They'd rather play in Arizona (400 miles away) or give Texans a free home game (1000miles away) instead of just driving an hour an a half north and just playing in the LA Coliseum...Does the NFL really want to spite LA that much? Both UCLA and USC are away so no one is using the site. What's the deal?
2007-10-26 03:58:35 · 14 answers · asked by trer 3 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
I am a football fan, but the NFL proved that it is just another greedy corporate slime-ball organization. They should do the right thing which would be not play the game in San Diego right now. The Stadium is far more important for evacuee's then as a place to play a sports game. Key word here is SPORTS. The NFL proved it does not do the right thing, it does it's pocket padding thing. This game could be postponed and played down the road at another time. If it means a short week for the teams so be it. I would rather see a single displaced person in the stadium receiving help that's needed before a game. America always comes together in the face of tragedy, not the NFL they spit on America when it might cost them a dime.
2007-10-26 04:08:31 · answer #1 · answered by aswkingfish 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
They considered playing at the Rose Bowl or LA Coliseum, but officials from the stadium could not guarantee that they would have the stadiums staffed and ready to go for an NFL game on Sunday, so they went another direction.
2007-10-26 04:10:18 · answer #2 · answered by kitchens68 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They considered LA, but since LA sucks as a football city (proven when they lost the Rams and Raiders) the NFL wants the game to be played at a location that will actually make some money, have a fan base at the game for broadcasting and be at a nice stadium.
2007-10-26 04:07:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It seems like the logical choice to play in LA. Look at how it worked out for the Saints...not for one game, but an entire season. They played some games in San Antonio, some in Baton Rouge, and I think they played an extra away game instead of a "home" game vs the Giants. The game should be played and not delayed and it should be close enough for the home fans to attend. But then again, how logical are the NFL bigwigs?
2007-10-26 04:08:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not sure what is wrong with LA, but they ruled it out. Maybe they don't like the Stadium. Yet they want to put a team in LA so bad. Anyway Arizona was ruled out because it is booked. So it would be in Houston or Dallas.
2007-10-26 04:09:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why does it have to be another pro stadium, why cant they go to a college town or other city with a bigger stadium, that does not get the chance to see a pro game in person and the money can go to victims of the fires.
2007-10-26 04:40:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have heard they considered LA. I think it would be stupid to have it in Texas. However, it looks like San Diego will be able to host the game.
2007-10-26 04:01:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the game will be in san diego. it kinda sucks but i guess there kicking everyone out of the stadium. also there are fires all around los angeles so it would be just as bad as san diego.
2007-10-26 05:14:15 · answer #8 · answered by Slow89 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Orange County is now on fire. It looks like the game will be in Arizona.
2007-10-26 04:58:46 · answer #9 · answered by The Official Texting Pro 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What about Mile High?...Wouldn't it be easier to get to Denver than Houston or Dallas?...The Broncos have a home game, but not until Monday night...
2007-10-26 04:17:28 · answer #10 · answered by Terry C. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋