Pro Bowl: How about London?
My brother came up with a good idea. Well, I don’t know if it’s a good idea. But it’s an idea worth considering. Move the Pro Bowl to London.
Here’s the rationale. Looks like we’re stuck with the Pro Bowl. Nobody knows what to do with the NFL’s all-star game. Nobody knows how to turn it into a real game. It’s like an exhibition game, except without young players trying to show someone they can play. For proven players, an exhibition game can only bring the bad news of injury.
So the Pro Bowl becomes a shell of a real football game. Little hard-hitting. Little all-out play. It’s like those three-quarters practices, with players in helmets and shoulder pads, but no football pants.
And it’s a game few want to play. At times Sunday night, the quarterbacks in the game were Andy Dalton and Cam Newton. Nothing against either rookie, who were excellent as first-year quarterbacks. But neither is in the upper half of quarterbacks in their conference. The Super Bowl quarterbacks are ineligible, of course, since they’ve got a game to play and the Pro Bowl futilely was moved to the week before the Super Bowl as a way to increase interest. Then you factor in injuries, which always mount late in the year. And then account for anyone with the good sense to avoid meaningless hits, and the Pro Bowl becomes something less than an all-star game.
Here’s an example of the difference in all-star games. Last year, LaMarcus Aldridge, a thoroughly wonderful player for the Portland TrailBlazers, didn’t make the NBA All-Star Game. Kevin Love didn’t even make it, originally, but was added when Yao Ming was scratched for injury. But there was no room for Aldridge. Meanwhile, Andy Dalton and Cam Newton, thoroughly middle-of-the-road quarterbacks (albeit promising) play in the Pro Bowl.
So what to do with the Pro Bowl?
Well, there’s this London thing. The NFL seems determined to take its game to Merry Old England. The NFL has played regular-season games in London’s Wembley Stadium five straight years: Giants-Dolphins in 2007, Chargers-Saints in 2008, Patriots-Buccaneers in 2009, Broncos-49ers in 2010 and Bears-Buccaneers in 2011. Now, the Rams have agreed to move a home game each of the next three seasons to London.
St. Louis officials are saying that violates the Rams’ lease in their dome, all the while there’s speculation that the Rams are bucking for a move back to Los Angeles.
Getting teams to move games to London is difficult. Stately and/or successful franchises won’t do it. Ends up being struggling franchises like the Bucs. Wonder of wonders that Jacksonville hasn’t gone for it.
So why not move the Pro Bowl to London? I know that Honolulu, the usual home of the Pro Bowl, is an enticement to get reluctant players to participate, but wouldn’t London hold some allure?
I see two problems with London:
1. The product is so bad, it’s not a great marketing tool for the NFL in Europe. A whole lot of fans wouldn’t know they were getting a bad brand of football. But they also wouldn’t become all that attached to the game. You go to Europe to grow the sport, not to make people shrug.
2. The weather isn’t great. The average high temperature for London in January is 43; the average low is 33. It’s often damp. That would be a tough sell for the ballplayers.
But I don’t like the Pro Bowl, and I don’t like NFL games in London. I believe they upset competitive balance. The Rams the next three seasons will have seven home games; everyone else in the NFL will have eight. How fair is that to the St. Louis Sams?
-------------Berry Tramel can be heard Monday through Friday from 4:40-5:20 p.m. on The Sports Animal radio network, including AM-640 and FM-98.1. You can e-mail him here and follow him on Twitter @BerryTramel. Visit Berry's website here.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I’m guessing you don’t watch much Premier League Soccer on ESPN 2? That might help you understand that London is 6 hours ahead of Oklahoma, so the Pro Bowl would start at 1AM London time in order to play in prime time in the U.S. You might also know hat he Glasier family who owns the Bucs also owns Manchester United, who is their version of the Yankees, and are worth more money than the Bucs. You might know that Sam Walton son in law Stan Kroenke,who owns the St. Louis Rams, as well as the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche, also owns the Arsenal team. Arsenal is traditionally one of the top 5 teams in the Premier League.
My point being that the NFL and London connection is so strong that a low wattage game like the Pro Bowl isn’t of interest in London.
Kill the Pro Bowl. There is no good reason to play it. Just name the All-Star Teams and let it go at that.
Let the Pro Bowl be the Hall of Fame game to kickoff the next season.
As the Super Bowl winner gets to host the opening Thursday night, let the team with the number one draft pick be the home team in London for the second part of the Thursday night opening double-header. That way, we could see such rising stars as Luck debut.
[...] games have become worthlessThe SouthernA Pro Bowl Gripe With A PlanBaltimore SportsReport.comNewsOK.com (blog) -CBS Local -Washington Postall 1,316 news [...]
[...] Pro Bowl: How about London?NewsOK.com (blog)Looks like we're stuck with the Pro Bowl. Nobody knows what to do with the NFL's all-star game. Nobody knows how to turn it into a real game. It's like an exhibition game, except without young players trying to show someone they can play.Pro Bowl 2012: 5 Things the NFL's All-Star Game ConfirmedBleacher ReportThe Decline of the Pro Bowl and Other All-Star Events: Fan's OpinionYahoo! SportsIs the Pro Bowl the worst all-star game in sports?USA TODAYBusiness 2 Community -DrJays.com Live -The Maine Campusall 1,319 news articles » [...]