Good. Maybe they will be wasted for three weeks because of it. "The New England Patriots will play the Tampa Bay Buccaneers next season at Wembley Stadium, the third straight year the NFL will stage a regular-season game in the British capital. The game will be played Oct. 25. The Bucs will be listed as the home team, giving up a game in Tampa." http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3737047
its pretty unfair that a team has to give up a home game so the nfl can make some extra money in europe. hopefully the jets never end up playing in this game.
I don't care about the home game but I think the whole thing is unfair. It's a joke that the league would make any team travel 6-7 hours across the ocean for what mounts to nothing more than an exhibition that counts in the standings. Mexico City is one thing as is Toronto but London is ridiculous. These games should take place in August and should be nothing more than a preseason game. For a league that makes billions its a disrespect to Pats fans and Bucs fans for the league to pull this garbage again. I'd love to see Real Madrid come over here and play Barca in a La Liga Match but that's not going to happen. I could imagine the outrage by European Fans if UEFA decided to play the Champions League Final in the Rose Bowl because that's essentially what this is.
Greart, now NE only has 7 road games. Let's give the pats another advantage as if they need one. I HATE these London games.
Yeah, and it also sucked that the Saints lost a home date this season because they "hosted" the Chargers in London. The Chargers should have been the home team due to what the Saints had to go through in 2005.
They should have scheduled a Giants home game playing the Saints to make up for that sham a few years ago.
But when you think about it, what's the real difference between the Pats flying to London or flying to San Francisco? Not a lot, really.
The difference is that the Bucs lose out on all of the advantages of a home game - no travel, the home crowd, etc. It's better for the "visiting" team in these ridiculous games because it's much worse for the "home" team.
No it's not b/c they get the bye the week after. Inseatd of pklaying in front of rabid Bucs fans they are playing in front of a nuetral crowd and if anything it will be pro-Pats b/c the brits hate Malcom Glazer.
No they don't. Hardcore Manchester United fans hate the Glazers, but of the ones who feel that way only a few will be NFL fans. It won't be a factor. Also, the crowd at the last two games have been decidedly in favour of the designated home team. There were pockets of support for the Giants and for San Diego, but it was scattered and greatly outweighed by the other side. The crowd will be pro-Bucs.
I really doubt the crowd will be pro-Bucs since the Pats are the glamour team that british football fans would know better and even though you say the Glazer thing isn't a big deal I think that will also make it difficult for British fans to root for TB.
I don't think you give the British fans enough credit. Wait and see. There are a heck of a lot of Giants fans here and there was no audible support for the Giants when they played here in 2007.
Plus they have England in their name. Belichick will get to be a dick to people in two countries next year.
The first analogy is more accurate, a league game. The Champions League final would be like having the Super Bowl in Madrid or MIlan or somewhere.
Actually the EPL has discussed adding an extra game to each team's sked and playing them abroad including in the US. Hasn't happened yet but things are moving in a global direction everywhere.
You think that is b/c they felt they needed to root for the "home" team? From what I understand the dolphins are maybe the most popular team in England. This was Giants pre-SB win. I would guess that would be the reason Miami had more fans.
When it's the Jets turn for the "home" game, you think they will still bill us ahead of time for the parking? I think so.
