Giants get an extra home game..thoughts?

[RedskinsRule]

How does everyone feel that the NFL is having the Saints play their "home" opener against the Giants at Giants Stadium? Personally, I think that is a little unfair to the Saints, not to mention also unfair for the rest of the NFC East. They should play it somewhere in the South or at a neutral stadium that is not schedualed to play a game at that time. Thoughts?


:gaintsuck

[vnmenon1]

Well, the saints owner agreed to it. The bottomline is the Saints have other thoughts on their minds.

[authentic]

i hate to sound like a little kid, but its not fair. you mean to tell me that they couldn't have found another place for the Saints to play a home game? I don't care who you are in the league, home games are an advantage- so now they will be playing 9 out out 16 games at home. That sucks.

[Skinned]

I completely agree. I really wonder what their thinking was on this.

I was hoping that they could play it in Dallas, where the fans would actually be rooting against the G-men. Doesn't make any sense for either team involved or for the rest of the league to give a team an extra home game, regardless of circumstance.

[airborneskins]

The Giants still suck, so It doesn't matter where they get beat at.. :D :gaintsuck

[RedskinsRule]

here is the link: Hope it works :)


http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2150014

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

They're only playing it there because it is guaranteed to sell out, and that's all that the NFL cares about. If it's played in San Antonio, or at some southern teams stadium like Houston, they can't predict what kind of ticket sales they'll get since the fans won't be for either team. I'm not sure why they don't play it in Tiger Stadium, though. It seems like a pretty sh1tty decision to me.

[LaRou]

This one game will not make or break the Gints or Saints' season and won't alter the NFL 'landscape' in any way.

I don't understand the big deal.

[Skinned]

Well, the saints owner agreed to it. The bottomline is the Saints have other thoughts on their minds.

Tagliabue didn't want the game anywhere down South so as not to interfere with the temporary housing being set up throughout Texas.

Still, why not an open air stadium? Or how bout in Tallahassee where FSU plays? And they could make it also a fund-raiser so that people could bring canned goods and bottled water and it is still close to the affected area.

[Skinned]

This one game will not make or break the Gints or Saints' season and won't alter the NFL 'landscape' in any way.

I don't understand the big deal.

Your saying that 1 win or loss isn't the difference between the playoffs and sitting home? :nono:

Forget the NFL landscape, I see this as an opportunity for a San Antonio or other small city to prove they are right for future expansion. Hell, the Saints aren't going to be calling New Orleans home anytime soon.

[Truant]

Awkward choice. Obviously this is not that important in the big picture, but the Giants are getting a huge break in this.

[Gallen5862]

It would seem like you would try to find a neutral site.

[Ignatius J.]

Given the reason why the saints can't play at home I think it is foolish to complain about it. This is the simplest possible solution to an aweful situation. It seems petty to me to worry about this.

[Warhead36]

I don't like it but...whatever. The Giants will still suck.

[stuartjb]

Looking back, Thinking about how extra Giants home
game came about and what happened after, it all makes
sense now.

The Giants owners Mara and Tisch used their influence
with the NFL to manipulate a situation caused by a
natural disaster for their own financial gain and
strategic unfair advantage in the NFL. In short, they
used a natural disaster for their own gain. They had
other, more honorable ways to handle this. Instead
they took the low road for their gain and the Giants
got a home playoff game thanks to help from 9 home
games. Not long after this, both Mara and Tisch died
within a few weeks of each other. After that, in the
NFC wildcard game, the Giants got whipped and
embarressed on National TV, in front of their home
fans. Coincidence? Right. ;)

[Westbrook36]

Well, that's a pretty ****ty thing to say. They died because they supposedly were behind this and took the low road?

You should be ashamed of yourself. Stuart, I see this is your first post. Be warned, this isn't the way we discuss things around here. If you want to hang around for long, you won't make such ridiculous statements in the future.

[hail2skins]

Stuart's statement is just about as ridiculous as someone claiming that the Eagles will go 5-1 or 6-0 in the NFC East next season! :laugh:

:jk: Westy.......I agree with what you said.......well, not about the Eagles divisional record next year :D

[dockeryfan]

I'm thinking that was supposed to be funny.
Instead, it's just stupid.

edit. Not you hailskins, I'm talking about stuarts post.

[stram22]

Well if you take the Saints game out of the equation, the Giants were 7-1 at home and 3-4 on the road. Now let's assume that they didn't get to play the Saints at home. Obviously, you can't automatically assume that they would have lost, but lets do it anyway just to see what might have happened....

If the Giants had lost they would have ended up 10-6 with the same record as the Redskins and we would have won the division based on a better divisional record. Considering the disparity in the Giants home/away record and how close we were to winning the division I think its fair to say this wasn't fair.

[hail2skins]

Stram, there were plenty of threads started this season about this topic, particularly as the Giants were in the playoff mix and thus the controversy over whether the Giants recieved a competitive advantage by having this game at home. However, if you think about it, the NFL altered the competitive balance when it decided to place a regular season game in Mexico City between the 49ers and Cardinals. This didn't turn out to be a big deal because both teams stunk. However, can you imagine if one or both of the teams had been good? The designated home team in the contest (forget who it was) could have complained that it only had seven REAL home games, while other teams could have complained that the away team had only seven REAL away games. Last I heard, the league was still toying with having a regular season game in London in the near future. I hope the NFL is looking at the competitive balance aspects of this, and just says no.

[santanamoss89]

This really shouldn't be that big of a deal...

They would have beat New Orleans in; New Orleans, San Antonia, Louisiana or anywhere else.

Also, NY won by 17, if it were a close game I could understand people getting mad, but not a 17 point win...

[stram22]

Stram, there were plenty of threads started this season about this topic, particularly as the Giants were in the playoff mix and thus the controversy over whether the Giants recieved a competitive advantage by having this game at home.

So should I not have posted my opinion?


However, if you think about it, the NFL altered the competitive balance when it decided to place a regular season game in Mexico City between the 49ers and Cardinals. This didn't turn out to be a big deal because both teams stunk. However, can you imagine if one or both of the teams had been good? The designated home team in the contest (forget who it was) could have complained that it only had seven REAL home games, while other teams could have complained that the away team had only seven REAL away games. Last I heard, the league was still toying with having a regular season game in London in the near future. I hope the NFL is looking at the competitive balance aspects of this, and just says no.

I agree with you, but there is also a difference between playing a game at a neutral site and changing what was supposed to be a home game for one team to a home game for the other team. If they had played at a neutral site the Giants probably would have won, but does that make it fair? I don't think so.

[hail2skins]

Yes, Stram, dammit, learn to use the search function before adding to the thread!! :laugh:

Just kidding......the reason I made the statement about the numerous threads about the topic was a lead in to the point I was making about the overseas games (a point I also made in those other threads). In the Giants case, the competitive balance was going to be altered no matter what due to Katrina, and I agree that the league made a less than desirable choice in giving the Giants an extra home game. However, it seems like the league is hell bent on scheduling regular season overseas games without giving much thought as to what the competitive balance will be. You can believe that a situation will again arise where a team who hasn't played as many "true" home or away games will be placed in a better or worse playoff seed if the NFL decides to continue with this.

[Acefwh]

I most certainly agree that this was done for money by the NFL and the Giants. I also agree that it gave the Giants an unfair edge as well, but to suggest that the evil doings of 2 men involved in a conspiracy suddenly led to their demise is 1 heckuva stretch.

Me thinks the poster was being funny :)

Make no doubt however that a lot more tickets were sold and a lot more revenue was generated for the NFL and the Giants by having this game played in the Big Apple.

As for the competitive advantage, well if the Skins had taken care of the ball and business the 1st time as they did the 2nd time they would have won the division anyway.

Lets get like Gibbs and the players. Take the weight for not getting it done on ourselves and what we could have controlled as opposed to what we can't control. Losers look to blame others, winners look to improve themselves so they can overcome outside obstacles. I think they have that attitude and I feel sorry for the rest of the division next year and the 2 or 3 after that!!!

[stram22]

However, it seems like the league is hell bent on scheduling regular season overseas games without giving much thought as to what the competitive balance will be. You can believe that a situation will again arise where a team who hasn't played as many "true" home or away games will be placed in a better or worse playoff seed if the NFL decides to continue with this.


Yep...like everything else dollars and cents ultimately call the shots. Hopefully, we don't have to worry about the Redskins having any less than 8 home games a year.

[stram22]

Lets get like Gibbs and the players. Take the weight for not getting it done on ourselves and what we could have controlled as opposed to what we can't control. Losers look to blame others, winners look to improve themselves so they can overcome outside obstacles. I think they have that attitude and I feel sorry for the rest of the division next year and the 2 or 3 after that!!!

Well said...I completely agree. We had our opportunities to take the division and we didn't capitalize. But since the topic was staring me in the face I coudn't resist playing out the possibilities. You're definitely right about this team's attitude and it mostly stems from Gibbs.

[BlueTalon]

Stram, there were plenty of threads started this season about this topic, particularly as the Giants were in the playoff mix and thus the controversy over whether the Giants recieved a competitive advantage by having this game at home. However, if you think about it, the NFL altered the competitive balance when it decided to place a regular season game in Mexico City between the 49ers and Cardinals. This didn't turn out to be a big deal because both teams stunk. However, can you imagine if one or both of the teams had been good? The designated home team in the contest (forget who it was) could have complained that it only had seven REAL home games, while other teams could have complained that the away team had only seven REAL away games. Last I heard, the league was still toying with having a regular season game in London in the near future. I hope the NFL is looking at the competitive balance aspects of this, and just says no.THERE'S an idea! The next time there's a hurricane or some other natural disaster that wipes out an NFL city or prevents the use of the stadium, just hold the next game or two in Mexico City!

[Ax]

A little food for thought.

Every season the Giants and Jets play, one of them gets an extra home game. So this is nothing new really. It's a built in NY bias. It's happened before, and it WILL happen again.

The NFL could at least give the rest of the league a "reach around."

We're all getting screwed, but we ain't gettin' kissed.

[dreamingwolf]

not anymore ax, they use the rotating schedule now

now our division plays a different afc division every year.

they still get that every 4 years though