London weather for Chargers @ Saints (1 Viewer)

[Wreckincrew]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

 

[Interseptopus]

Playing in London is a huge mistake. I understand it's a cash cow for the NFL, but you run huge risk of injury with these awful field conditions. Every year it will be the same there. Just stupid. If Europe wants the NFL, give them back NFL Europe

 

[T Bell]

Why bother with a weather forecast for London? Isn't it pretty much always the same?

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

If they have to play over there for there many fans play the game week 1 or 2. Not week 8!

 

[T Bell]

If they have to play over there for there many fans play the game week 1 or 2. Not week 8!

The whole concept is idiotic and looks exactly like what it is: a bull#### money grab.

 

[tombonneau]

If they have to play over there for there many fans play the game week 1 or 2. Not week 8!

The whole concept is idiotic and looks exactly like what it is: a bull#### money grab.

 

[KingEl]

If you look at the hour by hour forecast though- game time seems to be when the winds are diminished to 10-12 mph... with light rain... If that holds, it won't be too bad... I would much prefer a nice Saints dome game against the Chargers, but Brees could still do well.

 

[EFD]

Why won't they just close the roof? I don't get it...

 

[King of the Jungle]

FBG does not seem to think it will matter. Saturday rankings: Brees #1, Rivers #4.

 

[Lord Lucan]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

 

[KoolKat]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

From my understanding there is more of an NFL following in England and Germany than anywhere else in Europe.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

If you look at the hour by hour forecast though- game time seems to be when the winds are diminished to 10-12 mph... with light rain... If that holds, it won't be too bad... I would much prefer a nice Saints dome game against the Chargers, but Brees could still do well.

Right, but it's the rain from 4 am and through the game that will make the field a mud-fest.

 

[Lord Lucan]

Incidentally, the roof doesn't close over the pitch. It was designed to help sunlight/air get to the pitch when not in use (as this is a design flaw with many large stadia).

 

[Deuce'sWild]

hopefully they put a tarp on it and the rain and wind subsides. we all have visions of giants vs phins and it's a little nerve racking.

 

[BeGiants]

Yeah, the stupid arrangement is just about $$$. Anyway, the point is which team will get back on track. Cool widgets at statbeast.

 

[Gigantomachia]

Are you all suggesting the NFL is just about making money?

I'm so disillusioned.

 

[PatrickT]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Good point, dots that I hadn't connected. I just don't think regular season games should be done there. BUT, if you're going to do it, it would seem to make more sense to have the bye week before the game, rather than after.

 

[EFD]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Ever notice how they don't schedule Super Bowl games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a few good others? Wonder why? Because if possible weather should not play a large role in the winner and loser of a football game.

 

[Interseptopus]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Ever notice how they don't schedule Super Bowl games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a few good others? Wonder why? Because if possible weather should not play a large role in the winner and loser of a football game. the world championship game

FixedThe great thing football has over any other sport is that it plays through all weather conditions. Baseball- a little rain, let's call it a day. For football it doesn't matter if you can't see through a blizzard, it's raining buckets, hailing, fog, whatever. They will play through the elements. That's what makes football so good.

I think having a game in London is ridiculous for the NFL. Not for weather purposes, or because the #1 reason is to make money, but you affect so much for the teams traveling. You've got a long plane ride, different time zones to adjust to, awful food, and then you've gotta come right back and go through it again. Granted, it doesn't take 4 days to get used to a time zone difference, but it's taxing on the body. I think if they're going to have a game there, make it a week 1 or preseason game.

Now for your statement, they don't play the superbowl in those cities because they want a nice domed roof so they get a large crowd. Again, it's $$$ driven. Weather shouldn't be the deciding factor in a football game, but it's not. Teams are both subjected to the same weather conditions, the same sides of the field, etc. No one team benefits from weather conditions.

This game in London is not the Super Bowl, therefore your argument has really no backing. I don't like them playing in London, but I think weather is hardly the reason to not play there.

If weather was not supposed to play a factor in any football game, the NFL would require domes. Bottom line, people use weather to their advantage. GB in the harsh winter- they practice in it and are acclimated to it. Go down to TB, they put the visiting team on the sunny side of the field (east) so that during the game it's hotter over there while the TB players have the shade. They use the heat to their advantage. Last I checked, they still schedule regular season games in harsh weathered stadiums, therefore weather does play a factor

 

[T Bell]

Are you all suggesting the NFL is just about making money?I'm so disillusioned.

That's a tad oversimplified, no?

 

[EFD]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Ever notice how they don't schedule Super Bowl games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a few good others? Wonder why? Because if possible weather should not play a large role in the winner and loser of a football game. the world championship game

FixedThe great thing football has over any other sport is that it plays through all weather conditions. Baseball- a little rain, let's call it a day. For football it doesn't matter if you can't see through a blizzard, it's raining buckets, hailing, fog, whatever. They will play through the elements. That's what makes football so good.

I think having a game in London is ridiculous for the NFL. Not for weather purposes, or because the #1 reason is to make money, but you affect so much for the teams traveling. You've got a long plane ride, different time zones to adjust to, awful food, and then you've gotta come right back and go through it again. Granted, it doesn't take 4 days to get used to a time zone difference, but it's taxing on the body. I think if they're going to have a game there, make it a week 1 or preseason game.

Now for your statement, they don't play the superbowl in those cities because they want a nice domed roof so they get a large crowd. Again, it's $$$ driven. Weather shouldn't be the deciding factor in a football game, but it's not. Teams are both subjected to the same weather conditions, the same sides of the field, etc. No one team benefits from weather conditions.

This game in London is not the Super Bowl, therefore your argument has really no backing. I don't like them playing in London, but I think weather is hardly the reason to not play there.

If weather was not supposed to play a factor in any football game, the NFL would require domes. Bottom line, people use weather to their advantage. GB in the harsh winter- they practice in it and are acclimated to it. Go down to TB, they put the visiting team on the sunny side of the field (east) so that during the game it's hotter over there while the TB players have the shade. They use the heat to their advantage. Last I checked, they still schedule regular season games in harsh weathered stadiums, therefore weather does play a factor

Thanks for your your opinion, but it doesn't change the reality that there are two games that are not decided by the location of one of the teams playing - the Super Bowl and the 'International Bowl'. Your rant about how football's the bestest because teams play in bad weather, etc etc etc has nothing to do with this little fact that historically, the NFL has not chosen poor weather locales unless there's a dome involved. You said something about the the Super Bowl location being $$$ driven, but I can't begin to figure out what you mean there. Are you suggesting there are fewer seats to be sold in Soldier Field than there are in say San Diego? If that's not it, why do you suppose the league hasn't selected Chicago as a SB location by now? Or Green Bay? Or Seattle, New England, or even New York/Jersey?There are a few reasons, but the primary reason is likely because the quality of the games are typically better when the weather factor has been minimized. And the better the product is, the more money that can be made off if it.

 

[Wreckincrew]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Who exactly benefits from holding regular season games in other countries? The teams? Not with travel & logistic issues, additional expenses and a lost home game by one team. Selling blokes a few Saints hats doesn’t exactly offset that.

The fans? Again, one less home game, and the view from their couches is the same no matter where the players actually are.

The players? I bet they can afford to travel on their own during the 25-30 weeks they have off each season.

The host country? Rainy, windy & cold doesn’t make a great tourism promotion. Plus, is London really that short of entertainment options that they need to bring in a sport that few understand?

The NFL? Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

The main reason to hold a game in London is for the NFL to increase its global exposure (i.e.: demand for its product). That, in turn, drives up the cost of everything associated with it. Tickets, advertising, stadium concessions, Sunday Ticket, etc… Who ultimately ends up paying for all that? I think we all know the answer to that. Now, if a significant portion of the game revenue was dedicated to a worthy cause maybe I could get behind the idea but as it is this in no way benefits the fans that have supported the NFL all these years and are the reason the NFL is in the position it is today.

 

[Fingers Freddie]

Don't get me wrong. I love ball. I love FF. But complaining about the weather and the NFL being a money grab is silly.

Give me a break. Football is at it's best when the weather is a factor. I hate the climate controlled sterile conditions of the dome.

The NFL IS a money grab. It's a business. It's big business. It's about viewership which translates into massive advertising $. Playing in London is just the beggining of what I'm sure the NFL views as the "glovbal" market.

I'm stating the obvious here, I think.

 

[gman8343]

I like poor weather football games.

 

[Interseptopus]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Ever notice how they don't schedule Super Bowl games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a few good others? Wonder why? Because if possible weather should not play a large role in the winner and loser of a football game. the world championship game

FixedThe great thing football has over any other sport is that it plays through all weather conditions. Baseball- a little rain, let's call it a day. For football it doesn't matter if you can't see through a blizzard, it's raining buckets, hailing, fog, whatever. They will play through the elements. That's what makes football so good.

I think having a game in London is ridiculous for the NFL. Not for weather purposes, or because the #1 reason is to make money, but you affect so much for the teams traveling. You've got a long plane ride, different time zones to adjust to, awful food, and then you've gotta come right back and go through it again. Granted, it doesn't take 4 days to get used to a time zone difference, but it's taxing on the body. I think if they're going to have a game there, make it a week 1 or preseason game.

Now for your statement, they don't play the superbowl in those cities because they want a nice domed roof so they get a large crowd. Again, it's $$$ driven. Weather shouldn't be the deciding factor in a football game, but it's not. Teams are both subjected to the same weather conditions, the same sides of the field, etc. No one team benefits from weather conditions.

This game in London is not the Super Bowl, therefore your argument has really no backing. I don't like them playing in London, but I think weather is hardly the reason to not play there.

If weather was not supposed to play a factor in any football game, the NFL would require domes. Bottom line, people use weather to their advantage. GB in the harsh winter- they practice in it and are acclimated to it. Go down to TB, they put the visiting team on the sunny side of the field (east) so that during the game it's hotter over there while the TB players have the shade. They use the heat to their advantage. Last I checked, they still schedule regular season games in harsh weathered stadiums, therefore weather does play a factor

Thanks for your your opinion, but it doesn't change the reality that there are two games that are not decided by the location of one of the teams playing - the Super Bowl and the 'International Bowl'. Your rant about how football's the bestest because teams play in bad weather, etc etc etc has nothing to do with this little fact that historically, the NFL has not chosen poor weather locales unless there's a dome involved. You said something about the the Super Bowl location being $$$ driven, but I can't begin to figure out what you mean there. Are you suggesting there are fewer seats to be sold in Soldier Field than there are in say San Diego? If that's not it, why do you suppose the league hasn't selected Chicago as a SB location by now? Or Green Bay? Or Seattle, New England, or even New York/Jersey?There are a few reasons, but the primary reason is likely because the quality of the games are typically better when the weather factor has been minimized. And the better the product is, the more money that can be made off if it.

Seems like you contradict yourself. First you criticize me for saying the SB is money driven, then you say that the better the product (as a result of the dome) means more money. Exactly what I was saying (see bold, large crowd = sold outs seats, huge tv ratings... no one wants to go to a superbowl when it's -35 degrees out. You'll get some crazy people I suppose)You're just out of control really... you clearly didn't read a word of my post, you just took it as opposing yours and went crazy with it.

Bottom line, this game isn't the super bowl, so weather should be equally a factor there as it is any other game this weekend. Teams are well aware of the weather and will prepare for it.

I suppose you were the one screaming at your TV that the Browns shouldn't have played in the blizzard bowl? Or Miami in the mud bowl? It adds a different element to the game. I think it's amazing to see games like that on TV. I know watching GB in that blizzard last year was one of the best GB games I've ever seen. It was incredible to watch a game in elements not really seen, and see how each team reacts to it. As a former player I can say those games are the best to play in as well.

 

[ourmanflint]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Who exactly benefits from holding regular season games in other countries? The teams? Not with travel & logistic issues, additional expenses and a lost home game by one team. Selling blokes a few Saints hats doesn’t exactly offset that.

The fans? Again, one less home game, and the view from their couches is the same no matter where the players actually are.

The players? I bet they can afford to travel on their own during the 25-30 weeks they have off each season.

The host country? Rainy, windy & cold doesn’t make a great tourism promotion. Plus, is London really that short of entertainment options that they need to bring in a sport that few understand?

The NFL? Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

The main reason to hold a game in London is for the NFL to increase its global exposure (i.e.: demand for its product). That, in turn, drives up the cost of everything associated with it. Tickets, advertising, stadium concessions, Sunday Ticket, etc… Who ultimately ends up paying for all that? I think we all know the answer to that. Now, if a significant portion of the game revenue was dedicated to a worthy cause maybe I could get behind the idea but as it is this in no way benefits the fans that have supported the NFL all these years and are the reason the NFL is in the position it is today.

Yes. Well put. I can see the NFL wanting to expand their market. What business doesn't want to?But they are going to risk the loyalty of the fans they already have.

They already have enough PR problems with off-the-field player issues, steroids, violence in the game and just-plain-stupid rule changes implemented by just-plain-stupid refs. I think they ought to work on those problems first before expanding the whole thing around the world. I honestly think this would magnify the existing problems.

 

[Interseptopus]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Who exactly benefits from holding regular season games in other countries? The teams? Not with travel & logistic issues, additional expenses and a lost home game by one team. Selling blokes a few Saints hats doesn’t exactly offset that.

The fans? Again, one less home game, and the view from their couches is the same no matter where the players actually are.

The players? I bet they can afford to travel on their own during the 25-30 weeks they have off each season.

The host country? Rainy, windy & cold doesn’t make a great tourism promotion. Plus, is London really that short of entertainment options that they need to bring in a sport that few understand?

The NFL? Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

The main reason to hold a game in London is for the NFL to increase its global exposure (i.e.: demand for its product). That, in turn, drives up the cost of everything associated with it. Tickets, advertising, stadium concessions, Sunday Ticket, etc… Who ultimately ends up paying for all that? I think we all know the answer to that. Now, if a significant portion of the game revenue was dedicated to a worthy cause maybe I could get behind the idea but as it is this in no way benefits the fans that have supported the NFL all these years and are the reason the NFL is in the position it is today.

Yes. Well put. I can see the NFL wanting to expand their market. What business doesn't want to?But they are going to risk the loyalty of the fans they already have.

They already have enough PR problems with off-the-field player issues, steroids, violence in the game and just-plain-stupid rule changes implemented by just-plain-stupid refs. I think they ought to work on those problems first before expanding the whole thing around the world. I honestly think this would magnify the existing problems.

I don't see this really magnifying any problems that the NFL has. Off the field issues will not be any bigger than they are already. If the NFL really catches on in Europe and people there start buying into it with Sunday Ticket and what not, then what happens is they receive word of what's going on with the players- how is that magnifying it? News is news. 10 grams of weed will still be 10 grams of week over in Europe. It won't magically turn into 100 grams... There will always be off the field player problems in the NFL. You can't just expect 32 full rosters and practice squads to go out and behave like gentlemen... that's impossible.

It doesn't magnify the issues. If anything it shows the rest of the world what an embarrassment the NFL is at times with character problems, suspensions, steroids, etc. Actually I think this is a GOOD thing, because it'll force the NFL to act more strict with these issues to make themselves look good (more marketable) around the world.

 

[Fingers Freddie]

NFL viewership to my knowledge is unwavering. The NFL risks nothing by playing games in London. I just hope the London weather agress with LT's toe.

 

[T Bell]

There are two issues here that are getting mixed up: 1) the weather; and 2) the overseas venue.

I don't care about weather. I do care, however, about the condition of the field, and Wembley showed in that matchup last year that it didn't take American football very well. I don't know if they have different field crew techniques, different grass, different drainage or what, but that turf was horrible . . . maybe even worse than that embarrassment that was Heinz Field last year. But rain? No, who cares. That is indeed football weather.

The travel to London in the middle of the season I don't like. I called it a money grab not because I suddenly had an epiphany that the NFL is trying to make money, but because it's willing to corrupt its product to get more money. I have no problem with the NFL trying to make more money, but I don't want it to, in doing so, hurt the product that I presently enjoy. Teams fare poorly enough flying across country as it is. Flying up to 8 time zones away, as the Chargers are doing, is ludicrous. The NFL proves every year that it's as much a game of attrition as skill. In my mind you don't add to that attrition if you can avoid it.

 

[BUTTER]

There are two issues here that are getting mixed up: 1) the weather; and 2) the overseas venue.

I don't care about weather. I do care, however, about the condition of the field, and Wembley showed in that matchup last year that it didn't take American football very well. I don't know if they have different field crew techniques, different grass, different drainage or what, but that turf was horrible . . . maybe even worse than that embarrassment that was Heinz Field last year. But rain? No, who cares. That is indeed football weather.

The travel to London in the middle of the season I don't like. I called it a money grab not because I suddenly had an epiphany that the NFL is trying to make money, but because it's willing to corrupt its product to get more money. I have no problem with the NFL trying to make more money, but I don't want it to, in doing so, hurt the product that I presently enjoy. Teams fare poorly enough flying across country as it is. Flying up to 8 time zones away, as the Chargers are doing, is ludicrous. The NFL proves every year that it's as much a game of attrition as skill. In my mind you don't add to that attrition if you can avoid it.

Way diff. issues! For those of us that have played, we know weather = advantage WR's. But I am thinking of playing Akers over Kaeding.my 2 cents!

 

[Despyzer]

But they are going to risk the loyalty of the fans they already have.

People are going to stop rooting for their team because the NFL scheduled them for an overseas game in bad weather? This seems like kind of a leap in logic that I'm not prepared to take.

 

[ourmanflint]

If the NFL is wanting their product to catch on in the UK they might consider playing in a different venue. It's a fact that it rains constantly in London and the pitch (as they call it) sucks. Even soccer players complain about it. It is soft on top and hard on the bottom making it slippery.

The weather and the crappy turf add up to a snoozefest. I can see many football purists enjoying this sort of sloshy game but I don't think its a good way to sell the product to the prospective new customers.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

What a bunch babies.

It's football, not baseball, not basketball. Get over it fantasy nerds, you wankers.

 

[EFD]

So I suppose the entire thread is in error seeing as how last years' game in London was an awesome game loved by all NFL fans. Pardon the interuption to all, and boo hiss to the thread starter.

 

[ourmanflint]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Who exactly benefits from holding regular season games in other countries? The teams? Not with travel & logistic issues, additional expenses and a lost home game by one team. Selling blokes a few Saints hats doesn’t exactly offset that.

The fans? Again, one less home game, and the view from their couches is the same no matter where the players actually are.

The players? I bet they can afford to travel on their own during the 25-30 weeks they have off each season.

The host country? Rainy, windy & cold doesn’t make a great tourism promotion. Plus, is London really that short of entertainment options that they need to bring in a sport that few understand?

The NFL? Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

The main reason to hold a game in London is for the NFL to increase its global exposure (i.e.: demand for its product). That, in turn, drives up the cost of everything associated with it. Tickets, advertising, stadium concessions, Sunday Ticket, etc… Who ultimately ends up paying for all that? I think we all know the answer to that. Now, if a significant portion of the game revenue was dedicated to a worthy cause maybe I could get behind the idea but as it is this in no way benefits the fans that have supported the NFL all these years and are the reason the NFL is in the position it is today.

Yes. Well put. I can see the NFL wanting to expand their market. What business doesn't want to?But they are going to risk the loyalty of the fans they already have.

They already have enough PR problems with off-the-field player issues, steroids, violence in the game and just-plain-stupid rule changes implemented by just-plain-stupid refs. I think they ought to work on those problems first before expanding the whole thing around the world. I honestly think this would magnify the existing problems.

I don't see this really magnifying any problems that the NFL has. Off the field issues will not be any bigger than they are already. If the NFL really catches on in Europe and people there start buying into it with Sunday Ticket and what not, then what happens is they receive word of what's going on with the players- how is that magnifying it? News is news. 10 grams of weed will still be 10 grams of week over in Europe. It won't magically turn into 100 grams... There will always be off the field player problems in the NFL. You can't just expect 32 full rosters and practice squads to go out and behave like gentlemen... that's impossible.

It doesn't magnify the issues. If anything it shows the rest of the world what an embarrassment the NFL is at times with character problems, suspensions, steroids, etc. Actually I think this is a GOOD thing, because it'll force the NFL to act more strict with these issues to make themselves look good (more marketable) around the world.

Ok you take my last sentence and seem to turn it into my entire point (which it wasn't). I guess magnify was the wrong word. But you made my point for me with your last sentence. The point is I think their product has some defects that need addressing with their current customer base. I don't expect them to turn every player into a nun.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

So I suppose the entire thread is in error seeing as how last years' game in London was an awesome game loved by all NFL fans. Pardon the interuption to all, and boo hiss to the thread starter.

That's better. Here's a tissue.

 

[Getinthemix]

wow

 

[Christo]

FBG does not seem to think it will matter. Saturday rankings: Brees #1, Rivers #4.

Do you mean the same guys who ranked AD as RB1 week six and RB20 week seven?

 

[Interseptopus]

Per Weather.com: Cloudy and windy at times, with periods of rain. High 61° F. West winds at 20 – 30 mph, diminishing to 10 – 15 mph. Chance of rain 70%. Rainfall around a quarter of an inch

Cloudy. Windy. Raining. I thought the NFL loved offensive football. Why are we being subjected to another slog-fest in Wembley Stadium?

Link to Weather.com

So, just to make sure I've got this right - no more games in London, right?And presumably, no more games in Green Bay, Chicago, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh and a good few others, right?

Who exactly benefits from holding regular season games in other countries? The teams? Not with travel & logistic issues, additional expenses and a lost home game by one team. Selling blokes a few Saints hats doesn’t exactly offset that.

The fans? Again, one less home game, and the view from their couches is the same no matter where the players actually are.

The players? I bet they can afford to travel on their own during the 25-30 weeks they have off each season.

The host country? Rainy, windy & cold doesn’t make a great tourism promotion. Plus, is London really that short of entertainment options that they need to bring in a sport that few understand?

The NFL? Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!

The main reason to hold a game in London is for the NFL to increase its global exposure (i.e.: demand for its product). That, in turn, drives up the cost of everything associated with it. Tickets, advertising, stadium concessions, Sunday Ticket, etc… Who ultimately ends up paying for all that? I think we all know the answer to that. Now, if a significant portion of the game revenue was dedicated to a worthy cause maybe I could get behind the idea but as it is this in no way benefits the fans that have supported the NFL all these years and are the reason the NFL is in the position it is today.

Yes. Well put. I can see the NFL wanting to expand their market. What business doesn't want to?But they are going to risk the loyalty of the fans they already have.

They already have enough PR problems with off-the-field player issues, steroids, violence in the game and just-plain-stupid rule changes implemented by just-plain-stupid refs. I think they ought to work on those problems first before expanding the whole thing around the world. I honestly think this would magnify the existing problems.

I don't see this really magnifying any problems that the NFL has. Off the field issues will not be any bigger than they are already. If the NFL really catches on in Europe and people there start buying into it with Sunday Ticket and what not, then what happens is they receive word of what's going on with the players- how is that magnifying it? News is news. 10 grams of weed will still be 10 grams of week over in Europe. It won't magically turn into 100 grams... There will always be off the field player problems in the NFL. You can't just expect 32 full rosters and practice squads to go out and behave like gentlemen... that's impossible.

It doesn't magnify the issues. If anything it shows the rest of the world what an embarrassment the NFL is at times with character problems, suspensions, steroids, etc. Actually I think this is a GOOD thing, because it'll force the NFL to act more strict with these issues to make themselves look good (more marketable) around the world.

Ok you take my last sentence and seem to turn it into my entire point (which it wasn't). I guess magnify was the wrong word. But you made my point for me with your last sentence. The point is I think their product has some defects that need addressing with their current customer base. I don't expect them to turn every player into a nun.

Point taken. Glad we're on the same page. I was wondering how someone could think the opposite

 

[The Moz]

it isn't the weather the field is terrible for football. If there is even a litle rain it will look like that one Pittsburgh monday night game.

Why play in London twice in a row?? Why not go to other places - Rome , Paris , Madrid , Japan , Germany , etc

 

[ourmanflint]

But they are going to risk the loyalty of the fans they already have.

People are going to stop rooting for their team because the NFL scheduled them for an overseas game in bad weather? This seems like kind of a leap in logic that I'm not prepared to take.

Kind of taking my point to the extreme aren't you? I think alot of people resent the NFL taking these games to London. Yes. I've read many articles stating fans anger over taking a home game away from teams. Yes. I think people are irritated that they take a perfectly good game like Saints/Chargers which has the possibility to be an awesome scorefest and turn it into a sloshy snoozer. Yes.Are they going to stop watching games for this one single reason? No. But ever hear the word "erode"?

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

it isn't the weather the field is terrible for football. If there is even a litle rain it will look like that one Pittsburgh monday night game. Why play in London twice in a row?? Why not go to other places - Rome , Paris , Madrid , Japan , Germany , etc

Santonio Holmes, Kevin Faulk, Ricky Williams and others are circulating a petition to play the 09 game in Amsterdam.Looks like I'm in the front row!

 

[Deuce'sWild]

Didn't read the entire thread...but NFL network just showed a reporter on location and....

- the skies were clear behind her and she said the report was for scattered rain

- the field was brand new last year and that's why it was so slippery. It's had a year to attach better but so it should be a solid surface.

- the reporter did not think it would be an issue

Hope it's not honda.

 

[G-King]

Didn't read the entire thread...but NFL network just showed a reporter on location and....- the skies were clear behind her and she said the report was for scattered rain- the field was brand new last year and that's why it was so slippery. It's had a year to attach better but so it should be a solid surface.- the reporter did not think it would be an issueHope it's not honda.

Be glad you didnt read the entire thread Thanks for some legit news about the weather

 

[jim k]

Current Wembley conditions - light rain leading to heavier rain including the entire game tomorrow.

It's not the current condition of the field that should be of concern. It's the condition when two football teams start playing in it. Got it?

Even an NFL exec admit it could be another slopfest

+++++++++++++++++++++

That commitment does come with hardships for players and U.S. fans.

Because of the eight-hour time difference from the West Coast, the Chargers spent the entire week in unfamiliar surroundings practicing in the London area (the Saints did the same). Both teams traveled overseas immediately after road games last Sunday, a journey that Chargers linebacker Shaun Phillips called "exhausting." The return trip home will be the same, which is why the NFL has given San Diego and New Orleans byes after this match-up.

Playing conditions for Sunday's contest also may be subpar. The Wembley Stadium field was atrocious amid rainy conditions during the Giants-Dolphins game. Geared for soccer matches, a sloppy and shredded "pitch" greatly contributed to the low scoring.

Mark Waller the NFL executive who spearheads the London initiative, said NFL "field specialists" have worked with the Wembley groundskeepers in hopes of improving the playing surface. But with an 80 percent chance of rain at kickoff, Waller admits another Mud Bowl could be in the offing.

There would be no chance of this happening if the game were played in the Louisiana Superdome. fans also wouldn't have to travel 4,637 miles on a discount flight and stay at a hostel (which is cheaper than a hotel) to see their beloved Saints play.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/73323-e...cking-up/page/2

 

[RBM]

This whole thing is just garbage.

Give them a preseason game. Give them 2 preseason games. Leave regular season football alone.

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Many of us in the business world have to travel internationally and perform without consideration of jet lag / inconvenience / etc.

It seems to me that players and fans whining about this are being cats, or another word for cats.

I'm starting Colston, and he better perform.

 

[Wobble]

Many of us in the business world have to travel internationally and perform without consideration of jet lag / inconvenience / etc.It seems to me that players and fans whining about this are being cats, or another word for cats.I'm starting Colston, and he better perform.

Yes, many of us have jobs that require us to perform at an elite level of athleticism every week, while either chasing or being chased by very big guys in pads and helmets. Apart from that slight difference an excellent point.

 

[RBM]

Many of us in the business world have to travel internationally and perform without consideration of jet lag / inconvenience / etc.

The business world?

 

[Mustang Man]

So is it wise to start a wr/te in this game? How is the weather over there for any homers over there? Windy/rain?