Comments on: London Super Bowl?

By: Soapoint Graphics

Soapoint Graphics — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:26:11 +0000

I agree with you as well. I understand that the NFL is trying to become a global league, however, NFL Europe was not a success, so why would we take the biggest game of the NFL season there. I also agree with the above post with the time difference and lower ratings.

By: Dirty Davey

Dirty Davey — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:42:25 +0000

The stupidest thing is that no one seems to take the time zone thing seriously. The current SB start time–6:30 eastern–has evolved to maximize ratings with the Sunday-night time slot.

6:30PM eastern is 11:30PM in London. You can’t start a game at 11:30PM local time.

Given the way the earlier rounds of the playoffs have shifted from 12:30PM/4PM games to 4PM/8PM games, I can only assume that the ratings advantage of a later start time is measurable and known to the networks.

(The article suggests a 3:30 eastern start time, but that would be 12:30 pacific–which I assume the NFL would really like to avoid. With a 6PM ET start, you can run a six-hour pre-game… I can guarantee that if three hours were shifted from pre-game to post-game, the post-game ratings and ad revenue would be MUCH lower. And that ignores the lower west-coast ratings from the earlier start.)

By: ed

ed — Thu, 07 May 2009 02:55:46 +0000

If London can’t host the Superbowl, then the winners of the Superbowl can’t call themselves ‘World Champions’.

Really? Who’s gonna stop ‘em? You?

By: David

David — Thu, 07 May 2009 00:11:51 +0000

If London can’t host the Superbowl, then the winners of the Superbowl can’t call themselves ‘World Champions’.

By: SpiderJ

SpiderJ — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:24:51 +0000

I can’t afford the ticket to see it live anyway. Why would I care if it happens in London?

By: jr

jr — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:23:41 +0000

I’m sick of the NFL’s “we’re international!” bs