audience for a non-football programme on Sky Sports 1-5 or BT Sport that week
How does that rate with previous championship games though? Be interesting to see if the ratings are getting better year on year.
I don't think he is unpopular. I find him to be a passionate English observer of the NFL whom knows his subject extremely well. Clearly expansion of the NFL to these shores though the International Series opens up more avenues for him and you would expect him to be 100% positive about that. I do wonder if he would really want an NFL franchise in the UK. I've never really heard him answer that specific question and I've never heard anything remotely critical from him about the NFL's UK ventures.
Interesting question and answer. Reynolds seems like he'd probably be a good guy to have a chat with at the pub about NFL. But it appears he receives criticism on the NFL UK forum, on here occasionally, because he's part of the main problem with Sky's coverage - their studio presentation comes across as though they don't take the sport seriously. Kevin Cadle regularly makes basic mistakes about which teams are playing, scores, gets people's names wrong, and generally gives off the sense that he's not paying close enough attention. Contrast him with the guy who hosts the Red Zone, who is on top of the details of as many as nine or ten games at the same time. Cecil Martin - seems like a great guy, doing very well to overcome Bell's Palsy, I bet he'd be great to hang out with at a party. But on TV he is really not very good, his attempts to use the on screen technology are sometimes embarrassing. The rest of the former players and coaches are a mixed bag - Shaun Gayle is decent, Jeff Reinebold is probably the best, Bradlee van Pelt I think was carved out of a solid block of granite. It's not great that they keep chopping and changing this person throughout the season, the best thing that could happen would be for Reinebold to retire from coaching and be in the Sky studio every week.
Reynolds, while knowledgable, has very little credibility or gravitas. He never played the game, so he doesn't bring any insights beyond what most long-time fans already have. I think his dual role as presenter while also working for the NFL doesn't help because he's part of the "Sky as cheerleaders for the league" perception which also weakens the credibility of their coverage.
But whatever, as long as Sky keep showing as many games as they do I can put up with the studio crew. Unless my team is playing I usuaully just watch the Red Zone, and at least Reinebold makes the Sky team tolerable during the playoffs.
How does that rate with previous championship games though? Be interesting to see if the ratings are getting better year on year.
According to the ratings there was a huge rise in interest around 2010/11 for some reason, since when interest has plateaued or even modestly declined. A few years ago regular season games got around and above 100,000 more often than now.
NFL UK are fond of saying things like "viewers have doubled in 5 years" which is true but gives a misleading picture when their general narrative is the sport is supposedly exploding in popularity off the back of the Wembley games. If ratings are level for another 2 years will it be "viewership has doubled in 7 years"?
I find the whole thing very interesting, seldom has a sport been so brazen about wanting to spread into another market, and been fairly upfront that it is about money rather than "spreading the game" which is what football, Cricket or any other sport would probably claim. They are also good at presenting a united front on the subject, behind the scenes there must be some owners who are very pro the London strategy and others who think it's a folly.
According to the ratings there was a huge rise in interest around 2010/11 for some reason, since when interest has plateaued or even modestly declined. A few years ago regular season games got around and above 100,000 more often than now.
NFL UK are fond of saying things like "viewers have doubled in 5 years" which is true but gives a misleading picture when their general narrative is the sport is supposedly exploding in popularity off the back of the Wembley games. If ratings are level for another 2 years will it be "viewership has doubled in 7 years"?
Those ratings numbers look a little dubious to me. The 2011 game was Packers at Bears which would likely draw more UK viewers than Jets at Colts in 2010 or Eagles at Cardinals in 2009, but twice as many? That seems hard to believe. I take the BARB numbers with a pinch of salt when the total viewer numbers are fairly low.
Those ratings numbers look a little dubious to me. The 2011 game was Packers at Bears which would likely draw more UK viewers than Jets at Colts in 2010 or Eagles at Cardinals in 2009, but twice as many? That seems hard to believe. I take the BARB numbers with a pinch of salt when the total viewer numbers are fairly low.
I don't entirely disagree, though I was thinking more of ratings over the season as a whole, which would be more accurate, at the very least at showing what sort of direction things were heading in, even if there is a high margin of error. Generally these ratings have followed a similar pattern to the Chamionship games UKdude7 posted.
Surely the in season viewership must be impacted by Redzone on the red button. Both my friend I attend the Wembley games and myself watch that rather than the main game. I presume BARB don't measure or is it added to the main channel audience ?
I do think NFL interest in the UK has plateaued and I don't think the London games have grown it much. Is just same people in the main going to 3 games not 1. As someone quoted here recently the audience on C4/More4 for the London games was dire given its free TV. It seems they get very few casual viewers as fans either have Sky or were at the game.
In terms of presenters the guy who does redzone is amazing with the stamina to continue the pace of presentation for almost 7 hours. In the UK I prefer the C4 guys for SNF to Sky. I also always like Nick so was disappointed he left to be replaced by Neil, who actually works better as host with a pundit / player to work with.
Wonder if Bills v Jags sells out with 2 potentially more interesting games around it? I guess they wanted to find out what interest is like with the Jags not playing one of the more glamourous teams.
Wonder if Bills v Jags sells out with 2 potentially more interesting games around it? I guess they wanted to find out what interest is like with the Jags not playing one of the more glamourous teams.
I think it's more a matter of they are working their way through the league. At some point every team will be asked to play at Wembley, and the Bills haven't been here yet. By my calculations, after this year 20 of the 32 teams will have played in London.
I think it's more a matter of they are working their way through the league. At some point every team will be asked to play at Wembley, and the Bills haven't been here yet. By my calculations, after this year 20 of the 32 teams will have played in London.
It doesn't help that the Jaguars don't host any of the big name teams next year like Cowboys last year or Packers next year. Think the Colts with Luck might be the biggest draw they have and it's possible that a division game is something they weren't willing to give up.
It doesn't help that the Jaguars don't host any of the big name teams next year like Cowboys last year or Packers next year. Think the Colts with Luck might be the biggest draw they have and it's possible that a division game is something they weren't willing to give up.
They host the Packers in 2016, I am very much hoping that will be at Wembley. But will the Jaguars want to give up that as a home game in Jacksonville?
Generally speaking the NFL tended to keep the UK game between teams in different conferences, although that has been changing of late. The Jets v Dolphins will be the first inter-division game played here.
Reynolds, while knowledgable, has very little credibility or gravitas. He never played the game, so he doesn't bring any insights beyond what most long-time fans already have. I think his dual role as presenter while also working for the NFL doesn't help because he's part of the "Sky as cheerleaders for the league" perception which also weakens the credibility of their coverage.
Good post and TBH I'd have thought Sky would have dropped cable for Reynolds a while ago anyway. Just to be fair to Neil Reynolds though, he has played the game albeit in tha UK. I think you are right about the Gravitas he brings, not helped by being English, and as you say as long as we get games can't complain (even if I do watch Gamepass most of the time!)
Good post and TBH I'd have thought Sky would have dropped cable for Reynolds a while ago anyway. Just to be fair to Neil Reynolds though, he has played the game albeit in tha UK. I think you are right about the Gravitas he brings, not helped by being English, and as you say as long as we get games can't complain (even if I do watch Gamepass most of the time!)
I think the main reason Halling, and now Reynolds aren't liked on those NFL UK forums is probably down to a bit of snobbishness. Because those two are British and have not played the game at any real level, the hardcore fans see someone like Reynolds and think 'well I know more about NFL than he does, why is he on there as a pundit and not me?'
A few people I know who have a bit of a passing interest in the NFL (i.e. might watch a bit on a Sunday evening and the Super Bowl) have quite liked both of them, so it's all subjective I guess!
I think the main reason Halling, and now Reynolds aren't liked on those NFL UK forums is probably down to a bit of snobbishness. Because those two are British and have not played the game at any real level, the hardcore fans see someone like Reynolds and think 'well I know more about NFL than he does, why is he on there as a pundit and not me?'
A few people I know who have a bit of a passing interest in the NFL (i.e. might watch a bit on a Sunday evening and the Super Bowl) have quite liked both of them, so it's all subjective I guess!
I think this hits the nail on the head. Sky already know that the devoted NFL fan will watch their coverage, because they have the main Sunday games and all the play offs. If you are an NFL fan and have Sky you are not going to not watch the games because you don't like Reynolds, that would be ridiculous, and they know that.
Where Reynolds comes in handy is the 'floating viewer'. I think if a non-NFL fan drifts across a game on a Sunday night or in the play offs they are going to sit there bemused listening to Reinebold talking about tactics. He is a coaches analyst (obviously) and he speaks like a coach. To someone like me that is great, and I think he's desperately needed amidst the banal waffle from Cadle, but to the non-fan (those Sky and NFLUK want to attract) he will be a massive turn-off.
Reynolds therefore is valuable to Sky and NFLUK by being both knowledgeable but with the ability to talk the language of those who are new to the game. It's the age old argument between those who want an authentic, analytical and in-depth style of coverage and those who want one that allows new fans to engage with what is being said.
I am a Rugby League fan and Sky have arguably gone the same route with coverage there. Eddie Hemmings and Mike Stephenson are pretty much disliked by long-time fans because they are accused of presenting the game in a dumbed down old fashioned way (and in a way that promotes Sky as much as the game) but according to lots of people they attract the non-fan with their style. Sky again know that the long-time fans will bite their lips and put up with it whilst the floating viewer is more likely to stay tuned listening to those two as opposed to presenters who use (to them) excessive amounts of insider terminology or jargon.
Comments
I read somewhere the Rams were there for just under 50 years, Raiders a dozen, LA pax were indifferent to both teams even when they had winning seasons, although maybe significant the Rams owner has bought land in the LA area & is keen to build a stadium fit to host modern NFL games, the current stadiums in LA are antiquated for NFL games.
The Raiders who are desperate to move from, Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum which is outdated & was leaking raw sewage a couple of years ago, are most likely to move to LA.
Yeah, I remember when the Raiders played in LA. They tapped into the Hispanic and African-American parts of LA quite well, but they only averaged 45,000 or so, which in a city the size of LA was horrendous. There are still a lot of Raiders fans in LA, and also a lot of Rams fan still in LA, but Los Angeles is one of those cities where the weather and the massive range of other lifestyle options means that neither team seem to be massively missed.
USC tapped into the market for game-going American football fans when they were red-hot under Pete Carroll, and they averaged over 90,000 when they were a national championship contender, but as soon as they slipped from the upper echelon their crowds dipped substantially. For an NFL team to be a massive success in LA (which is a city with a lot of people who weren't born or raised there) you have to be very good and consistently very good. An 8-8 team will die there very quickly, and of course that's what happened to the Raiders and Rams.
The Raiders may move back there, and lots of people who still follow them will be delighted, but I can't see them ever consistently getting the types of crowds that the NFL wants, because the way the NFL is it is really hard to be really good year after year. LA has gotten used to not having a team. People have gotten out of the habit of going to NFL games.
LA as a city should have an NFL team because it is a huge city and a huge market, but whether or not that team will be a success is another matter.
A quick question if I may: why is Neil Reynolds seemingly quite unpopular?
Selling out for 3 games a year is pretty different than selling out for 8 though - espcially if the team is struggling.
Your point about Sunday is very valid though.
LOL
I don't think he is unpopular. I find him to be a passionate English observer of the NFL whom knows his subject extremely well. Clearly expansion of the NFL to these shores though the International Series opens up more avenues for him and you would expect him to be 100% positive about that. I do wonder if he would really want an NFL franchise in the UK. I've never really heard him answer that specific question and I've never heard anything remotely critical from him about the NFL's UK ventures.
On a separate note, this weekend is the Pro Bowl. Coverage on Sky Sports One. The commentary is provided by ESPN's Monday Night Crew.
01:00 Monday - Irvin @ Carter - ESPN - Mike Tirico, Jon Gruden, Lisa Salters.
Further information regarding the coverage at http://espn**************/us/press-releases/2015/01/2015-nfl-pro-bowl-espn/
NFLUK does not exactly inspire confidence (mind you nor does the NFL New York office given heir awful handling of the 'deflategate' pseudo-scandal).
Absolute joke of a site since Hank left NFLUK.
Green Bay/Seattle in the NFC Championship game drew 163,000 viewers according to BARB, the biggest audience for a non-football programme on Sky Sports 1-5 or BT Sport that week
How does that rate with previous championship games though? Be interesting to see if the ratings are getting better year on year.
Interesting question and answer. Reynolds seems like he'd probably be a good guy to have a chat with at the pub about NFL. But it appears he receives criticism on the NFL UK forum, on here occasionally, because he's part of the main problem with Sky's coverage - their studio presentation comes across as though they don't take the sport seriously. Kevin Cadle regularly makes basic mistakes about which teams are playing, scores, gets people's names wrong, and generally gives off the sense that he's not paying close enough attention. Contrast him with the guy who hosts the Red Zone, who is on top of the details of as many as nine or ten games at the same time. Cecil Martin - seems like a great guy, doing very well to overcome Bell's Palsy, I bet he'd be great to hang out with at a party. But on TV he is really not very good, his attempts to use the on screen technology are sometimes embarrassing. The rest of the former players and coaches are a mixed bag - Shaun Gayle is decent, Jeff Reinebold is probably the best, Bradlee van Pelt I think was carved out of a solid block of granite. It's not great that they keep chopping and changing this person throughout the season, the best thing that could happen would be for Reinebold to retire from coaching and be in the Sky studio every week.
Reynolds, while knowledgable, has very little credibility or gravitas. He never played the game, so he doesn't bring any insights beyond what most long-time fans already have. I think his dual role as presenter while also working for the NFL doesn't help because he's part of the "Sky as cheerleaders for the league" perception which also weakens the credibility of their coverage.
But whatever, as long as Sky keep showing as many games as they do I can put up with the studio crew. Unless my team is playing I usuaully just watch the Red Zone, and at least Reinebold makes the Sky team tolerable during the playoffs.
Previous early kick off Championship Game ratings...
1999: 120,000 (Falcons v Vikings classic)
2008: 124,000
2009: 88,000
2010: 83,000
2011: 174,000
2012: 185,000
2013: 147,000
2014: 186,000
2015: 163,000
Was that really 16 years ago.......! Poor old Gary Anderson....
According to the ratings there was a huge rise in interest around 2010/11 for some reason, since when interest has plateaued or even modestly declined. A few years ago regular season games got around and above 100,000 more often than now.
NFL UK are fond of saying things like "viewers have doubled in 5 years" which is true but gives a misleading picture when their general narrative is the sport is supposedly exploding in popularity off the back of the Wembley games. If ratings are level for another 2 years will it be "viewership has doubled in 7 years"?
I find the whole thing very interesting, seldom has a sport been so brazen about wanting to spread into another market, and been fairly upfront that it is about money rather than "spreading the game" which is what football, Cricket or any other sport would probably claim. They are also good at presenting a united front on the subject, behind the scenes there must be some owners who are very pro the London strategy and others who think it's a folly.
Those ratings numbers look a little dubious to me. The 2011 game was Packers at Bears which would likely draw more UK viewers than Jets at Colts in 2010 or Eagles at Cardinals in 2009, but twice as many? That seems hard to believe. I take the BARB numbers with a pinch of salt when the total viewer numbers are fairly low.
I don't entirely disagree, though I was thinking more of ratings over the season as a whole, which would be more accurate, at the very least at showing what sort of direction things were heading in, even if there is a high margin of error. Generally these ratings have followed a similar pattern to the Chamionship games UKdude7 posted.
I do think NFL interest in the UK has plateaued and I don't think the London games have grown it much. Is just same people in the main going to 3 games not 1. As someone quoted here recently the audience on C4/More4 for the London games was dire given its free TV. It seems they get very few casual viewers as fans either have Sky or were at the game.
In terms of presenters the guy who does redzone is amazing with the stamina to continue the pace of presentation for almost 7 hours. In the UK I prefer the C4 guys for SNF to Sky. I also always like Nick so was disappointed he left to be replaced by Neil, who actually works better as host with a pundit / player to work with.
I think it's more a matter of they are working their way through the league. At some point every team will be asked to play at Wembley, and the Bills haven't been here yet. By my calculations, after this year 20 of the 32 teams will have played in London.
At least he had the consolation of joining the PDC and beating Phil Taylor to win the World Title.:D
It doesn't help that the Jaguars don't host any of the big name teams next year like Cowboys last year or Packers next year. Think the Colts with Luck might be the biggest draw they have and it's possible that a division game is something they weren't willing to give up.
They host the Packers in 2016, I am very much hoping that will be at Wembley. But will the Jaguars want to give up that as a home game in Jacksonville?
Generally speaking the NFL tended to keep the UK game between teams in different conferences, although that has been changing of late. The Jets v Dolphins will be the first inter-division game played here.
I think the main reason Halling, and now Reynolds aren't liked on those NFL UK forums is probably down to a bit of snobbishness. Because those two are British and have not played the game at any real level, the hardcore fans see someone like Reynolds and think 'well I know more about NFL than he does, why is he on there as a pundit and not me?'
A few people I know who have a bit of a passing interest in the NFL (i.e. might watch a bit on a Sunday evening and the Super Bowl) have quite liked both of them, so it's all subjective I guess!
I think this hits the nail on the head. Sky already know that the devoted NFL fan will watch their coverage, because they have the main Sunday games and all the play offs. If you are an NFL fan and have Sky you are not going to not watch the games because you don't like Reynolds, that would be ridiculous, and they know that.
Where Reynolds comes in handy is the 'floating viewer'. I think if a non-NFL fan drifts across a game on a Sunday night or in the play offs they are going to sit there bemused listening to Reinebold talking about tactics. He is a coaches analyst (obviously) and he speaks like a coach. To someone like me that is great, and I think he's desperately needed amidst the banal waffle from Cadle, but to the non-fan (those Sky and NFLUK want to attract) he will be a massive turn-off.
Reynolds therefore is valuable to Sky and NFLUK by being both knowledgeable but with the ability to talk the language of those who are new to the game. It's the age old argument between those who want an authentic, analytical and in-depth style of coverage and those who want one that allows new fans to engage with what is being said.
I am a Rugby League fan and Sky have arguably gone the same route with coverage there. Eddie Hemmings and Mike Stephenson are pretty much disliked by long-time fans because they are accused of presenting the game in a dumbed down old fashioned way (and in a way that promotes Sky as much as the game) but according to lots of people they attract the non-fan with their style. Sky again know that the long-time fans will bite their lips and put up with it whilst the floating viewer is more likely to stay tuned listening to those two as opposed to presenters who use (to them) excessive amounts of insider terminology or jargon.