I voted "no". For a simple reason: it's a BS way of doing things. Under no circumstances is it a "home" game for ANYONE. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT AT HOME!
If they really want to do this, the only way I think it should be done is this:
1.) Pick four cities. The first three are pretty obvious: Toronto, Mexico City, and London. For the fourth, I don't know, but maybe go simple and pick Vancouver.
2.) Give each of those cities four games a year.
3.) Expand the schedule to 17 games: 8 home, 8 away, and 1 international. (Or alternately, just consider one of the "away" games as the international game, for eveyone.)
Voila. Problem solved. Every week there is one "international game" in one of those four cities. Each city gets one game per month, pretty much (Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec).
(And don't schedule teams that would obviously be more of a "home" game, i.e., don't put Buffalo in Toronto, or the Seahawks in Vancouver, or Dallas in Mexico City.)
This is a very good idea, BTW.
I voted FOR the loss of a home game for the following reasons.
1. First the issue of wear and tear on the team is overblown....for East Coast franchises. The trip was less than a hour longer for them than the one they take when they play the Chargers or the Seahawk. Only the time zones change
2. The inconvenience to the fans is less than the potential game they league accomplish in establishing inroads in the European Market place. Here is how I would make it work.
1. There are 9 franchises who you could say are East Coast. Pats, Jets, Giants, Eagles, Skins, Panthers, Jags, Bucs, and Phins....and I'd throw in the Cowboys, because of the name value.
Having a frachise or franchises in Europe is at LEAST a decade away. What the league has to do is keep building their base. Having 3 games a year would do the trick. One per month. Also you would want certain teams to be regular visitors during this decade to start to build up fan loyalty.
If you are doing 3 games a year, you would literally be asking teams to give up ONLY one home game in a DECADE. Is that too much to ask fans. Im sure the league can come up with some perks for the fans of the home team that loses that game that will mitigate the pain, but at worst season ticket holders would have one year a decade where they'd pay less for their season tickets.
Then you'd have those east coast teams at ones who would be regularly be the visiting team. I doubt the Pats would mind playing say 6 or seven times over there in a decade, if only one was as the home team. Other east coast teams would also be targeted as teams the league would like to build the market up with. The Eagles, Giants Skins, and Steelers come to mind. Teams with name recognition, and close enough to Britain so a semi regular trip would be onerous.
Again if the loss of a home game was kept to one a DECADE, I think they should do it.
