- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NFL: Should we have teams based outside the U.S.?
Posted on 11/21/16 at 9:44 am
Posted on 11/21/16 at 9:44 am
With the NFL having a game in Mexico City today we all know the NFL wants a team outside the U.S. The big question seems to be have simply become whether London or Mexico City gets a team first and which teams those will be.
Do you believe the NFL should go outside the U.S.? I would be okay with it, with San Diego basically telling the Chargers they aren't building a new stadium, I feel like the San Diego team would be a great fit for Mexico City (being so close to Mexico they probably have a decent Mexican fan base already). I would say finally move the Buffalo team to Toronto and move the Jacksonville team to London.
The reason I just mentioned team too instead of their actual team name is because if this does happen I believe the NFL should stop moving team names with them. Especially going overseas there are better names that would capture those countries and cities culture. The Rams move made sense as they were already the LA Rams before and were really coming back home, but I would say let Jacksonville keep the Jaguars name and history, let San Diego keep the Chargers name and history and let Buffalo keeps the Bills name and history. That way they can reclaim those names if the NFL ever moved a team back to those cities. Similar to what happened with Cleveland and the Browns name, the Ravens were essentially considered an expansion team and Cleveland kept the Browns name and all Browns history.
So what do you think, should we have NFL teams based outside the U.S.? Should those teams keep the names of whatever teams moves from the U.S. or have their own names?
Do you believe the NFL should go outside the U.S.? I would be okay with it, with San Diego basically telling the Chargers they aren't building a new stadium, I feel like the San Diego team would be a great fit for Mexico City (being so close to Mexico they probably have a decent Mexican fan base already). I would say finally move the Buffalo team to Toronto and move the Jacksonville team to London.
The reason I just mentioned team too instead of their actual team name is because if this does happen I believe the NFL should stop moving team names with them. Especially going overseas there are better names that would capture those countries and cities culture. The Rams move made sense as they were already the LA Rams before and were really coming back home, but I would say let Jacksonville keep the Jaguars name and history, let San Diego keep the Chargers name and history and let Buffalo keeps the Bills name and history. That way they can reclaim those names if the NFL ever moved a team back to those cities. Similar to what happened with Cleveland and the Browns name, the Ravens were essentially considered an expansion team and Cleveland kept the Browns name and all Browns history.
So what do you think, should we have NFL teams based outside the U.S.? Should those teams keep the names of whatever teams moves from the U.S. or have their own names?
This post was edited on 11/21/16 at 9:48 am
21
Posted on 11/21/16 at 9:51 am to IndependentVoter
Putting a team in Canada is much different than putting a team in London. I'm cool with a Canadian team, but a London-based team poses some serious travel and logistics concerns.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 9:52 am to IndependentVoter
Mexico City is a no go.
That altitude (7500 ft) is a problem. Players will be miserable. It can take weeks to get acclimated to that. Denver is around 5200 ft. That extra 2000 ft is a big difference.
That altitude (7500 ft) is a problem. Players will be miserable. It can take weeks to get acclimated to that. Denver is around 5200 ft. That extra 2000 ft is a big difference.
This post was edited on 11/21/16 at 9:53 am
Posted on 11/21/16 at 9:53 am to Cosmo
Yep, I just don't see free agents looking to play there.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 9:55 am to IndependentVoter
Canada is a logical stepping stone, with successful integration seen through other leagues and a quasi-existing fanbase in the CFL.
So naturally, this won't happen.
So naturally, this won't happen.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 9:56 am to GeauxColonels
Agreed, they even just mentioned on ESPN that the teams indicated the travel to Mexico City is much easier than it is to London. Mexico City and Toronto would not pose any real travel challenges like London would. There is a way around that though.
The London team could essentially have two bases of operation, their home operation in London as well as their U.S. based operation. The way they could schedule it is this, the London team would play in groups of 4, so in a season it could be 4 home games, then 4 road games, then 4 homes games, and finish up with 4 road games, or vice versa. This would help a lot with traveling for the London based team and they could essentially stay in the U.S. at their U.S. base for a month at a time.
In terms of the visiting team, while I would be a disadvantage to the London based team the NFL could try its best to make sure a team goes to London AFTER it's scheduled off week, that way they could arrive in London early and adjust to the time. If a team does have to be scheduled the week before going to London they could try their best to make sure they play the Thursday night game the week before, again allowing them more time to get to London in advance In the very least there could also be a rule that a team could not play a Sunday night or Monday night game before going to London.
These would be some solutions to the travel and logistical issues with a London based team.
The London team could essentially have two bases of operation, their home operation in London as well as their U.S. based operation. The way they could schedule it is this, the London team would play in groups of 4, so in a season it could be 4 home games, then 4 road games, then 4 homes games, and finish up with 4 road games, or vice versa. This would help a lot with traveling for the London based team and they could essentially stay in the U.S. at their U.S. base for a month at a time.
In terms of the visiting team, while I would be a disadvantage to the London based team the NFL could try its best to make sure a team goes to London AFTER it's scheduled off week, that way they could arrive in London early and adjust to the time. If a team does have to be scheduled the week before going to London they could try their best to make sure they play the Thursday night game the week before, again allowing them more time to get to London in advance In the very least there could also be a rule that a team could not play a Sunday night or Monday night game before going to London.
These would be some solutions to the travel and logistical issues with a London based team.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 9:59 am to IndependentVoter
Doesn't Azteca Stadium in Mexico City have a chain-linked barbed wire fence around the field?
I mean, between that, the altitude, and the pollution...what free agent would choose to go to a place like that?
I mean, between that, the altitude, and the pollution...what free agent would choose to go to a place like that?
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:00 am to IndependentVoter
As for the Mexico City altitude, I say deal with it. You could put them in the same division as Denver so that at least they would not have as much of an adjustment. NFL coaches and teams will develop a good way to deal with the altitude, whether it's getting to Mexico City early or getting there just before the game and then getting out before the altitude really takes affect.
Altitude will not be a factor in whether Mexico City gets an NFL team or not. If it was they wouldn't be hosting a game tonight.
Altitude will not be a factor in whether Mexico City gets an NFL team or not. If it was they wouldn't be hosting a game tonight.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:01 am to IndependentVoter
Putting some teams in Canada and Mexico, yes. Overseas? No.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:03 am to GetCocky11
quote:
Doesn't Azteca Stadium in Mexico City have a chain-linked barbed wire fence around the field?
I mean, between that, the altitude, and the pollution...what free agent would choose to go to a place like that?
The stadium situation is absolutely the biggest issue with Mexico City, way above the altitude and pollution. No doubt Mexico would have to be willing to pony up some money for a new stadium, and with the pollution concerns my bet would be it would need to a dome or retractable roof stadium. My guess is though Mexico would make it happen if the NFL wanted to come there.
They would just have to do what they are doing with LA right now. They would have to play at Azteca Stadium for the first 2 or 3 years while the new stadium is being built.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:14 am to IndependentVoter
quote:
These would be some solutions to the travel and logistical issues with a London based team.
Also, a London team could never host a prime time game. Ever. It'd be a 1:30am local kickoff for SNF or MNF games.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:21 am to IndependentVoter
CFL does not want US football in Canada. I would negotiate this.
Let the CFL get 30% of Canadian NFL TV revenue for 40 years.
they do at least play the game there professionally.
Let the CFL get 30% of Canadian NFL TV revenue for 40 years.
they do at least play the game there professionally.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:23 am to IndependentVoter
no
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:24 am to IndependentVoter
Mexico and Canada would be fine.
But having an actual franchise in Europe creates logistical issues.
But having an actual franchise in Europe creates logistical issues.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:27 am to dcrews
quote:
“Azteca Stadium is the worst place to ever play a sporting event,” former United States national team soccer star Eric Wynalda told USA Today.
That would appear to be a problem. Wynalda added: “You can’t breathe. The pollution is so bad that if you don’t have some form of rain that’s brought all that down you are going to be sucking wind.
“They [will] break a record for how many oxygen masks they have on the sidelines. The combination of being that high up with pollution is just devastating to the body.”
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:53 am to IndependentVoter
How many teams are in the CFL, 9? Just cut one team (either Hamilton or Toronto), carve them into two divisions (one in the east and one in the west) and give one division to the AFC and one to the NFC. All the NFL would have to do is just only offer 1 WC slot. Badda-bing, badda boom, you have an NFL/CFL merger.
To take it one step farther, the NFL could then add 2 more international divisions: one in Europe and possibly another in South and Central America (Mexico, Cuba, Argentina, Brazil) or in East Asia (Australia, China, Japan, Korea).
Or, they could go full retard and have an entirely new 32 team international league that mirrors the NFL. Each international team would only play 2 games against NFL teams (one home and one away), and their playoff would be the same as the NFL. The winner of the Super Bowl and the International Bowl would play each other for world supremacy.
let's imagine it:
Americas
Northeast:
Quebec
Ottawa
Hamilton/Toronto
Northwest:
British Columbia
Winnipeg
Calgary
Edmonton
America Central:
Mexico City
Havana
Bogota
Caracas
America del Sur:
Rio de Jinero
Buenos Aires
Sao Paulo
Santiago
Pacifica
South:
Sidney
Melbourne
Auckland
Perth
North:
Tokyo
Seoul
Beijing
Shanghai
East:
Manila
Taipei
Hong Kong
Singapore
West:
Mumbai
New Dehli
Karachi
Tehran
West Europa
North:
London
Dublin
Edinburgh
Manchester
East:
Vienna
Budapest
Bucharest
Prague
West:
Barcelona
Madrid
Paris
Marseille
South:
Athens
Rome
Milan
Florence
East Europa:
North:
Hamburg
Copenhagen
Stockholm
Oslo
West:
Cologne
Munich
Berlin
Amsterdam
South:
Istanbul
Tel Aviv
Alexandria
Dubai
East:
Moscow
St. Petersburg
Warsaw
Minsk
To take it one step farther, the NFL could then add 2 more international divisions: one in Europe and possibly another in South and Central America (Mexico, Cuba, Argentina, Brazil) or in East Asia (Australia, China, Japan, Korea).
Or, they could go full retard and have an entirely new 32 team international league that mirrors the NFL. Each international team would only play 2 games against NFL teams (one home and one away), and their playoff would be the same as the NFL. The winner of the Super Bowl and the International Bowl would play each other for world supremacy.
let's imagine it:
Americas
Northeast:
Quebec
Ottawa
Hamilton/Toronto
Northwest:
British Columbia
Winnipeg
Calgary
Edmonton
America Central:
Mexico City
Havana
Bogota
Caracas
America del Sur:
Rio de Jinero
Buenos Aires
Sao Paulo
Santiago
Pacifica
South:
Sidney
Melbourne
Auckland
Perth
North:
Tokyo
Seoul
Beijing
Shanghai
East:
Manila
Taipei
Hong Kong
Singapore
West:
Mumbai
New Dehli
Karachi
Tehran
West Europa
North:
London
Dublin
Edinburgh
Manchester
East:
Vienna
Budapest
Bucharest
Prague
West:
Barcelona
Madrid
Paris
Marseille
South:
Athens
Rome
Milan
Florence
East Europa:
North:
Hamburg
Copenhagen
Stockholm
Oslo
West:
Cologne
Munich
Berlin
Amsterdam
South:
Istanbul
Tel Aviv
Alexandria
Dubai
East:
Moscow
St. Petersburg
Warsaw
Minsk
This post was edited on 11/21/16 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 11/21/16 at 10:53 am to IndependentVoter
quote:
As for the Mexico City altitude, I say deal with it. You could put them in the same division as Denver so that at least they would not have as much of an adjustment. NFL coaches and teams will develop a good way to deal with the altitude, whether it's getting to Mexico City early or getting there just before the game and then getting out before the altitude really takes affect.
Altitude will not be a factor in whether Mexico City gets an NFL team or not. If it was they wouldn't be hosting a game tonight.
You have ZERO idea what you are typing about.
Posted on 11/21/16 at 11:11 am to IndependentVoter
Putting a bunch of highly paid young athletes who don't speak the language in a place like Mexico City is a fricking AWFUL idea.
The pollution issue is bad enough but it would damn near be a guarantee at least a few players would get kidnapped and/or murdered down there.
The pollution issue is bad enough but it would damn near be a guarantee at least a few players would get kidnapped and/or murdered down there.
This post was edited on 11/21/16 at 11:13 am
Posted on 11/21/16 at 11:38 am to IndependentVoter
If you've ever been to London or even Europe for that matter, you would know that trying to put an NFL team there is just ridiculous. Also putting a team in Mexico is absurd.
This post was edited on 11/21/16 at 11:40 am
Posted on 11/21/16 at 12:59 pm to IndependentVoter
No I don't think so. Logistics issues
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News