MmmSkyscraper
Diamond Member
- Jul 6, 2004
- 9,475
- 1
- 76
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
no, i know what it is...i was just trying to comprehend the absurdity of the statement.
Well, Footy doesn't involve blokes wearing ten tonnes of body armour, and it doesn't stop every three seconds for a commercial break, so yeah, I guess it is an absurd comparison
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
Footy fields are huge, and the distances players have to run in a game is staggering. Sure, they don't weigh 24 tonnes each, of which 10 tonnes of that is body armour, but in sheer fitness terms I highly doubt NFL players would be fitter than AFL players...
I could be wrong
Oops
Some misread
Plus you could have any seat in the house once all the other fans start packing it up at halftime
DivideBYZero
Lifer
- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,215
- 11
- 81
You left off the poll option "I'm from N America, and I think its bad".
There are two major problems with regular season games overseas:
1) The "home" team loses a valuable home game. That's not fair to them, they now only have 7 home games in the season
2) The season ticket holders of that "home" team are also missing out on a game
Preseason games? Fine, no one cares anyway. Starting a league over there? Fine, but field it with players that aren't NFL outcasts - maybe actually develop LOCAL players, which is the only way to develop true interest in the sport anyway.
The biggest problem with this is the article I read about a possible Superbowl in London....if they held the Superbowl in London, when 99.9% of people there don't care, and millions of people here made the NFL a success, it would be a huge slap in the face to all of us that made the NFL what it is.
There are two major problems with regular season games overseas:
1) The "home" team loses a valuable home game. That's not fair to them, they now only have 7 home games in the season
2) The season ticket holders of that "home" team are also missing out on a game
Preseason games? Fine, no one cares anyway. Starting a league over there? Fine, but field it with players that aren't NFL outcasts - maybe actually develop LOCAL players, which is the only way to develop true interest in the sport anyway.
The biggest problem with this is the article I read about a possible Superbowl in London....if they held the Superbowl in London, when 99.9% of people there don't care, and millions of people here made the NFL a success, it would be a huge slap in the face to all of us that made the NFL what it is.
- Mar 10, 2005
- 14,647
- 2
- 0
1) I'm sure the Dolphins are compensated somewhere for their "home" away from home. Regardless, the damage is minimized since the Dolphins have no chance of winning either at home or away.
2) Miami season ticket holders paid for seven home games.
There won't be a Super Bowl overseas until other countries have their own teams playing in regular league play with the existing teams. The NFL says 2020 at the earliest.
I'd love to see other countries take part in "American" sports. Baseball and basketball are very popular. Like soccer, they are only as complicated and expensive as you'd care to make it. John Cleese said it best: "When we hold a World Championship, we invite other countries to participate." That may be about a decade away.
Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,215
- 11
- 81
You can disagree, but your poll is not legitimate without that option. Your poll acts as if every american either loves the idea, or doesn't watch football.
1) The dolphins aren't "compensated", not this year anyway. The plan is that its a different team every year, so in the LONG run it evens out. But that doesn't change the fact that in 2007, Miami is screwed out of a home game, which hurts you as a team. There's a reason Vegas automatically gives 3 points to the visitors.
2) I didn't say they were missing financially, they're missing as FANS. If you're a season ticket holder, its because you want to be at every game - not 7 games.
I have no problems with the NFL expanding internationally - starting teams in other countries, raising interest in American football internationally - that's all good, but playing NFL regular season (or post season) games internationally is a terrible idea.
1) The dolphins aren't "compensated", not this year anyway. The plan is that its a different team every year, so in the LONG run it evens out. But that doesn't change the fact that in 2007, Miami is screwed out of a home game, which hurts you as a team. There's a reason Vegas automatically gives 3 points to the visitors.
2) I didn't say they were missing financially, they're missing as FANS. If you're a season ticket holder, its because you want to be at every game - not 7 games.
I have no problems with the NFL expanding internationally - starting teams in other countries, raising interest in American football internationally - that's all good, but playing NFL regular season (or post season) games internationally is a terrible idea.
- Mar 10, 2005
- 14,647
- 2
- 0
"Your poll acts as if every american either loves the idea, or doesn't watch football."
That was deliberate. I have conceded to your wishes.
I think regular season games abroad are necessary to grow the game. It's obvious that preseason NFL and practice squad castaways are not going to attract the desired attention. They simply fail to win over savvy sports fans with second-rate play. btw, both the Dolphins and Giants volunteered to play in London, just as Kansas City and New England volunteered to play in Beijing. If their fans feel screwed, they should take it up with the respective owners. I think the majority of fans are happy to see their teams featured in showcase events.
correction: Seattle and New England were to play in Beijing. Kansas City still offers to play games abroad, which is consistant with the team's progressive history.
That was deliberate. I have conceded to your wishes.
I think regular season games abroad are necessary to grow the game. It's obvious that preseason NFL and practice squad castaways are not going to attract the desired attention. They simply fail to win over savvy sports fans with second-rate play. btw, both the Dolphins and Giants volunteered to play in London, just as Kansas City and New England volunteered to play in Beijing. If their fans feel screwed, they should take it up with the respective owners. I think the majority of fans are happy to see their teams featured in showcase events.
correction: Seattle and New England were to play in Beijing. Kansas City still offers to play games abroad, which is consistant with the team's progressive history.
- Mar 10, 2005
- 14,647
- 2
- 0
Last I heard, the Germans were very enthusiastic about the game. This leads me to believe the closing of the league really is part of changing direction and marketing the real thing, as opposed to stopping the financial bleeding.
Originally posted by: dug777
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
no, i know what it is...i was just trying to comprehend the absurdity of the statement.
Well, Footy doesn't involve blokes wearing ten tonnes of body armour, and it doesn't stop every three seconds for a commercial break, so yeah, I guess it is an absurd comparison
I've always thought that the ridiculous amount of TV breaks during a (American) football game would be a big deterrent to international interest. I don't really care about soccer, but I always enjoy watching the World Cup final on TV mostly because the clock never stops so the station doesn't have time to show you 5 million commercials.
AFAIK football is the only sport that actively allows TV stations to call timeout on the field when they need to show more commercials, and it's freakin' ridiculous! Games end up taking probably 30 to as much as 60 minutes longer than they should and TV timeouts are HUGE momentum killers since everyone in the stadium is just standing around waiting.
I'm sure those who attend are enthusiastic... but an average of only 14K-15K attend the Cologne and Berlin games last year, up to a maximum of 33K attending the Frankfurt games (link). Perhaps putting the "highest quality" players on the field may improve those attendance figures... but perhaps not.
Originally posted by: dug777
Footy fields are huge, and the distances players have to run in a game is staggering. Sure, they don't weigh 24 tonnes each, of which 10 tonnes of that is body armour, but in sheer fitness terms I highly doubt NFL players would be fitter than AFL players...
I could be wrong
Oops
Some misread
The pads they wear are pretty light, and the playing weight listed is actual body weight. If they did not wear the protective gear players would get killed or paralyzed with alarming frequency.
Rugby players have made it into the NFL, as punters lol. No comparision in size, strength, or speed to NFL players, but they might get them in endurance. NFL players are built for exceptional speed and power for a short period, over a small distance.
HeroOfPellinor
Lifer
- Dec 27, 2001
- 11,272
- 1
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter