Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm wondering how the bye week after a team plays in London works when London would be playing there 8 times. They're not going to get 8 byes after all of their road games to fly back there. If they host the first game then that road team is on a bye the 2nd week. What if they made the playoffs and hosted a game but no matter who wins the next game is in the US? Do they do away with the bye then? I guess London would have to play the Sunday and following Thursday game in the same country.
I always thought they should have the bye the week BEFORE the London game, it always seemed stupid (at least to me anyways) to have it afterwards. You have the bye week beforehand, you can use that week to rest up, fly over Saturday night, get in Sunday morning, have that day possibly even Monday to recover from the flight and than start preparing on Tuesday. Let's use a 6 PM London time for a start (which is 1 PM in the East); the game ends at 9:30, pack up the bags, meet the media, and let's say you are on your way to the airport at midnight which is only 7 PM back in the Eastern time zone. Now, the flight from London to the Eastern United States isn't much longer than a flight from the East Coast to the West Coast, I'd say no more than 90 extra minutes longer. According to date from Flightaware, taking 1 flight from London to JFK and this is only because I know the flight number, in the last 2 weeks, the shortest it's taken American Airlines flight 101 to fly this route is 7 hours 13 minute and the longest it's taken has been 8 hours and 22 minutes, but for the last 2 weeks it's been right around probably a 7 hour, 40 minute average.
Now compare those numbers to Delta flight 447, from New York to LAX: in the last 2 weeks, the shortest flying time has been 5 hours, 39 minutes, and the longest time has been 6 hours and 13 minutes, but the average is probably around 5 hours and 55 minutes or so, so a little more than 90 minute difference on average. Now let's do 1 more comparison before I bring my point back:
Jet Blue flight 1224 from LAX to JFK: 4 hours, 38 minutes is the shortest flight time the last 2 weeks, while the longest flight time has been 5 hours and 20 minutes. You get the tail wind this direction so that's why it is going to be faster, but the average comes out to probably a little under 5 hours, let's say 4 hours, 55 minutes
So, go back to my London example and use the Giants as the example team. They'd probably fly into Newark, but it's only about a 10 minute difference: they get to Heathrow at midnight, and since it's midnight they are able to get into the air at 12:10, which is 7:10 back in New York. Using my rough 7:40 estimate flying time from London, they'd land at JFK in Queens around 2:50 AM. OK, doesn't actually seem that bad when I put it like that.
Now, let's have the Giants playing at the Chargers, and we'll make it better for the Giants as they are playing in the new stadium that is going to be right across/down the street from the LA airport. The game starts at 1:25 (4:25 in New York), we'll say ends at 4:45 (7:45 in New York). Pack up the bags, meet the media, by the time they get on the bus to head across the highway we'll say it's 6 (9 in New York). They make it to the plane in 20 minutes (9:20 New York time) but since it's rush hour at LAX at this time it takes them 35 minutes before they can get off the ground, as wheels up time is 6:55 (9:55 in New York). Now using my also rough estimate 4:55 LA to NY flight time they are landing at the same exact time (2:50 AM) that the flight from London would be landing, but since they played in London they get a bye, while playing in California they didn't. It never made much sense to me why the bye was afterwards and NEVER before. I'd like to see, next year, 2 teams have the bye the week before, do what I mentioned above and see if the game is any better. I actually think it would be.
I always thought they should have the bye the week BEFORE the London game, it always seemed stupid (at least to me anyways) to have it afterwards. You have the bye week beforehand, you can use that week to rest up, fly over Saturday night, get in Sunday morning, have that day possibly even Monday to recover from the flight and than start preparing on Tuesday. Let's use a 6 PM London time for a start (which is 1 PM in the East); the game ends at 9:30, pack up the bags, meet the media, and let's say you are on your way to the airport at midnight which is only 7 PM back in the Eastern time zone. Now, the flight from London to the Eastern United States isn't much longer than a flight from the East Coast to the West Coast, I'd say no more than 90 extra minutes longer. According to date from Flightaware, taking 1 flight from London to JFK and this is only because I know the flight number, in the last 2 weeks, the shortest it's taken American Airlines flight 101 to fly this route is 7 hours 13 minute and the longest it's taken has been 8 hours and 22 minutes, but for the last 2 weeks it's been right around probably a 7 hour, 40 minute average.
Now compare those numbers to Delta flight 447, from New York to LAX: in the last 2 weeks, the shortest flying time has been 5 hours, 39 minutes, and the longest time has been 6 hours and 13 minutes, but the average is probably around 5 hours and 55 minutes or so, so a little more than 90 minute difference on average. Now let's do 1 more comparison before I bring my point back:
Jet Blue flight 1224 from LAX to JFK: 4 hours, 38 minutes is the shortest flight time the last 2 weeks, while the longest flight time has been 5 hours and 20 minutes. You get the tail wind this direction so that's why it is going to be faster, but the average comes out to probably a little under 5 hours, let's say 4 hours, 55 minutes
So, go back to my London example and use the Giants as the example team. They'd probably fly into Newark, but it's only about a 10 minute difference: they get to Heathrow at midnight, and since it's midnight they are able to get into the air at 12:10, which is 7:10 back in New York. Using my rough 7:40 estimate flying time from London, they'd land at JFK in Queens around 2:50 AM. OK, doesn't actually seem that bad when I put it like that.
Now, let's have the Giants playing at the Chargers, and we'll make it better for the Giants as they are playing in the new stadium that is going to be right across/down the street from the LA airport. The game starts at 1:25 (4:25 in New York), we'll say ends at 4:45 (7:45 in New York). Pack up the bags, meet the media, by the time they get on the bus to head across the highway we'll say it's 6 (9 in New York). They make it to the plane in 20 minutes (9:20 New York time) but since it's rush hour at LAX at this time it takes them 35 minutes before they can get off the ground, as wheels up time is 6:55 (9:55 in New York). Now using my also rough estimate 4:55 LA to NY flight time they are landing at the same exact time (2:50 AM) that the flight from London would be landing, but since they played in London they get a bye, while playing in California they didn't. It never made much sense to me why the bye was afterwards and NEVER before. I'd like to see, next year, 2 teams have the bye the week before, do what I mentioned above and see if the game is any better. I actually think it would be.
The logistical nightmare I think would be hard to overcome. Even West Coast teams heading East have issues.
I just never have understood the fanatical drive to put an NFL team in London - is the movement really that organic from Londoners themselves??
Mexico City makes a little more sense. But to pass over American cities like Salt Lake City, San Antonio, or St Louis for the UK??
Canada could be interesting - maybe have rivalries such as:
Winnipeg vs Minnesota
Vancouver vs Seattle
Toronto vs Buffalo or Cleveland
Last edited by cougfan; 11-06-2019 at 04:03 AM..
Reason: grammar
What would diminish somewhat the travel conundrum, is there would likely be some divisional realignment and the London team would play in the AFC East. Still a lot of travel, but more realistic than playing in the AFC West. The Texans would move to the AFC West, and Miami to the AFC South. The realignment that occurred in 2002 was very geographically sound. But the two franchises that were left where they were and misfits geographically, were Dallas and Miami.
Dallas and Miami were premiere franchises along with a couple of others. It seemed unorthodox to most, especially fans, to split such teams from their fierce rivals: Cowboys vs Redskins especially- but also vs Giants and Eagles. The Dolphins were a hated foe at one time when they were always good- Bills, Jets, Patriots. Dolphins-Jets produced top-notch games in the 80s especially. Bills-Dolphins was memorable in the 90s. And Bill fans always wanted to stick it to Miami for going 0-for-20 in the 1970s head-to-head. Now that's all the distant past.
Its perhaps odd to think a team's win-loss performance could dictate realignment, but I think the Dolphins' fade to irrelevance is what triggers this move to happen. Not so weird to think any loner them leaving the AFC East. And ownership will likely oblige. Belichick/Brady won't be here forever, but regardless, think about the difference in potential weather when playing November and December divisional games on the road.
@caj727 - Also, with how good the Patriots have been since the last realignment (2002) the Dolphins might like the chance to move to a division without such a strong rival (especially if the Texans move to the AFCW). On the other hand the Texans (and Titans) might not like losing the "Old Houston vs. New Houston" rivalry.
ETA: I thought of another proposal - this one switching conferences (which CBS might like since AFC teams are overall in smaller markets than NFC ones and a London team would be of more limited interest stateside thus helping to balance the ratings between them and FOX). On the subject of Dallas being moved out of the NFC East, my idea would have the following changes if the Chargers move to London:
Chargers to the NFC East
Cowboys to the NFC West
Seahawks (back) to the AFC West
It wouldn't be all "strangers" for the Cowboys in the NFCW - they've had some of a rivalry with the 49ers, they'd get the Cardinals back, and they'd get the second largest market (LA) in exchange for losing the largest one (NY). At least it wouldn't be like if they were put in the NFCS like many who want more "geographic" divisions have proposed where they really don't have any historical ties to the other teams (and for consolation the NFL could guarantee a preseason game with the Redskins in years they don't meet in the regular season).
The Seahawks would lose their current rivals but they'd get the Raiders/Broncos/Chiefs back.
Although moving the Chargers to the NFC would break tradition with all of the original AFL teams being in the AFC, it'd be hardly noticeable especially if they rebrand when moving to London (and maybe doing what the Ravens had to do with the Browns and leave the Chargers name and history behind in California for a possible future expansion team).
I am looking forward to the NFL establishing teams in Europe. Doubtful that the players will have much difficulty coping with the extreme exertion of ultra luxury travel accommodations for their share of the additional gazillion dollars each year that will come of this expansion. This will follow the new CBA (expires after 2021) and broadcast agreement (expire after 2022).
Really won't make a bit of difference whether the game on the Ultra HD Widescreen is in Arizona or Barcelona at the end of the day, will it?
@caj727 - Also, with how good the Patriots have been since the last realignment (2002) the Dolphins might like the chance to move to a division without such a strong rival (especially if the Texans move to the AFCW). On the other hand the Texans (and Titans) might not like losing the "Old Houston vs. New Houston" rivalry.
ETA: I thought of another proposal - this one switching conferences (which CBS might like since AFC teams are overall in smaller markets than NFC ones and a London team would be of more limited interest stateside thus helping to balance the ratings between them and FOX). On the subject of Dallas being moved out of the NFC East, my idea would have the following changes if the Chargers move to London:
Chargers to the NFC East
Cowboys to the NFC West
Seahawks (back) to the AFC West
It wouldn't be all "strangers" for the Cowboys in the NFCW - they've had some of a rivalry with the 49ers, they'd get the Cardinals back, and they'd get the second largest market (LA) in exchange for losing the largest one (NY). At least it wouldn't be like if they were put in the NFCS like many who want more "geographic" divisions have proposed where they really don't have any historical ties to the other teams (and for consolation the NFL could guarantee a preseason game with the Redskins in years they don't meet in the regular ).
Interesting, but there are powers with influence who would balk at the idea of the NFC East losing the Cowboys- certain owners and probably TV execs.
The 2002 realignment happened at an ironic juncture in NFL history. The Dolphins were still, albeit not that good, still decent and considered a storied franchise in the Super Bowl era. The Patriots weren't considered a dynasty, nor yet reviled for better or worse. And the rivalry with the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts never was, well was it ever a rivalry when they were division foes??? Late 70s at best. Grogan vs Bert Jones? It became just that almost simultaneous to when the Colts moved to the AFC South. If not for these developments just after 2002 rather than prior, the AFC divisions would likely look different today.
The logistical nightmare I think would be hard to overcome. Even West Coast teams heading East have issues.
I just never have understood the fanatical drive to put an NFL team in London - is the movement really that organic from Londoners themselves??
Mexico City makes a little more sense. But to pass over American cities like Salt Lake City, San Antonio, or St Louis for the UK??
Canada could be interesting - maybe have rivalries such as:
Winnipeg vs Minnesota
Vancouver vs Seattle
Toronto vs Buffalo or Cleveland
I think you have all good points.. However, the Canada situation wouldn't work. My opinion, obviously.
Toronto is only 2 hours from Buffalo.. You'd be pulling a not insignificant number of fans away from Buffalo. Plus, Toronto, though it is Canada's most populous city. Is only 5 million people. Whereas London is 8.9 million.
Mexico City, from a population, distance and logistical standpoint, would likely be the smarter play. However.. You have the issue of.. Mexico City isn't exactly the safest place in the world.
The NFL is the one who wants a team in London.. They want to expand the brand. You bring in a set of 'new' 8.9 million fans, then it spreads across Europe. that's the thought, at least.
you put a team in SLC.. You're really not adding fans. You're just giving a team to an existing set of fans.
At the end of the day.. And I'm surprised this hasn't happened already.. You're going to hit a situation where there are going to be issues.. A team can't make it there.. Or, the bigger problem.. Players not making it.
The Bengals played a number of times over the past 10 years in London.. How did Pacman Jones get in? They're pretty strict about not letting people with criminal records into the country. Even in situations like a concert performance or NFL Game.
The logistical nightmare I think would be hard to overcome. Even West Coast teams heading East have issues.
I just never have understood the fanatical drive to put an NFL team in London - is the movement really that organic from Londoners themselves??
Mexico City makes a little more sense. But to pass over American cities like Salt Lake City, San Antonio, or St Louis for the UK??
Don't overthink it, it's money, plain and simple, while the NFL is already worth billions, the London market is probably behind only NYC in wealth with corporations and people with big bucks, plus it has a huge untapped population.
London produced in 2017 about £430 billion or around $700 billion, around 1/4 of UK GDP, while the economy of the London metropolitan area — the largest in Europe—generates about 1/3 of the UK's GDP or almost $1.0 trillion. Let those numbers just sink in for a second!
While I'm sure Mexico City, SLC, San Antonio, and St. Louis, all have wealthy people and corporations there, they all pale in comparison to London. Logistically, it's is a horrible idea, money wise, London is just throwing money at the NFL in bunches and no other North American (Canada, US, Mexico) can compete with that.
I think you have all good points.. However, the Canada situation wouldn't work. My opinion, obviously.
Toronto is only 2 hours from Buffalo.. You'd be pulling a not insignificant number of fans away from Buffalo. Plus, Toronto, though it is Canada's most populous city. Is only 5 million people. Whereas London is 8.9 million.
True, but Torontonians (and pretty much all Canadians) are very familiar with the North American game of gridiron football, whether NFL or CFL. How many Londoners actually know what they're watching, what the rules are, how the scoring works? I'd suggest that it's a novelty; something that they've heard about but never seen (unless they're up in the middle of the night to watch the Super Bowl), and it's amusing enough, but I'd imagine that the majority of UKers really don't get it.
Toronto's football fans, and any Canadian football fan for that matter, can watch pretty much any NFL game they want on Sundays, plus the Monday and Thursday night games. They can also watch CFL games, and some CFL teams have rabid fanbases--the Saskatchewan Roughriders come to mind. There are a few rule differences that are pretty minor between the CFL and NFL--field size, goal posts on the goal line, the "rouge" point, and no fair catch rule in CFL, among others--but in the end, it's North American gridiron football, understandable to any North American football fan. But likely incomprehensible to a casual English attendee at a game in London.
I recall a business trip I made to Sydney, Australia about twenty years ago. My Australian business contact was excited to tell me about the NFL game he attended the week before my visit between the Denver Broncos and the San Diego Chargers. The game was in Sydney, and it was apparent that he had no idea how the game worked, except the idea was to move the ball across the opponent's goal line. He wasn't sure how the ball could be moved, and was puzzled by the number and type of penalties, and the constant stoppages of play (something that doesn't happen in rugby or Australian Rules Football). But he and his friends decided to go to the NFL game in Sydney, to see the game they had only seen on TV highlight reels of the Super Bowl. They had a great time, cheering for either team, but when I asked him if he'd go to another NFL game, should Sydney host another in the future, he said, "No, I've seen one live, I don't need to see another." I'm sure that's the attitude of English attendees at the recent London game.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
