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.
I think Superbowls should be played somewhere were they know the conditions are as good as possible. At the same time, that isn't fair to other cities with colder winter climate.
Why? There is no good reason for this to be true. Football is an outdoor sport and is played in whatever conditions are at the time. The same differences in conditions apply to all regular season games, and all games up to the conference championship games. The superbowl should be no different.
Why? There is no good reason for this to be true. Football is an outdoor sport and is played in whatever conditions are at the time. The same differences in conditions apply to all regular season games, and all games up to the conference championship games. The superbowl should be no different.
See Olidog's post above yours. I heard from people who went to the SB in Minneapolis and they said it sucked. The experience is the entire trip, not just the 4 hour game,
At first I was hoping for horrible weather to show up Goddell and Mara for this stupid idea. But now I want perfect weather so Peyton can paint Richard Sherman's ass bright red.
See Olidog's post above yours. I heard from people who went to the SB in Minneapolis and they said it sucked. The experience is the entire trip, not just the 4 hour game,
At first I was hoping for horrible weather to show up Goddell and Mara for this stupid idea. But now I want perfect weather so Peyton can paint Richard Sherman's ass bright red.
Everyone knows where the game is before they buy the ticket. There are lots of benefits to having the game a couple of miles from NYC, and the drawbacks are known well before. People go to football games in the cold all the time and people in NYC go outside and walk around outside in the city and go to all sorts of events all year round.
Everyone knows where the game is before they buy the ticket. There are lots of benefits to having the game a couple of miles from NYC, and the drawbacks are known well before. People go to football games in the cold all the time and people in NYC go outside and walk around outside in the city and go to all sorts of events all year round.
It's the Super Bowl so people will always go regardless of the location. Sure people go to football games in cold weather all the time but this is not another game, it's the Super Bowl. No doubt NYC has more to offer than Minneapolis but I would still think the majority of fans would prefer 80 degrees. And the game is supposed to be about the fans.
Regarding the game itself IMO weather should never effect the Super Bowl. If a playoff game is played in Seattle in bad weather which clearly gave the Hawks an advantage over a team like New Orleans, no problem. The Hawks won all year and earned that home field advantage. But the SB is different, it's never supposed to be give an advantage to one team. If it's snow or sleet or cold rain are you really prepared to argue that this would not favor the team that relies on defense and a ground game over a team that relies on the pass?
It's the Super Bowl so people will always go regardless of the location. Sure people go to football games in cold weather all the time but this is not another game, it's the Super Bowl. No doubt NYC has more to offer than Minneapolis but I would still think the majority of fans would prefer 80 degrees. And the game is supposed to be about the fans.
Regarding the game itself IMO weather should never effect the Super Bowl. If a playoff game is played in Seattle in bad weather which clearly gave the Hawks an advantage over a team like New Orleans, no problem. The Hawks won all year and earned that home field advantage. But the SB is different, it's never supposed to be give an advantage to one team. If it's snow or sleet or cold rain are you really prepared to argue that this would not favor the team that relies on defense and a ground game over a team that relies on the pass?
Football is an outside game. I disagree with you that the superbowl is different, it's not different. It's the same as the NFC or AFC championship game and since that game can have the conditions affect the game, there is no issue with the weather affecting how the superbowl is played.
There is no reason the superbowl can't be played in the same conditions as every other game. There is no reason to allow weather conditions to affect games in any which way during every regular season game, all the playoff games but then decide, the conditions should be perfect for the superbowl.
But to answer your question, of course the weather will be an advantage to one team and a disadvantage to another, but that's football, and the superbowl is a football game. Conditions will vary and will always give an advantage to someone, good conditions will be a disadvantage to teams who spent their resources building their teams to account for poor conditions(bigtime running game and defense), versus other teams who built their teams to pass like new Orleans. Differing conditions are part and parcel of an outdoor game, there is no reason to accept them as such for every game during the regular season every game during the playoffs and then decide they are not acceptable during the superbowl.
I find the argument for a warm weather venue specious. Maybe a dome, but a warm weather venue doesn't guarantee anything.
The worst conditions I've ever seen for a championship game was the 1983 AFC Championship between the Jets and Dolphins played in Miami in what was basically a swamp. Nine turnovers, less than 500 total yards between the two teams. Miami won 14-0. Luckily nobody drowned.
Conditions were horrible. Embarrassing even. But it happened in Miami, at the Orange Bowl, where they also played multiple Super Bowls. So it could've easily have happened in the Super Bowl as well. The NFL got lucky it never did.
London? don't give commissioner Goddell any ideas!
That's where I got the idea ... In case you hadn't noticed, there are several January articles in the news regarding the possibility of holding a future Super Bowl in London .... which makes slightly less sense than holding one on the NJ 'ice flow.'
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?
Why keep score ? That way, nobody looses, everybody feels good and everybody's equal. Football is meant to be played in the elements, don't try to turn it into a sissy sport like soccer.
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.
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.
