How much longer until we read THIS story?

[yh]

"The South Florida rain is Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Atlanta, Glendale, New Orleans and possibly Indianapolis's gain as the National Football League has announced a new policy wherein all future Super Bowls not yet spoken-for will be played at venues featuring either a fully enclosed or retractable roof. While the official party line coming from the league is that this move is being made in the interest of minimizing the effect that adverse weather has on the quality of play in the sport's crowning contest, there can be no question that a gaggle of well-soaked sponsors had more than a sprinkling of input into this decision. The NFL's marquee event, long a setting for the country's largest corporate cocktail party, took a beating from a steady downpour during Super Bowl XLI at Dolphin Stadium. The foul weather did result in a small, slippery handful of botched plays - fairly well distributed between the Bears and Colts - but it certainly played into the decision of many holders of the game's high-dollar ducats to depart the stadium well before the presentation of the Vince Lombardi Trophy . . ."

I don' t know, folks. It seems to me that the sellout of the Super Bowl to the corporate cogs that turn the wheel of revenue for the league could certainly make the kind of demands to make this scenario a reality. Of the seven cities referenced above, only three of them feature fully enclosed stadia, accordingly, there's still a pretty good chance that four out of every seven future SB's will be played "outdoors." And there's also the notion that the imposition of such a policy will give owners of teams looking for new arenas or massive alterations to existing buildingds the kind of ammo they need to get their way - build us a retractable roof stadium and you'll get a seat in the Super Bowl rotation. Accordingly, I can see this new policy as something a bit more than a mere farfetched overreaction to the supersoaker that was yesterday's game.

I'm curious as to the thoughts of other people. . .

[infrared41]

The Super Bowl has been played in a downpour one time in 41 games. I doubt that's enough to change the policy. It was just bad luck. Sponsors aren't stupid, they aren't going to bail on the biggest "corporate cocktail party" over a rain shower.

[yh]

The Super Bowl has been played in a downpour one time in 41 games. I doubt that's enough to change the policy. It was just bad luck. Sponsors aren't stupid, they aren't going to bail on the biggest "corporate cocktail party" over a rain shower.

I admire your optimism and hope you're correct.

Sadly, I don't think you are.

[hrivnak]

I wouldn't doubt it.

Ironically, weather has been working AGAINST Atlanta the past couple of times the city has put in a bid. All because of an ice storm that nearly shut down the city for the 2000 Super Bowl (Rams-Titans).

Nevermind that it was the only time in the past 100 years that Atlanta faced that weather on that weekend. Apparently it's all the NFL SB committee remembers about Atlanta. So, I don't think it's far-fetched that "rain" will come up in every future discussion about Miami.

[jkrdevil]

I wouldn't doubt it.

Ironically, weather has been working AGAINST Atlanta the past couple of times the city has put in a bid. All because of an ice storm that nearly shut down the city for the 2000 Super Bowl (Rams-Titans).

Nevermind that it was the only time in the past 100 years that Atlanta faced that weather on that weekend. Apparently it's all the NFL SB committee remembers about Atlanta. So, I don't think it's far-fetched that "rain" will come up in every future discussion about Miami.

Well Miami is already scheduled to hold two more times in the next few years so if those are fine I think the rain will quickly be forgotten.

[whitedawg22]

Wow, San Diego got screwed. It's possibly the best location for the Super Bowl, and it almost never rains there, but I guess they're out.

[Luigi74]

There is no way the NFL replaces Miami, San Diego and Tampa with Detroit, Houston and Indy.

[leedsunited]

Poor corporate suits and hollywood celebs got wet. Boo hoo. Screw 'em.

[jkrdevil]

There is no way the NFL replaces Miami, San Diego and Tampa with Detroit, Houston and Indy.

I think they already have replaced San Diego until they build a new stadium. I remember hearing back at Super Bowl XXXVII that would be the last Super Bowl there because of the stadiums size and age. New Orleans might be in the same situation but I don't know because of Katrina and how that might play in the public. Had Katrina not happen it was possible that Super Bowl XXXVI in the Super Dome.

[Roger Clemente]

Well, I just read the story, so I don't have to wait any longer.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[CC97]

I can't wait for the day when they say media isn't allowed on the field after the game ends, maybe for say, 3-5 minutes... i hate when the players are trying to celebrate, or shake hands with the other team, and the media just really makes it hard for that to happen

[yh]

Poor corporate suits and hollywood celebs got wet. Boo hoo. Screw 'em.

If this was the prevailing attitude among NFL owners, we'd have seen several SB's played in Giants Stadium and Soldier Field by now.

There is no way the NFL replaces Miami, San Diego and Tampa with Detroit, Houston and Indy.

Don't try to use logic here. Remember, we're talking about placating corporate suits. A dry, comfortable environment for networking and backpatting is all they need. They don't care if it's sun-driven or roof and artificial heat driven.

Well, I just read the story, so I don't have to wait any longer.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

You, sir, are the winner here.

[buzzcut]

"The South Florida rain is Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Atlanta, Glendale, New Orleans and possibly Indianapolis's gain as the National Football League has announced a new policy wherein all future Super Bowls not yet spoken-for will be played at venues featuring either a fully enclosed or retractable roof. While the official party line coming from the league is that this move is being made in the interest of minimizing the effect that adverse weather has on the quality of play in the sport's crowning contest, there can be no question that a gaggle of well-soaked sponsors had more than a sprinkling of input into this decision. The NFL's marquee event, long a setting for the country's largest corporate cocktail party, took a beating from a steady downpour during Super Bowl XLI at Dolphin Stadium. The foul weather did result in a small, slippery handful of botched plays - fairly well distributed between the Bears and Colts - but it certainly played into the decision of many holders of the game's high-dollar ducats to depart the stadium well before the presentation of the Vince Lombardi Trophy . . ."

Do you have a link to this? I can't find it on Google News?

I don' t know, folks. It seems to me that the sellout of the Super Bowl to the corporate cogs that turn the wheel of revenue for the league could certainly make the kind of demands to make this scenario a reality. Of the seven cities referenced above, only three of them feature fully enclosed stadia, accordingly, there's still a pretty good chance that four out of every seven future SB's will be played "outdoors." And there's also the notion that the imposition of such a policy will give owners of teams looking for new arenas or massive alterations to existing buildingds the kind of ammo they need to get their way - build us a retractable roof stadium and you'll get a seat in the Super Bowl rotation. Accordingly, I can see this new policy as something a bit more than a mere farfetched overreaction to the supersoaker that was yesterday's game.

I'm curious as to the thoughts of other people. . .

Huh, Corporate America didn't like getting soaked on SB Sunday? It was the only the FIRST time in the history of the Super Bowl that it rained during the course of play. I hope they grow some and take it like real fans. Fans that would rather see a Super Bowl in Green Bay than in Miami, New Orleans or even San Diego.

(note: the space between some and and is purely intentional.)

[yh]

"The South Florida rain is Houston, Dallas, Detroit, Atlanta, Glendale, New Orleans and possibly Indianapolis's gain as the National Football League has announced a new policy wherein all future Super Bowls not yet spoken-for will be played at venues featuring either a fully enclosed or retractable roof. While the official party line coming from the league is that this move is being made in the interest of minimizing the effect that adverse weather has on the quality of play in the sport's crowning contest, there can be no question that a gaggle of well-soaked sponsors had more than a sprinkling of input into this decision. The NFL's marquee event, long a setting for the country's largest corporate cocktail party, took a beating from a steady downpour during Super Bowl XLI at Dolphin Stadium. The foul weather did result in a small, slippery handful of botched plays - fairly well distributed between the Bears and Colts - but it certainly played into the decision of many holders of the game's high-dollar ducats to depart the stadium well before the presentation of the Vince Lombardi Trophy . . ."

Do you have a link to this? I can't find it on Google News?

Heh, heh. I don't know whether to be insulted or flattered. That's pure riffing on my part based upon my cynical belief that the first truly soaking Super Bowl is going to force the NFL to reconsider allowing games to be played in venues that might leave their highest paying guests the least bit uncomfortable.

If guest comfort isn't going to be a top priority for the league, then it seems to me we should be seeing more Super Bowls played in northern climes. Green Bay or Chicago might be a stretch, but I would have to think that the chances of playing a sub-freezing Super Bowl in New York, Landover (or Raljon, whatever), Baltimore, Kansas City, Denver or Charlotte would be no worse than the chances it's going to rain in Miami on the first weekend in February. Any meteorologists or weather aficionados out there are free to set me straight if I'm mistaken. I'm certainly not above correcting myself if I'm wrong. Ask my wife.

[leedsunited]

Poor corporate suits and hollywood celebs got wet. Boo hoo. Screw 'em.

If this was the prevailing attitude among NFL owners, we'd have seen several SB's played in Giants Stadium and Soldier Field by now.

Which would be fine and dandy. Give the game back to the fans.

[Cyclopsis Joe]

After Super Bowl 34, I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped a city for a cool breeze.

Edit: Hey, there's this new punctuation mark, it's called, the, comma,.

[NJTank]

Well heres the thing that will save Miami the cooperate suits love going to South Beach for pre game parties. So that will keep it in Miami.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

this was the first time i really enjoyed the overall atmosphere of the Super Bowl. just with the aura of historical teams of the bears and colts and the rain, it felt like a real football game. i don't care if the corporate empty suits and the hollywierd celebs were soaked, some of the greatest games in football history was played in the conditions like rain, snow etc.

[DEAD!]

Poor corporate suits and hollywood celebs got wet. Boo hoo. Screw 'em.

If this was the prevailing attitude among NFL owners, we'd have seen several SB's played in Giants Stadium and Soldier Field by now.

Which would be fine and dandy. Give the game back to the fans.

Sure, if the fans can pony up the money to pay for those seats and more money for tickets. Fans do drive the NFL, but it's mostly through buying the sponsor's products.

[Huskyfan82]

It didn't rain nearly as much in this game, but it DID rain during Super Bowl XXIX in Miami also.....

David