PDA

View Full Version : The Super Bowl in London?



Chip R
05-06-2009, 11:13 AM
Goodell says it may be a possibility. I'm not crazy about this idea. If they show the game at the regular time in the States - 5:30 p.m. - that's already 11:30 p.m. in London. It's bad for the fans there and the players. If they started the game at 7:30 p.m. London time, that would be 1:30 p.m. here. That's pretty early for a Super Bowl game and it wouldn't be in prime time.

I've always thought Honolulu would be a good place for the Super Bowl every once in a while. If they are looking for sites outside the U.S., Mexico City or Toronto would be good places too and wouldn't mess up the time of the game.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3065254

bucksfan2
05-06-2009, 11:23 AM
I actually think this has legs to it. It would help the game grow in Europe. I just would be a little cautious about playing a super bowl game in wimbley in the middle of winter.

I don't think you will see the NFL go to Mexico City you would have way to many security issues to contend with. Honolulu is a good idea but wouldn't they need a bigger stadium? I like Toronto bit IMO it is very similar to playing the game in Detroit which got poor reviews because of the weather.

westofyou
05-06-2009, 11:45 AM
Yes, and Arsenal vs Man U in the new Cowboy's stadium and the Stanley Cup finals in Cuba, and the Olympics on the moon!!!

Chip R
05-06-2009, 11:45 AM
I actually think this has legs to it. It would help the game grow in Europe. I just would be a little cautious about playing a super bowl game in wimbley in the middle of winter.


I didn't think about that. Wembley's not a domed stadium, is it?


I don't think you will see the NFL go to Mexico City you would have way to many security issues to contend with. Honolulu is a good idea but wouldn't they need a bigger stadium? I like Toronto bit IMO it is very similar to playing the game in Detroit which got poor reviews because of the weather.


They play exhibitions in Mexico City. As for Honolulu, I'm not sure how much their stadium holds but if it's at least 50K I would think it would be sufficient. It's not about the size of the stadium anyway. They'd hold it in a TV studio if they could. As much as the press would complain about Toronto, they would love Hawaii.

bucksfan2
05-06-2009, 01:44 PM
Yes, and Arsenal vs Man U in the new Cowboy's stadium and the Stanley Cup finals in Cuba, and the Olympics on the moon!!!

Arsenal vs Man U is just a regular season game. IMO it would be similar to playing NY vs Boston in Japan. They have hosted a couple of Stanley Cup final games in Florida. They hosted the Olympics in China, isn't that close enough to the moon :p:

BuckeyeRed27
05-06-2009, 01:48 PM
I actually like this idea although the time thing is a big issue. I guess the Super Bowl doesn't HAVE to be in prime time. If it was on Noon on the West Coast I'm not sure there would be a huge decline in ratings. I believe that would start the game at 9pm local time which is late, but not horrible.

Chip R
05-06-2009, 01:56 PM
I actually like this idea although the time thing is a big issue. I guess the Super Bowl doesn't HAVE to be in prime time. If it was on Noon on the West Coast I'm not sure there would be a huge decline in ratings. I believe that would start the game at 9pm local time which is late, but not horrible.


I think bucksfan2 brought up a really good point about the weather. I don't think it's going to be 75 and sunny in February in London. Not to mention if the game is in the evening - which they will have to do to avoid it starting it in the morning here - it's only going to get colder. If they wanted to have a Super Bowl in inclement weather they would have done so by now. The more I think about it, the more I think this is just a shakedown of the cities bidding to host the Super Bowl that year to get their bids up.

MrCinatit
05-06-2009, 02:40 PM
I thought the NFL had a game in London before - "our time" - and if I am not mistaken, the game was quite well attended.

Reds Fanatic
05-06-2009, 02:55 PM
I thought the NFL had a game in London before - "our time" - and if I am not mistaken, the game was quite well attended.They have done it the last 2 years and they have both been sellouts. Last year New Orleans and San Diego played there.

Reds Fanatic
05-06-2009, 03:03 PM
In addition to weather issues another issue they would have would be I think there has always been a noise ordinance where events at Wembley Stadium have to be done by a certain time at night because that is located in a residential area. I can't remember the exact time but I have seen major concerts they have had there on TV and they always have to be over before midnight. So they really could not start the game too late. Probably 7:30 PM London time (2:30 PM ET) would be the latest they would start the game.

GIDP
05-06-2009, 03:20 PM
Heck why not just play the whole season in london?

Newport Red
05-06-2009, 05:36 PM
Yes, and Arsenal vs Man U in the new Cowboy's stadium and the Stanley Cup finals in Cuba, and the Olympics on the moon!!!

Obviously, they've run out of US cities.

Great way to take the less affluent fan out of the game, though.

Chip R
05-06-2009, 07:59 PM
Great way to take the less affluent fan out of the game, though.


Their attitude is to have us watch it on TV.

bucksfan2
05-07-2009, 08:36 AM
Their attitude is to have us watch it on TV.

Agreed.

I think the questions that need to be asked are how many actual team fans attend the games? What is the percentage of fans of the two teams compared to the total attendance number?

I also think the travel time is getting a little exaggerated. If you live in the eastern part of the US it is only a couple more hours travel time to fly to London as opposed to say San Diego or Arizona.

They know they are going to get viewership as long as they keep the time of the game the same. The NFL isn't going to move the game out of primetime, they may be forced to move the game up an hour, which to me would be a good thing. I like the idea more and more because I think it would be cool to see the Super Bowl played on a legendary field.

durl
05-07-2009, 08:50 AM
I'm all for an exhibition game in London, but the biggest football game of the year there?? I believe it's a bad idea.

freestyle55
05-07-2009, 09:39 AM
I'm all for an exhibition game in London, but the biggest football game of the year there?? I believe it's a bad idea.

You would also lose all of the economic impact that it brings to the host city...

It's the "National" Football League, not the "World" Football League, keep it home, keep the $ here too...

westofyou
05-07-2009, 09:44 AM
I also think the travel time is getting a little exaggerated. If you live in the eastern part of the US it is only a couple more hours travel time to fly to London as opposed to say San Diego or Arizona.
Cost isn't though. Also a "couple hours" is a misnomer it takes 5 hours to go from the west coast to the east coast and if your team is a west coast team that's an extra five hours, extra air fare, passport and money exchange... then we'll start talking about how expensive it is to get lodging in London... WAY more out of the box and pricey then getting a room at the HoJo's in Boca Raton.

Chip R
05-07-2009, 10:08 AM
Now I've heard there are noise ordinances in London which says you can't have an event going on past a certain time.

ochre
05-07-2009, 12:23 PM
on March 31, 1991 I watched the London Monarchs play the New York/New Jersey Knights in Wembeley. It was pretty fun.

RFS62
05-07-2009, 10:03 PM
So, when did Bud Selig become Commissioner of Football?

RANDY IN INDY
05-08-2009, 08:37 AM
Bad, bad, idea.

Eric_the_Red
05-08-2009, 09:45 AM
I don't know....this wouldn't really affect my enjoyment of the game at all. I'm probably never going to go to a SB, so I'm already stuck watching it on tv. And, I would actually like it to start earlier in the day, so it doesn't go so late and make Monday morning an even bigger pain.