PDA

View Full Version : London Buccaneers?


Hookem Horns
10-20-2011, 11:27 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/903126-tampa-bay-buccaneers-and-their-rumored-move-to-london-is-beyond-disturbing

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/10/20/british-government-wants-full-time-nfl-team/

:toropalm:

brakos82
10-20-2011, 11:35 PM
Just send the Jags over, nobody cares about them as is.

eriadoc
10-20-2011, 11:41 PM
Bucs games are blacked out in TB all the time. We like to make fun of the Jags for their tarps and blackouts, but Tampa has problems filling their stadium as well.

brakos82
10-20-2011, 11:46 PM
Bucs games are blacked out in TB all the time. We like to make fun of the Jags for their tarps and blackouts, but Tampa has problems filling their stadium as well.

Bucs tickets are also the highest in the league (2nd to NE last I saw), while Jags are some of the cheapest. (not hard finding seats a couple years ago in the lower deck for under $50 In JAX)

Hookem Horns
10-20-2011, 11:58 PM
Bucs games are blacked out in TB all the time. We like to make fun of the Jags for their tarps and blackouts, but Tampa has problems filling their stadium as well.

This really just started happening in Tampa a season or two ago. It's a combination of the horrible local economy (11% unemployment rate) and ridiculous ticket prices.

However despite that the Bucs are still one of the most profitable teams in the NFL. It's because the city fully funded the stadium and are giving the Bucs a free lease. They would be crazy to move with that situation. Also the city would sue heck out of them considering the fans paid for that stadium.

Cerberus
10-21-2011, 07:43 AM
I don't like the idea of NFL teams having to travel to London to play. In my opinion, if the League makes such a move, they will need to set up scheduling so the U.S. based teams have a bye-week before heading to London. When there are no byes, then the London based team needs to stay in the states and practice here so they can play their games here. That also would mean they'd play like 4 away games (in the states) then 8 straight home games, before playing their next 4 away games. And then there is the possibility of playoffs . . .

Just don't like unfair advantages when it deals with location, much like I don't care for Denver having a team that plays at high altitude. At some point you stop playing the other team and are playing against nature. Shoot, might as well move the SD Chargers out to Death Valley so they can kick butt there once they are acclimated and no other team is . . . or maybe put a team in Anchorage and let them play outdoors!

False Start
10-21-2011, 07:48 AM
The Tampa Bay/London Silly Nannies?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dNqr7GAPDV0/SuQkvuSpyZI/AAAAAAAAALE/andmFeM_zXA/s400/Silly_Nannies.jpg

El Tejano
10-21-2011, 08:03 AM
I don't like the idea of NFL teams having to travel to London to play. In my opinion, if the League makes such a move, they will need to set up scheduling so the U.S. based teams have a bye-week before heading to London. When there are no byes, then the London based team needs to stay in the states and practice here so they can play their games here. That also would mean they'd play like 4 away games (in the states) then 8 straight home games, before playing their next 4 away games. And then there is the possibility of playoffs . . .

Just don't like unfair advantages when it deals with location, much like I don't care for Denver having a team that plays at high altitude. At some point you stop playing the other team and are playing against nature. Shoot, might as well move the SD Chargers out to Death Valley so they can kick butt there once they are acclimated and no other team is . . . or maybe put a team in Anchorage and let them play outdoors!

What's the time difference? You know the NFL would want night games there too and I'm sure there's enough difference to make a difference.

Cerberus
10-21-2011, 08:12 AM
What's the time difference? You know the NFL would want night games there too and I'm sure there's enough difference to make a difference.

Well, lets take the West Coast teams as an example. There is a 9 hour difference, so a team used to playing a 1:00 p.m. in California would be playing in London at 4:00 a.m. West Coast time, the Texans would feel like they were playing at 6:00 a.m. That is why I was saying visiting teams would really need a bye-week to prepare for not only the time change but the long-ass flight. Then there would be jet lag, so those teams should be awarded the following week's MNF game just so they can become re-acclimated to their own time zones back in the states.

TimeKiller
10-21-2011, 10:33 AM
Is it just me or do sports teams in Florida have a tough time getting fans in? Except UF of course....


I'm down for international football. I think it would be cool. Get a couple of the better Canadian teams to get legit....put a few teams across a few ponds.....Hell yeah, that would be sweet!

Cerberus
10-21-2011, 10:40 AM
Is it just me or do sports teams in Florida have a tough time getting fans in? Except UF of course....


I'm down for international football. I think it would be cool. Get a couple of the better Canadian teams to get legit....put a few teams across a few ponds.....Hell yeah, that would be sweet!

Places with great climate typically have a hard time filling stadiums, when you have options like going to the beach, surfing, Disney, and in California's case they also have snow skiing not far away. Why do you think the City of San Diego guaranteed sell-outs for so long? The city had an agreement with the Chargers to buy up all the unsold seats each week so there wouldn't be a black-out. I think they finally got out of that deal though.

Conversely, if you live in Green Bay and your choices are limited to sitting on the couch, shoveling snow, ice fishing or football, many people come out to the games.

brakos82
10-21-2011, 10:47 AM
Well, lets take the West Coast teams as an example. There is a 9 hour difference, so a team used to playing a 1:00 p.m. in California would be playing in London at 4:00 a.m. West Coast time, the Texans would feel like they were playing at 6:00 a.m. That is why I was saying visiting teams would really need a bye-week to prepare for not only the time change but the long-ass flight. Then there would be jet lag, so those teams should be awarded the following week's MNF game just so they can become re-acclimated to their own time zones back in the states.

I think a good fix would be to have London games later (local time), so the 10a west coast games would align with 5p/6p (depending on DST) London time. Would at least fix the game time dilemma.

Personally, I would love to see one week of the pre-season games travel overseas around the world. Canada, Mexico, Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia.

Cerberus
10-21-2011, 10:53 AM
I think a good fix would be to have London games later (local time), so the 10a west coast games would align with 5p/6p (depending on DST) London time. Would at least fix the game time dilemma.

I think you missed my point. It had nothing to do with us in the States being able to watch the games in London. My comment was more about how the players would "feel" like they were playing a 4:00 a.m. game due to their "body clocks". Kind of like what happens to West Coast teams when they travel to the East Coast; they don't have a very good record because they feel like they are playing at 9:00 a.m. their time. Games in London would be much worse since they would feel like they woke up a 4:00 a.m. to play a game. I could see a mediocre London team winning all 8 home games, and possibly losing all 8 away (U.S.) games if they were to travel back to England each week.

brakos82
10-21-2011, 11:16 AM
Kinda see it, but I think the coaches/training staff might treat an overseas game differently. If the visiting team to London doesn't change their body clocks (continues going to bed/getting up at the same "home" time), and the games start at roughly the same "home" time (+/- an hour or two because of US time zones), shouldn't feel like much of a difference. Even so, Eastern to GMT is only 4-5 hours difference (depending on DST and Summer Time in EU).

Granted, if there really is a "west coast bias" (IMO the west coast teams of the last 15 years (other than SD) have just royally sucked), they should treat an early/late start differently as it is.

paycheck71
10-21-2011, 11:23 AM
My comment was more about how the players would "feel" like they were playing a 4:00 a.m. game due to their "body clocks".

I think you're counting the wrong way. A noon game in Houston is a 6pm game in London. Obviously, there would never be a Sun or Mon night game in London. I don't think anyone would ever feel like they're playing at 4 am. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone would need to adjust to any time difference, that would be counterproductive in the big picture. Just stay on your normal sleep schedule (in your own time zone)

brakos82
10-21-2011, 11:25 AM
I think you're counting the wrong way. A noon game in Houston is a 6pm game in London. Obviously, there would never be a Sun or Mon night game in London. I don't think anyone would ever feel like they're playing at 4 am. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone would need to adjust to any time difference, that would be counterproductive in the big picture. Just stay on your normal sleep schedule (in your own time zone)

I think he was going from London to West US, but yeah, the games would just get shuffled into the regular 1p/4p ET roatation (most likely 1p, as 4p EST games would regularly go into midnight GMT)

Cerberus
10-21-2011, 04:56 PM
I think you're counting the wrong way. A noon game in Houston is a 6pm game in London. Obviously, there would never be a Sun or Mon night game in London. I don't think anyone would ever feel like they're playing at 4 am. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone would need to adjust to any time difference, that would be counterproductive in the big picture. Just stay on your normal sleep schedule (in your own time zone)

I think I did count the right way. If there was a 1:00 p.m. game in London, then it would be 4:00 a.m. in California, right?

brakos82
10-21-2011, 04:59 PM
I think I did count the right way. If there was a 1:00 p.m. game in London, then it would be 4:00 a.m. in California, right?

Yes, but that would put a start time at 7am ET, and I don't think the NFL's going for that anytime soon. The only times I would expect a London game to be played (GMT time) would be 6pm and 9pm (5 and 8 during DST). Just like what they do with today's overseas games.

Cerberus
10-21-2011, 05:47 PM
Yes, but that would put a start time at 7am ET, and I don't think the NFL's going for that anytime soon. The only times I would expect a London game to be played (GMT time) would be 6pm and 9pm (5 and 8 during DST). Just like what they do with today's overseas games.

Gotcha. So, the London Bucs would only play night home games?

brakos82
10-21-2011, 06:10 PM
Gotcha. So, the London Bucs would only play night home games?

If the NFL has any brains, yes. (So it's 50/50)

paycheck71
10-21-2011, 06:55 PM
I think I did count the right way. If there was a 1:00 p.m. game in London, then it would be 4:00 a.m. in California, right?

There would never be a 1pm game in London, it's that simple...

Khari
10-22-2011, 12:15 PM
I hate this whole playing overseas thing..... :mcnugget:

Dutchrudder
10-22-2011, 02:17 PM
If they want American football in Europe, then move the UFL over there. It's not like anyone is watching them here.

Dan B.
10-22-2011, 02:24 PM
If they want American football in Europe, then move the UFL over there. It's not like anyone is watching them here.

Been there, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Europe) done that.

jtexas
10-22-2011, 02:26 PM
The time difference would work. It would be interesting to have an actual division of 4 teams over there. Over time it would steal market share from soccer.