[vincesanity82]

In the same session that involved Commissioner Roger Goodell disclosing that the league could add a seventeenth regular season game, Goodell said that a future Super Bowl could be played overseas.

The three most likely destinations would be London, Mexico City, and Toronto. But if the league is serious (as it should be) about getting the billions of folks who don't live in the United States to follow the sport, the best way to do it is to export from time to time the biggest product that the league has to offer, given their time zones in relation to the traditional 6:18 p.m. EDT kickoff.

I understand wanting to get other countries interested in the NFL but this is an american sport and should be played on american soil. I know my opinion isnt the same as everyone elses so My Question is this: Do you agree with the NFL taking the superbowl overseas?

NFL likely to administer neurological tests in training camp - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Never happen...it would be an instant terrorist target...securing it would be almost impossible...

[alex83]

i dont agree with taking the Superbowl to other countries because it wont have as big an impact and it wont be prepared for as much as it is done in the US. i mean its amazing how a whole city or state goes wild everytime the superbowl comes to town, that wouldnt happen overseas. no i think they should keep it to 1 or 2 regular season games a year and thats it because your right its an AMERICAN sport and the final game should be decided on AMERICAN soil, i mean why play all the regular and playoff games in america and then ship the superbowl to a city who has a population of about 2% that actually enjoy the game, dont get me wrong i would love for it to come to london but im set with having some regular season games here

[vincesanity82]

Originally Posted by Gotham Dark Knight

Never happen...it would be an instant terrorist target...securing it would be almost impossible...

I didnt think of the security aspect of it at first, but you absolutely right GDK, this just isnt a good idea..

[Lefty Noob]

I don't see why a Super Bowl at London or Toronto would be any bigger of a security risk than a regular season game overseas, or a regular Super Bowl. I'm sure they'd take every security precaution possible. That said, I still don't think it's a good idea. Super Bowl tickets are expensive enough without adding overseas travel packages onto the bill. And imagine the hassles with passports and the like. Too inconvenient for fans, not to mention possible time differences.

[vincesanity82]

Anyone in favor of a 17th game? I think i'd fine with it..

[Gotham Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by Lefty Noob

I don't see why a Super Bowl at London or Toronto would be any bigger of a security risk than a regular season game overseas, or a regular Super Bowl. I'm sure they'd take every security precaution possible. That said, I still don't think it's a good idea. Super Bowl tickets are expensive enough without adding overseas travel packages onto the bill. And imagine the hassles with passports and the like. Too inconvenient for fans, not to mention possible time differences.

Come on now Lefty...An American symbol like the Super Bowl would be an ideal target ...the game abroad would be at the mercy of the secuirty another country offers...and pro American sentiment is not at an all-time high...heck, look at the World Cup where our bus couldn't even bear the US flag?...

Even Toronto, which I like to visit, is a bit of an international city...with very broad immigration laws...I would hate to test their security resources in this manner....

[Bette]

No 17th game. The players are beat up enough.
NO SUPERBOWL OVERSEAS EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not because of security, not because of ticket price (nor for any other economic reason) Its American, it stays here. I'd be really ticked if they took the Superbowl out of the country.

[vincesanity82]

Originally Posted by Bette

No 17th game. The players are beat up enough.
NO SUPERBOWL OVERSEAS EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not because of security, not because of ticket price (nor for any other economic reason) Its American, it stays here. I'd be really ticked if they took the Superbowl out of the country.

as far as the 17th game goes, the players wont be any more run down than they usually are, they're replacing one of preseason games with 17th game, so it comes out the same except the game will count. A lot of players get injured in preseason games just like reg season games so might aswell make em count..I agree with the superbowl though, its american football, keep it in america..

[Bette]

Originally Posted by vincesanity82

as far as the 17th game goes, the players wont be any more run down than they usually are, they're replacing one of preseason games with 17th game, so it comes out the same except the game will count. A lot of players get injured in preseason games just like reg season games so might aswell make em count..I agree with the superbowl though, its american football, keep it in america..

Oops, didnt realize it would replace one of the preseason games. Yeah, I agree then. Better to make it count.

[DaBigManOnCampus]

I think it would be a heck of a try, but the thing is sadly, as you see with the answers here and what will be across the pond or north and south of the border(which in a sense we already have an effect to a point up there) will not accept this, traveling will be more complicated, and with the fact that maybe not britian but the rest of Europe kind of hating us, making our stereotype worse if us americans come up there and have our sport in a country that is ruled by a different type of football. I would be a bold and daring throw at it, but this thing will fall short, with the quickness...