The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nflnation/0- ... wise-.html

I do not agree with the idea of a Super Bowl in London. I will pull out my "its an American game so, therefore, it should stay in America" card. The NFL is getting greedier and greedier. I know London would love to have it, because all the money they would make off of hosting a SB and that is the main reason they want to host the Super Bowl. I cannot blame them for that, because any major city would benefit financially from hosting the SB. I would feel that the NFL has turned their back on the fans that have supported the league not only with money, but also their emotions. Just say no Roger Goode$$. Just say no.

This is not smart IMO. Let all the leg work be done here in the states, and then let the big game be played aboard? No thanks. There's a reason it's still called the National Football League, and not the Multi-National Football League, isn't it?

if it happens, i forsee a boycot of the game, ad costs plummet and it never happens again.

Think England would tolerate the FA Cup final being held in San Francisco? Or the Champions' League final being played in Dallas? This is the worst idea Goodell has had yet, and that's saying something. I wish I knew what the hell his problem was.

Irn-Bru wrote:Think England would tolerate the FA Cup final being held in San Francisco? Or the Champions' League final being played in Dallas? This is the worst idea Goodell has had yet, and that's saying something. I wish I knew what the hell his problem was.

to answer your question no, I could not see the FA or UFEA doing that, though the EPL was tossing around the idea a year ago or so of having each team play one more neutral site game in the states.

The fail is strong with this one.

Seriously, this is a terrible idea. Going to the Super Bowl is expensive enough without putting it in a whole other country.

thedcnative wrote:The fail is strong with this one.

Seriously, this is a terrible idea. Going to the Super Bowl is expensive enough without putting it in a whole other country.

Look at the bright side; if the SB is ever in London, the Skins are sure to be the team representing the NFC.

Deadskins wrote:

thedcnative wrote:The fail is strong with this one.

Seriously, this is a terrible idea. Going to the Super Bowl is expensive enough without putting it in a whole other country.

Look at the bright side; if the SB is ever in London, the Skins are sure to be the team representing the NFC.

If the Skins played in the SB, I would not mind if the game was played on Mars

True that, Deadskins. So, maybe they're doing us a favor in a really backhanded way?

The SB should remain in the States, because it's the penultimate game for our peculiarly national sport. However, from a fan perspective, I can't say that it's going to effect the average Joe being able to attend the SB, because right now...the average Joe doesn't go to the SB anyways. It's played at a neutral site, and stuffed full of corporate shirts, because tickets are ridiculously expensive, and fans of the participating teams have to fly to the game (and stay in a hotel) anyways.

PulpExposure wrote:The SB should remain in the States, because it's the penultimate game for our peculiarly national sport. However, from a fan perspective, I can't say that it's going to effect the average Joe being able to attend the SB, because right now...the average Joe doesn't go to the SB anyways. It's played at a neutral site, and stuffed full of corporate shirts, because tickets are ridiculously expensive, and fans of the participating teams have to fly to the game (and stay in a hotel) anyways.

Yeah, what he said