I don't think that it's a coincidence that Jacksonville is the side being talked about and that they're owned by the same guy who owns Fulham. A better idea might be to establish the European version of the sport properly and have some sort of Champions League-esque competition between the two leagues. European sports fans don't like their sides moving around. I support a team, not a ****ing franchise.
Nobody at the NFL was informed how unpopular Wimbledon moving to Milton Keynes still is, a decade after the fact. And as for that bunch of nomads from Woolwich...
There doesn't seem to have been a move for a few years: Decatur Staleys: to Chicago in 1921 (renamed the Chicago Bears in 1922) Toledo Maroons: to Kenosha, Wisconsin in 1924 [1] Cleveland Bulldogs: to Detroit as the Wolverines in 1928 Pottsville Maroons: to Boston as the Bulldogs in 1929 Dayton Triangles: to Brooklyn as the Dodgers in 1930 (renamed Brooklyn Tigers in 1944) Portsmouth Spartans: to Detroit as the Lions in 1934[2][3][4] Boston Redskins: to Washington, D.C. in 1937 Cleveland Rams: to Los Angeles in 1946 Chicago Cardinals: to St. Louis in 1960 Los Angeles Chargers: to San Diego in 1961 while in the American Football League (AFL) Dallas Texans: to Kansas City, Missouri as the Kansas City Chiefs in 1963 while in the AFL Oakland Raiders: to Los Angeles in 1982 Baltimore Colts: to Indianapolis in 1984 St. Louis Cardinals: to Tempe, Arizona as the Phoenix Cardinals in 1988 and became the Arizona Cardinals in 1994 Los Angeles Rams: to St. Louis in 1995 Los Angeles Raiders: back to Oakland in 1995 Houston Oilers: temporarily to Memphis in 1997 as the Tennessee Oilers and permanently to Nashville in 1998 (renamed Tennessee Titans in 1999) Apparently during the 1940s two teams swapped cities and corporate owners but the names were left behind. So a bit like us ending up with Arsenal playing at WHL but called Spurs and vice versa. Weird or what. As a consequence of these moves LA hasn't had a team for 18 years.
An accurate indication of my interest in the NFL is that I wasn't aware that the Houston Oilers no longer existed or that they had become the Tennessee Titans. That sounds like some sort of poor man's New York Giants knock-off or a name that the makers of Pro Evolution would use if they ever made an American Football game.
In the NFL, at least. Since the Houston Oilers moved to Tennessee, we've seen... NBA Vancouver Grizzlies move to Memphis in 2001, becoming the Memphis Grizzlies Charlotte Hornets move to New Orleans in 2005, becoming the New Orleans Pelicans Seattle SuperSonics move to Atlanta in 2008, becoming the Atlanta Thunder (a move that violated the agreement in the exchange of ownership) New Jersey Nets move to Brooklyn in 2012, becoming the Brooklyn Nets NHL Hartford Whalers moved to Raleigh in 1997, becoming the Carolina Hurricanes Atlanta Thrashers move to Winnipeg in 2011, becoming the Winnipeg Jets MLB Montreal Expos move to Washington DC in 2005, becoming the Washington Nationals MLS San Jose Earthquakes move to Houston in 2006, becoming the Houston Dynamo There's also been moves in the Arena Football League and the WNBA...but nobody cares. More important than that, though, is the number of expansion teams added to the leagues in that time period... NFL Cleveland Browns (1998) Houston Texans (2002) NBA Charlotte Bobcats (2014) NHL Nashville Predators (1998) Atlanta Thrashers (1999) Columbus Blue Jackets, Minnesota Wild (2000) MLB Arizona Diamondbacks, Tampa Bay Devil Rays (1998) MLS Chicago Fire, Miami Fusion (1998) Chivas USA, Real Salt Lake (2005) Toronto FC (2007) San Jose Earthquakes (2008) Seattle Sounders (2009) Philidelphia Union (2010) Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps (2011) Montreal Impact (2012) New York FC (2015) Checking around online, a lot of comments about the London move aren't complaining about the move, more than the NFL is trying to expand again but do so in the least organic way possible - as well as comments about them being desperate for a franchise based in LA.
As someone who has mostly dropped the NFL in favor of the Prem, I can't understand why people would do the opposite. Don't get me wrong, the NFL has its appeal. The revenue sharing agreement, and the way the worst teams get the best young players, keeps competition very even. Every league should do this half as well. Your moment will come as a fan, chances are, and it's not too far away. It's also a gigantic, lurid cartoon of violence, exquisitely presented. But one thing it's generally not is beautiful, though there is some beauty in some of the acrobatics, here and there. It's for people who are attracted to bright lights and flashing colors.
They can do that in the NFL and the NBA because they're not just the only show in town, but pretty much the only show there is, to the point as many British kids know who the Croydon Cougars are as American ones do (it's the local basketball team, before anyone asks) It's a lot harder in MLS or MLB, because they're not the only show in town: baseball is pretty lucrative for players over in Japan, whilst in terms of football it is both more lucrative for players over in Europe whilst the players see superannuated players topping up their pensions in MLS getting paid vastly more than the rest of their teammates. I'd also say I prefer college football to the NFL, for the simple reason it doesn't cut to commercial every time the ball goes dead so a game of four 15-minute quarters doesn't take in excess of three hours.
Almost completely hidden within the NFL is what may be the second best game ever invented, if you want to call basketball, hockey, ice hockey, etc. as football adapted to different circumstances. Touch "football" is probably played by more kids more often than any other game in the US, (just edging basketball, I think) often with as little as three people. One kid tries to run away from another, who tries to keep him from getting away without grabbing him. The success or failure of both is mediated by the throwing ability of a third, along with the ability of the first to catch the ball, and the second to knock it away or catch it himself. Most American kids have happy memories of playing it for hours, and of little things like tracing passing routes out in the dirt, and spending weeks learning how to throw a spiral. One of the oddities is that every other position in every other professional sport could not be played with any hope of success by an average, reasonably athletic American--except quarterback in the NFL. We can all hand off and many of us can throw a short pass, and often enough a medium length pass, accurately. Very true. But if you grow up thinking of the NFL as the norm, you're disappointed that other leagues can't provide greater competitive balance.
Touch football (touch rugby) is becoming fairly popular here, looks like a good game to be playing also with work colleagues, thats one thing I miss about working at a normal office, the five a side leagues after work between departments!
Yeah, i used to play 5-a-side 2-3 times a week at lunch times, great fun. Then i changed jobs and got fat. I can't help but think its not a coincidence.
I'm surprised there are some Brits who watch American gridiron.Bores the crap out of me.Stop,start,yackity yack.Typical American rubbish! They will be promoting Aussie rules "football" at Wembley next with their 3 goals at each end.How do they miss?Every kicks a point!!!!
"I'm surprised there are some Brits who watch American gridiron.Bores the crap out of me." Watching it live is like an Einstein thought experiment on time dilation. With UK commercial TV format, you could compress the entire game into a 90 min programme. And that would allow for a bid of studio natter etc.
"They used to do something like that on channel 4 in the eighties,when they started showing it" They used to do a 1 hr MoTD format, which I guess made it bearable. When you consider the game is supposed to be 4 x 15 min periods, stretching it out to 2-3 hours is the work of the TV ads Devil.
