Re: Don't Want London in the NFL
posted at 10/26/2009 6:19 AM EDT
In Response to Re: Don't Want London in the NFL
1. The game isn't "ours" and it is silly to think that way.
RESPONSE: If you take your above statement literally, you're right. But, football is the #1 sport in America. American fans have made it so. Why would you, or anyone else, be in favor of adding a European team...which would lead to some of our best athletes (entertainers) being exported to Europe? Who in the States would care if the day came where London plays Mexico City in the SB? If the Europeans want football...fine. Let them start their own league. When their league approaches parity with the NFL, perhaps then it would be time for a football World Championship game to take place.
Well, regardless of how you take it, it is right.
My bigger concern though is why you seem to think that disagreeing with the statement that the sport is “ours” means that I want an expansion team in Europe. Not only do the thoughts have no connection, but I have clearly written a few times that I don’t want expansion whether it be a new team in the US, a new team in Europe or an expanded schedule. I am not sure why you think I do.
2. Season ticket holders can opt out of the ticket or they can purchase the ticket as part of their regular package (a huge ticket to be sure - it doesn't matter what teams are in the game, there is a list of fans that would fill up several games in London per season.) or they can purchase separate packages from the team that include airfare and hotel.
RESPONSE: Just another way of hampering the "average Joe" from seeing games live...and making going to the games affordable for only corporations or the rich.
Your original point was the the season ticket owners got screwed by having to pay extra for a ticket they couldn’t use. Now, when it was shown you were wrong, you decide to make it a “stiff the little guy” argument. So, at first you are defending the rights of all season ticket holders and now you have tried to shift your point to defend “the average Joe”. You can’t have it both ways. Just acknowledge you were incorrect on the point and move on instead of throwing out a new weak complaint.
3. I agree about expansion - it would dilute the product. It is the same reason I am against an 18 game season.
RESPONSE: An 18 game schedule has more to do with increasing the chance of player injuries, and shortening careers, than diluting the product. It is diluting the product in the sense that it would decrease the importance of each regular season game. It is this that puts the NFL head and shoulders over the other major sports in America.
Well, that is great considering you took what I already wrote about the increase in player injuries. Glad to see you approve of what I am writing enough to pretend I didn’t and then write it yourself.
But, to dilution of the product - it is the end result of a natural roster increase that will be needed to ensure enough players for all 18 games. The extra games will result in extra injuries and more players will be needed. So now you have players being brought in who wouldn’t make the 53 man roster and players also being brought in to compensate for the increase in injuries - a double whammy against the talent pool. There are 32 starting QBs in the NFL today - how many of them should actually be starting in the NFL? There isn’t enough talent at this point to sustain a 53-man roster for 32 tams. Extra games will bring in players that shouldn’t be in the NFL diluting the talent pool and consequently the product.
But, do you find it funny that in your first response you indicate I am for expansion while here, when you quote me, I am clearly against it? I do. That is a big fail for you.
4. Seriously, Constitutional issues. You aren't forcing anyone to play the game. You also seem to be forgetting that a lot of players actually already maintain two homes - one where the team is and one where they might prefer to live with their family.
RESPONSE: Don't you agree that by forcing a player to play football in London, that you're creating somewhat of a hardship for him? What if the player doesn't want to play abroad? Are his choices then reduced to not playing in the NFL, playing in an inferior league for inferior pay, or take up selling insurance? What players would prefer, or want to play there? Until advances allow a player to be safely "beamed", as in "Star Trek", from place to place...an argument can be made that a player is being made to endure a severe hardship by being forced to play in London...which severely hampers him from earning a living in his chosen profession.
That is a sadly loaded question that assumes the players are being forced. As noted earlier, no one is being forced to do anything. You are wrong in assuming that it is true.
I also wonder if you are so against this “forced team membership” of the players that you aren’t out picketing the draft. You seem to think that it is a hardship on players who don’t want to play in London, but you fail to realize that each year, players are “forced” onto teams they don’t necessarily want to be on. Yet, for some reason, they go.
There is no hardship. It is a job.