Comments on: 17th game for NFL

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 11 May 2007 23:15:04 +0000

Squeezing a 17th game overseas into the current schedule seems impossible. Teams would need a longer break after their foreign game.
Another problem: oversaturating of game played abroad.
Crowd MIGHT show up for one game abroad in Mexico City, Beijing, London or Dusseldorf. But to have 16 games played in a foreign city every season?
The NFL already tried playing an exhibition in London once a year. Fans showed up for the first few, then the novelty wore off.
The game is not going to catch on worldwide. Too many rules. Too many stoppages. The games are too long (3-plus hours) for foreign tastes.
The NFL is more of a novelty. Foreigners are curious about American culture, but they aren't always going to buy into it.

By: Alan Tucker

Alan Tucker — Fri, 11 May 2007 17:09:19 +0000

When are the Browns going to start playing professional football domestically?

Regardless, the smart media folk know it's just a PR ploy for the NFL to make them seem even more huge than they really are. It's not going to happen anytime soon.

That Europe league has attendance averages from 15,000-20,000. If memory serves, only one was close to 30,000, which skewed the league average. Calling it a niche fringe sport would be extraordinarily generous, and they don't have a clue as to the difference between the real pro players and those posing as players in Europe. It's not like attendance in Amsterdam is going to spike from 14,000 to 60,000 because they get to pay money to see Vince Young instead of Bubba Silverstein.

By: larry d.

larry d. — Fri, 11 May 2007 17:03:28 +0000

It's a terrible idea. Football teams do not bounce back from that kind of travel very quickly. Plus, you'll have teams scheduled overseas, then on Sunday night then on Thursday or vice versa; it will be a mess and every year some team will get screwed out of the playoffs by crazy scheduling.

And the people overseas will not care about American football after the newness wears off.