HawkShack.com

Boy, the league really stepped in it big time. It's not just about refunding ticket purchases. Judging from my recent experience in London, there are tens of thousands of Americans that travel to watch their team in a foreign country, and I have no doubt that many of these people planned major vacations on the assumption that they were going to be watching an NFL game next Monday.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2526 ... t-football

Now watch, the smoke from the CA wildfires will cause them to postpone the game.

I saw that headline somewhere and literally couldn't believe it. This isn't like flexing it to a different time or something. Holy smokes.

burrrton wrote:I saw that headline somewhere and literally couldn't believe it. This isn't like flexing it to a different time or something. Holy smokes.

Yea, it's a frigging mess. There were players threatening to boycott the game due to the field conditions, and that would have been an even worse nightmare for the league.

The authorities in Mexico City are blaming it on an improper installation of a natural grass/synthetic hybrid surface they put in this summer, but the root cause to me seems to be the number of events they hold there. They knew weeks ago that the NFL had some major concerns about the field conditions, yet they held a soccer game there last Saturday. You would have thought that they would have been babying it rather than continuing with their event schedule.

RiverDog wrote:Boy, the league really stepped in it big time. It's not just about refunding ticket purchases. Judging from my recent experience in London, there are tens of thousands of Americans that travel to watch their team in a foreign country, and I have no doubt that many of these people planned major vacations on the assumption that they were going to be watching an NFL game next Monday.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/2526 ... t-football

Now watch, the smoke from the CA wildfires will cause them to postpone the game.

As much as it is going to cost them, they couldn't risk getting their favorite L.A. team to the Super Bowl this year. Especially after losing Kupp for the year. Rams can't afford another offensive injury to a key player because their defense won't be able to keep them in any games all by themselves.

idhawkman wrote:As much as it is going to cost them, they couldn't risk getting their favorite L.A. team to the Super Bowl this year. Especially after losing Kupp for the year. Rams can't afford another offensive injury to a key player because their defense won't be able to keep them in any games all by themselves.

From my understanding, the decision to move the game included a number of entities, including the player's union. It was pretty much a unaminious decision, so I doubt that there was some underlying, sinister motivation as you are suggesting.

RiverDog wrote:From my understanding, the decision to move the game included a number of entities, including the player's union. It was pretty much a unaminious decision, so I doubt that there was some underlying, sinister motivation as you are suggesting.

If the NFL didn't want it to move, it wouldn't move.

idhawkman wrote:If the NFL didn't want it to move, it wouldn't move.

That's true. But our disagreement comes as to league's motivation for the move, as you are saying that "they couldn't risk getting their favorite L.A. team to the Super Bowl this year.

RiverDog wrote:
That's true. But our disagreement comes as to league's motivation for the move, as you are saying that "they couldn't risk getting their favorite L.A. team to the Super Bowl this year.

Is it really that hard to read the sarcasm in that statement? Now I know why you think everything someone else (no names mentioned in this side of the forum) says is a lie. You have no concept of hyperbole, sarcasm, irony or anything else.

idhawkman wrote:Is it really that hard to read the sarcasm in that statement? Now I know why you think everything someone else (no names mentioned in this side of the forum) says is a lie. You have no concept of hyperbole, sarcasm, irony or anything else.

Absent any visual or audio cues and relying solely on printed text, yes, it's difficult to tell when you're being sarcastic or serious. I might suggest that you add one of the symbols to the right of the dialog box, like a or a when you don't want something taken verbatim, are just kidding, etc.