Patriots to play in Mexico?
- Thread starter patoaflac
- Start date
We were one of the first to volunteer for the London games, right? 2009, I think?
Fat lot of good that goodwill did us with the league office. Unless it'll make Kraft a lot of money, I don't know why he'd stick his neck out on this one. The Raiders, Chargers, Cowboys and Cardinals have plenty of fans in Mexico, but the only thing that likes New England Patriots down there are the bacteria in the water.
Fat lot of good that goodwill did us with the league office. Unless it'll make Kraft a lot of money, I don't know why he'd stick his neck out on this one. The Raiders, Chargers, Cowboys and Cardinals have plenty of fans in Mexico, but the only thing that likes New England Patriots down there are the bacteria in the water.
wouldn't Raiders or Cardinals want Pats on their home field for ticket/concession sales?
Home
Kansas City Chiefs
San Diego Chargers
Atlanta Falcons
Carolina Panthers
AFC South Same Place Finisher
Miami Dolphins
New York Jets
Buffalo Bills
Away
Denver Broncos
Oakland Raiders
New Orleans Saints
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
AFC North Same Place Finisher
Miami Dolphins
New York Jets
Buffalo Bills
Kansas City Chiefs
San Diego Chargers
Atlanta Falcons
Carolina Panthers
AFC South Same Place Finisher
Miami Dolphins
New York Jets
Buffalo Bills
Away
Denver Broncos
Oakland Raiders
New Orleans Saints
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
AFC North Same Place Finisher
Miami Dolphins
New York Jets
Buffalo Bills
Is it better to play a team that's acclimated to playing a mile high in a city that's a mile high or in a city that's a mile-and-a-half high?
Oakland will probably be at least decent again next year and have ardent fans. I'd have no problem from a competitive edge playing that in Mexico City.
But lol at the NFL trying to expand in Mexico overall.
But lol at the NFL trying to expand in Mexico overall.
Yes. While I appreciate the implied mocking of those who think Ballghazi had anything to do with the weight of the balls, there are a few subtle effects that would reduce the weight of the balls. You tapped into my nerd brain enough to get me thinking about it, so I thought someone else might be interested in the result.
The most obvious is that the force of gravity decreases as you move away from the attracting object, the center of the earth in this case, as a function of 1/R^2. The article linked below came up with about 0.2% reduction for twice the altitude we are talking about, so this effect would be good for about 0.1% reduction without checking their math.
The second effect is latitude related rather than altitude related. As you move toward the equator, the anthropomorphized earth tries to fling you off harder. The ball would be moving faster at the equator than the poles, resulting in a centripetal force in the opposite direction to gravity which would reduce the effective weight. The article does the math one link further and comes up with 0.5% difference between the poles and the equator, but the function would not be linear and the difference between Foxboro and Mexico city is much less, so I'm guessing 0.1%-ish for this too.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/93-does-gravity-vary-across-the-surface-of-the-earth-intermediate
Then the actual amount of air in the ball would be slightly less because the ambient pressure is lower and the balls are set to a gauge pressure. I haven't totally thought through the bouyancy aspect, but it seems like it should be neutral. Anyway, since the weight of the ball comes mostly from the non-air contributions, this effect would be very small and difficult to measure. As such, this one is what Tom will be generally aware of.
Germany makes a lot of sense (and cents, obviously). There's a ton of American football fans there, way more than the UK. Games are shown on broadcast TV and get pretty solid ratings. And Germany produces actual NFL players.
I've been to a couple NFL games at Wembley and some other NFL stuff, and you can't walk 10 feet without hearing German.
It might be twice the altitude, but that's measuring from sea level. the formula you're referring to used R, which is the radius of the Earth. The weight difference would not be halved because the change in R between the two geographical locations is a few orders of magnitude lower then R.
All this is fun to think about, but the effects are negligible for the purposes of sport.
That was taken into account, and actually was the only reason why a linear approximation of change of gravity with altitude was appropriate. If you actually do the math, the effect of adding 7,382' in altitude to a 20,902,261' mean radius of the earth is a decrease of 0.071% in weight. Doubling the altitude to 14,764' would give a decrease of 0.141% in weight.
We are in total agreement on the impact of these effects.
Yes, of course, the inverse square law. I was thrown off by the fact that the altitude was halved and the weight loss doubled. I should have actually thought through the math
I'm hearing it is the Raiders game. The rumor that is popular in Raider fan circles is that the Raiders will play three in a row in Mexico City and Mark Davis had his choice of New England or Dallas to play in Mexico during the 2017 season and chose the team that is much less popular south of the border.
This could all be bullshit, it is just shit that people that are around our seats and park next to us at the Coliseum say, but they are usually right. Season ticket holders are pissed because the Pats tickets would sell for 2-3 times face on the ticket exchange.
This could all be bullshit, it is just shit that people that are around our seats and park next to us at the Coliseum say, but they are usually right. Season ticket holders are pissed because the Pats tickets would sell for 2-3 times face on the ticket exchange.
Last edited:
On the physics side, I thought the biggest difference was the much-reduced density of the outside air, which reduces drag and thus makes kickoffs, punts and FGs much longer, and I assume would make thrown balls sail a little bit.
Yes, there are real and significant effects. At that altitude, there would be a roughly 25% reduction in density relative to a game played at sea level at the same temperature and humidity. That would result in a 25% reduction in drag force throughout the flight of the ball. And then there are the physiological effects that have been well covered in Denver game discussions.
The joke about weighing balls just got me thinking about how significant any actual weight changes would be (unsurprisingly insignificant, but larger than I would have guessed).
Of course, last Monday we didn't see any bad overthrows on deep balls that seemed to surprise the Qbs, and the kickoffs and punts seemed pretty normal. I was hoping Marquette King would nail an 80 yarder or something like that and the kicking game all seemed fairly normal.
The real test will be tomorrow when the Texans and Raiders play again to see if there are any lingering affects on their bodies from the altitude and pollution. Oakland went down to only one pass practice this week specifically for that concern.
Weirdly, the NFL schedulers have them both playing teams with extra rest. Carolina is coming off a Thursday game prior to playing the Raiders and San Diego is coming off a bye before going to Houston.
Im thinking away with Raiders the home opponent. Raiders and Patriots are among the 5 most popular teams in Mexico
In Mexico they are saying it's Oakland because of the low attendance there; however, this may change if the Raiders go deep in post-season.
http://lifeandstyle.mx/deportes/2016/11/25/los-patriotas-jugarian-en-mexico-en-el-2017
http://lifeandstyle.mx/deportes/2016/11/25/los-patriotas-jugarian-en-mexico-en-el-2017
It seems weird to make Oakland play in Mexico two years in a row (and possibly three according to Gunfighter), but this could be one situation where Mark Davis doesn't mind since he is moving the team and, thus, possibly looking to expand his fanbase as much as possible. Also, he might want to garner favor with the league (insert joke here) and doesn't care about pissing off the Oakland locals since he already will with the move.
The Raiders sent out their season ticket renewal info today and it indicates that 10 games will be played in Oakland next year, including the Pats. The date to get the maximum rewards for paying for your tickets in full is 3 March, which is before the schedule & dates release announcement.
So, either the Mexico City thing is not going to happen in 2017, or the Raiders are going to be granting many refunds.
So, either the Mexico City thing is not going to happen in 2017, or the Raiders are going to be granting many refunds.
This is strictly anecdotal, but I definitely remember an ESPN Deportes reporter leading up to this year's game in Mexico City saying the Raiders, Cardinals, Cowboys, and Patriots all had huge followings in Mexico. He said the reason the Patriots were popular, unsurprisingly, was because of how they were thought of as "winners".
If that's true, I can definitely understand why the league would be eager to put them on the ticket for the next Mexico City game.
If that's true, I can definitely understand why the league would be eager to put them on the ticket for the next Mexico City game.
This link says that the Pats are anxious to play in Mexico next year; Oakland will host the game.
http://laaficion.milenio.com/americano/new_england_patriots-patriotas_de_nueva_inglaterra-nfl_mexico-tom_brady-milenio_0_893910992.html
http://laaficion.milenio.com/americano/new_england_patriots-patriotas_de_nueva_inglaterra-nfl_mexico-tom_brady-milenio_0_893910992.html
Eh, I think it's currently the hep reason to hate on the Patriots.
http://deadspin.com/a-certain-fancy-dog-might-not-share-that-opinion-1791808149
The thing that irks me is that Brady never officially endorsed Trump. He had that hat in his locker, what, a year ago? 15 months ago? Back when Trump's candidacy was still basically a lark, so when he was asked about it Brady said "Sure, it would be great to have [my golf buddy] as president, why not?" And then when asked to discuss the actual politics of it, he declined to comment. And his wife said they both voted for Clinton (which may or may not be bullshit, but still), and he declined to comment on that. So in the realm of athletes supporting Trump, Brady is at like a 3/10.
He shouldn't have put that hat in the locker, no doubt. But I just have a hard time getting worked up about a guy who goes out of his way to NOT talk about non-football topics NOT talk about Trump.
You better apologize for voting for the guy I don't like! Everyone better or else...nothing!
That "Revolvution" guy in the comments with the familiar-looking avatar had quite the repartee.
There's a certain amount of truth to the idea that if you don't want to be asked about your politics, don't make a political statement. Pats fans are sympathetic to Brady basically saying "hey, I wasn't trying to make a political statement", which he probably wasn't. But for every neutral observer, at the moment, anything connected to Trump is a third rail - whatever someone believes, you're either with 'em or you're against 'em.
Brady has nothing to gain right now, on fahkin' super bowl week, by clarifying that he wasn't trying to make a political statement. But I would be only mildly shocked if he clarified that in the offseason sometime, perhaps through some sympathetic reporter doing a long-form piece with context.
The thing is, Brady put the hat in the locker 16 months ago. Nobody was taking Trump seriously in September, 2015. He was a sideshow. Huffington Post had him in the Entertainment section.
Meanwhile, it is now Super Bowl week. Of course he's not going to say anything about it now, of all times. It's ludicrous to think that he will. Nobody (aside from Bennett) has said anything remotely interesting about politics. Suggesting that Brady should be expected to make a national statement about Trump's actions over the past week because he jokingly supported him 16 months ago is absurd. And, frankly, there's nothing...NOTHING...that Brady could say that would silence the critics, anyway. If he came out and said "Donald Trump is a fascist pig, I can't believe I even ever considered him my friend!" then Deadspin would skewer him for being his friend in the first place.
Would I prefer that Brady have said something (say, a month ago) indicating he didn't vote for Trump? Sure. But ultimately, I never look to sports figures for political guidance, and nor should anyone else, so it's just not that big of a deal.
Meanwhile, it is now Super Bowl week. Of course he's not going to say anything about it now, of all times. It's ludicrous to think that he will. Nobody (aside from Bennett) has said anything remotely interesting about politics. Suggesting that Brady should be expected to make a national statement about Trump's actions over the past week because he jokingly supported him 16 months ago is absurd. And, frankly, there's nothing...NOTHING...that Brady could say that would silence the critics, anyway. If he came out and said "Donald Trump is a fascist pig, I can't believe I even ever considered him my friend!" then Deadspin would skewer him for being his friend in the first place.
Would I prefer that Brady have said something (say, a month ago) indicating he didn't vote for Trump? Sure. But ultimately, I never look to sports figures for political guidance, and nor should anyone else, so it's just not that big of a deal.
Last edited:
I wonder when we will get a confirmed date for the game. It looks like they announced the date last year when the game was announced. In the meantime, I've got a bunch of prospective hotel bookings.
I wonder if this will have any potential impact on the 2018 schedule. The Pats have Jacksonville as a road opponent, I was thinking that game would end up in London (Pats have played there in 2009 and 2012), but that may not happen now?
Reasonable question. Do you think they would not a be a London 2018 possibility because the NFL would want some diversity in these games or because the Pats would balk at it? From the Pats standpoint, I'd imagine the chance at neural field game is seen as a big benefit.
The former. I don't think the Pats would balk.
That being said, there are 5 scheduled international games in 2017, so that makes 10 teams. Haven't checked to see if any teams have played internationally in back to back seasons. Checking now.
Jacksonville plays in London every year.
Miami played there in 2014 and 2015.
Detroit played there in 2014 and 2015.
Raiders in Mexico 2016 and 2017.
I couldn't go in 2012 due to life circumstances, and 2009 wasn't really on the table either, but I think I would be highly likely to go to a Pats game in London if they play there in 2018