New England vs. Minnesota at Wembley Stadium

[555-04Q2]

I prefer rugby, a real sport played by real men who don't need body armour and don't stand around for 90% of the game doing nothing.

[Tazio]

I stand corrected on the New York Giants in 2007 (Super Bowl champions), but they played the Miami Dolphins in that game (the Dolphins finished with a 1 win, 15 losses record that year). I don't stand so corrected on the 2008 game, though, with the New Orleans Saints (8-8, didn't qualify for playoffs) and the San Diego Chargers (8-8, went to AFC divisional playoff round). The 2009 game had an underachieving New England Patriots team (10-6, lost in AFC wild card playoff round) vs. a poor Tampa Bay Buccaneers team (3-13).
And this year's game had the San Francisco 49ers playing the Denver Broncos (both teams are 2-6, so far this season).

My point is that the England game will most likely never get the best possible matchup for the reasons I mentioned before: the teams that are sent to England are typically underachieving, non-contenders, and/or struggling bringing fans to their own stadiums in the U.S.

I humbly disagree!
Could you povde a link to back up your assetion
At least I presented a link that stated that the game is played on a day that would allow them to be the feature game of the day in the states.
Here it is again:

Typically, the games in Europe are played on the last weekend of October. Normally this is the same weekend as Major League Baseball's World Series , allowing for the International Series to be the featured game of the day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_International_Series

Show me a link that backs up your assertion!
Otherwise your theory is pure speculation! IMO

On a seperate note:

"CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- After seeing fans jam London's Wembley Stadium the past two years to watch an NFL game, the league is considering sending a second regular-season contest overseas in time for the 2010 season.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Tuesday that the second game also could be played in London or another location in the United Kingdom. The issue will be discussed at next week's league meetings and could be included in a larger plan to add up to two regular-season games to the NFL schedule.


The fan reaction we've had in London has been extraordinary. We would like to feed that passion," Goodell said after speaking at the Charlotte Touchdown Club. "We have a great fan base in the UK. There have been discussions of taking the second game and playing it in another market in the UK. That's something that we'll evaluate."

The NFL first staged a regular-season game in London in 2007, when the New York Giants beat the Miami Dolphins 13-10. Last year, the New Orleans Saints beat the San Diego Chargers 37-32 at Wembley Stadium.

Both games were sellouts, and fans quickly gobbled up tickets for next season's Oct. 25 game between the New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...s&confirm=true

[Tazio]

I stand corrected on the New York Giants in 2007 (Super Bowl champions), but they played the Miami Dolphins in that game (the Dolphins finished with a 1 win, 15 losses record that year). I don't stand so corrected on the 2008 game, though, with the New Orleans Saints (8-8, didn't qualify for playoffs) and the San Diego Chargers (8-8, went to AFC divisional playoff round). The 2009 game had an underachieving New England Patriots team (10-6, lost in AFC wild card playoff round) vs. a poor Tampa Bay Buccaneers team (3-13).
And this year's game had the San Francisco 49ers playing the Denver Broncos (both teams are 2-6, so far this season).

My point is that the England game will most likely never get the best possible matchup for the reasons I mentioned before: the teams that are sent to England are typically underachieving, non-contenders, and/or struggling bringing fans to their own stadiums in the U.S.

I also think you are reading way too much into this.

I'm willing to wager that the game that is played at Wembley is determined by a blind draw!

[ICWS]

I humbly disagree!
Could you povde a link to back up your assetion
At least I presented a link that stated that the game is played on a day that would allow them to be the feature game of the day in the states.
Here it is again:


[/b]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_International_Series

Show me a link that backs up your assertion!
Otherwise your theory is pure speculation! IMO

On a seperate note:



http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...s&confirm=true

First of all, this year's England game wasn't the feature game of the day: the New Orleans Saints (last year's Super Bowl champs) played the Pittsburgh Steelers at night, against Game 4 of MLB's World Series (Giants vs. Rangers). Second, I suggest you use that same wikipedia link to look at the past results of the England game. Then click on the teams that played that year to look how their season was that year. You'll find that my evidence about the performance of the teams I talked about is correct.

I won't disagree with you that the England game gets good attendance, but my point is that the England game's significance seems to be fading and the teams chosen to play most likely won't be the best matchup on that day. In the same wikipedia article, it mentions that in the future, the Seattle Seahawks, Kansas City Chiefs, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers were identified as teams interested in playing in the England game. All three of these teams are inconsistent and underachieving and add more proof that the England game isn't expected to be the best possible game that weekend in the NFL.

The main reason why it is even called a "feature game" is because it's outside of the United States.

[Tazio]

First of all, this year's England game wasn't the feature game of the day: the New Orleans Saints (last year's Super Bowl champs) played the Pittsburgh Steelers at night, against Game 4 of MLB's World Series (Giants vs. Rangers). Second, I suggest you use that same wikipedia link to look at the past results of the England game. Then click on the teams that played that year to look how their season was that year. You'll find that my evidence about the performance of the teams I talked about is correct.

I won't disagree with you that the England game gets good attendance, but my point is that the England game's significance seems to be fading and the teams chosen to play most likely won't be the best matchup on that day. In the same wikipedia article, it mentions that in the future, the Seattle Seahawks, Kansas City Chiefs, and Tampa Bay Buccaneers were identified as teams interested in playing in the England game. All three of these teams are inconsistent and underachieving and add more proof that the England game isn't expected to be the best possible game that weekend in the NFL.

The main reason why it is even called a "feature game" is because it's outside of the United States.

I think you are actually on to something there.
I stand corrected!

[anthonyvop]

The NFL's Schedule is made months in advance and is etched in stone. There is no way they can accurately predict the performance of the teams sent. The Year That the Miami Dolphins Played in England they went 1-15. The following year they won their division.
I was told by an NFL front office official that they make the schedule as to have every team play once in the UK. Makes total sense.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Did anyone watch that game?

Easy game to grasp. Just give it a chance.

I didn't see all of the game but of what I saw it just looked like Rugby in tights with lots of tactical breaks.

I prefer rugby, a real sport played by real men who don't need body armour and don't stand around for 90% of the game doing nothing.

[harvick#1]

Easy game to grasp. Just give it a chance.

the NFL is being washed down so bad that they are gonna kill themselves, and since they will lockout 2011, the NFL is gonna fall off and join the rest of the sports that have done the same, people arent gonna bother with what GOD-del has to say and how he suspends and fines players

[Bob Riebe]

the NFL is being washed down so bad that they are gonna kill themselves, and since they will lockout 2011, the NFL is gonna fall off and join the rest of the sports that have done the same, people arent gonna bother with what GOD-del has to say and how he suspends and fines players

One can only hope so.

[ICWS]

the NFL is being washed down so bad that they are gonna kill themselves, and since they will lockout 2011, the NFL is gonna fall off and join the rest of the sports that have done the same, people arent gonna bother with what GOD-del has to say and how he suspends and fines players

I don't think a lockout will happen, but if it does, I think the NFL will recover. The league is too big and popular to fall off in the manner that other U.S. sport leagues have. Even with their declining attendance, the NFL still has the highest average attendance for any domestic sports league in the world, with an average of 67,500 fans showing up for each game. The sport itself has pretty much taken the reigns from baseball as "America's pastime" and NFL almost always end up with the best T.V. ratings of the week in comparison to the competing sports leagues and anything else that comes on T.V. when they're on. The league's T.V. rights are far more lucrative than the NBA's, MLB's, NHL's, etc. T.V. rights. The Super Bowl from last season (New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts) ended up being the most watched television program of any kind in the history of American television (average of 105.97 million viewers), and the Nielsen net rating was 45.0 with a 68% share, which is the highest for a Super Bowl since the 1996 Super Bowl. It is also the second most watched annual sporting event in the world, after the UEFA Champions League final.

All of this is showing that despite the complaints fans may have about Roger Goodell, and how washed down the league has become, there is still a massive fanbase for the NFL that will continue to watch on T.V. and come out in droves to their team's stadium.