U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-20-2014, 05:53 PM
 
Location: Northville, MI
11,882 posts, read 11,171,999 times
Reputation: 6320

Advertisements

Forecast for the Superbowl is 30 F, calm, and overcast. Cold, but hardly Arctic cold. Not a place you want to spend long time partying outside, but hardy fans could take those heated seats in the New Meadowlands stadium and tough it out if dressed heavily. I for one am more worried about the traffic situation. Local jersey folks will likely avoid major freeways like the plague on that day. I am staying in my house that evening watching the superbowl from my warm 65 F abode .

Finally, Pitt would be a terrible place to hold a Superbowl. You hardly have the infrastructure to support it. Chicago is a better choice.

 
Old 01-20-2014, 06:04 PM
 
Location: southwestern PA
20,419 posts, read 37,664,790 times
Reputation: 39054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adi from the Brunswicks View Post

Finally, Pitt would be a terrible place to hold a Superbowl. You hardly have the infrastructure to support it. Chicago is a better choice.
What are you talking about? Care to elaborate?
 
Old 01-20-2014, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Northville, MI
11,882 posts, read 11,171,999 times
Reputation: 6320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitt Chick View Post
What are you talking about? Care to elaborate?
I dont want the superbowl to be played in shi**y turf, OK. Now, more than the weather, thats what provides a unfair balence in talent. Give us a clean turf to play on, and I accept that Pitt can host a Superbowl. Deal .

ESPN.com: NFL - Teams shouldn't tear up grass fields just yet
 
Old 01-20-2014, 06:13 PM
 
Location: southwestern PA
20,419 posts, read 37,664,790 times
Reputation: 39054
Lol!
 
Old 01-20-2014, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
17,032 posts, read 26,882,421 times
Reputation: 16190
Greed.

it should rotate between Florida, new Orleans, Texas, phoenix and SoCal.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 02:01 AM
 
Location: Viña del Mar, Chile
16,411 posts, read 26,242,811 times
Reputation: 16496
Unless there is a regulation on how the stadium must be, I think the Superbowl should be able to be played at any stadium.

It isn't greed.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 03:51 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
14,330 posts, read 19,547,612 times
Reputation: 18436
They're getting paid well. I don't see a problem with it.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 07:26 AM
 
Location: Born & Raised DC > Carolinas > Seattle > Denver
9,349 posts, read 5,569,348 times
Reputation: 9446
I agree with the OP. I'm not a fan at all of the outdoor Superbowl. I understand what the NFL is trying to do, but I don't like it.

The two best teams in the league are going at it, and I don't want any x-factors like wind or snow to have an impact.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
21,328 posts, read 21,900,953 times
Reputation: 33512
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton View Post
This is probably a small thing in the universe, but, what is the point of playing the SB outdoors in the middle of the winter, in an Arctic climate??

OK, somebody probably got paid money to locate this venue (as in sending a Buffalo and a San Diego team to Boise, Idaho to play a bowl game). But, after these NFL teams played entire seasons to get where they are, it makes no sense to potentially sabotage one or both with ridiculous playing conditions. Of course, that probably makes as much sense as the proposed notion of playing a future SB in London(?)

What am I missing here? .... Is this just American greed at work, or something else?
I agree completely, but I would take this a step further and have regular season games that are played in inclement weather only count half as much, games where it's nice out should have a factor of 1.5 applied to them. Statistics compiled during these games should also be adjusted accordingly.
 
Old 01-21-2014, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Viña del Mar, Chile
16,411 posts, read 26,242,811 times
Reputation: 16496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
I agree completely, but I would take this a step further and have regular season games that are played in inclement weather only count half as much, games where it's nice out should have a factor of 1.5 applied to them. Statistics compiled during these games should also be adjusted accordingly.

Well, this is actually a terrible idea. There would be no standard in the season, and how would rankings be determined?

Weather does not determine a game, both teams are playing in the same conditions. Are we really having this discussion? Are we really afraid because Peyton might have some cold hands? What is this, a soccer game where Jose is down on the field crying because someone almost stepped on his foot again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Sports > Pro Football
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top