Future games outside the U.S... | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Future games outside the U.S...

I prefer this approach: every team plays 2 neutral site games a year. If you like, expand the season to 18 games and lose two preseason contests. Many of these games can be overseas, and the rest can be played in domestic markets. You could have a game in LA every week, negating the need to move a team there or expand. You can even reward really good NFL cities with a neutral site game: they could play a Chargers-Patriots game at Soldier Field for a change of pace.
 
I prefer this approach: every team plays 2 neutral site games a year. If you like, expand the season to 18 games and lose two preseason contests. Many of these games can be overseas, and the rest can be played in domestic markets. You could have a game in LA every week, negating the need to move a team there or expand. You can even reward really good NFL cities with a neutral site game: they could play a Chargers-Patriots game at Soldier Field for a change of pace.
I like that idea, maybe not 18, but 17 games with one neutral game, a couple of those games could be played in US citys without an NFL franchise, an anual game in Portland, Oklahoma, San Antonio, Sacramento.
 
The only advantage that I think would come from an international "home" game, would be that maybe we would actually sell the game out. It's fairly obvious from watching on tv the last ten years or so that we have way too much orange in the stands. And I don't mean the orange alternate jerseys.
 
I dont forsee expanding the schedules, that would just be too brutal. If they expanded the regular season, I could see them cutting the wildcard playoff round, but just adding in 1, let alone 2, games a year would be hard on the players.
Adding downtime (second byes or anything needed to add deadtime to heal) would just stretch the NFL season out way to long. One of the things I love about the NFL is how every game is important, and how the season doesnt take forever. When I compare it to baseball/basketball/hockey I just cant but think how many games those guys play and how so many just seem pointless. Would anyone really be protesting if those spots just lopped a quarter of the schedule off?
 
I do like the idea of playing alot more preseason games overseas. I think that it would be nice to have several games played in a city/area to give extra exposure. I mean, who really wants to see a half of 3rd stringers battleing it out, but have at least 2 games, and the people will see some quality football being played.
 
I was there, the stadium was at his full capacity, the fans didn't leave after the Anquan Boldin TD and when the game was decided.
Given2Fly... sincerely appreciate your perspective as a fan in attendance. Thank you. You're a true fan bro. Hoping to hear from others abroad, who are on the other side of the world, or foreign countries. You have a chance to expand the thoughts and horizons of young Fin Fans, as the one who has ripped this thread... Go at it! :dolphins::dolphins::dolphins:
 
I prefer this approach: every team plays 2 neutral site games a year. If you like, expand the season to 18 games and lose two preseason contests. Many of these games can be overseas, and the rest can be played in domestic markets. You could have a game in LA every week, negating the need to move a team there or expand. You can even reward really good NFL cities with a neutral site game: they could play a Chargers-Patriots game at Soldier Field for a change of pace.
I'm not in 100% agreement with all your thoughts, but again, great thoughts and considerations. For example, I believe L.A. needs its own team. One of the largest cities and markets in the U.S. simply can't be satisfied nor tolerated, as entertained by random teams showing up week by week. Yeah, cute for a couple years, but inevitably a failure b/c no true passion exists for the teams involved.
 
I'm not in 100% agreement with all your thoughts, but again, great thoughts and considerations. For example, I believe L.A. needs its own team. One of the largest cities and markets in the U.S. simply can't be satisfied nor tolerated, as entertained by random teams showing up week by week. Yeah, cute for a couple years, but inevitably a failure b/c no true passion exists for the teams involved.

Ah, but the reason there is no team in LA was that there was no passion. LA is a strange place, and I think this could actually work on a continuing basis. If nothing else, it would at least get the league to the point when it's time to put a team there permanently.
 
I like that idea, maybe not 18, but 17 games with one neutral game, a couple of those games could be played in US citys without an NFL franchise, an anual game in Portland, Oklahoma, San Antonio, Sacramento.
More excellent thoughts. Additional applause here... you've expanded my horizons by this post, because I limited my thoughts to expansion abroad outside the US. You expanded my thoughts to include major cities without the NFL, a la Portland (just down the street from my hometown Seahawks. They are DESPERATE for NFL!)
 
Can't they play these games in the preseason. That way:
a) teams aren't screwed by only having 7 home games while most teams have 8
b) season ticket holders still see 8 live games
c) international fans can still see a live game and new fans would be introduced to the game.


This Roger Goodell is starting to look like the Dan Quayle of NFL commisioners with ideas like this.
 
Can't they play these games in the preseason. That way:
a) teams aren't screwed by only having 7 home games while most teams have 8
b) season ticket holders still see 8 live games
c) international fans can still see a live game and new fans would be introduced to the game.


This Roger Goodell is starting to look like the Dan Quayle of NFL commisioners with ideas like this.
But then, we're playing meaningless games. Imagine this: You have never paid attention to soccer in your life. Then you learn from a close buddy that Arsenal and Manchester United are two of the top teams of soccer in the world. (Which they ARE) This game MEANS SOMETHING, so you might actually go... regardless of if you care about the results or not.
Whether pride, or team records, or representing your city, state, or nation, it turns out to be IMPORTANT. In the NFL, NO TEAM plays to win in the preseason. They play to learn their future roster, and sit their stars so they are healthy during the reg season. Many teams have gone to the SB whether O-4 or 4-0 in preseason. Fans abroad can't be expected to be passionate and true, unless the games mean something! They aren't dumb or ignorant...
 
But then, we're playing meaningless games. Imagine this: You have never paid attention to soccer in your life. Then you learn from a close buddy that Arsenal and Manchester United are two of the top teams of soccer in the world. (Which they ARE) This game MEANS SOMETHING, so you might actually go... regardless of if you care about the results or not.
Whether pride, or team records, or representing your city, state, or nation, it turns out to be IMPORTANT. In the NFL, NO TEAM plays to win in the preseason. They play to learn their future roster, and sit their stars so they are healthy during the reg season. Many teams have gone to the SB whether O-4 or 4-0 in preseason. Fans abroad can't be expected to be passionate and true, unless the games mean something! They aren't dumb or ignorant...

Exactly. Menaingless pre-season games may have worked in the past when the odd game was played in the UK back in the late 80's/early 90's, but would be a failure today. Here is what I do know, Sky Sports, the premeir sports channels in the UK (ESPN equivalent) own just about all the top sports coverage over here with almost ALL football (soccer) leagues, competitions (certainly the top ones) shown on it. They have recently signed a new multi year deal with the NFL to CONTINUE and EXPAND its coverage of the NFL in the UK. This shows that Sky, no business fools, believe there is a fanbase for this content in the UK, compared to the relatiely sparse NBA coverage we receive. This deal is also, I believe, the most lucrative deal that the NFL has signed outside America.

The NFL Europe league, while not a particular success showed that fans were willing to go to games. In Scotland, the Claymores regularly drew about 12,000 people, up to 16,000 for a regular season games (in a city that is football (soccer) mad with 165,000 poeple in a city of 600,000 attending professional matches) to see what is basically Super Diet Lite NFL with No Sugar or Caffiene. It is a poor league as maybe only 1% (a rough guesstimate) of players participating ever make an impact in the NFL. I remember sitting through a 3 and a half hour game that finished 3 - 0 to the opposition. NOT GOOD. But there were just as many fans there the next game. When the World Bowl was held here, over 30,000 turned up to see the game, which didn't feature the Claymores. Fans were there from the two German teams who were taking part, Claymores fans also came along as well as some who went just to see what the fanfare is all about.

This was all about 5 years ago when interest in the league was far lower than it is now.

Also, people's worries about travelling over to the UK or Germany and losing time is all rubbish. Jet-lag can be avoided. We are only 5 hours ahead, so you can just sleep in longer and take your moring practice in the afternoon etc. Flying times to London is not far from that of a flight to the West Coast and customs as mentioned in another thread are not going to be a problem unless you've got something to hide (Ricky?). I'm sure the league woud pick up the cost of transferring and setting up the equipment. The bye week folowing the game allows for plenty recovery time and you could EASILY be back in Miami for Monday lunchtime, maybe earlier.

I've rushed this a little so excuse any bad grammar. Hopefully I've got my point(s) accross.
 
This game their gonna hold in london or whatever is gonna be a joke too. Football is americas game, it will never be anywhere near as popular as soccer anywhere else in the world.

Australias a completely different situation. In Australia (At least i believe this is true) Rugby is huge. Rugby is the cousin to football. It's like if Football and Hockey had a kid. Not to mention, the NFL actually scouts Australian Rugby players to become punters in the NFL now. So its no surprise the nfl is gaining interest there.

However, London, China, Japan, Russia, Argentina, Mexico, Ireland, WHERE EVER, it'll never catch on.

Soccer, Rugby and Cricket were all Englands game once upon a time now look at them. Things change, people love sports and will watch and play anything with true sporting endeavour.

You're right in that Football could never be as popular as soccer, but thats because soccer can be played anywhere the concept is so simple, all you need is something to kick. Pretty difficult to play AF on concrete with a coke can as a ball and 4 jumpers as goalposts.

By the way England are the current Rugby World Champions (oh, and well over 100 countries play rugby - a sport that was only English once - named after the Rugby school where it was invented). Rugby is also probably the pre-cursor sport on which Football was based in the early days.

So, what I'm trying to say I guess is, why not broaden the appeal of the sport? whats the downside beyond losing a home game once every 16 years?

If the sport is able to take off in other countries the benefits are huge.

1) More TV Money direct to the NFL
2) More money for indiviual franchises through merchandising.
3) More people playing the sport, increasing the quality of players (why are so many successful players of samoan origin in the league - samoa is a pretty big rugby hotbed too!)
4) The possibility of top class teams around the world, wouldn't it be nice to be world champions and know that the team actually was the best in the world not just becasue no one else plays the sport?
 
Soccer, Rugby and Cricket were all Englands game once upon a time now look at them. Things change, people love sports and will watch and play anything with true sporting endeavour.

You're right in that Football could never be as popular as soccer, but thats because soccer can be played anywhere the concept is so simple, all you need is something to kick. Pretty difficult to play AF on concrete with a coke can as a ball and 4 jumpers as goalposts.

By the way England are the current Rugby World Champions (oh, and well over 100 countries play rugby - a sport that was only English once - named after the Rugby school where it was invented). Rugby is also probably the pre-cursor sport on which Football was based in the early days.

So, what I'm trying to say I guess is, why not broaden the appeal of the sport? whats the downside beyond losing a home game once every 16 years?

If the sport is able to take off in other countries the benefits are huge.

1) More TV Money direct to the NFL
2) More money for indiviual franchises through merchandising.
3) More people playing the sport, increasing the quality of players (why are so many successful players of samoan origin in the league - samoa is a pretty big rugby hotbed too!)
4) The possibility of top class teams around the world, wouldn't it be nice to be world champions and know that the team actually was the best in the world not just becasue no one else plays the sport?

I'm with you. Actually, as a Fin Fan I take great pride in the fact that we would play the first real NFL game on another continent...
 
I'm not sure if you guys have seen how close to home this is going to hit. The Dolphins HOME game against the G-Men is going to be in London in 2007 according to the New York Daily News. Reported secondary by SI's Scorecard Daily "Truth and Rumors" page...

The phins will only have 7 home games next year...are the season ticket holders getting a discount?
 
Back
Top Bottom