It has not been a very good season in 2012 for the Buffalo Bills, for multiple reasons. Injuries and unfulfilled expectations have been far too prevalent in Buffalo, and even if the Bills win the final two games of the season, they are guaranteed a record below .500. They gave up 45 points in a loss to the San Francisco 49ers, 52 points in a loss to the New England Patriots, and they even gave up 48 points to the offensively challenged New York Jets.
Last week against the Seattle Seahawks, things got no better, as the Bills were hammered, losing by a final score of 50-17. The reason that I feel like this was a notable game was not because of the outcome (although, no doubt, 50 points is an unacceptable amount to surrender). Anyone with any sort of knowledge of the NFL expected the Seahawks to win this game. The bigger story, at least in my eyes, was the location of the game. Since 2008, the Bills have played one game each season in Toronto, and this was the Toronto game in 2012. In those five games over the past five years, the Bills have a record of 1-4.
Now, I understand that the Bills have not exactly been a powerhouse team over the course of the past five seasons, but in my opinion, putting them in Toronto for one home game each season is unfair, and I am not the only one who feels that way. Buffalo's center, Eric Wood, came out on Monday and referred to Buffalo playing one game each year in Toronto as "a joke," and his sentiments were echoed by some of his teammates as well. Wood said that the Bills are at a disadvantage once each year when they have to play a "home" game in a different city (let alone a different country). He stated that the fans in Toronto are in many cases just at the game to watch football as opposed to actually being fans of the Bills, and this is unfair to Buffalo. I completely agree with him.
Just like how the NFL has decided to play one game each season in London, playing a game in Toronto is unfair to the "home" team. However, the difference between the games in London and the games in Toronto is the fact that in Toronto, the Bills are always the "home" team. In London, the "home" team has been different each season. However, when you look at the history of the games in London, the designated "home" and "road" teams seems curious beyond coincidence.
The point of these international games is to promote the NFL in new markets throughout the world. Therefore, in order to promote itself, it seems obvious that the league would want to put its best products on the field, and it has done that in multiple cases. Fans that have attended these games in London have been able to see some of the best that the NFL has to offer, including the Giants, Patriots (twice), Bears, and Broncos. In 2013, there will actually be two games in London, and the "road" teams will be the Steelers and 49ers. The Giants, Patriots, Bears, Broncos, Steelers, and 49ers are NFL royalty. The league has used those teams to promote itself across the pond, but curiously, they have all been (or will be) the "road" teams in those games. That means the league can put its best products on the field in London, while also preventing all of those teams from losing one of its home games.
While the NFL has showcased (and will continue to showcase) its best franchises, it has been at the expense of home games for teams like the Buccaneers (twice), Rams, Dolphins, and Jaguars (in 2013). It isn't hard to find a trend here. The league does not want to lose the revenue that a game in New York, New England, Pittsburgh, etc. will generate, but it wants to use those teams to generate revenue for the league at the expense of lesser teams. It's just yet another example of sports being business before entertainment. I understand it, but it isn't always fair.
I don't have a problem with the league playing one game each season in London. Putting a team in London is an entirely separate scenario that I will never support, but I understand why the league wants to play games there. I even understand why the most prestigious franchises are not the "home" team in those games. Each team only has eight home games each season, so the chances to generate revenue are far lesser than in any other professional sports league. The league does not want to lose any chance it has to make money, and games in Pittsburgh, New York, New England, and Chicago are great ways to do so.
However, the Bills are a team with an above-average fanbase. Buffalo has gone through long periods of mediocrity, but its fanbase has remained quite consistent. It isn't as if they are one of the few teams in the league that struggles to sell out games. Buffalo fans do a good job of supporting their team, and I have to agree with Eric Wood when he says that it is unfair for them to lose one home game each season. The Bills play their home games close to Toronto, but other teams like the Patriots, Giants, and Packers play relatively close to Toronto as well, yet they never get "home" games across the border.
I can deal with one game each season in England, as long as the "home" team isn't one with a truly extablished fanbase. However, making the Bills play one of their games each season is unfair to both the team and its fans. So if league executives are listening, please take Eric Wood's advice and stop putting his team at a disadvantage once each season!
Daily Giants Update: Well, last Sunday was probably the worst performance we have ever put on in years. We still control our own destiny, and winning the final two games of the season will put us in the playoffs, and as has been proven numerous times before, all you need is a playoff spot to be a threat to win the Super Bowl. There is (literally) no more margin for error, and we need that defending champion team to show up every time they take the field from here on out.
Daily Diamondbacks Update: The trade we made this past week may end up deciding the future of General Manager Kevin Towers. We dealt possible pitching phenom Trevor Bauer (and others) for a package that was highlighted by minor league shortstop DiDi Gregorious, who I had never heard of. Towers obviously made Gregorious seem like a future star, but I have serious questions about this trade right now. Bauer had his problems, but he also had the highest potential ceiling of any of our prospects. You better be right about this one Towers...
Daily Nets Update: A loss last night to the Knicks dropped the record to 13-12, and after a great start to the season, it has been a struggle recently. Next up is a home game against the 76ers before a nationally televised game against the Boston Celtics on Christmas day.
No comments:
Post a Comment