Football (North America: NFL, CFL, Arena Football, minor leagues)

[1995hoo]

London Super Bowl?  Don't give Roger Godell any ideas!

Goodell's already talked about playing a Super Bowl at Wembley. So far it's just been talk.

[Alps]

Former NFL star Joe Namath said he's had brain related medical issues
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/01/31/joe-namath-says-hes-had-brain-related-medical-issues/
Speaking of Joe Namath, here a clip where he appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show

Okay, prove that it's related to football and not alcohol.

[english si]

The bigger problem would be convincing sponsors, media, and the like to fork over twice as much for airfare (or even much more for cargo).

I don't think that would be a huge issue - and you can pick up other corporate guys, European guys, to fork over.

Fans wouldn't be terribly receptive to the travel, either. Some folks grumble over the "loss" of one of their home games...then there's the passport and security issue, and a day essentially lost in travel - for both directions.

This is the main issue.

Unless the NFL becomes as big a pastime as association football is in Europe (very unlikely), I don't think it will happen.

That seems an unnecessarily high bar to climb. Sure, we don't want any empty seats in the stadium, but we know that isn't going to be the case.

And the point of it is to promote American Football in Europe, not reward Europe for making American Football their number 1 sport. If the Superbowl doesn't start in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, etc until after midnight, and the UK and Ireland after 11pm, then there's little hope of making the sport mainstream.

And it isn't as if the game won't sell out very quickly, the atmosphere won't be great, the NFL won't make just as much money... It's not a total wilderness for the sport with insane weather that makes it impossible to play - like the Qatari soccer World Cup.

Still, there's no reason this game (no matter where it's played) can't be started at 4pm Eastern Time.

That would certainly help! I'm not looking forward to the amount of sugar and caffeine needed to not fall asleep tomorrow night before the game ends at some point around 3am. Having it start at 9pm UK time means an end at about half midnight - rather more tolerable and watchable by people who aren't total fanatics/not working the next day...

[CNGL-Leudimin]

And due to the Super Bowl quicking off after midnight CET, I say it will be played tomorrow Monday, not today .

[english si]

For the Super Bowl, I have 3 extremely rare wild guesses. Let's see if any come true.

1. There will be a touchdown at 4:04 in the 2nd quarter.
2. The loser will have 29 points.
3. The first score will be a safety.

one right so far!

[Alex]

For the Super Bowl, I have 3 extremely rare wild guesses. Let's see if any come true.

1. There will be a touchdown at 4:04 in the 2nd quarter.
2. The loser will have 29 points.
3. The first score will be a safety.

I remembered this post when Seattle got the Safety.  Nice call!

[Zeffy]

Well, that Super Bowl was incredibly... dull. I expected a close game, but looks like I was way off. Anyway, congratulations Seattle on your first Super Bowl win. And I still think Peyton did good, even if the score doesn't reflect it.

EDIT: Also, I couldn't resist (1k posts is a nice milestone):

[74/171FAN]

For the Super Bowl, I have 3 extremely rare wild guesses. Let's see if any come true.

1. There will be a touchdown at 4:04 in the 2nd quarter.
2. The loser will have 29 points.
3. The first score will be a safety.

I remembered this post when Seattle got the Safety.  Nice call!

2nd Super Bowl in 3 years to have the first scoring play be a safety.  Super Bowl XLVI had the Giants score a safety due to an intentional grounding on Tom Brady in the end zone.

[golden eagle]

I was for Seattle and I was shocked at just how big of a blow-out this game was. I had expected it to be much more competitive. Still, I thought Denver had a shot at making it somewhat close until Percy Harvin ran the kickoff for at TD and made it 29-0. That's when I knew it was truly over for Denver.

[Henry]

Well, since the Seahawks beat up on the Broncos, I now have bragging rights against my younger brother Jeff for the next year at least.

[Alps]

For the Super Bowl, I have 3 extremely rare wild guesses. Let's see if any come true.

1. There will be a touchdown at 4:04 in the 2nd quarter.
2. The loser will have 29 points.
3. The first score will be a safety.

I remembered this post when Seattle got the Safety.  Nice call!

2nd Super Bowl in 3 years to have the first scoring play be a safety.  Super Bowl XLVI had the Giants score a safety due to an intentional grounding on Tom Brady in the end zone.

What's the last time the first play of the game was a safety? It's impossible to Google that info right now.

[SD Mapman]

For the Super Bowl, I have 3 extremely rare wild guesses. Let's see if any come true.

1. There will be a touchdown at 4:04 in the 2nd quarter.
2. The loser will have 29 points.
3. The first score will be a safety.

I remembered this post when Seattle got the Safety.  Nice call!

2nd Super Bowl in 3 years to have the first scoring play be a safety.  Super Bowl XLVI had the Giants score a safety due to an intentional grounding on Tom Brady in the end zone.

What's the last time the first play of the game was a safety? It's impossible to Google that info right now.

Has it ever happened?

[JawnwoodS96]

What's the last time the first play of the game was a safety? It's impossible to Google that info right now.

Has it ever happened?

I believe Alex is referring to the first scoring play rather than first play of the game. In Super Bowl XLVI the first scoring play was a safety (I think it occurred on 2nd down), and in Super Bowl IX the first scoring play was a safety as well.

I think that this was the first SB to have a safety scored on the first play, though.

[agentsteel53]

the Hell?  three times the Super Bowl has started 2-0?  I should have taken that prop bet.

[Kacie Jane]

It's a long list, but here are the cities that have yet to host a Super Bowl:
Baltimore, Buffalo, Charlotte (Carolina), Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Denver, Foxboro (New England), Green Bay, Kansas City, Nashville (Tennessee), Oakland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Washington

Somehow you forgot one of the cities that played in this year's game. (And all sounds point to them -- us -- ramping up our efforts to put a bid together.)

[Henry]

Somehow you forgot one of the cities that played in this year's game. (And all sounds point to them -- us -- ramping up our efforts to put a bid together.)

You are so right! How could I forget the home of the current Super Bowl champions? Here's the amended list:

Baltimore, Buffalo, Charlotte (Carolina), Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Denver, Foxboro (New England), Green Bay, Kansas City, Landover (Washington), Nashville (Tennessee), Oakland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Seattle

And if the Rams move back to L.A., that means no chance for St. Louis, ever. Unless they build a new stadium or refurbish the current one to modern standards, that is.

[Pete from Boston]

Somehow you forgot one of the cities that played in this year's game. (And all sounds point to them -- us -- ramping up our efforts to put a bid together.)

You are so right! How could I forget the home of the current Super Bowl champions? Here's the amended list:

Baltimore, Buffalo, Charlotte (Carolina), Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Denver, Foxboro (New England), Green Bay, Kansas City, Landover (Washington), Nashville (Tennessee), Oakland, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Seattle

And if the Rams move back to L.A., that means no chance for St. Louis, ever. Unless they build a new stadium or refurbish the current one to modern standards, that is.

Is there reason to expect the Rams may leave St. Louis?

[english si]

NFL is looking at the Rams returning to LA, and the Jags moving to London. The state of the league address this year said that London getting a franchise is likely in the next 5 years.

[Pete from Boston]

NFL is looking at the Rams returning to LA, and the Jags moving to London. The state of the league address this year said that London getting a franchise is likely in the next 5 years.

The State of the City of Owensboro address said I-69 should go there.  I don't put too much stock in those things.  London would have to play West Coast teams periodically, which puts someone in a ridiculous jetlag rut no matter the location. 

As for the Rams, I just read up on their situation.  It's just ridiculous the hoops that cities have to jump through for these teams.

[Henry]

NFL is looking at the Rams returning to LA, and the Jags moving to London. The state of the league address this year said that London getting a franchise is likely in the next 5 years.

There's also the possibility of two franchises returning to their old home turf (Raiders and Chargers); lots of people tend to forget that in the dawn of the AFL, the Chargers originated in Los Angeles instead of San Diego.

As for London, that would certainly be an intriguing venue, but the one drawback would be the extra mileage that teams will have to log on a regular basis, not to mention the large time difference between there and the East Coast.

[english si]

Oh yes, I don't understand why NFL bigwigs think London is a good idea* - I'm just saying they do.

They made a bid to take over the Olympic stadium, but lost (as what happens the rest of the year outside those 8 home games?). That's pretty serious intent.

*there's other issues like Football fans supporting various teams and having to try and get them to support the local one - guess that's a problem with all franchise moves to new territory.

[Alps]

How to solve the problems:
* Move Jacksonville to Los Angeles. Rename them the Pumas or Cougars as appropriate.
* If St. Louis can't work out a deal, move them to the north side of San Antonio and rename them Texas. There have to be enough people there to support a team.

[apeman33]

How to solve the problems:
* Move Jacksonville to Los Angeles. Rename them the Pumas or Cougars as appropriate.
* If St. Louis can't work out a deal, move them to the north side of San Antonio and rename them Texas. There have to be enough people there to support a team.

Jacksonville to L.A. is an oft-mentioned scenario. The Cowboys may have a say in any team's move to San Antonio. They consider it their territory and would probably force any team that wants to go there to pay a huge fee to them.

[Pete from Boston]

How to solve the problems:
* Move Jacksonville to Los Angeles. Rename them the Pumas or Cougars as appropriate.
* If St. Louis can't work out a deal, move them to the north side of San Antonio and rename them Texas. There have to be enough people there to support a team.

Jacksonville to L.A. is an oft-mentioned scenario. The Cowboys may have a say in any team's move to San Antonio. They consider it their territory and would probably force any team that wants to go there to pay a huge fee to them.

The territorial encroachment penalty can have devastating effects.  Just ask the New Jersey Nets.

[amroad17]

If the NFL does expand or have a team move, maybe Oklahoma City could be a possibility.

There are some cities that could support a team if there wasn't another NFL team within 100-300 miles from them.  Cities such as Memphis, Columbus, OH, Portland, OR, San Antonio, Sacramento, or the Hampton Roads area of Virginia.  There also are some "dark horse" cities such as Albuquerque, Omaha, and El Paso that, with proper ownership, marketing, and a little success early, could support an NFL team.