(08-07-2013 10:21 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:57 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Flight times from the east coast to west coast range from 5.5 to 6.5 hours. Flight times from the east coast (including Chicago) to London range from 8.0 to 8.5 hours. I don't see jet lag being that much worse. Especially considering the London team would likely stay in the US for a couple of weeks per trip.

The NFL has ~1700 players. I am going to make a bold prediction and say that 1,699 of them would rather play/live in London than Jacksonville.

I am still baffled why Jacksonville did not 1) draft, 2) trade for pennies on the dollar, or 3) sign as a street free agent for half pennies on the dollar the one and only Timothy Tebow. I guess Jacksonville does not like money. They would be sold out every game and lead the league in merch sales, not to mention the barrage of media coverage. He is a demi-god in that part of Florida.

That is an interesting point, and would help with marketing. But, the Jaguars are probably worried about a divided fanbase in case they desire a different quarterback while Tebow is already playing for the team.

(08-07-2013 11:31 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I didn't read all the replies, im sure everyone disagrees with the OP. My idea is the Jags move to L.A. and the AFC West, the Chiefs move to the AFC South.

AFC West:
Oakland Raiders
Los Angeles Jaguars
San Diego Chargers
Denver Broncos

AFC South:
Indianapolis Colts
Houston Texans
Kansas City Chiefs
Tennessee Titans

Both make geographic sense.

I do not think the AFC South would be very geographically cohesive with four teams in different areas-in an implicitly Southeastern division. I think it is probably a matter largely of convenience, that a central Indiana team even is in a Southeastern division, but now one in the Southeast, one in the Midwest, one on the edge of the Great Plains-albeit technically in the Midwest, and another in Texas seems less natural than the current AFC South.

(08-07-2013 07:35 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 03:09 PM)lew240z Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 11:31 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I didn't read all the replies, im sure everyone disagrees with the OP. My idea is the Jags move to L.A. and the AFC West, the Chiefs move to the AFC South.

AFC West:
Oakland Raiders
Los Angeles Jaguars
San Diego Chargers
Denver Broncos

AFC South:
Indianapolis Colts
Houston Texans
Kansas City Chiefs
Tennessee Titans

Both make geographic sense.

A better idea, IMO, is for the Jaguars to move to LA and take the Rams name. The St. Louis Rams become the St. Louis Stallions. The two teams swap conference/divisions. The LA Jaguar/Rams go to the NFC West and the St. Louis Rams/Stallions go to the AFC South.

I do like the idea if the jaguars move to LA, then put them in the NFC West and move St. Louis to the AFC south with Houston, Tennessee and Indy. This makes perfect geographic sense.

But I don't see a need to change the franchise names though. The Rams have been in St. Louis for almost 20 years. Plus they were the Cleveland Rams before the LA Rams. LA does not have any special claim on the Rams name. Los Angeles Jaguars works just fine as a name. It is not worth the confusion to change names now.

Some other odd name changes that only confuses franchise history.
The NY Jets used to be the NY Titans.
The K.C. Chiefs used to be the Dallas Texans
The Ravens used to be the Cleveland Browns

I say enough already! If a team picks a name, it is stuck with it forever. Come on if Utah kept the Jazz name when it moved, then every team should be forced to keep its name when it moves.

I really don't think the Kansas City Texans would have been very popular with the fans in Kansas City. The Ravens had to give up the Browns name and colors to get out of the stadium lease in Cleveland. The city of Seattle required the NBA team to give up the Supersonics name and colors when they moved to OKC.

(08-07-2013 08:29 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 11:31 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I didn't read all the replies, im sure everyone disagrees with the OP. My idea is the Jags move to L.A. and the AFC West, the Chiefs move to the AFC South.

AFC West:
Oakland Raiders
Los Angeles Jaguars
San Diego Chargers
Denver Broncos

AFC South:
Indianapolis Colts
Houston Texans
Kansas City Chiefs
Tennessee Titans

Both make geographic sense.

I do not think the AFC South would be very geographically cohesive with four teams in different areas-in an implicitly Southeastern division. I think it is probably a matter largely of convenience, that a central Indiana team even is in a Southeastern division, but now one in the Southeast, one in the Midwest, one on the edge of the Great Plains-albeit technically in the Midwest, and another in Texas seems less natural than the current AFC South.

I'm sorry but you're wrong.



This image clearly shows that KC is closer to all three of those team than Jacksonville.

(08-07-2013 08:55 PM)NJRedMan Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 08:29 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 11:31 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  I didn't read all the replies, im sure everyone disagrees with the OP. My idea is the Jags move to L.A. and the AFC West, the Chiefs move to the AFC South.

AFC West:
Oakland Raiders
Los Angeles Jaguars
San Diego Chargers
Denver Broncos

AFC South:
Indianapolis Colts
Houston Texans
Kansas City Chiefs
Tennessee Titans

Both make geographic sense.

I do not think the AFC South would be very geographically cohesive with four teams in different areas-in an implicitly Southeastern division. I think it is probably a matter largely of convenience, that a central Indiana team even is in a Southeastern division, but now one in the Southeast, one in the Midwest, one on the edge of the Great Plains-albeit technically in the Midwest, and another in Texas seems less natural than the current AFC South.

I'm sorry but you're wrong.



This image clearly shows that KC is closer to all three of those team than Jacksonville.

It is true Kansas City has shorter drives. But, just over an hour less to Houston (TX), and 17 minutes closer to Nashville, TN. But, I think cultural and regional similarity have merit if one is concerned about divisional cohesion. Jacksonville is probably not perfect in a divison with Indianapolis, IN. But it is not so bad that it has to be eliminated from the NFL and replaced in a Southern division by Kansas City, MO.

Well if we are redoing divisions in the AFC by geography.
Ravens to the East.
Colts to the North.
Dolphins to the South

(08-06-2013 08:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Other than moving Dallas to the West Conference, I can't think of any other thing being controversial about this plan

translation: other than changing some of the most historic rivalries & the most historic franchise....I cant think of any other thing being controversial about this plan


its a good plan and well thought out. but of all the teams in the NFL the cowboys should be THE LAST team you messed with. the NFC EAST is one division you dont mess around with because the teams are so iconic and are tightly bound to each other. they are like the b10 of the NFL

the cowboys are only the most historic franchise in their own minds. The Bears and Cardinals have been in the NFL since 1920.

(08-07-2013 10:21 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:57 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Flight times from the east coast to west coast range from 5.5 to 6.5 hours. Flight times from the east coast (including Chicago) to London range from 8.0 to 8.5 hours. I don't see jet lag being that much worse. Especially considering the London team would likely stay in the US for a couple of weeks per trip.

The NFL has ~1700 players. I am going to make a bold prediction and say that 1,699 of them would rather play/live in London than Jacksonville.

I am still baffled why Jacksonville did not 1) draft, 2) trade for pennies on the dollar, or 3) sign as a street free agent for half pennies on the dollar the one and only Timothy Tebow. I guess Jacksonville does not like money. They would be sold out every game and lead the league in merch sales, not to mention the barrage of media coverage. He is a demi-god in that part of Florida.

tebow is not and will never a good NFL starting qb. Jacksonville fans want to win and don't want tebow. the biggest jag fan club even started a web site expressing they did not want tebow if he were released from the jets. the florida fans that love tebow spend their money on the gators first. as soon as tebow failed to win any value would vanish.

(08-07-2013 10:15 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 10:21 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:57 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Flight times from the east coast to west coast range from 5.5 to 6.5 hours. Flight times from the east coast (including Chicago) to London range from 8.0 to 8.5 hours. I don't see jet lag being that much worse. Especially considering the London team would likely stay in the US for a couple of weeks per trip.

The NFL has ~1700 players. I am going to make a bold prediction and say that 1,699 of them would rather play/live in London than Jacksonville.

I am still baffled why Jacksonville did not 1) draft, 2) trade for pennies on the dollar, or 3) sign as a street free agent for half pennies on the dollar the one and only Timothy Tebow. I guess Jacksonville does not like money. They would be sold out every game and lead the league in merch sales, not to mention the barrage of media coverage. He is a demi-god in that part of Florida.

tebow is not and will never a good NFL starting qb. Jacksonville fans want to win and don't want tebow. the biggest jag fan club even started a web site expressing they did not want tebow if he were released from the jets. the florida fans that love tebow spend their money on the gators first. as soon as tebow failed to win any value would vanish.

I agree. While there is some degree of overlap, most serious Jaguars fans are a separate group from the 'Gators-first' crowd-the type of people who might already make their support for the Jaguars largely conditional on bringing in Tebow.

(08-07-2013 09:46 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Well if we are redoing divisions in the AFC by geography.
Ravens to the East.
Colts to the North.
Dolphins to the South

That would be interesting. I am not taking a stance, but the Ravens would have competitive rivalries with the Patriots and nearby Jets. Andrew Luck vs. the Pittsburgh Steelers defense would probably get big national attention.

(08-07-2013 05:23 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  If I was to pick a foreign city to place a team it would be Mexico City. I know safety could be a concern but they love our football down there. Not only will a city root for a team but more than likely the entire city.

I think it would be difficult to get top tier players to play there. A team in Mexico City would be a perennial loser.

Jacksonville was a poor addition to begin with honestly. Just plain bad.

The cities that could use a team, as long a willing owner would step up and/or a suitable NFL stadium could be built are:

Los Angeles
Portland
Salt Lake City
Oklahoma City
San Antonio
Las Vegas

San Antonio and Las Vegas are the weakest among that list due to their tourism based economies (not a good combo of service based salaries and out of towners who wouldn't give a crap about the local team).

LA is the obvious choice, but any of those cities would be better than Jacksonville.

(08-07-2013 10:50 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 05:23 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  If I was to pick a foreign city to place a team it would be Mexico City. I know safety could be a concern but they love our football down there. Not only will a city root for a team but more than likely the entire city.

I think it would be difficult to get top tier players to play there. A team in Mexico City would be a perennial loser.

I've been to Mexico City a few times, it has serious third world dumps in many areas of the city. The kind of poverty that makes the US poor look sheltered and wealthy (some are of course). The Polanco and Sante Fe districts are super nice but man that would be a nightmare for players if they had to move there.

(08-07-2013 08:20 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  The NFL doesn't make many big mistakes but they sure did in giving Jacksonville a team. The Jaguars have always struggled at the gate and their market is the second smallest in the NFL behind Green Bay - which is in a very unique position. That means that even if Jacksonville starts to support the Jags in meaningful numbers, their growth potential is still quite limited. I still have no idea what the NFL was thinking when they gave Jacksonville a team. It was stupid at the time and it looks even more stupid in retrospect.

That team is definitely going to relocate - it has to. It's now only a question of when and where?

It is very clear that the NFL is highly intrigued by the possibility of a London franchise as the professional football league has been flirting with England's largest city for decades now. As such, I have given this issue a lot of thought. I like to think of myself as an out-of-the-box pragmatist but I still don't understand the long term vision of this?

Let's take the travel for example. If you play for London, you are making so many long flights that after a short period it would get very tiresome. It's a six or seven hour flight from London to New York City. Just imagine how long the flight would be to Cleveland or Dallas or Seattle. I don't know how you ever bridge that gap?

One thing though you are only talking about having to make 10 flights a year counting 8 for the regular season and 2 for preseason. That is not the worst situation.

If business executives can handle that kind of travel I would think football executives and junior executives the players could handle it.

Getting back to why would you put an NFL team Jacksonville well its like why do you have the NBA in Oklahoma City and the NHL in Columbus? The theory is that a community will give extra support to its one team but they have to be competitive.

Baseball however is different because its all about the stadium atmosphere and only when the team is participating in the playoffs do you really see a boost in attendance.

(08-07-2013 08:02 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  I currently cannot find an official source more conclusive than a message board from city-data.com, about 2 and half years ago. But, Jacksonville is growing and may already have a Designated Market Area larger than Buffalo (NY) and New Orleans (LA)'s.

And, I doubt being in less populated areas has stopped the Packers and Saints from becoming popular. Jacksonville and north Florida are acceptable for the NFL. I think the Jaguars can do ok; they just need a consistent quarterback and some defensive players-in the secondary and on the defensive line.

Jacksonville's market is #50, right ahead of Buffalo and NO. But when you look at things like the Facebook Fandom map, it portraits some issues: low-populated S. Georgia and FL Panhandle, and not much penetration into Orlando. The Saints grab more eyeballs and tickets from multiple states. The Packers, obviously, have better history and a cool national following. And Buffalo's media crosses over the border, even though it is not measured. Within 15 miles across the river there are 400,000 Canadians in several small cities, creating a larger bi-national urban market. About 15% of Bills and Sabres tickets come from Southern Ontario, and another 15% of Bills team revenues come from Rochester. If the Bills move it won't be due to lack of fans, but a new owner wanting a LA or Toronto for higher ticket revenues, seat license fees, and corporate sales.

(08-07-2013 10:01 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 08:29 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Other than moving Dallas to the West Conference, I can't think of any other thing being controversial about this plan

translation: other than changing some of the most historic rivalries & the most historic franchise....I cant think of any other thing being controversial about this plan


its a good plan and well thought out. but of all the teams in the NFL the cowboys should be THE LAST team you messed with. the NFC EAST is one division you dont mess around with because the teams are so iconic and are tightly bound to each other. they are like the b10 of the NFL

the cowboys are only the most historic franchise in their own minds. The Bears and Cardinals have been in the NFL since 1920.

Ok, I have thought it over and it simply does not work with Dallas in the East. I am sorry, Dallas you are farther west than 25 other teams. You will just have to get used to the Saints, Texans, Colts, Bears, Packers, Vikings and Lions being your new main rivals. Better get used to the idea.

(08-06-2013 08:06 PM)goofus Wrote:  http://jacksonville.com/opinion/blog/513...ondon-jags

I figure it would be fun to predict how the NFL would handle it if the Jacksonville Jaguars move their team permanently to London, England.

This is my prediction. The NFL will eventually re-organize into East and West Conferences, with 8-team divisions. For example:

East Conference - Atlantic Division
London Jaguars, New England, Buffalo, Miami, NY Jets, NY Giants, Philly, Washington

East Conference - Mid-East Division (need a better name)
Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincy, Cleveland, Tampa, Atlanta, Carolina, Tennessee

West Conference - Central Division
Chicago, Green Bay, Minny, Detroit, Indy, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans

West Conference - Mountain Pacific Division
San Diego, Oakland, Denver, KC, Seattle, Arizona, San Fran, St Louis

Each team plays 7 games each year against its own division, playing each team once, alternating home one year and away the next year.

Then each team plays 5 teams against its sister division in the same conference. This means it will play each of these teams 5 times in 8 years.

Then each team plays 4 games against teams from the other conference. 2 from each division. This means it will play each of these team only 2 times every 8 years.

Bottom line, west conference teams would only have to play in London once every 8 years. Plus London would only have to travel to mountain-pacific time zones once a year.

Other than moving Dallas to the West Conference, I can't think of any other thing being controversial about this plan

Not happening

I think London is only viable with an entire European division. Four teams: London, Frankfurt, and two of either Berlin, Munich, Dusseldorf, or Paris.

Even minor league football was a big hit in Germany. Frankfurt averaged 33,000 per game and Dusseldorf averaged 24,000 (Berlin only averaged 15,000 but it would undoubtedly be higher for a pro team).

Some people mentioned Dublin, Manchester, or Barcelona. Ireland is probably the only place in Europe where locals actually know football fairly well, but Dublin is about the same size as Jacksonville so that won't work. Manchester is only 2.8 million with few Americans, so that would be difficult too. Barcelona is smaller, poorer, and more remote from the rest of Western Europe than most Americans think. It's a great city to visit, but there's a reason that their NFL Europe team folded four years earlier than the rest of the league.

(08-06-2013 10:29 PM)Tulsafanzz Wrote:  

(08-06-2013 10:15 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  I don't think Toronto is an option for the Jaguars, the Bills are slowly transitioning to being the Toronto Bills. And Ralph Wilson is 94, thing could get interesting in Buffalo soon.

You apparently missed the off-season news : Buffalo signed a new 10 year lease that includes a $400 million penalty to move the team out of Buffalo in the next 7 years.

The biggest issue is that Toronto isimbedded enough in the Bills claimed market that a team in both Buffalo AND Toronto may not work.

(08-07-2013 07:47 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 06:16 AM)SBUfan Wrote:  One of the problems with a London NFL team is that very few free agents would want to go live on another country, besides desperate players like Chad Johnson, or TO

SBUfan, that's a very Ameri-centric viewpoint. And those who have such a viewpoint are historically...American.

The typical American might THINK that "no one" would want to live anywhere other than 'Merica...but it's not true. Millionaire athletes would probably find the UK quite agreeable for a few years of their lives.

I don't think he means that people would dislike London in and of itself. I think he means it's a harder to sell to convince someone to relocate there who is not from there. In addition to cultural differences and travel distances, their money does not go as far there. That may not sound like a big deal when you consider how much money they make, but for the player who has no guarantee of his future (run of the mill role players) that is a big factor.

(08-07-2013 11:35 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 09:57 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Flight times from the east coast to west coast range from 5.5 to 6.5 hours. Flight times from the east coast (including Chicago) to London range from 8.0 to 8.5 hours. I don't see jet lag being that much worse. Especially considering the London team would likely stay in the US for a couple of weeks per trip.

The bolded part is key. They would definitely schedule it so that that was minimized.

It is much easier in the NFL than in other sports anyway since you only play once per week.

This is true. While I think the NBA would be more successful in London it's not practical unless there was a full division, where teams could play three or four games per trip. But the travel would only be an issue for the team located in London, who I would guess would likely have most regular season road games scheduled back to back, so they can do what West coast teams do when they travel east and just stay in one place.

One thing to keep in mind: The University of Hawaii has to do this for every road game. Their football team travels to the mainland for five to six games per year, without the option to stay over (their other sports teams travel even more often). It is 2400 miles (5:15) from Honolulu to San Francisco, the closest mainland US city. London to Boston is 3300 miles (7:30), though it does take an hour longer to get back. It's not ideal, but doable. A second team in Europe would help, if only because opposing teams could get in two games with only one long travel, but it's not a necessity. Their schedules just need to be more set (west coast teams have to have a bye the week before or after they play @ London), and vice versa, but that's it.

(08-07-2013 05:23 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  If I was to pick a foreign city to place a team it would be Mexico City. I know safety could be a concern but they love our football down there. Not only will a city root for a team but more than likely the entire city.

Mexico City is interesting because there are so many people (largest city in the world). The question becomes how much money is there to be made, something I have no idea about.

(08-07-2013 11:52 PM)Blackhawk-eye Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 10:50 PM)Niner National Wrote:  

(08-07-2013 05:23 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  If I was to pick a foreign city to place a team it would be Mexico City. I know safety could be a concern but they love our football down there. Not only will a city root for a team but more than likely the entire city.

I think it would be difficult to get top tier players to play there. A team in Mexico City would be a perennial loser.

I've been to Mexico City a few times, it has serious third world dumps in many areas of the city. The kind of poverty that makes the US poor look sheltered and wealthy (some are of course). The Polanco and Sante Fe districts are super nice but man that would be a nightmare for players if they had to move there.

I don't think NFL players in most cities where they play or live venture into poor neighborhoods just because. They mostly live in their own bubbles surrounded by people who kiss their azz. The same would happen in Mexico City. They would live in the posh neighborhoods of Polanco, Santa Fe, La Condesa, Las Lomas, El Pedregal, etc. Where do you think all Mexican soccer stars and actors/actresses you see in soap operas live? In the slums outside the city? Of course not. An NFL team in Mexico City would get lots of local sponsors, it would be well supported and the majority of people who would attend the 8 home games would be the upper middle class and the wealthy (a metro area of 20+ million people wouldn't struggle to put 80k-100k people in the stands). The Cowboys are the most popular team in Mexico followed by no particular order by the Steelers, Raiders, Dolphins, Packers and Broncos. The Jets are getting some attention because of QB Mark Sanchez. Safety is still a concern but it's not the Mexico City of yesteryear. Think New York 20 years ago. Mexico City went from being the most dangerous city in Mexico to one of the safest if not the safest. The city has escaped most cartel violence and it's mostly in border cities and some southern states. I remember when the Expos were looking to move out of Montreal......Monterrey was interested in getting the team. That city is the wealthiest city in Mexico, has the highest per capita income in Latin American and baseball is very popular in Monterrey and Northern Mexico (the other city interested was San Juan, Puerto Rico) but MLB made the wise decision to move the team to Washington and rename it the Nationals.

Anyway, I still believe if a foreign city is getting a NFL team, it should go to Toronto.