Regular Season Games Outside the US a Bad Idea

The NFL has made an announcement that the city of London will host a regular season game in the 2007 season.  The teams that will be involed with this game have yet to be decided, and accoridng to the league that decision will not be made for sometime, but already on the surface I see problems with this decision.

The league voted on and has decided to play two games outside the United States every year for the next five seasons.  My question to that is – why?  Why does a teams normal schedule have to be disrupted just so they have to fly an extra 1-2000 miles to play a game in front of fans that after that day will likely not give a darn about them the rest of the season?

What happens to that teams home game?  Can you imagine if a team with a strong home field advantage, say the Chiefs, have to go to London to play a game, miss a home game, and then miss the playoffs by one game?  It just doesn’t make sense.  Sure the NBA and MLB can get away with playing games off of US soil, since they play so many more, the team does not miss the revenue nearly as much, and the home team does not go from 8 home games to 7.

I realize that the NFL feels the need to do this for the progress of trying to establish their game to other fans, but by doing this, they are going to displease the most important fans they have – and that is those that support their teams on a yearly basis.  The league is trying to get too cute with this situation.  It has been correct for the last 85 years, why change it now with games on non-US soil?              


Enjoyed this post?
Subscribe to NFL Gridiron Gab via RSS Feed or E-mail and receive daily news updates from us!

Submit to Digg  Stumble This Story  Share on Twitter  Post on Facebook  Post on MySpace  Add to del.icio.us  Bark It Up  Submit to Reddit  Fave on Technorati

Comments are closed.