Roger Goodell Says A London Franchise Might Be Possible With Expansion

Man I just can't wait to see the Bears play the London Monarchs one day! :icon_rolleyes:

 

I was thinking the London Nobles

 

No freaking way. If you must give a team to an outsider why not either Canada or Mexico. Canada makes more sense because they are more familiar with the american football concept. Europe would be a clusterheck. Travel would be a nightmare. Mexico did pretty well when the NFL played there. Travel would be better.

 

Canada or Mexico I can see trying. Eurpoe though? C'mon man!

 

I'd vote Canada or Mexico way before London...lol.

 

No expansion. No further dilution of the talent pool, no more watering down of the nfl product.

 

The NFL product isn't that watered down in my opinion. I think 2 Canada teams and 2 Mexican teams would be pretty bad butt honestly.

 

I feel it is watered down a lot. there are quite a few starting QBs that have no business starting let alone playing. If there is more expansion it should be here in the U.S. Let the others have their soccer, Canadian football( which honestly I like) and rugby. Now that is a weird game. NBC had a game on today and I had no idea what was going on and no pads. That is some tough guys.

 

I wouldn't mind them getting rid of two teams before adding two...expansions a real dumb idea...

 

Expansion could be good or bad. People were probably saying the same stuff about the last expansion. But putting any team on a different continent is freaking asinine.

 

I was listening to Goodell on the radio right before the Bears/Bucs game yesterday and he really doesn't get it. How he believe a franchise in Europe will work, I have no idea.

 

He said the same crap during the game too

 

I'm not saying Goodell CAN'T do this but he's not being realistic here. I have 2 issues here.

1. Is the interest really that much indemand for an NFL team out there like he claims? Olly, you live in Germany, right? I would actually believe you over Goodell.

2. All the jet lag he would be putting on that team a minimum of 10 times a year, maybe more if that team has a road playoff game, or 2, or 3. I'm pretty sure some people don't understand this but the more you fly into a country across the pond, the jet lag will get to you eventually.

 

I also think it would be harder on that team in free agency. I know I wouldn't willingly sign with a team that required me to fly across the Atlantic Ocean every other week.

 

Like I said...watch the Browns/Seahawks game...tell me if you think expansion is a good idea. A team has the ball 40 minutes and can muster 3 points? Come on...

 

So you don't have what it needs to be an pro atlethe

 

1. No, it isn't for different reasons.
We NFL-fans here, already have our team. Most won't jump on the bandwagon of a relocated team.
Right now, they can hardly sell out a stadium once a year. A single game makes it kind of exciting to watch for the fans, but would you as a Bears fan, visit all homegames of a certain team, just bc you live there?
There is a huge number of continental Europe fans traveling to London. Tix, flight, food and shelter isn't cheap, economy is down. Who can afford like $500 for a single game?

2. Jetleg is overrated. Traveling from coast to coast, is 4hrs difference - from the east coast to London 5hrs.

 

The last expansion team the NFL added is doing pretty well if you ask me. Some teams are doomed to suck forever like the Browns. Doesn't mean the product is watered down. Colt McCoy and Peyton Hillis would not be starting if there were only 30 teams. Imagine the talent that could be discovered with 36 teams. People who never would have got a shot could finally prove their worth.

 

I forgot another reason, the venue. The soil, we play soccer on, isn't that durable to last for a whole season. If you're going to share a stadium with a soccer team, that will cause trouble. We always had that issue, back in the NFLE days.

 

Works for Heinz Field...lol.