|
Post by Gene on Oct 19, 2007 20:52:47 GMT -5
in 2006 pittsburgh beat the seahawks in detroit in sb XL. cold weather city. it was also in detroit in '82. the avg temps in london dont qualify for the nfls climate criteria by a few degrees, but the nfl waives those for indoor stadiums. wembley isnt a true dome the field is open like it is in dallas but it is the worlds largest stadium where every seat is under cover so fans in all 95k seats wont get wet if it were to rain like it did in miami last year. ask any player of fan id rather be dry and 40 degrees than soaking wet and 60. thats a poor argument since the game was played in a dome. Wembley isnt a dome unless it has a retractable roof.
|
|
|
Post by Daytonadan on Oct 19, 2007 21:32:29 GMT -5
Ah, my dear message board denizens, haven't you ever heard of a "trial ballon"
NWIH is the NFL ever going to play a Super Bowl in Europe. Powers that be simply wanted to gage reaction.
The tribe has spoken.
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Oct 20, 2007 0:05:00 GMT -5
in 2006 pittsburgh beat the seahawks in detroit in sb XL. cold weather city. it was also in detroit in '82. the avg temps in london dont qualify for the nfls climate criteria by a few degrees, but the nfl waives those for indoor stadiums. wembley isnt a true dome the field is open like it is in dallas but it is the worlds largest stadium where every seat is under cover so fans in all 95k seats wont get wet if it were to rain like it did in miami last year. ask any player of fan id rather be dry and 40 degrees than soaking wet and 60. thats a poor argument since the game was played in a dome. Wembley isnt a dome unless it has a retractable roof. no, its not a poor argument... climate is not the only criteria to host the super bowl. theres plenty of warm weather cities that havent hosted either and i have both played and watched in all kinds of weather and like i said before i'd take 40 and dry over 60 and wet every day of the week and twice on (super bowl)sunday.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 20, 2007 6:09:28 GMT -5
thats a poor argument since the game was played in a dome. Wembley isnt a dome unless it has a retractable roof. no, its not a poor argument... climate is not the only criteria to host the super bowl. theres plenty of warm weather cities that havent hosted either and i have both played and watched in all kinds of weather and like i said before i'd take 40 and dry over 60 and wet every day of the week and twice on (super bowl)sunday. That said why doesnt the NFL hold the Super Bowl in a city such as New England where the game itself would be played outside? The NFL is all about playing the game in a neutral type of weather environment. If they do plan on playing a Super Bowl in England then they should 1st consider our other NFL cities here in America with outdoor stadiums who have never held one. I personally would love to see one played in Philly in the elements, but that would never happen. All i am saying is, if its gonna be considered in England they should 1st consider these other venues in our own country where the fans who have built this sport can enjoy the game and the whole super bowl experience. I too have played in many environments and the best was when it was cold, rainy & muddy weather. Screw the hot sunshine crap.....
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Oct 20, 2007 13:10:23 GMT -5
i'd like to see the numbers, if anyone's ever bothered to try to find out how many people who go to the sb are from the host city or from one of the teams city or just from wherever. i agree temp is on there first for a reason but as you can see exceptions are made if it fits the nfls purpose. jacksonville was a new franchise and market and they made an exception. with the game there next week with a decent giants team and a horrible miami team well see how people respond and if they did decide to do it it wouldnt be for like 5 or 6 years from now. the bills have asked to play a reg season game in toronto so like it or not the nfl is trying to go international. who knows maybe london will have an nfl expansion team by then. philly and foxboro btw barely qualifies for capacity, and are colder on avg than london in feb (foxboro ALOT colder), but i bet philly would be ok on the rest of the criteria. doubt foxboro meets the hotel requirements. (just using your examples) and i have to say it again wembley seats are covered. the field is not but the fans would be ok good discussion how about a super bowl in munich? the germans love american football and id go to a game in this stadium
|
|
|
Post by frostbite on Oct 20, 2007 13:14:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 20, 2007 13:21:20 GMT -5
That is an interesting stadium. What the heck is it made of that illuminates it like that? It kinda looks like a huge inflatable bed, lol. I like it.....
|
|
|
Post by UnoBomber on Oct 20, 2007 21:41:43 GMT -5
Not to beat a dead horse, but one way to figure out the time difference is using Greenwich Mean Time or GMT.... We're -5 GMT. Meaning we're 5 hours behind Greenwich in England. But I digress.
The idea is about as retarded as having the Bills play one regular season game in Toronto. Sorry if I'm a season ticket holder, i'd be truly pissed off with the team and the NFL. NFL Europe was a disaster. But like lemmings jumping off a cliff, they still want to try out the foreign markets.... Unbelievable. If the NFL does this, they truly do not give a sh1t about the 2 team's fans that have anticipated a superbowl all year long.
|
|