Sign in to follow this  
falcons007

Superbowl XLVIII

Recommended Posts

Every team should be able to win in every enviroment. How is catering to warm-weather teams better? Elements have always been a part of football, and since the 1966 season, with a few exceptions, elements have been removed from the game. It's about time they came back into the most important game, even if it is just a one-off event.

Fans will be CHEERING, WISHING for there to be snow. I know i'll be one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every team should be able to win in every enviroment. How is catering to warm-weather teams better? Elements have always been a part of football, and since the 1966 season, with a few exceptions, elements have been removed from the game. It's about time they came back into the most important game, even if it is just a one-off event.

Fans will be CHEERING, WISHING for there to be snow. I know i'll be one of them.

Not coincidentally, the removal of "elements" from the game helped turn the league from "Fly by night group of franchises that make a tiny fraction of what they do today and provide occasional diversion in between the World Series and Spring Training" to "Multi-Billion Dollar monolith that dominates the American sporting scene year-round with mostly solid organizations." "Any Given Sunday" and the propensity of gambling on the league, along with the revenues those generate, are only possible because of the removal of elements.

Elements are great when you're fly by night. Elements are not great when you're a billion dollar business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I knew NYC was going to get the game the minute the three finalists were announced. That aside, I think it's GREAT that NYC will get to host the game.

For those of you who're bitching about it being a cold-weather city, STFU: unless you've got at least $10K to pay for a ticket, you won't have to endure it. Oh, and STFU AGAIN: anyone remember Super Bowl XLI, played in warm weather but a torrential downpour? I didn't hear many people bitching about it then, "Oh, it's great for the game!" was what I read here and elsewhere for the most part, and this will be too, no matter the weather conditions.

For those of you bitching about it being New York, STFU: it's as good a place to host a Super Bowl as any. Palo Alto has hosted a Super Bowl, for Christ's sake... why not NYC?

While I don't anticipate seeing this starting any kind of trend (sorry, but I don't see a Super Bowl in DC's or Pittsburgh's future), as a once in a while (once every 5 to 10 years) event, it's a great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, the removal of elements is what did all that. Not television. Not greater media exposure, not the advent of sports-talk radio, it was saying "Hey, let's hold the super bowl in a warm weather city". THAT'S the magic bullet that sent the NFL skyrocketing to being the monster it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every team should be able to win in every enviroment. How is catering to warm-weather teams better? Elements have always been a part of football, and since the 1966 season, with a few exceptions, elements have been removed from the game. It's about time they came back into the most important game, even if it is just a one-off event.

Fans will be CHEERING, WISHING for there to be snow. I know i'll be one of them.

Agreed. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing snow for the Super Bowl when it's in New Jersey in 2014. That might be a classic game.

Plus, some of the best games in NFL history have been in bad weather. The Ice Bowl, anyone? How about the Tuck Rule Game? Hell, even Super Bowl XLI was played in the rain and I bet anyone that the one thing people remember about that game was the weather. It was the first time it rained during the game.

The elements are one of the biggest draws of the game itself. Taking that out basically means you might as well call it 'Overgrown Arena Football'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ok, Rams... while everyone else is enjoying the Super Bowl in 2014, you can sit in your room and pout about how awful it must be to be playing in New Jersey in February, those poor players making millions of dollars and playing for a championship.

"Poor fellas. I hope they give them some hot coco..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone pointed out before, some of the classic and great games were played in the frigid weather and are memorable. Whereas some of the worst games have been played in the domes and the fair weather Super Bowl sites. More people remember the Ice Bowl, the game between the Chargers and the Bengals, and even the Tuck Rule game, than XXwhatever Super Bowl blowout. Heck, even "The Drive" was played in bad conditions. Oh, and let's not forget the Leon Lett, "Don't touch it!!!" Thanksgiving day game that was played in the snow. This whole idea that somehow if it snows or there's bad weather is going to ruin the Super Bowl and the NFL, is pure crap and those typing it know it. The ratings for a snow Super Bowl will be larger than one could imagine. The Super Bowl by most sports fans is the Super Bore, let's bring a new element to it that it's long needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's ok, Rams... while everyone else is enjoying the Super Bowl in 2014, you can sit in your room and pout about how awful it must be to be playing in New Jersey in February, those poor players making millions of dollars and playing for a championship.

"Poor fellas. I hope they give them some hot coco..."

Ehh...I'll watch it and if the game is good I'll like it.

I do, however, think the media commentary may veer away from "It's good for the game" to something closer (albeit still more positive) to what we saw with Detroit and Jacksonville, and what we will likely see in 2011 for Indy when it actually is time for that Super Bowl. Kind of a middle ground between "Woohoo this is AWESOME" and "Why the :censored: did the League award a Super Bowl to this place?"

I could also take solace in it being a one time deal unless the NFL plugs New York into the rotation full time. Or in the knowledge of the awesome pending Rams hosted Super Bowl in Los Angeles later that decade. :P

/Kinger-wank

-----------------------------

EDIT-I'm feeling delusional. I just thought of something that "should" give Kinger another boner. Let's crack the roof in Indy if it's a blizzard there. It should be awesome, right? Let's do it for science(!)

/OK, there is that minor problem of the stadium not being designed and outfitted to have an open roof when there is precipitation, but we can work around that.

--------------------------------

On third thought, what irks me with this the most is that it is an aberration in Super Bowl scheduling. If the NFL had made a habit of playing outdoor Super Bowls in the cold in the past, or seriously planned on plugging New York into the Super Bowl rotation every 3 or 4 years, I'd probably be fine with this. Instead we likely have a league that (ironically) is increasing its emphasis on high powered precision passing attacks saying to the 2013-14 Conference champs (one of which, at least, likely did get to the game with such an offense) "Oh, Bad luck dear chaps. You get to play in the one cold, possibly snowy, outdoor Super Bowl for the next 3 to 4 decades."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... and wait until winter weather shuts down the NY area airports for 3 days the week before the game and none of the big shots can get there.

Winter weather could have shut down Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in 1992 and Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in 1982 and 2006. That didn't stop the NFL suits from awarding Super Bowls XVI, XXVI and XL to the Pontiac Silverdome, Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome and Ford Field.

This was a "done deal". The Giants and Jets each ponied-up $650-million in financing towards construction of the New Meadowlands Stadium. The State of New Jersey has spent another $300-million to improve road and rail access to the facility. The NFL regards granting this Super Bowl to the teams and market as a way of rewarding them for successfully getting the stadium built - particularly because said success occurred during a miserable economic downturn. Further, like it or not, the New York City Metropolitan Area is viewed far differently by NFL leadership than any other market is. Factor all of that into the mix and there was never any doubt that Super Bowl XLVIII was going to the New Meadowlands Stadium.

It isn't as if the league is going to make a habit of granting Super Bowls to open-air stadia in cold-weather markets. This will likely be a "one-and-done". One thing was certain: the possibility of bad weather wasn't going to impact the bid one iota. Look, the possibility of a "storm of the century" hitting NYC on or around Super Bowl Sunday wasn't going to impact this bid. It simply wasn't. The potential for a devastating earthquake striking California without warning exists all of the time, but that hasn't stopped the NFL from playing 11 Super Bowls in the state.

The NFL owners also gave the project a $300 million loan as part of the league's G3 funding program. I can see the hassle which coaches will complain about by staying in Manhattan, but busing to the practice facilities in NJ daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ has plenty of hotels. I doubt the teams will be staying in Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ed48319d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one that thinks that the main reason that the media is against the New York SB is because it'll "take away from their working vacation?" Seriously, journalists are angered. Quite honestly, they could play the Super Bowl in the parking lot of Paulie's Pizzeria and it would sell out like a normal Super Bowl, gain massive ratings like a normal Super Bowl, and have 2 teams that could absolutely care less where the Super Bowl is held and just be happy to have a chance to win the Super bowl, like a normal Super Bowl.

Seriously, that's all the media did for the Detroit & Minneapolis Super Bowl coverage: Complain. "It's so cold! Why aren't we in LA? Why aren't we in Miami? Why not have the Super Bowl in New Orleans for the 9882th time?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arrrr... the team I happen to root for plays in cold weather and is TOUGH!!! The team you happen to root for plays in a dome and is sissies!!! Therefore I'm tough and you're a sissy!!! Arrrrr!!!!!!

I hate domed teams as much as anyone, but there's something to be said to playing for home field advantage. It's a big risk to build your team to succeed in the dome environment, so you really have to play hard to earn home field throughout the conference playoffs. It kind of sucks to earn the right to play in your warm climate or your dome only to "win" the right to play in 20" of snow (not sure about NY, but Phila. had multiple >20" blizzards in February.) You should be able to play in everything, but you can't account for slips and slides and other stuff that plays counter to how the teams were built. The warm weather or dome benefits noone, because (as pointed out) the "arrr, TOUGH!!!" team is not at any disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you bitching about it being New York, STFU: it's as good a place to host a Super Bowl as any. Palo Alto has hosted a Super Bowl, for Christ's sake... why not NYC?

Palo Alto's average high in February is 62 degrees, the average low is 43 degrees

New York City's average high in February is 41, the average low is 28 degrees

Average precipitation is nearly identical, though.

And I don't wanna knock the NYC Super Bowl idea, I actually like the idea of the Super Bowl played in snow. What I don't like is the doors it can potentially open. I could be wrong, but I feel that now you're going to see other cold weather outdoor cities bitching about wanting the Super Bowl. I'm not a big fan of the idea because if that's the case, you'll eventually see a game where the weather most certainly helped to determine the outcome. That doesn't bother me all that much, but what bothers me is the idea of teams like New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, or whatever cold weather city getting to the Super Bowl in a cold weather city and playing a team like the Chargers or Buccaneers. Even worse, lets say the Giants or Jets get to that Super Bowl and then play a warm weather city. Not only do you have the fans to contend with (that's always been a possibility), but you then have the conditions to contend with as well. How is that fair? It's just too much of an uphill battle IMO. If they really wanted to spread out the Super Bowls to more cities and make it fair, they'd in the very least rotate it between all the stadiums in the NFL. That way it'd fall along the same lines of a home team Super Bowl. It's just how the cards fall. But the way it's set up now, only a handfull of teams can even get the chance. The idea of owners like Dan Snyder pushing every year for a Super Bowl to be held in conditions similar to their home conditions is a bit of a concern to me. And I don't buy the argument that some cities don't have the infrastructure to host a Super Bowl. If Green bay or Buffalo were to get a chance, they'd make it work, just like Jacksonville did.

But that'll NEVER happen, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who're bitching about it being a cold-weather city, STFU: unless you've got at least $10K to pay for a ticket, you won't have to endure it. Oh, and STFU AGAIN: anyone remember Super Bowl XLI, played in warm weather but a torrential downpour? I didn't hear many people bitching about it then, "Oh, it's great for the game!" was what I read here and elsewhere for the most part, and this will be too, no matter the weather conditions.

I don't recall much of that sentiment. Indeed, whatever of that sentiment did exist likely did because the Bears, who had a theoretical advantage due to the weather, lost. Given how outmatched the Bears were by the Colts on paper, I could easily see a world in which we have "Rex Grossman: Super Bowl winning QB" , being a world in which the NFL was very reluctant to play its Super Bowls outdoors. And honestly, I do recall that there was a fair amount of speculation that the NFL would phase out outdoor Super Bowls immediately following that game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A team built to play outside in November and December is at a disadvantage because they are built with players who may not be as fast, but who are stronger and can play through bad weather and bad field conditions. A dome/warm weather team is built with track stars who can only be track stars is ideal conditions that benefit them. Having the game in a warm weather city or dome stadium, where it's Northern team vs Warm Weather team benefits the warm weather team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJ has plenty of hotels. I doubt the teams will be staying in Manhattan.

Peter King said that teams will fly into EWR and stay in NJ. 2014 is a ways away, but in terms of full service accommodations near the complex, there is a Crowne Plaza and a Marriott. The media will be out of Manhattan. I am still surprised that it took all four rounds for the site to be determined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what Rich Eisen said on NFL Network, the only venue to win on the first ballot since they began the voting process for Super Bowls was the Georgia Dome (which was just starting construction) and Atlanta in 1990.

So the fact this went to all 4 rounds isn't that surprising...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Green bay or Buffalo were to get a chance, they'd make it work, just like Jacksonville did. But that'll NEVER happen, of course.

Considering that the league kind of said "Never Again" regarding a Jacksonville Super Bowl afterwards, and the general "Jacksonville has failed as an expansion market" line of thought that is so present today pretty much took off after Super Bowl XXXIX, I wouldn't say they "made it work."

Also its kind of hard to drive modern cruise liners (which was a large part of how Jacksonville "made it work") to Lake Erie and Green Bay, let alone park them there. Especially in winter.

The Green Bay metropolitan area has 300,000 people and recreational facilities for the same (minus the giant stadium). I have no statistical basis to make this claim, but I suspect you'd see at least 150,000 out of towners show up for the week. Finding things for them to do, and places in which they can stay (I suspect every hotel room between there and Racine would be booked) is a problem bordering on an impossibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A team built to play outside in November and December is at a disadvantage because they are built with players who may not be as fast, but who are stronger and can play through bad weather and bad field conditions. A dome/warm weather team is built with track stars who can only be track stars is ideal conditions that benefit them. Having the game in a warm weather city or dome stadium, where it's Northern team vs Warm Weather team benefits the warm weather team.

Interesting. I'm pretty sure your cold weather teams do just as well in September and October as they do in November and December. So warm weather (at least by the standards of February in the Southern US or room temperature) does not appear to actually disadvantage the teams in the manner that you claim it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this