DS Forums

 
 

NFL - UK Broadcasting Thread


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23-10-2014, 21:13
PlatinumSteve
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,797
Bit of a bummer for Fox (and the fans going to Wembley) that the Falcons aren't better, a month ago it looked like it might be a really good game. Still could be, I suppose, but after four straight losses Atlanta look dead and buried.

BTW, and not really broadcasting related, all the chatter about a potential London team seems awfully premature. The Evening Standard had it as a front page headline last night. A lot has to happen before there is a team based here, I'd estimate the chances of it happening in the next ten years to be less than 5%.
I've seen some people talking about it, would be interesting and cool I think, but man the jet lag would be killer on the American teams visiting, and the London team's road games.
PlatinumSteve is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-10-2014, 11:35
mavreela
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,007
I've seen some people talking about it, would be interesting and cool I think, but man the jet lag would be killer on the American teams visiting, and the London team's road games.
Super Rugby, the main rugby union league in the southern hemisphere, spans South Africa to New Zealand. The distance between its two furthest teams, Bulls in Pretoria to Blues in Auckland, is 7,604 miles by air.

The further NFL team from London is San Diego at 5,487 miles away.

If there was a british team the Chargers would only have to make that trip in the regular season once every six years at worst.

Even with a schedule taking account of the distance, every year the Super Rugby teams play both sides of the India Ocean on consecutive weeks, a distance of 4,893 miles for its closest teams, Sharks in Durban to Western Force in Perth.

Meanwhile in college football the University of Hawaii is 2,415 miles from its nearest conference opponent San Jose State.

A team in Toronto is currently trying to get admitted to our rugby league League One for 2016, its semi-professional third tier. They would be 3,365 miles from their nearest opponent in Barrow.

And a baseball team on one coast can have a home game one day, then play one n the opposite coast the very next. Different physical demands, but the effects of long distance travel are the same.

A London NFL team would not be crossing the Atlantic every other week but will make three, maybe four, trips playing two or three road games back-to-back.

Other teams in the same division will no doubt be scheduled to play in London during the early part of the season so that, like now, they will have a bye week after the trip to retain a competitive balance within the division. The remaining same conference teams will only have to make a trans-Atlantic trip once every six years, those from the other conference every eight years.

As someone who likes both sports, and knows that all players of them respect what those in the other game have to do, I obviously do not accept the "rugby for wimps" cliche. But goodness is it hard not to think of that when people make a fuss over the impact of the travel a London team would pose.

Professional rugby union players manage it on a much larger scale, college football players manage it, now amateur rugby league players want to do it. Of all the logistical issues a London franchise would face, it is the least significant.
mavreela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2014, 14:32
hendero
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,283
Super Rugby, the main rugby union league in the southern hemisphere, spans South Africa to New Zealand. The distance between its two furthest teams, Bulls in Pretoria to Blues in Auckland, is 7,604 miles by air.

The further NFL team from London is San Diego at 5,487 miles away.

If there was a british team the Chargers would only have to make that trip in the regular season once every six years at worst.

Even with a schedule taking account of the distance, every year the Super Rugby teams play both sides of the India Ocean on consecutive weeks, a distance of 4,893 miles for its closest teams, Sharks in Durban to Western Force in Perth.

Meanwhile in college football the University of Hawaii is 2,415 miles from its nearest conference opponent San Jose State.

A team in Toronto is currently trying to get admitted to our rugby league League One for 2016, its semi-professional third tier. They would be 3,365 miles from their nearest opponent in Barrow.

And a baseball team on one coast can have a home game one day, then play one n the opposite coast the very next. Different physical demands, but the effects of long distance travel are the same.

A London NFL team would not be crossing the Atlantic every other week but will make three, maybe four, trips playing two or three road games back-to-back.

Other teams in the same division will no doubt be scheduled to play in London during the early part of the season so that, like now, they will have a bye week after the trip to retain a competitive balance within the division. The remaining same conference teams will only have to make a trans-Atlantic trip once every six years, those from the other conference every eight years.

As someone who likes both sports, and knows that all players of them respect what those in the other game have to do, I obviously do not accept the "rugby for wimps" cliche. But goodness is it hard not to think of that when people make a fuss over the impact of the travel a London team would pose.

Professional rugby union players manage it on a much larger scale, college football players manage it, now amateur rugby league players want to do it. Of all the logistical issues a London franchise would face, it is the least significant.
I see two major problems. The first is which of the divisions is going to agree to be the one that the London team joins? That would mean every year the teams in that division have to make the trip to London, putting them at a disadvantage to the rest of the league. Most teams don't want their bye until after about week 6 or so. Flying to a different country, with at least a five hour time zone difference, is a fairly major undertaking. At present, teams are somewhat willing to make the trip every few years, not every season (besides the Jags, who are terrible at the moment, so it's not as though they are too concerned about giving up home games or making the playoffs). Often times the last few playoff places are decided by only a win or loss, and I can't see any team being willing to take on a transatlantic flight (and back) every year due to the disruption to their schedule.

The second, and probably bigger challenge, is what happens during the playoffs, when the schedule can't accommodate a bye week? They can't realistically send a team to London (especially if the London team has a bye or a home game the week before), then expect them to play in the US the week after if they win. Same issue if the London team wins and has to go on the road the next week. This is probably the biggest challenge to having a team in the UK, I don't really see how they address it.
hendero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-2014, 16:28
mavreela
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,007
The second, and probably bigger challenge, is what happens during the playoffs, when the schedule can't accommodate a bye week?
Again, why are NFL players unable to do something that rugby players can? Because the Super Rugby playoffs use the same system of the highest seed getting a home tie.

Last year the Brumbies played their final regular season game in Perth, travelled 1,921 miles to play their first playoff game at home in Canberra, then 6,730 miles to Pretoria for a semi-final (where they beat the Bulls who had had a first round bye), then 7,564 miles to Hamilton for the final. In consecutive weeks, with no week off before the final.

The only logistical problem with playoff games is the scheduling, and the fact that only one of them is played at 6pm GMT in the wildcard and divisional rounds, whilst the early conference championship is played at 8pm GMT. A London home playoff would be locked into those slots, and the latter may still be too late, which would interfere with the US broadcast rights and how the slots are distributed between the networks.

Whether teams want to make the extra travel or when they have byes scheduled is a preference, not a logistical problem. All teams have to put up with byes sometimes being before week six, so there would be no change there anyway (although why the assumption those games have to be played before week six is beyond me). And west coast teams have to spend a lot of time travelling and are in divisions with a distant team. Sure the scale is different, but the underlying issue is the same.

For the sake or argument, assume a London team replaced Miami in the AFC East as the option that provides the closest the divisional rivals. This year it would see the Jets have to travel 20,000 miles on their eight round trips by replacing the visit to Florida with one to London. And this in a season they have to travel to San Diego.

In last year's regular season the Seahawks equivalent was 27,968 miles on their way to winning the Super Bowl.
mavreela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2014, 18:11
bosworth1485
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 34
I see two major problems. The first is which of the divisions is going to agree to be the one that the London team joins? That would mean every year the teams in that division have to make the trip to London, putting them at a disadvantage to the rest of the league. Most teams don't want their bye until after about week 6 or so. Flying to a different country, with at least a five hour time zone difference, is a fairly major undertaking. At present, teams are somewhat willing to make the trip every few years, not every season (besides the Jags, who are terrible at the moment, so it's not as though they are too concerned about giving up home games or making the playoffs). Often times the last few playoff places are decided by only a win or loss, and I can't see any team being willing to take on a transatlantic flight (and back) every year due to the disruption to their schedule.

The second, and probably bigger challenge, is what happens during the playoffs, when the schedule can't accommodate a bye week? They can't realistically send a team to London (especially if the London team has a bye or a home game the week before), then expect them to play in the US the week after if they win. Same issue if the London team wins and has to go on the road the next week. This is probably the biggest challenge to having a team in the UK, I don't really see how they address it.
I wouldn't have thought the actual division the London franchise is a concern as, if it is Jacksonville that relocates, London would take Jacksonville's place in the AFC South. If it is a 33rd franchise though, then a 34th - i.e Los Angeles - could be required to balance up the League -.

I doubt the NFL would realign any divisions just to fit London in, a look at a map of the US shows plenty of anomalies - Texas, for example, has Dallas in the NFC East and Houston in the AFC South yet Texas is in the central third of the country -.

I see your point regarding the playoffs and timing of matches but again, match timings can always be moved to suit. I remember, up until the last few years, wildcard and divisional playoff games were played early/late Saturday's and early/late Sunday's and both Championship games played early/late Sunday (all UK time) - ah the days of listening to AFN mixed in with BBC Radio Norfolk on medium wave -. The move to overnight Saturday and Sundays UK time has only happened recently.

Overall, the owners of the teams would have to vote in favour of the move. Therefore, they agree to sending their team across the pond for one game per year. Of course the London franchise would also have to make eight similar journeys for away fixtures during the regular season plus any playoffs so I don't see the travelling as an issue.

Last edited by bosworth1485 : 25-10-2014 at 18:17. Reason: factual error
bosworth1485 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-2014, 20:27
Daryl_Slinn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 86
- ah the days of listening to AFN mixed in with BBC Radio Norfolk on medium wave -.
Don't forget the intermittent opera singing too.
Daryl_Slinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 08:17
dsweetenham
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: .
Posts: 2,105
I've seen some people talking about it, would be interesting and cool I think, but man the jet lag would be killer on the American teams visiting, and the London team's road games.
Why wouldn't/haven't teams considering doing what the entire F1 Circus (teams, media etc.) do for the (held at night) Singaporean Grand Prix i.e. stay on their own time. For London road games if you are in the states for 3-4 games at a time then it's not such an issue.

The time difference is more of an issue for US TV i.e. you couldn't have no Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games in London.
dsweetenham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 19:19
Regis Magnae
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 6,637
That game turned out better than expected in the end, though both teams seemed intent on losing towards the end.
Regis Magnae is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 19:39
Bosox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 10,702
The time difference is more of an issue for US TV i.e. you couldn't have no Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games in London.
You couldn't even have late afternoon Sunday games, they would finish gone half past midnight here. The early early slot really has to be a success if they want to make games over here work.
Bosox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 19:43
Bosox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 10,702
Away from the London game, I've said it before but it really is untenable for Sky to keep taking these CBS games without the 1st Down line. It's impossible to follow what is happening on any play without it. They need to take the TV feed not the clean Stadium feed.
Bosox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 19:50
mavreela
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,007
Away from the London game, I've said it before but it really is untenable for Sky to keep taking these CBS games without the 1st Down line. It's impossible to follow what is happening on any play without it. They need to take the TV fed not the clean Stadium feed.
As much as I agree it is annoying, though I blame CBS for using cheaper and poorer technology rather than Sky, is it really impossible to follow? We all managed quite well before it existed.

(And CBS know it is an inferior system else they would use it on all their games rather than paying extra for a camera mounted system for their main game and playoffs).
mavreela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 20:00
mavreela
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,007
Incidentally, I noticed a couple of differences in the coverage today which seemed odd.

When the Falcons came out Sky showed the Wembley specific video but Channel 4 had a Samuel L Jackson "Rise Up" one. Which I presume is the regular one given he refers to "this dome."

Then when they went "inside the booth" Sky had Brennaman and Aikman screen, as usual. Whilst instead of going from the long shot of the booth to a close up, Channel 4 went to cut aways from around the stadium.

There may have been more, I only had both on so I could pick and choose what to watch during breaks, so only caught those two by chance.

And for a piece of trivia: Thom Brennaman has now called both the first regular season NFL game played outside North America, and the earliest regular season kickoff in NFL history.
mavreela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 20:03
Bosox
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 10,702
As much as I agree it is annoying, though I blame CBS for using cheaper and poorer technology rather than Sky, is it really impossible to follow? We all managed quite well before it existed.
But before it existed the TV broadcast was tailored to reflect the fact no one had that line. Announcers would give more information, camera shots were framed to allow you to see down markers. Now the TV broadcasts take into account that everyone in America can see the lines so the allowances aren't made.

It's like we all coped fine with having 4:3 TVs 20 years ago so if you had a 4:3 TV now you should be fine, but if TV companies are tailoring their coverage to reflect that 99% of people now have 16:9 TVs then what you are watching on a 4:3 TV will be much worse than it was 20 years ago.
Bosox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-10-2014, 22:45
mavreela
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,007
But before it existed the TV broadcast was tailored to reflect the fact no one had that line. Announcers would give more information, camera shots were framed to allow you to see down markers. Now the TV broadcasts take into account that everyone in America can see the lines so the allowances aren't made.
I disagree. Until CBS took over the AFC package NBC did not even have permanent graphics so you had to catch the down and distance when it briefly flashed up at the end of the previous play. As I recall initially even Fox only showed the clock and score that way. But now that information is displayed on the scoreboard, as well as additionally via a virtual on-field graphic, so there is now more information, not less.

As for widescreen, a large number of US households still have 4:3 TV sets. There were a lot of complaints when Fox dropped support for the safe area only a few years ago. It took a while for some cable companies and smaller affiliates to enforce letterboxing of the network feed rather than signalling or sending it as a centre cut version. And I believe CBS and NBC coverage is still produced for a 4:3 safe area, their graphics certainly are, with only Fox and ESPN using the full widescreen framing and requiring letterboxing.

And the framing of broadcasts in general tend to be wider now because of the higher resolution of HD and average television sets being larger allowing more context to be shown without losing detail. Under SD there was more of a tendency to be more close up otherwise visual detail at smaller sizes becomes a blur. That is a general, not NFL, specific thing but it concurs with my memory of having watched since the 1980s. I certainly feel like I am seeing more of a play now, which if not because they are shooting wider is because it is shot the same but with an increased widescreen frame. But they certainly did not include the down marker in every play.

To know where the line to gain was before the virtual first line, you used the hash marks as a reference based on the down and distance. All that information is still offered. Via the scoreboard for the down and distance, for passing plays they do not cut to a close up before being able to see the receiver is on the field as the ball is received, and running plays are never that close up that you cannot see either the hash marks or sidelines.

Yet even right now on this Fox game I have not seen a play where you do not have all that information on screen to work out what is happening, and unlike CBS ones it is not framed for a 4:3 safe area.
mavreela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 07:59
gers09
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,832
The time difference is more of an issue for US TV i.e. you couldn't have no Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games in London.
The NFL were quite happy to have an early kick off yesterday between the Lions and Falcons. With the game kick off at 9.30am ET/6.30am PT.

I don't see any reason why they couldnt do a double header Thurs/Sun/Mon night game. With a game in London at 8.30/9pm UK Time (5.30pm ET), then followed by a game from the US in its usual timeslot.
gers09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 08:31
hendero
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,283
I wouldn't have thought the actual division the London franchise is a concern as, if it is Jacksonville that relocates, London would take Jacksonville's place in the AFC South. If it is a 33rd franchise though, then a 34th - i.e Los Angeles - could be required to balance up the League -.

I doubt the NFL would realign any divisions just to fit London in, a look at a map of the US shows plenty of anomalies - Texas, for example, has Dallas in the NFC East and Houston in the AFC South yet Texas is in the central third of the country -.

I see your point regarding the playoffs and timing of matches but again, match timings can always be moved to suit. I remember, up until the last few years, wildcard and divisional playoff games were played early/late Saturday's and early/late Sunday's and both Championship games played early/late Sunday (all UK time) - ah the days of listening to AFN mixed in with BBC Radio Norfolk on medium wave -. The move to overnight Saturday and Sundays UK time has only happened recently.

Overall, the owners of the teams would have to vote in favour of the move. Therefore, they agree to sending their team across the pond for one game per year. Of course the London franchise would also have to make eight similar journeys for away fixtures during the regular season plus any playoffs so I don't see the travelling as an issue.
I agree that as of today Jacksonville seems like the most likely franchise to relocate to London. The team stinks, they don't usually sell out their home games, they have only been in existence 20 years, they have already agreed to give up a home game for four straight seasons, and their owner also owns Fulham FC.

But if that happened and they didn't realign the divisions, then as you have pointed out, that would mean Houston would be in their division and would have to travel to London every year. If I was the Texans ownership I would be asking why should we be asked to make an almost 10,000 mile round trip every season (along with Indy and Tennessee), when the rest of the league doesn't?

Also, as it stands right now, it is more or less the same for both teams travelling to London. That wouldn't be the case if London was the home team, that puts the team travelling here at a major disadvantage, in most cases significantly worse than an East coast US team travelling to the West coast or vice versa.

If I was the NFL, I'd be looking to try out international games in some other European cities to see if a four NFL Europe division was possible. That would minimise most of the regular season issues, although not the playoff problem.
hendero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 09:24
Ginger Daddy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,798
The proof if the 9.30am ET experiment was successful will be in the US viewing figures. The fact the game was close will help.
Ginger Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 10:10
jeffersbnl
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 4,191
I don't see any reason why they couldnt do a double header Thurs/Sun/Mon night game. With a game in London at 8.30/9pm UK Time (5.30pm ET), then followed by a game from the US in its usual timeslot.
I can see at least two very good reasons:

TV audience in the US would be massively reduced by having a 5:30pmET/2:30PT kick off. The networks would be very unhappy.

Travel: an 8:30/9pm kick off wouldn't finish until close to / after Midnight. Most people would struggle to get home on public transport. Even those living within London would find it difficult. People would have to go to work the next day.
jeffersbnl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 10:31
mavreela
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,007
I don't see any reason why they couldnt do a double header Thurs/Sun/Mon night game. With a game in London at 8.30/9pm UK Time (5.30pm ET), then followed by a game from the US in its usual timeslot.
The reason is because at 8:30pm it would mean over 80,000 people leaving Wembley at almost midnight.

With a rail system that shuts down around 12:30am, so even though you could just about get everyone into central London almost all of the services back out into the suburbs and home counties, let alone further, will have already finished.

Where the local residents will complain, and no doubt the police will not allow it either.

Sure in the US it is quite normal for sport events to end that late, but it is a completely different culture. Not least of which because we do not need to compromise to balance four time zones. and that we are more dependent on public transport. The latter is especially true of Wembley and all of the other venues in the UK suitable for NFL use.

I cannot think of any stadium sport in the UK that schedules matches to end after 10pm, only finishing later when extra time is needed or that suffered unavoidable delays. The only sport I can think of that plays that late is snooker, where the crowd size is minuscule in comparison.

Incidentally, 8:30pm UK is 3:30pm ET so there is no way the league would want to play a regular season game at time on a weekday. And there would be no benefit to playing on days other than Sunday just for the sake of it. That a London team would not be able to play a home game, and would not be ideal as an away one, in one of the primetime slots is not a problem. And for ratings reasons one that NBC, ESPN, and NFLN/CBS would be very happy about.
mavreela is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 11:12
arunan22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,195
I can see at least two very good reasons:

TV audience in the US would be massively reduced by having a 5:30pmET/2:30PT kick off. The networks would be very unhappy.

Travel: an 8:30/9pm kick off wouldn't finish until close to / after Midnight. Most people would struggle to get home on public transport. Even those living within London would find it difficult. People would have to go to work the next day.
I am convinced the idea of an NFL Franchise in London would fail miserably. The London games work because they are one/three-off 'events' and attract a lot of corporates plus fans of all NFL teams go because its quite rare to see an NFL game in London. If this becomes a regular thing, how many people will be willing to go to a game when it loses its novelty after a year or two after 16 games have been played in the last two years?

That, and with the way jetlag could potentially affect competitiveness, and the time zone coverage issue means its unlikely to happen personally.
arunan22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 13:05
hendero
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,283
There are apparently plans to play 5 games in London next season:

http://fansided.com/2014/10/26/repor...mes-next-year/

Which sounds like they are trying to achieve a few things: 1. see if there is an appetite amongst UK/London fans for that many games, which is not far off a full eight game home schedule. 2. get NFL teams used to the idea of the London game. By the end of next season there probably won't be too many teams who haven't played at least once in London and 3. maybe have some more of the earlier kick-off times, if they are encouraged by the viewign figures for yesterday's game. Apparently one concern is the reaction amongst fantasy players, especially those who weren't aware of the early kick-off, and didn't get their teams changed before the Wembely game started.

FWIW I can see them having a Super Bowl over here before a London team, although that woud mean having the kick off much earlier than the current SB start time. Plus it would annoy the fans of the two participating teams. Or maybe have the Pro Bowl in London, that would probably work.
hendero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 13:07
Ginger Daddy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 6,798
There are apparently plans to play 5 games in London next season:

http://fansided.com/2014/10/26/repor...mes-next-year/

Which sounds like they are trying to achieve a few things: 1. see if there is an appetite amongst UK/London fans for that many games, which is not far off a full eight game home schedule. 2. get NFL teams used to the idea of the London game. By the end of next season there probably won't be too many teams who haven't played at least once in London and 3. maybe have some more of the earlier kick-off times, if they are encouraged by the viewign figures for yesterday's game. Apparently one concern is the reaction amongst fantasy players, especially those who weren't aware of the early kick-off, and didn't get their teams changed before the Wembely game started.

FWIW I can see them having a Super Bowl over here before a London team, although that woud mean having the kick off much earlier than the current SB start time. Plus it would annoy the fans of the two participating teams. Or maybe have the Pro Bowl in London, that would probably work.
Alistair Kirkwood (head of NFL UK) confirmed at some point this weekend they cant do that many next year because of logistics over the Rugby World Cup. However they are going to stick at 3 games but play 2 of them in consecutive weekends.
Ginger Daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 13:24
sn_22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,295
I am convinced the idea of an NFL Franchise in London would fail miserably. The London games work because they are one/three-off 'events' and attract a lot of corporates plus fans of all NFL teams go because its quite rare to see an NFL game in London. If this becomes a regular thing, how many people will be willing to go to a game when it loses its novelty after a year or two after 16 games have been played in the last two years?

That, and with the way jetlag could potentially affect competitiveness, and the time zone coverage issue means its unlikely to happen personally.
My biggest concern wouldn't so much be about the number of games, as it would be about building support specifically behind whichever franchise was moved here. Those that go to the games at the moment - the hardcore NFL support - already have their allegiances, and I don't know that any are going to drop decades-long support for the Colts, Dolphins, Patriots. et al. to get behind a brand new London team. I actually think the NFL would feasibly scale up to playing a full home slate of eight games a year in the UK. But that's a significantly easier task than properly embedding a new home team here.

I think, to be honest, they need to look at building the casual support over here first. New casual UK fans are going to need to buy into the NFL as a whole - and that means building TV figures. Yesterday's Wembley game got about 350k on Channel 4 (then there'll probably be another couple of hundred thousand on Sky). I think those numbers will need to improve if a franchise is going to work.
sn_22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2014, 13:32
hendero
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,283
Again, why are NFL players unable to do something that rugby players can? Because the Super Rugby playoffs use the same system of the highest seed getting a home tie.
For one thing American football is a very different game than rugby. Teams need time to plan for the next opponent's offensive and defensive strategies, the quarterbacks, wide receivers, etc. Players need time to study film, make adjustments in practice, etc. If a day (or more) is lost due to intercontinental travel and jet lag, that puts the away team at a fairly major disadvantage.

The Super 14 (or whatever it's calling itself this season) was set up on the premise that transcontinental travel would be part of the game, it's more or less the same for every team, and if you want to get the advantage of not having to travel come playoff time, you earn it by your record playing all the other teams. It wouldn't be the same for the NFL. The London team could have a better record (in part by virtue of the advantage of hosting teams which have travelled five or more time zones, whereas when London play in the US they will presumably have blocks of two or three games, so they will have the chance to acclimitise for more of them) than say the winner of the AFC West. It has the potential to become a fairly massive home field advantage for the johnny-come-lately London team, which no other team would have the chance to replicate.

Don't get me wrong, as an NFL fan I'd love to see a London team. I just think there are a number of logistical and related hurdles that I don't think have been fully thought through. Which is why I'd be amazed if it happens in the next ten years.
hendero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2014, 08:15
gers09
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 1,832
The reason is because at 8:30pm it would mean over 80,000 people leaving Wembley at almost midnight.
With a rail system that shuts down around 12:30am, so even though you could just about get everyone into central London almost all of the services back out into the suburbs and home counties, let alone further, will have already finished.

Where the local residents will complain, and no doubt the police will not allow it either.

Sure in the US it is quite normal for sport events to end that late, but it is a completely different culture. Not least of which because we do not need to compromise to balance four time zones. and that we are more dependent on public transport. The latter is especially true of Wembley and all of the other venues in the UK suitable for NFL use.

I cannot think of any stadium sport in the UK that schedules matches to end after 10pm, only finishing later when extra time is needed or that suffered unavoidable delays. The only sport I can think of that plays that late is snooker, where the crowd size is minuscule in comparison.

Incidentally, 8:30pm UK is 3:30pm ET so there is no way the league would want to play a regular season game at time on a weekday. And there would be no benefit to playing on days other than Sunday just for the sake of it. That a London team would not be able to play a home game, and would not be ideal as an away one, in one of the primetime slots is not a problem. And for ratings reasons one that NBC, ESPN, and NFLN/CBS would be very happy about.
I realise it was very different circumstances but they managed to organise something for the Olympics Opening Ceremony which if I recall correctly ran past 1am? Even have a kick off at 7.45/8pm then and that should give people enough time to get home.

By the way, on a side note... When I was down in London last year for the Scotland v England football match, having been to many cities around Europe but never London, I was shocked at how early everything seemed to shut down. I was expecting much more of a 24 hour city!

I really believe that the NFL would be quite happy with the commercial benefits to having a team in London that they wouldn't have a problem dealing with TV scheduling issues.
I think more people over here would be unhappy when the London team were playing at 1am on a Tuesday morning etc.
gers09 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:16.