Why a NFL Franchise in London Would Spell Disaster

At least one National Football League owner is open to the idea of increasing the league's presence overseas to include a team in London full-time. What at first may seem like a novel idea is actually just a disaster waiting to happen.

Since 2007, one regular season game each season has pitted a pair of teams squaring off at Wembley Stadium in London, with this year's matchup in October set to face the St. Louis Rams and New England Patriots.

However, Patriots owner Robert Kraft doesn't necessarily think that one game a season is enough. In a recent interview with Sky Sports, Kraft indicated that he feels the time is right for an NFL team in London, although he reiterated that it won't be his franchise.

"I personally think we should have a franchise in London and that is something I am going to push for," Kraft said. I think that would be right for the NFL and this fan base has proven they deserve it. For us to grow the game, we have to expand globally. Having seen the kind of support we have received here in London, it is the intention of the NFL owners to get two games here, starting next year.

"The only bad part of putting a franchise in London is that I can assure you it won't be the Patriots who are moving here."

The thing is, whether you like the "International Series" or not, there's a big difference between playing one game overseas and placing an NFL franchise there full time, and doing so would be fraught with potential problems.

The first, and likely biggest, is the simple fact that London is nearly 3,500 miles from New York City and almost 5,000 miles from Seattle. London is also five hours ahead of the former and seven (or eight, depending on Daylight Savings Time) ahead of the latter, which would make traveling to an away game in the UK problematic to say the least.

The NFL has tried to mitigate the impact of this journey for the annual contests now by giving each team participating in the London Game their bye week following their hop across The Pond.The long flight has still impacted the games in London though, as the quality of play in many of these contests has been choppy at best.

That wouldn't be an option if eight games a season were played in the UK, putting the teams forced to make the trip at a significant competitive disadvantage, not only during their week in London but also the week after as players recover from jet lag.

The same problem would only be magnified for the London team, as they would have to travel stateside several times every year, even if the league tried to schedule their road games in bunches.

The Monarchs (might as well use the old NFL Europe team's moniker for argument's sake) would never be able to get into any kind of rhythm, whether it's due to perpetual jet lag or being stuck on the road, away from their facilities, for weeks at a time.

Second, there's the small matter of which team would be placed there. Sure, there are a number of teams in the National Football League that have threatened relocation in recent years in an attempt to procure a new stadium, but do you really think any of those teams wants to not only follow through on that threat but do so by moving their club to the other side of the Atlantic Ocean?

Lastly, none of the teams in serious danger of relocation are exactly what one would call an "elite" franchise. Sure, attendance has been strong for the NFL games played in London to this point, due in large part to the novelty of the event.

Should the NFL Place a Team in London Full-Time?

Should the NFL Place a Team in London Full-Time?

• Yes

• No

Total votes: 2

That novelty will wear off pretty quickly once fans in the UK are treated to the Jacksonville Jaguars eight times a year (settle down Jags fans, it's just an example), and attendance would all but certainly plummet as a result.

We won't even get into the idea of playoff games in London, as odds are the team banished to the UK wouldn't sniff the postseason for some time. As to the Super Bowl being held there? An argument for another day.

And for the record, forget expansion. 32 teams is a nice round number that has allowed the league to group teams into eight tidy divisions of four teams each. It's perfect, so don't mess with it.

I will freely admit that I've never been a fan of playing regular season games overseas. In my opinion it's nothing more than a gimmicky money grab that puts a pair of teams in an unnecessary hole from a competitive standpoint, costing one a home game and throwing a monkey wrench into the routines of both.

Putting a team in London would only magnify that problem tenfold, but since there's money to be made it's all but certain it will happen, logic and reason be damned.

Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1241179-why-a-franchise-in-london-would-spell-disaster-for-the-nfl

larry brown kevin hart thomas kinkade brewers pat summit courtney stodden matt cain