PDA

View Full Version : Games in London...what do you think?



Dennis.1960
10-23-2015, 03:15 PM
I think it's absolutely ridiculous and is totally unfair for the team that has to give up a home game (not that it really matters in this case, we are talking about the Jags ;) I just hate the whole possibility of expansion outside the US and am sick of Goodell and his bosses (the owners) following any hint of revenue to exploit.

Any thoughts?

broncoslover115
10-23-2015, 03:40 PM
What I find ridiculous is that it won't be on TV but rather streaming online. What the hell is up with that? Unbelievable. So, not only do they have to play in London, but there is a possibility that a ton of their fans won't be able to watch it unless they can access it online. That blows!!!

Rancid
10-23-2015, 05:55 PM
London? Sounds great! G'day mate! Let's put another shrimp on the Barbie! :thumb:

Rastic
10-23-2015, 06:17 PM
Isn't Liechtenstein more deserving of an expansion team?

Or maybe Vatican City? Forget Nike. Have whomever makes the Swiss Guard uniforms make the team jerseys.

Plus the mascot is a no-brainer.

Grandpa
10-23-2015, 06:18 PM
Typical US corporate greed; someone at NFL HQ studied Business Ethics under Bernie Madoff. :mad:

What happened? Did the EU threaten to stop exporting Soccer, Rugby, and Lacrosse to the US unless the NFL started playing games in Europe?

brianmcfarlane
10-23-2015, 06:54 PM
Home fans shouldn't have to give up a home game, there are only 8 regular season games ... what's wrong with the NFL expanding into London and them have there own team?

How does it work? If the Broncos were to play there and lose a home game here, a season ticket holder gives up that game? I sure wouldn't be happy with that!

Sophia23
10-23-2015, 07:38 PM
What I find ridiculous is that it won't be on TV but rather streaming online. What the hell is up with that? Unbelievable. So, not only do they have to play in London, but there is a possibility that a ton of their fans won't be able to watch it unless they can access it online. That blows!!!

I thought those games were still covered with the NFL ticket, you would think those teams would still see on local TV as well. Is that not the case?

Grandpa
10-23-2015, 07:39 PM
what's wrong with the NFL expanding into London and them have there own team?
Because then we couldn't call it the National Football League. It would have to rename itself the International Football League, which would put it in conflict with the European version of "football." Plus all the logos would have to be changed, the advertisements changed .... think about the hundreds of millions of dollars THAT would cost! Think how much US cities tell us it costs to change a street sign ... now increase that cost logarithimically for changing an entire industry's signage.
:eek: :)

Of course if the EU developed it's own American football league (oops! another AFL?!?!?!?), then the NFL champion could play the EU champion and the winner would actually be the World Champions.

Sophia23
10-23-2015, 07:47 PM
I read somewhere one of the teams in FL, had volunteered to give up a home game .... I'm sure there compensated nicely for it, since they request giving up that home field advantage. The NFL is trying to broaden the world's interest. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of nations probably have more interest in Rugby or Soccer than American Football.

I like that we have a lot of international fans here on the site, but I imagine it would be hardest for season ticket holders if there team gives away a home game.

broncoslover115
10-23-2015, 08:16 PM
I thought those games were still covered with the NFL ticket, you would think those teams would still see on local TV as well. Is that not the case?

Not sure. But why in the world would they do this and cut out a huge portion of fans who don't have Sunday Ticket, and who don't have the capacity to watch online?

The NFL can't stop doing stuff to wreck the game. This, rule changes favored toward offense, inundated with defensive penalties, horrendous officiating, inconsistent suspensions and punishments, poor decisions by Goodell. It's ruining the game. Oh well.

broncoslover115
10-23-2015, 08:18 PM
I read somewhere one of the teams in FL, had volunteered to give up a home game .... I'm sure there compensated nicely for it, since they request giving up that home field advantage. The NFL is trying to broaden the world's interest. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think a lot of nations probably have more interest in Rugby or Soccer than American Football.

I like that we have a lot of international fans here on the site, but I imagine it would be hardest for season ticket holders if there team gives away a home game.

For this game, a player had to remain back in the US because he didn't have a Passport. Another issue that has to be addressed. Guys with criminal records may not get one.

Grandpa
10-23-2015, 09:01 PM
For this game, a player had to remain back in the US because he didn't have a Passport. Another issue that has to be addressed. Guys with criminal records may not get one.
Guess the 1970's & 1980's Dallas Cowboys are sure glad the NFL didn't start this "across the pond" adventure back when THEY were active players.
:D
(Old joke: Dallas Cowboys have a new coordinator for the defense ... Johnny Cochran.)

broncoslover115
10-24-2015, 04:16 AM
Guess the 1970's & 1980's Dallas Cowboys are sure glad the NFL didn't start this "across the pond" adventure back when THEY were active players.
:D
(Old joke: Dallas Cowboys have a new coordinator for the defense ... Johnny Cochran.)

Not for off for this year either.....Greg Hardy, Rolando McClain! Need I say more?

bronx_2003
10-24-2015, 02:50 PM
I find the attitude of some people here terrible. I am going to London tomorrow, I have been to every game, and its a chance for fans in Britain and Europe to see a live game within their budget.

I, and many people, watch the NFL from 6pm Sunday to 5am, plus TNF and MNF which both finish around the same time, and then get up for work a couple of hours later. We spend money on merchandise, and I have flown to Denver 3 times to watch the Broncos play..... although like I say not everyone can afford to, especially those bringing family along.

There are over 250 regular season games in the season. Allowing people overseas to watch 3 is not asking for much. Especially as the Jags get a poor attendance at home anyway. Fans in Britain dedicate a lot of time to the NFL, begrudging them 3 games a season is very obnoxious imo

broncoslover115
10-24-2015, 03:34 PM
I find the attitude of some people here terrible. I am going to London tomorrow, I have been to every game, and its a chance for fans in Britain and Europe to see a live game within their budget.

I, and many people, watch the NFL from 6pm Sunday to 5am, plus TNF and MNF which both finish around the same time, and then get up for work a couple of hours later. We spend money on merchandise, and I have flown to Denver 3 times to watch the Broncos play..... although like I say not everyone can afford to, especially those bringing family along.

There are over 250 regular season games in the season. Allowing people overseas to watch 3 is not asking for much. Especially as the Jags get a poor attendance at home anyway. Fans in Britain dedicate a lot of time to the NFL, begrudging them 3 games a season is very obnoxious imo

Well, you make some good points and added something we probably didn't think of. My issue was not understanding why it wasn't on TV and therefore concerned that the fans of the teams that were playing may not get a chance to watch.

But again, you raised excellent points but was it necessary to come off like you're scolding people? Jeez!

bronx_2003
10-24-2015, 03:38 PM
Well, you make some good points and added something we probably didn't think of. My issue was not understanding why it wasn't on TV and therefore concerned that the fans of the teams that were playing may not get a chance to watch.

But again, you raised excellent points but was it necessary to come off like you're scolding people? Jeez!

Probably not and everyone is entitled to their opinions but there was not much understanding or caring for the supporters overseas.

I agree it should be on TV, strange that it isn't

broncoslover115
10-24-2015, 03:45 PM
Probably not and everyone is entitled to their opinions but there was not much understanding or caring for the supporters overseas.

I agree it should be on TV, strange that it isn't

I gotcha. Just was out off by the tone. But your points are excellent and well worth considering.

Grandpa
10-24-2015, 04:21 PM
I agree it should be on TV, strange that it isn't
I think most can agree with that. The angst being spread over this thread is likely based on the fact it will ONLY be available CONUS on Yahoo! streaming instead of straight TV. If someone has to NOT see a game, it shouldn't be the fans of the team in the city in which the franchise is based. But NO ONE needs to be cut off from the game; EU can travel to Wembley to see it live, and US television can carry it for those of us who can't just fly off to Europe for the weekend due to various and sundry reasons.

There's a way to have it both ways; why wasn't the NFL interested in such a solution? DirecTV has ~20.3 million customers; cable TV has over 52 million. Why was the lower number of potential viewers given NFL Sunday Ticket? Even from a financial stand-point Wembley and DirecTV make no sense.

bronx_2003
10-24-2015, 05:04 PM
Lets be real though, how much demand is there for the Bills against the Jags ?

Its not like we get any top games over here lol

The only good match-up we have had was the Saints and the Chargers which was a brilliant game

Dennis.1960
10-24-2015, 05:17 PM
I find the attitude of some people here terrible. I am going to London tomorrow, I have been to every game, and its a chance for fans in Britain and Europe to see a live game within their budget.

I, and many people, watch the NFL from 6pm Sunday to 5am, plus TNF and MNF which both finish around the same time, and then get up for work a couple of hours later. We spend money on merchandise, and I have flown to Denver 3 times to watch the Broncos play..... although like I say not everyone can afford to, especially those bringing family along.

There are over 250 regular season games in the season. Allowing people overseas to watch 3 is not asking for much. Especially as the Jags get a poor attendance at home anyway. Fans in Britain dedicate a lot of time to the NFL, begrudging them 3 games a season is very obnoxious imo

Since I started the thread, I feel compelled to respond. There's no argument that there are NFL fans in the UK, and loyal ones at that. I'm sure there are also huge numbers of loyal fans of UK soccer in the US. That being said, I still stand by my opinion that the NFL playing and considering expansion to London is a horrible idea, not because depriving NFL fans in the UK is somehow a good thing, but because the only reason the NFL is even considering this is their insatiable greed and I'm completely sick of it. Conversely, how would you feel about the Premier League flying teams across the Atlantic to have regular season games in the US so they can cash in on American fans? If you feel ok with that, then we're left to respectfully disagree on the issue of making national leagues international for the sake of profit.

bronx_2003
10-24-2015, 05:30 PM
Since I started the thread, I feel compelled to respond. There's no argument that there are NFL fans in the UK, and loyal ones at that. I'm sure there are also huge numbers of loyal fans of UK soccer in the US. That being said, I still stand by my opinion that the NFL playing and considering expansion to London is a horrible idea, not because depriving NFL fans in the UK is somehow a good thing, but because the only reason the NFL is even considering this is their insatiable greed and I'm completely sick of it. Conversely, how would you feel about the Premier League flying teams across the Atlantic to have regular season games in the US so they can cash in on American fans? If you feel ok with that, then we're left to respectfully disagree on the issue of making national leagues international for the sake of profit.

I don't care about profit. Whether they do it for that or not is irrelevant to me.

I think its brilliant that people in Britain and Europe get the chance to see an NFL game in person, and 3 games out of 260 something is a drop in the ocean. Its only a regular season game as well.

Most people here don't want a franchise, just the chance to see 2/3 games a season.

I think the premier league should, and will, put a few games in the states every season to reward supporters over there. There are 38 weeks in a season, I think one week's slate of games should be shown in different cities in America. The majority of fans over here will not begrudge losing 1 week out of 38.

Your not making the NFL international by having 3 regular season games a year played outside the States.

Dennis.1960
10-24-2015, 05:44 PM
I don't care about profit. Whether they do it for that or not is irrelevant to me.

I think its brilliant that people in Britain and Europe get the chance to see an NFL game in person, and 3 games out of 260 something is a drop in the ocean. Its only a regular season game as well.

Most people here don't want a franchise, just the chance to see 2/3 games a season.

I think the premier league should, and will, put a few games in the states every season to reward supporters over there. There are 38 weeks in a season, I think one week's slate of games should be shown in different cities in America. The majority of fans over here will not begrudge losing 1 week out of 38.

Your not making the NFL international by having 3 regular season games a year played outside the States.

Oh well, I don't agree and since my last name isn't Goodell you don't have anything to worry about..enjoy the game ;)

bronx_2003
10-24-2015, 05:47 PM
Oh well, I don't agree and since my last name isn't Goodell you don't have anything to worry about..enjoy the game ;)

Thats cool. You think its bad that anyone outside the States get a chance to watch a live game. We're just agree to disagree

Dennis.1960
10-24-2015, 06:13 PM
Thats cool. You think its bad that anyone outside the States get a chance to watch a live game. We're just agree to disagree

Actually that's not true. I have nothing against preseason games in London, Mexico City, The Nazca Plains, wherever...I just don't agree with regular season games scheduled internationally. It cheats one team of a home field advantage game and puts additional travel/jet lag issues on the 2 teams that the other 30 teams don't have to adjust to. In a 16 game season, having 7 instead of 8 home games is giving up a major advantage. If the Broncos had to fly and give up a regular season home game in London, then face a big divisional opponent matchup the next week I'd feel it was an unfair advantage for the other team, not to mention the other teams in the division and conference.

Also, while you mention that most UK fans aren't looking for a franchise, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that if Goodell and the owners can find a way to get a team in London and put even more money in their pockets, it'll happen ;)

bronx_2003
10-24-2015, 06:58 PM
Actually that's not true. I have nothing against preseason games in London, Mexico City, The Nazca Plains, wherever...I just don't agree with regular season games scheduled internationally. It cheats one team of a home field advantage game and puts additional travel/jet lag issues on the 2 teams that the other 30 teams don't have to adjust to. In a 16 game season, having 7 instead of 8 home games is giving up a major advantage. If the Broncos had to fly and give up a regular season home game in London, then face a big divisional opponent matchup the next week I'd feel it was an unfair advantage for the other team, not to mention the other teams in the division and conference.

Also, while you mention that most UK fans aren't looking for a franchise, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that if Goodell and the owners can find a way to get a team in London and put even more money in their pockets, it'll happen ;)

Whenever a team plays at Wembley they get a bye the following week.

There's not much difference in flying from the east coast to London as it is across country, and I'm sure these players flying first class can handle it.

I don't think a franchise will be put here, but time will tell

fallforward3y+
10-27-2015, 03:05 AM
Thats cool. You think its bad that anyone outside the States get a chance to watch a live game. We're just agree to disagree

I think I remember you seemingly taking offense to people not liking games in London in a thread last year in 2014, and it seems your doing it again. I doubt that many here have a problem with it because they think people outside the States shouldn't get to see games, I think you may be a bit clouded emotionally in assuming this, as it seems you value these games, and I do understand why you value them.

However, at the same time I think there are good reasons to play them all in the States, not because I don't want people to see games in other countries, but because all NFL Teams have stadiums in the States.

I would love for people in the UK to see games, along with people in Japan, Brazil, Germany, Australia, The Congo and etc. I would love for the country you live in to not interfere with that. However, I doubt this can be the case without causing unfair advantages.

A team playing a game outside their stadium for a scheduled home game means they lose a home game, they have less home games than road games. HFA is a big advantage IMO, I don't think teams should have to give it up for a game.

I would love for preseason games to be played overseas, however I'm not sure it's fair to have regular season games overseas. I wish it could be, but I think it isn't.

bronx_2003
10-27-2015, 04:55 AM
I think I remember you seemingly taking offense to people not liking games in London in a thread last year in 2014, and it seems your doing it again. I doubt that many here have a problem with it because they think people outside the States shouldn't get to see games, I think you may be a bit clouded emotionally in assuming this, as it seems you value these games, and I do understand why you value them.

However, at the same time I think there are good reasons to play them all in the States, not because I don't want people to see games in other countries, but because all NFL Teams have stadiums in the States.

I would love for people in the UK to see games, along with people in Japan, Brazil, Germany, Australia, The Congo and etc. I would love for the country you live in to not interfere with that. However, I doubt this can be the case without causing unfair advantages.

A team playing a game outside their stadium for a scheduled home game means they lose a home game, they have less home games than road games. HFA is a big advantage IMO, I don't think teams should have to give it up for a game.

I would love for preseason games to be played overseas, however I'm not sure it's fair to have regular season games overseas. I wish it could be, but I think it isn't.

1 - I don't take offense to it, I just have a different opinion, and obviously the opinion I had last year will be the same this year. I'm consistent in my thinking.

2 - It depends who's homefield advantage it is. I don't think the Jags HF is great because they have a lot of empty seats. People at Wembley really got behind them the other day and I would argue their support was far better then what they are used to. Last week they played at home to the terrible Texans and got blown out. At Wembley they won.

3 - The NFL have tried having pre-season games over here, and they tried the NFL Europe league, but people do not have any interest in watching back-ups and squad players in a meaningless game. The majority of people who go to Wembley are proper fans who are very knowledgeable on the game and want to see the best players in a game that matters.

4 - My solution would be thus -

Do not move a franchise over here, most fans don't want one anyway.

Have 4 games a year using one division. Each team in that division has to give up a home game. Do not play division games overseas. Rotate the division travelling every season.

That way the team and fans know when they are giving up a home game and only have to do it 1 season in every 9... which imo is not a big ask. The league can adjust their season tickets prices, they make a lot of money out of the Wembley games anyway.

Out of those 4 games give Wembley 2, Germany 1, and Mexico 1

As they do now let the teams playing overseas have a bye the following week

Grandpa
10-27-2015, 07:45 AM
4 - My solution would be thus -

Do not move a franchise over here, most fans don't want one anyway.

Have 4 games a year using one division. Each team in that division has to give up a home game. Do not play division games overseas. Rotate the division travelling every season.

That way the team and fans know when they are giving up a home game and only have to do it 1 season in every 9... which imo is not a big ask. The league can adjust their season tickets prices, they make a lot of money out of the Wembley games anyway.

Out of those 4 games give Wembley 2, Germany 1, and Mexico 1

As they do now let the teams playing overseas have a bye the following week
THAT is a very well-thought-out idea. (Provided the NFL puts those overseas games on US television (either broadcast networks or NFL Network.) Have you thought about emailing that idea to the NFL?

bronx_2003
10-27-2015, 09:57 AM
THAT is a very well-thought-out idea. (Provided the NFL puts those overseas games on US television (either broadcast networks or NFL Network.) Have you thought about emailing that idea to the NFL?

Thanks, but they wouldn't listen to me. I think they probably do want a franchise over here at some point but its a huge misconception that getting a franchise is something the British people want.

We are happy with 2/3 games a season....... although some are getting tired of all the bottom feeder games they are sending us.... although I won't blame them for KC / Detroit, no-one could predict their poor records

Grandpa
10-27-2015, 12:14 PM
Thanks, but they wouldn't listen to me. I think they probably do want a franchise over here at some point but its a huge misconception that getting a franchise is something the British people want.

We are happy with 2/3 games a season....... although some are getting tired of all the bottom feeder games they are sending us.... although I won't blame them for KC / Detroit, no-one could predict their poor records
True on the overseas franchises. What Broncos fan living in England wants to watch an English team that ISN'T the Broncos? Or a Dallas fan in Amsterdam watching a Dutch team that ISN'T the Cowboys? It would be the same way it is now .... "They're not MY team, but it's all we've got."

brianmcfarlane
10-27-2015, 02:12 PM
I don't care what the other countries want! If there is a demand then create a franchise. If other cities don't want a franchise than they don't deserve games that the NFL fan base has paid for and created over the decades. I don't want a regular season home Bronco game being moved to another city period. If the NFL treats its fan base that way they deserve to lose that fan base! :mad:

bronx_2003
10-27-2015, 02:25 PM
True on the overseas franchises. What Broncos fan living in England wants to watch an English team that ISN'T the Broncos? Or a Dallas fan in Amsterdam watching a Dutch team that ISN'T the Cowboys? It would be the same way it is now .... "They're not MY team, but it's all we've got."

Fans here have a team and wouldn't switch just because a new franchise started up in London.... although I guess new fans to the game might adopt them. I just don't think putting a franchise over here is a good idea or works

HUMCALC
10-27-2015, 07:37 PM
I HATE these games

Canmore
10-27-2015, 10:54 PM
I HATE these games

Amen......

bronx_2003
10-28-2015, 11:02 AM
I HATE these games

Don't watch them then, pretty simple

broncolee
10-28-2015, 02:01 PM
Home fans shouldn't have to give up a home game, there are only 8 regular season games ... what's wrong with the NFL expanding into London and them have there own team?

How does it work? If the Broncos were to play there and lose a home game here, a season ticket holder gives up that game? I sure wouldn't be happy with that!

I think the Broncos would have to finish paying for the stadium before going to London as the home team. I believe they're required by their lease to play 8 home games. I don't think preseason counts.

I'm against overseas regular season games for any team.

I'm also against overseas expansion teams.

bronx_2003
10-28-2015, 02:32 PM
I think the Broncos would have to finish paying for the stadium before going to London as the home team. I believe they're required by their lease to play 8 home games. I don't think preseason counts.

I'm against overseas regular season games for any team.

I'm also against overseas expansion teams.

Why ? Do you have a valid reason or argument, because the only one's I have read on this thread are steeped in ignorance.

Either.......

1 - We cannot bear to see 3 games out of 260+ played outside the States

2 - Its so unfair that a team has to give up a one off home game in their franchise history

Peanut
10-28-2015, 03:03 PM
Why ? Do you have a valid reason or argument, because the only one's I have read on this thread are steeped in ignorance.

Either.......

1 - We cannot bear to see 3 games out of 260+ played outside the States

2 - Its so unfair that a team has to give up a one off home game in their franchise history

They don't need a "valid reason or argument". It's their opinions and they are allowed to voice them.

"steeped in ignorance" Not a good way to get your point across, IMO.

bronx_2003
10-28-2015, 03:36 PM
They don't need a "valid reason or argument". It's their opinions and they are allowed to voice them.

"steeped in ignorance" Not a good way to get your point across, IMO.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there's no way of getting round the fact that saying 'no one else should get to watch a game' is a pretty ignorant thing to say

Peanut
10-28-2015, 03:39 PM
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but there's no way of getting round the fact that saying 'no one else should get to watch a game' is a pretty ignorant thing to say

I must have missed that post.

bronx_2003
10-28-2015, 03:49 PM
I don't care what the other countries want!

I HATE these games

I'm against overseas regular season games for any team.

Those 2 posts are basically saying that they don't think or care about anyone else watching a game.

I'm lucky enough to have been to 3 games in Denver, but there are a lot of people who cannot afford to travel overseas... especially taking a family over to the States on a holiday...... these people are dedicated fans who watch the games and stay up at crazy hours to get their 'fix'.

Does it really kill people to let them watch 3 games out of over 260.... and not even big match-ups.

Your right, people don't have to provide a valid argument as to why its such a bad thing, but I stand by my view that's its a very ignorant and shallow viewpoint to have towards fellow fans and people in general

#87Birdman
10-28-2015, 04:08 PM
I don't care what the other countries want!

I HATE these games

I'm against overseas regular season games for any team.

Those 2 posts are basically saying that they don't think or care about anyone else watching a game.

I'm lucky enough to have been to 3 games in Denver, but there are a lot of people who cannot afford to travel overseas... especially taking a family over to the States on a holiday...... these people are dedicated fans who watch the games and stay up at crazy hours to get their 'fix'.

Does it really kill people to let them watch 3 games out of over 260.... and not even big match-ups.

Your right, people don't have to provide a valid argument as to why its such a bad thing, but I stand by my view that's its a very ignorant and shallow viewpoint to have towards fellow fans and people in general

I don't read it that way. Are the games still televised? I'm going to guess they are in some shape. So because they don't want the games played over seas doesn't not mean they don't want them to view it.

I live in a state without a professional team should I feel entitled to them playing here in Iowa? No because those cities usually end up paying in taxes to build the stadium.

Now I don't oppose those games it sucks it eliminates a home game so I think it should be limited to teams that have games blacked out the season before. Because obviously they can't fill their stadium with their local fans.

So I would be okay with that as I see it Europe has their own league they could support it isn't up to the nfl to cater to them. Just like it isn't up to the big time Europe soccer leagues to play 13% or what ever the number is of their home games over seas. We have our own soccer teams we should support those and not hope for another league to supply us games. And if you ate a fan of those teams their is television or other means to watch those games.

bronx_2003
10-28-2015, 04:16 PM
I don't read it that way. Are the games still televised? I'm going to guess they are in some shape. So because they don't want the games played over seas doesn't not mean they don't want them to view it.

I live in a state without a professional team should I feel entitled to them playing here in Iowa? No because those cities usually end up paying in taxes to build the stadium.

Now I don't oppose those games it sucks it eliminates a home game so I think it should be limited to teams that have games blacked out the season before. Because obviously they can't fill their stadium with their local fans.

So I would be okay with that as I see it Europe has their own league they could support it isn't up to the nfl to cater to them. Just like it isn't up to the big time Europe soccer leagues to play 13% or what ever the number is of their home games over seas. We have our own soccer teams we should support those and not hope for another league to supply us games. And if you ate a fan of those teams their is television or other means to watch those games.

Arrowhead and the Rams stadium is just over 200 miles away, so it wouldn't be difficult or expensive for you to travel to a game at one of those 2 stadiums any Sunday of the season. People who live in the States will generally be near a stadium even if there is not one in their state.

People could watch a million games of their favourite team on TV but it's not the same as a live game, something I feel they should be able to experience.

Personally I would have 1 week of the 38 played in the States in different cities (premier league)

#87Birdman
10-28-2015, 05:26 PM
Arrowhead and the Rams stadium is just over 200 miles away, so it wouldn't be difficult or expensive for you to travel to a game at one of those 2 stadiums any Sunday of the season. People who live in the States will generally be near a stadium even if there is not one in their state.

People could watch a million games of their favourite team on TV but it's not the same as a live game, something I feel they should be able to experience.

Personally I would have 1 week of the 38 played in the States in different cities (premier league)

Why not 13% of one teams home games and even then why should I feel entitled to them making that sacrifice to appease me? There are soccer leagues here if i have an itch for soccer. Will it be considered the top league? Probably not if you believe the premier League is the best. Obviously if you want to watch them live you should expect to go to their normal venue not have them cater the minority of out of country fans.

But like I said I have no problem if they do it with teams that suffered a blackout game the year prior. If the local fans won't support them site to being a transplant town or what have you than I wouldn't be apposed to them losing a home game.

bronx_2003
10-28-2015, 05:43 PM
Why not 13% of one teams home games and even then why should I feel entitled to them making that sacrifice to appease me? There are soccer leagues here if i have an itch for soccer. Will it be considered the top league? Probably not if you believe the premier League is the best. Obviously if you want to watch them live you should expect to go to their normal venue not have them cater the minority of out of country fans.

But like I said I have no problem if they do it with teams that suffered a blackout game the year prior. If the local fans won't support them site to being a transplant town or what have you than I wouldn't be apposed to them losing a home game.

If they did the model I proposed a team would lose 1 home game every 9 years, and would know what year this was going to be, that way a fan will get to watch their team at one point, even if its only once.

Do you think that is too big an ask ?

#87Birdman
10-28-2015, 06:00 PM
If they did the model I proposed a team would lose 1 home game every 9 years, and would know what year this was going to be, that way a fan will get to watch their team at one point, even if its only once.

Do you think that is too big an ask ?

And their opponent now has a neutral game so one less away game. Vegas usually gives a home team 3 points which means on neutral field would be an advantage for an opponent.

This is why I deem teams with blackouts contenders for out of country games. Their local fans who probably had taxes increased to pay for stadiums shouldn't be punished to appease other countries.

There are fans all over the world what makes one fan base more important to appease than the other? I don't like over sea games and I don't like Thursday night games.

The reason I said the only reason I would be okay with the black out teams is because at that point they aren't supporting their team.

Your suggestion is a suggestion of entitlement because the NATIONAL football league shouldn't have to do anything for international fans but they are. That should be enough not well my team I line isn't here so they all should have to. Because your suggestion is just the home team and doesn't account for the opponent.

So what about a bronco fan lives in Carolina territory and the 1 year they play in Carolina in 8 years they go overseas? So like I said I don't like them but if they are going to do it do it with teams that can't fill their stadium.

bronx_2003
10-28-2015, 06:15 PM
And their opponent now has a neutral game so one less away game. Vegas usually gives a home team 3 points which means on neutral field would be an advantage for an opponent.

This is why I deem teams with blackouts contenders for out of country games. Their local fans who probably had taxes increased to pay for stadiums shouldn't be punished to appease other countries.

There are fans all over the world what makes one fan base more important to appease than the other? I don't like over sea games and I don't like Thursday night games.

The reason I said the only reason I would be okay with the black out teams is because at that point they aren't supporting their team.

Your suggestion is a suggestion of entitlement because the NATIONAL football league shouldn't have to do anything for international fans but they are. That should be enough not well my team I line isn't here so they all should have to. Because your suggestion is just the home team and doesn't account for the opponent.

So what about a bronco fan lives in Carolina territory and the 1 year they play in Carolina in 8 years they go overseas? So like I said I don't like them but if they are going to do it do it with teams that can't fill their stadium.

Its called the NATIONAL football league because all the teams are based there, not because that's the only place people watch games, follow teams, or where games are played.

Its not entitlement, its deserved. Britain have a big NFL following compared with other countries and have the biggest TV deal with the NFL by far.

The road team is on the road whether its in the States or London, I don't think that really matters or is the point. You need to look at the big picture.

That Broncos fan in Carolina has a stadium near him he can go to whenever he likes. If he wants to watch Denver just go to a game there... its pretty easy and affordable to get to from Carolina for a few nights.

#87Birdman
10-28-2015, 06:29 PM
Its called the NATIONAL football league because all the teams are based there, not because that's the only place people watch games, follow teams, or where games are played.

Its not entitlement, its deserved. Britain have a big NFL following compared with other countries and have the biggest TV deal with the NFL by far.

The road team is on the road whether its in the States or London, I don't think that really matters or is the point. You need to look at the big picture.

That Broncos fan in Carolina has a stadium near him he can go to whenever he likes. If he wants to watch Denver just go to a game there... its pretty easy and affordable to get to from Carolina for a few nights.

It isn't deserved that is entitled thinking. So they have a larger fan base than the states? Last I checked USA is a country and I don't believe for a second they have a larger fan base than us for the nfl. Heck I think the nfl tried creating a league over there and it failed.

And so now neutral field doesn't make a difference? Do the patriots playing denver in Denver or paying in Chicago makes no difference for the patriots? Pretty sure they would take the neutral field over going into a home stadium. Otherwise home field advantage means nothing.

They paid money for it fine give them the teams that are blacked out like I said. Thursday night games are sloppy just like over sea games are. That is the reason both are terrible. Thursday night games are played on to short of a week and over sea games are played at a terrible time when they aren't used to playing. Both create sloppy games.

But since it is like Thursday night games and not going anywhere try to limit the damage and send tans that get blacked out the season prior.

bronx_2003
10-28-2015, 06:51 PM
It isn't deserved that is entitled thinking. So they have a larger fan base than the states? Last I checked USA is a country and I don't believe for a second they have a larger fan base than us for the nfl. Heck I think the nfl tried creating a league over there and it failed.

And so now neutral field doesn't make a difference? Do the patriots playing denver in Denver or paying in Chicago makes no difference for the patriots? Pretty sure they would take the neutral field over going into a home stadium. Otherwise home field advantage means nothing.

They paid money for it fine give them the teams that are blacked out like I said. Thursday night games are sloppy just like over sea games are. That is the reason both are terrible. Thursday night games are played on to short of a week and over sea games are played at a terrible time when they aren't used to playing. Both create sloppy games.

But since it is like Thursday night games and not going anywhere try to limit the damage and send tans that get blacked out the season prior.

Britain have a big NFL following compared to other countries is what I said, that is why the international games go to London. 'other countries' did not include the States..... I really didn't think I needed to point that out.

There was an NFL Europe, it failed because it was a really low standard full of practice squad players.

I would argue the Jags get a better crowd at Wembley then at Jacksonville. They had a huge following last week and played well to beat the Bills. When I saw them on TV at home to Houston there were empty seats and they got hammered.

Obviously its easier on the road team to play at Wembley, but like I said you need to look at the big picture. The fact that a home team loses a slight advantage is out-weighed by the fact the NFL is increasing its fan base and giving proper fans the opportunity to watch a game in person.

Like I said before, a team wouldn't lose a home game every year under my proposal, it would be 1 game every NINE YEARS. That city could watch their team at home the other 7 games... and playoffs... and the next 8 years.

So you really begrudge overseas fans the chance to watch an NFL game because a city loses 1 home game every 9 years. I would hope that people are open minded but I guess everyones different and your entitled to your opinion.

#87Birdman
10-28-2015, 07:42 PM
Britain have a big NFL following compared to other countries is what I said, that is why the international games go to London. 'other countries' did not include the States..... I really didn't think I needed to point that out.

There was an NFL Europe, it failed because it was a really low standard full of practice squad players.

I would argue the Jags get a better crowd at Wembley then at Jacksonville. They had a huge following last week and played well to beat the Bills. When I saw them on TV at home to Houston there were empty seats and they got hammered.

Obviously its easier on the road team to play at Wembley, but like I said you need to look at the big picture. The fact that a home team loses a slight advantage is out-weighed by the fact the NFL is increasing its fan base and giving proper fans the opportunity to watch a game in person.

Like I said before, a team wouldn't lose a home game every year under my proposal, it would be 1 game every NINE YEARS. That city could watch their team at home the other 7 games... and playoffs... and the next 8 years.

So you really begrudge overseas fans the chance to watch an NFL game because a city loses 1 home game every 9 years. I would hope that people are open minded but I guess everyones different and your entitled to your opinion.

And just like I said blackout teams aka the ones that can't fill their stadium should be forced to fill that need to go over seas. You pointed it out they don't fill the status and London did. Teams that filled their seats shouldn't lose home games.

And I like how you just ignored the sloppy games like the ones you get with Thursday night games point. I personally don't enjoy watching slot games because the nfl feels they need to fill a time spot or try to get additional fans.

But back to your proposal the teams would be over there more than once every 8 years (it's 8 because there are only 8 divisions) because you would have opponents who would be in that running. Odds are you would have to use out of division games so in 4 years every team would have played over seas. That would complicate the schedule even more as those 4 games would have to proceed a bye and it would also have to hit the right 4 year pattern to make it feisible otherwise you end up creating an unfair advantage as you end up with some teams getting sent more while some teams sent less.

There are only 16 games and all 16 matter it isn't soccer where 1 week of 38 would have anywhere near the impact of 1 of 16. So now you end up with a sloppy game trying to incorporate a schedule that has even more restrictions.

So say a team goes over there losing a home game plays another sloppy 8o clock game losses even though they normally play outstanding at home lose home field advantage because that 1 game where they didn't play at home and now travel and their home fans who support them and fill the seats and we're denied a game because some one felt they deserve to be able to view a game in person.

No I don't agree if a teams fans are able to fill the seats they should not be in risk of having one of their home games removed. Now if you don't than yes because the home field means less because you don't have your seats filled. And even than I don't fully agree but just like Thursday night games they are here and don't look to be going anywhere so this is what I think the best proposal is.

And with your they are just practise squad players well we don't seem to have a problem supporting the lower college teams around here either even if they don't have a pro prospect. Not even practise squad level. So that isn't a good reason just prof when given the opportunity it was turned down.

Grandpa
10-29-2015, 04:37 AM
A quick question for our overseas fans ..... are you able to tune in the Armed Forces Radio & Television Network in your country (*IF* we have a military presence in your country)? AFRTS broadcasts at least one game every weekend of the NFL season to the troops. If you're anywhere near a base that hosts our armed forces, you should be able to grab the station out of the airwaves.

At last count, AFRTS broadcasts in 175 countries. Understandably, some of the games will be time delayed since they don't want the troops up at 2am to watch a game, then go on duty with no sleep an hour after the game is over.

pozbaird
11-05-2015, 04:55 AM
I'm nowhere near any US military station, but on Sky TV I watch the Thursday night game live, three live Sunday games, the live Monday night game, plus many hours of programming like 'Hard Knocks' and 'America's Game' etc.

Viewing figures for the NFL in the UK are growing hugely. The London games are 84,000 sell-outs. The London games jumped from one a season to three a season, and we have seen the Jaguars sign up to be a resident team, we have just had a divisional game (Jets-Dolphins), and a team with no noticeable stadium issues (Kansas City) just gave up an Arrowhead home game to play the Lions in London. The NFL have just extended the deal to play in London, and have signed deals not only to play at Wembley, but at the home of English rugby - Twickenham Stadium, and from 2018, the brand new Tottenham Hotspur soccer stadium.

I have just returned after going to London for the Chiefs v Lions game, and also attended the Jets v Dolphin game. Both were fantastic occasions, great atmosphere, and fans wearing jerseys of all 32 teams, plus some college jerseys and old NFL Europe ones.

Like it or loathe it - the International Series looks set to stay - and grow. There's talk of games in Germany and/or Mexico. UK fans are enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and we love our NFL.

If I were a season ticket holder at a team losing a game to London, I would feel somewhat 'cheated'. My solution would be that the NFL cut one pre-season game, move to a 17 game regular season, and play the new 'extra' game abroad as the International Series. USA fans then get 8 games guaranteed.

A London franchise? That's a whole new ball game. Cannot see it happening over the next fifteen years anyway. Who knows though?