The Jacksonville Jaguars

[KenFSU]

Not sure this is overreaction.  The threat of something like this occurring is very real.

Or, the overreaction would be:

Despite no previous incidents at the 15,000 NFL games attended by a total of over one billion people in the league's history, lets inconvenience everybody and treat all of our fans like criminals because a couple of stoners blew up some pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon.

Not to mention the fact that bags were already being checked to begin with.

With many traditionally strong NFL markets struggling to sell tickets, it just gives fans one more reason to stay home and watch from the couch too.

[JayBird]

Not sure this is overreaction.  The threat of something like this occurring is very real.

Or, the overreaction would be:

Despite no previous incidents at the 15,000 NFL games attended by a total of over one billion people in the league's history, lets inconvenience everybody and treat all of our fans like criminals because a couple of stoners blew up some pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon.

Not to mention the fact that bags were already being checked to begin with.

With many traditionally strong NFL markets struggling to sell tickets, it just gives fans one more reason to stay home and watch from the couch too.

Actually at two of the home games last season my gf didn't even get her pocketbook searched and she can fit the kitchen sink in there! When we went down to Miami to watch the Jags play the Dolphins, our friend had his gun in his wife's pocketbook and forgot all about it (they both have concealed carry permits) and the guards didn't even notice.  I believe it is more for peace of mind for the spectators and maybe a slight deterrent to the "one man mentally imbalanced" attack.  Those that say they wouldn't go because of this, weren't going to go anyway so it isn't a loss at the ticket booth.

Also, I believe we have to face the reality that eventually one of these sites will unfortunately come under attack because it is too tempting of a strike for our nations enemies.  I would say NFL and NASCAR are probably the two most "American" noted sports, and where else can one affect the masses and maim or possibly kill between 60,000 - 85,000 (NFL) or 90,000 - 255,000 (NASCAR) people? 

Look how many people are complaining about the police work in Boston when this one lone trash bag sitting curbside didn't draw any attention.  What would've happened had there been a metal detector when someone entered a movie theater in Colorado?

The bottom line to remember is this isn't Everbank Field, this is the NFL ruling this because some of those 32 stadiums were lacking in their security and the safety and enjoyment of the fans is the crucial link for them to stay in business. 

Heck, you can't even walk into the downtown library without being stopped to look in your pocketbooks or book bags or briefcases.  This is the world we now live in, adapt and survive.

[copperfiend]

^^^

Agree with the above. We actually had a few games last year where the person working the USO entrance on the north side of the stadium scanned our ticket and let us in with no search. We had regular general admission tickets.

[KenFSU]

Heck, you can't even walk into the downtown library without being stopped to look in your pocketbooks or book bags or briefcases.  This is the world we now live in, adapt and survive.

It doesn't have to be the world we live in, though. If you can't go to a public gathering or enter a public building without having a police officer or security guard rummage through your stuff, then the terrorists have already won. Not saying that all of these security measures should be abolished, but I do think we're reaching a point in our country's history where a serious discussion needs to take place about privacy vs. security, and where the people, rather than the politicians, decide to which extent they value one over the other. In this case, I guess the free market will decide

[JayBird]

Heck, you can't even walk into the downtown library without being stopped to look in your pocketbooks or book bags or briefcases.  This is the world we now live in, adapt and survive.

It doesn't have to be the world we live in, though. If you can't go to a public gathering or enter a public building without having a police officer or security guard rummage through your stuff, then the terrorists have already won. Not saying that all of these security measures should be abolished, but I do think we're reaching a point in our country's history where a serious discussion needs to take place about privacy vs. security, and where the people, rather than the politicians, decide to which extent they value one over the other. In this case, I guess the free market will decide

It's the catch-22 situation, you lessen security to give people privacy and when something happens, those same people that screamed for privacy are saying why didn't you protect us?  Also, this isn't a politicians decision, it is in fact a free market (NFL) decision. 

I guess I look at it differently, I was in midtown on 9/11 and I live there part time now so dealing with security is an everyday necessity. And I do not mind that.  I personally have found that most people who complain about these little measures say that if we let them happen, eventually the Gestapo will be knocking down our doors and rummaging through our closets.  I would be completely against that, but my response to that is:

1. If we LET that happen, that is our own fault
2. If someone blows me up, I won't have a door to knock down

[Cheshire Cat]

Heck, you can't even walk into the downtown library without being stopped to look in your pocketbooks or book bags or briefcases.  This is the world we now live in, adapt and survive.

It doesn't have to be the world we live in, though. If you can't go to a public gathering or enter a public building without having a police officer or security guard rummage through your stuff, then the terrorists have already won. Not saying that all of these security measures should be abolished, but I do think we're reaching a point in our country's history where a serious discussion needs to take place about privacy vs. security, and where the people, rather than the politicians, decide to which extent they value one over the other. In this case, I guess the free market will decide

It's the catch-22 situation, you lessen security to give people privacy and when something happens, those same people that screamed for privacy are saying why didn't you protect us?  Also, this isn't a politicians decision, it is in fact a free market (NFL) decision. 

I guess I look at it differently, I was in midtown on 9/11 and I live there part time now so dealing with security is an everyday necessity. And I do not mind that.  I personally have found that most people who complain about these little measures say that if we let them happen, eventually the Gestapo will be knocking down our doors and rummaging through our closets.  I would be completely against that, but my response to that is:

1. If we LET that happen, that is our own fault
2. If someone blows me up, I won't have a door to knock down

What we currently experience and expect of our government and private business with regard to our safety is largely the result of what happened in N.Y. on 911.  The destruction of the twin towers was a powerful attack on the psyche of Americans, how we perceive ourselves and how the world sees us.  While Americans remained resolute in the face of this attack, internally most were shaken to their core.  If anyone should forget the impact at that time just revisit the horror via the many you tube videos recording the event and the aftermath.  Americans were and in many ways remain outraged over the attack and the response to it was a demand by the citizens that the government "protect" us in the future.  Not only did we demand protection but we also chastised government and proclaimed that they had not done their due diligence via our intelligence gathering offices.  In response to these accusations and public demands for protection, the government did what it often does and responded with aggressive moves meant to appease the people of our nation.  Since that time we have seen domestic terrorism and acts of random violence that seems to center itself and manifest it's murderous intent where groups of people gather.  The most recent example being in Boston.

If business and government have restricted our actions and freedoms to the point of what some feel (rightfully so) is intrusion it is to a great degree our own fault.  NFL and the Jaguars as a business and organization know that if they should not be proactive in protecting fans that gather for football games and an attack of some sort were to take place, it would be the organizations themselves that would be blamed, perhaps beyond the perpetrators. 

We as Americans must decide how much intrusion is too much.  For instance, intruding into our lives via drones and the collecting of our phone information while perhaps well intended is a step way to far into our independent nature and lawful right to privacy.  We need to balance the extremes within our own expectations and then see to it that government follows through with our wishes.  As far as independent business is concerned, it is the American penchant for suing one another that will keep them vigilant when it comes to security.

[duvaldude08]

Not sure this is overreaction.  The threat of something like this occurring is very real.

With many traditionally strong NFL markets struggling to sell tickets, it just gives fans one more reason to stay home and watch from the couch too.

One thing Ive noticed about human beings is this....If its something they REALLY want to do something, they are not going to let anything stop them. If they REALLY want to attend NFL games, they will grumble, complain, then adapt to the rules. Then life will carry on 

[KenFSU]

^^
I tend to feel the same way about terrorists

"Purse ban!?!  GET NASIR ON THE PHONE, THE ATTACK IS OFF!"

I'm FAR more terrified of the fact that the Jags don't plan to name their starting quart back until after game three of the preseason.

[duvaldude08]

Oh no! The vikings thinking of hosting multiple home games in London! I guess its a conspiracy. Their new stadium is a hoax and its not really being built.  This further explains the comment goodell made that got blown out of proporation. Looks like he indeed reached out to another team about hosting multiple home games.

With the Vikings opening a new stadium in 2016 and playing at the University of Minnesota's home stadium in 2014 and 2015, the decision to host a game in London this coming season may be the first of several games the Vikings play in England.

According to Neil Reynolds of NFLUK.com, Vikings V.P. of public affairs and stadium development Lester Bagley didn't rule out the possibility.  Bagley, per Reynolds, said that the Vikings want to see how the 2013 game against the Steelers goes at Wembley Stadium.

While some folks in Minnesota could be upset by the loss of three home games in three years, it’s better for the franchise to bite the bullet and sacrifice home games now.  Then, once they move into the new stadium, they'll be less likely to be asked to give up further home games in the name of helping grow the sport internationally. [\quote]

[JayBird]

^^
I tend to feel the same way about terrorists

"Purse ban!?!  GET NASIR ON THE PHONE, THE ATTACK IS OFF!"

I'm FAR more terrified of the fact that the Jags don't plan to name their starting quart back until after game three of the preseason.

Actually terrorists are cowards, they act on the premonition that they have the element of surprise.  When they lose that, or are caught by law enforcement they typically give up rather easily.  Which is chronicles in every newspaper and news blog when they write how a "potential planned event" was thwarted.  Currently, the country is averaging two of these per month.  So no, you might picture terrorists as Rambo in your mind, but in reality it is just Stallone saying stop or my mom will shoot.  One personality trait that is very specific to America is that when our homeland is threatened we ban together and protect it as one.  Terrorist organizations typically do not have this system.  Once they lose the upper hand, it is usually over.

As to part 2, any quasi-fan would be able to tell you that unless major injury in practice, Blaine Gabbert will be the starting QB and Kafka will be second string.  Personally, I think that Kafka is really good and will light that fire under Gabbert.  Sometimes a little competition among teammates makes all the difference.

[JayBird]

Oh no! The vikings thinking of hosting multiple home games in London! I guess its a conspiracy. Their new stadium is a hoax and its not really being built.  This further explains the comment goodell made that got blown out of proporation. Looks like he indeed reached out to another team about hosting multiple home games.

With the Vikings opening a new stadium in 2016 and playing at the University of Minnesota's home stadium in 2014 and 2015, the decision to host a game in London this coming season may be the first of several games the Vikings play in England.

According to Neil Reynolds of NFLUK.com, Vikings V.P. of public affairs and stadium development Lester Bagley didn't rule out the possibility.  Bagley, per Reynolds, said that the Vikings want to see how the 2013 game against the Steelers goes at Wembley Stadium.

While some folks in Minnesota could be upset by the loss of three home games in three years, it’s better for the franchise to bite the bullet and sacrifice home games now.  Then, once they move into the new stadium, they'll be less likely to be asked to give up further home games in the name of helping grow the sport internationally.

LoL, now we are gonna hear that Vikings are going to London and Jaguars are moving to new stadium in Michigan.  I cannot wait for season to start so all the people that are bored and start this stuff have something to do.

[duvaldude08]

Oh no! The vikings thinking of hosting multiple home games in London! I guess its a conspiracy. Their new stadium is a hoax and its not really being built.  This further explains the comment goodell made that got blown out of proporation. Looks like he indeed reached out to another team about hosting multiple home games.

With the Vikings opening a new stadium in 2016 and playing at the University of Minnesota's home stadium in 2014 and 2015, the decision to host a game in London this coming season may be the first of several games the Vikings play in England.

According to Neil Reynolds of NFLUK.com, Vikings V.P. of public affairs and stadium development Lester Bagley didn't rule out the possibility.  Bagley, per Reynolds, said that the Vikings want to see how the 2013 game against the Steelers goes at Wembley Stadium.

While some folks in Minnesota could be upset by the loss of three home games in three years, it’s better for the franchise to bite the bullet and sacrifice home games now.  Then, once they move into the new stadium, they'll be less likely to be asked to give up further home games in the name of helping grow the sport internationally.

LoL, now we are gonna hear that Vikings are going to London and Jaguars are moving to new stadium in Michigan.  I cannot wait for season to start so all the people that are bored and start this stuff have something to do.

No you have it all wrong. The Vikings stadium is "smoke in mirrors". The Jags and Vikes are both moving to London in 2016. Duh??!?!?

[JayBird]

Haha oh yes, silly me 

[duvaldude08]

Well the Jags and the city are having a press conference at 4. Its rumored to be about stadium improvements. Looks like we may be getting the scoreboards after all 

[KenFSU]

4:00 Press Conference today with Khan and the mayor.

Supposedly we will be getting some concrete plans on stadium renovations, including the big screens.