May 25, 2010

This is a really bad idea. Didn't the NFL learn anything after the 1967 NFL Championship Game, also known as the Ice Bowl. It was played in Green Bay at below zero temps. I hope weather does not influence the game or determine the winner in 2014.

posted by Shotput at 08:54 PM on May 25, 2010

It matters because there is money involved. A lot of money is being thrown around in the festivities before the game. All of that is much less fun when it is freezing.

posted by bperk at 09:22 PM on May 25, 2010

I live in New Jersey, about 20 miles from the new stadium, and while state officials claim so many benefits for the state, where will be most of the major activities -- mainly, the corporate events? New York City.

I would laugh heartily if there's a foot of snow, followed by sleet, before the game.

posted by jjzucal at 09:44 PM on May 25, 2010

All of that is much less fun when it is freezing.

The World Series in a snowstorm? Less fun. The Super Bowl? More fun. About effing time: and as Wetzel says, California's out of the reckoning, Arizona's dodgy, and Florida or the Georgia Bowl are just dull.

posted by etagloh at 12:10 AM on May 26, 2010

I'm sure there are many Packer fans that would disagree with you. I'd love to see a Super Bowl played in a snow storm.

The game is the same. The festivities surrounding the game won't be as much fun.

posted by bperk at 06:56 AM on May 26, 2010

I love it. If weather can make an impact during the season, it can make an impact during the Super Bowl. I don't care if any of the other festivities are affected.

I think that the Super Bowl should rotate such that every team gets an opportunity to host.

posted by bender at 08:01 AM on May 26, 2010

I think we can figure out a way to work that out.

I stand by my earlier comment.

posted by bender at 08:56 AM on May 26, 2010

The game is the same. The festivities surrounding the game won't be as much fun.

Detroit didn't have any problems with the festivities surrounding the game.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 09:29 AM on May 26, 2010

New York manages to throw a pretty good party on New Year's Eve.

I went there one and only one time. It was fun, but it was freezing cold. Maybe I am biased because I don't like cold weather, but the picture in Ying Yang's link does not make me envious that I missed it. I have only been to the Super Bowl festivities in Tampa. It was tons of fun, but I would take a pass if it was below 30 degrees.

posted by bperk at 10:35 AM on May 26, 2010

I think it is fair to move it around. I mean they played in a downpour 2 years ago. That weather affected the game. Unless you say, "All Superbowls must be played in a dome, weather can be a factor. Let it snow.

posted by Debo270 at 11:15 AM on May 26, 2010

I think it's great, and haungh ptui on domes. Bring on the snow!

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:25 AM on May 26, 2010

Forget the weather. This is just one more opportunity for the NFL to stick it to New Jersey. When I saw this news first last night it was on the ESPN2 news ticker: "NY-NJ area to host 2014 Super Bowl".

The game is being played in fraking New Jersey but no, that's not good enough, they have to add New York in or nobody would come, right?

posted by billsaysthis at 11:46 AM on May 26, 2010

Personally, I think the most fun thing about the Super Bowl in a cold weather city would be the effect of a wardrobe malfunction on Janet Jackson. Justin Timberlake wouldn't have needed to even lay a hand on her.

posted by NerfballPro at 01:06 PM on May 26, 2010

the superbowl is better played on a neutral field that should offer no advantage to either team.

Doesn't an indoor turf field offer an advantage to a speed oriented passing attack rather than a smashmouth defense oriented team? So teams are rewarded for designing a team around playing in ideal conditions, rather than the conditions they can expect to play in during the regular season.

And I think most of the bitching by the media types in Detroit centered around the fact that they were in Detroit, rather than that it was cold. New York and Chicago have a bit more to offer to placate media darlings and celebrities.

I am all for re-evaluating after the 2014 game, though, before jumping wholeheartedly onto the rotating stadium bandwagon. I'm just not ready to dismiss it as a terible idea until after the game is played. Gonna be great when it's 50 and sunny in Jersey that day.

posted by tahoemoj at 02:01 PM on May 26, 2010

Play it in the snow! I think Mark Henderson is still available to do his thing.

posted by Howard_T at 02:57 PM on May 26, 2010

Aside from gambling and drinking there is absolutely nothing worthwhile to do in Detroit.

So it's kind of like Reno without the sunshine?

posted by tahoemoj at 04:16 PM on May 26, 2010

LBB - I think I already explained that. In the regular season teams expect to have a home field advantage and can design a team around the typical conditions in their particular stadiums. Also playoff games are awarded to teams based on their seeding or records. So yes if you are the Packers you play all year to not only get to the playoffs but to earn the right to play in Green Bay during the playoffs and therefore the team that has to travel is penalized by their record and has to deal with the weather as well as other disadvantages. The Superbowl however should not favor any team from that standpoint as both teams have earned the right equally to play in favorable or neutral conditions.

A good example is the Chicago Bears. A team with a consistantly over rated defense. Why? Statistically half of all their games are in Chicago, a place not friendly to offensive football due to wind and cold. Then you combine that with an away game in in Green Bay also not great for scoring offense and two games against Detroit who can't score anywhere, and it is easy to see why a misleading points or yardage allowed statistics stack up in their favor. Actually for many years the whole division, which before the advent of dome stadiums was known as the black and blue division, because these conditions force a certain kind of team and football strategy to be effective.

It all is just part of the game and plays into the home field advantage fought for during the playoffs. It also is a reason why certain types of players may be better suited to some teams than others. When it comes to the Superbowl, I just feel a neutral site that does as little as possible to influence the game or give a particular team an extraordinary advantage will in the end make for a better game for the fans.

I know logistically it would be almost impossible, but I also think an alternative site should be selected so than there is no possibility either team could wind up playing the Superbowl at their home stadium, which is possible in 2014 for one or both of the teams. If the Jets or Giants make the game they will have an unfair advantage, of course that can happen now . If the Jets and Giants both make the game then I suppose it will work out perfectly.

posted by Atheist at 04:23 PM on May 26, 2010

The Superbowl however should not favor any team

The location is most likely always going to favor a team. If it is played in a dome, it is going to favor a dome team over a non-dome team. If it is played in the south in sunshine, it is going to favor a warm weather team over a cold weather team. Playing in New Jersey in winter is only going to favor an outside cold weather team if one by chance happens to make it to that particular Super Bowl and the opponent is not from a similar locale.

posted by graymatters at 05:52 PM on May 26, 2010

There are always going to be some factors that will play to one team better than another, but I can't understand holding the biggest football event and climax of the season in a location that has a high probability of conditions that would prevent the talent on the field from showing itself at it's best. I actually believe the players want to beat the best at their best, so even if a team were to win against a player like Drew Brees in part because the weather made passing almost impossible, they would feel cheated as the press would attribute their win not to defense but to the fact that they were aided by bad weather which changed the game. Nobody wants to win on a bad call, bad weather or critical injury. IMO when you win the Superbowl you want to have beaten a great team on an even playing field, with no valid excuses to tarnish the victory. Bad weather can happen anywhere outdoors, even in Miami, but the odds are very good that weather will be a factor the first week in February in the North East. Why even go there?

posted by Atheist at 06:50 PM on May 26, 2010

Some teams win in the trenches with rushing and defense. Inclement weather would showcase that kind of team. If a team -- let's say Dallas -- had to go through Green Bay and Philadelphia to get to the Super Bowl, it could face cold-weather conditions all the way up through the New York Super Bowl. Why is that a bad thing?

posted by rcade at 07:43 PM on May 26, 2010

Some teams win in the trenches with rushing and defense. Inclement weather would showcase that kind of team. If a team -- let's say Dallas -- had to go through Green Bay and Philadelphia to get to the Super Bowl, it could face cold-weather conditions all the way up through the New York Super Bowl. Why is that a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing.

However, Green Bay and Philadelphia would have the advantage of home field (and those conditions) because they did better in the regular season (and are therefore hosting the playoff game).

Until they announce that the top team in the regular season gets to host the Super Bowl (whether they are there or not), I see no reason to want to put the biggest game of the year in a position to be absolutely ruined by the weather.

By this logic, why not hold all 7 games of the Stanley Cup finals on outdoor rinks? A couple of teams played one game on an outdoor rink this year, therefore it should be good enough for the most important series of the year!

posted by grum@work at 09:22 PM on May 26, 2010

... I see no reason to want to put the biggest game of the year in a position to be absolutely ruined by the weather.

Twenty-eight of the first 33 NFL championships were played at cold-weather sites. The only ones that weren't were two in Washington D.C. -- which gets pretty cold itself in winter -- and three in L.A.

I don't think bad weather ruins football. It may ruin the pass-happy, don't touch the quarterback football that dominates today, but the game at its most epic has been played in snowy conditions. The NFC Championship game in 2007 was not ruined because it was played at Lambeau in below freezing conditions. You can't possibly tell me that beforehand, you weren't excited at the prospect of such an important game being settled on the frozen tundra.

posted by rcade at 01:19 AM on May 27, 2010

Twenty-eight of the first 33 NFL championships were played at cold-weather sites. The only ones that weren't were two in Washington D.C. -- which gets pretty cold itself in winter -- and three in L.A.

And forty-one of the first 44 Super Bowls have been played at warm-weather sites. The only ones that weren't were two in Detroit and one in Minneapolis -- which were indoors.

The Super Bowl is supposed to be a showcase game between the two teams that have made it through the playoffs. It is not supposed to be a showcase game between two teams fighting the elements while the fans in the stands suffer.

To understand this correctly, am I to assume the "pro-cold-weather-Super-Bowl" people would also be perfectly happy with the most important game of the season to be played in near-hurricane conditions? Torrential rain, blowing wind, sloppy field and obscured vision?

You can't possibly tell me that beforehand, you weren't excited at the prospect of such an important game being settled on the frozen tundra.

I thought it was great. Green Bay earned that home field advantage. However, there isn't supposed to be "home field advantage" in the Super Bowl, so that's why they choose a location with good playing conditions.

posted by grum@work at 08:43 AM on May 27, 2010

That's bullshit and you know it.

No, I don't know it. I understand your points, grum, but I don't agree with your reasoning. You used the words "absolutely ruined", which expresses a point of view that I completely disagree with. Stop trying to tell me what I "know"; you're not in charge of my opinion.

If you think playing the most important game of the year in sub-par conditions is a good idea, then I have to question your enjoyment of the game itself.

Oh, I'm in trouble now. Are you going to tear up my sports fan card? How about this instead: I'll question your need to try to establish ideal conditions for what is, after all, an outdoor sport played in this thing called "weather". Are you really watching the game being played, or are you just trying to turn an outdoor sport into something that might as well be a computer game?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:32 AM on May 27, 2010

It's like saying the NHL Stanley Cup playoffs are "too precious and fragile" when a team hosting the game can't maintain the ice properly and it gets slushy, thus dragging down the quality of play.

It's like saying the MLB World Series are "too precious and fragile" when the games are played in November and the players and fans are forced to wear winter clothes to play/watch, while pitchers lose the grip on the ball and the fielders get tight standing in the cold.

Those are not relevant comparisons. Ice conditions are controlled by the rinks and the league and are more or less the same across the league all season long. If a team does not properly maintain their ice, the league has an obligation to step in and put a stop to it. As for baseball, it is a spring and summer sport for a reason. Games are played in warm weather, and they cancel games for rain. I would love to see the baseball season shortened or condensed so that games are not played in late October and November.

Football, however, is played in fall and winter in whatever conditions are present at the time. That includes heat, cold, rain, snow, wind, or whatever. A prudent organization builds a team that can take advantage of the conditions in its home stadium but adapt to the conditions they may face on the road. Why, then, when weather and conditions are allowed to be a factor ALL SEASON LONG should it be the case that we eliminate those factors for the championship?

posted by bender at 11:11 AM on May 27, 2010

To me, it's less about the players and more about the fans.

The players adjust, and while the Patriots may have a slight advantage over the Chargers if it's really cold that day, I think it evens things out since the Chargers get that slight advantage if the game is in southern CA. Extreme weather can affect a game at any location, so I don't see the issue there.

As a fan, no way to I make a trip out of heading to the Super Bowl in New Jersey. Nothing against NJ, it's just that I'd rather spend a week in a sunny location and not have to wear a parka to the game. I've never actually attended a SB game, however, I have been in town for the festivities...both in MN and in warmer cities. I can honestly say that the fans in the warm weather cities had a much better time than those in MN did.

hopefully, football karma will come into play and both teams will be from similar environments, rendering the issue moot.

posted by dviking at 11:23 AM on May 27, 2010

Are you really watching the game being played, or are you just trying to turn an outdoor sport into something that might as well be a computer game?

Optimal playing conditions make the sport into "a computer game"?

You're nuts, or being deliberately obtuse or antagonistic.

I say that without knowing what you are thinking, but simply by what you are writing.

Those are not relevant comparisons. Ice conditions are controlled by the rinks and the league and are more or less the same across the league all season long. If a team does not properly maintain their ice, the league has an obligation to step in and put a stop to it. As for baseball, it is a spring and summer sport for a reason. Games are played in warm weather, and they cancel games for rain. I would love to see the baseball season shortened or condensed so that games are not played in late October and November.

But that's the point I'm making. Those are sub-optimal playing conditions.

They happen in certain locations for certain teams, and that is uncontrollable. There have been many cases where late-round NHL playoff games in warm weather climates have been hampered by sub-optimal ice conditions. And cold-weather baseball games happen and can't really be controlled. In both cases, the teams/fans would definitely like to be playing in better conditions.

And that's what the NFL has the opportunity to do with the Super Bowl. The game location is chosen well in advance at a location that can provide the best playing conditions available.

As yerfatma says, no one can seriously be arguing against a game being played in the best conditions possible, right?

posted by grum@work at 11:41 AM on May 27, 2010

Regardless of what anybody's personal opinion is. I am pretty certain that if the game were a repeat of last years Superbowl with two star QBs like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees, and the conditions are 30 MPH winds and horizontally blowing snow, the majority of fans, spectators, players and the NFL officials will consider it a big mistake to have scheduled the game in that location, and be disapointed. I am also sure that if weather is not a factor in the game, most will will be able to enjoy a game played in optimal conditions.

I have heard many announcer begin a football telecast with the words "it's a perfect day for football" and I believe most fans prefer that to "weather is going to be a big factor today".

I wonder who the halftime entertainment will be. I can just see Mick Jagger, Bono, Bruce Springsteen or Beyonce doing their thing in a blizzard while the fans take cover during halftime.

Probably the reason they are trying this in New York area is that there is the possibility that it could turn out great in a huge big money market which is home to two NFL teams. Frankly I can't even imagine they would ever consider Green Bay, Buffalo, New England, Pittsburgh, Washington, Cincinnati, Cleveland, or Philly. There is a reason they put a dome in Minnesota, despite the fact that the Vikings were notorious for loving to force teams to come through Minnesota during the playoffs and try to beat them in the freezing cold. Their team had a great advantage at home late in the year. Of course they also realized the game is played for the fans and frankly even the most die hard fans prefer to be comfortable during the games. More fans come to the stadium, they buy more cold beer, they spend more money. Oh yes the key word there is money which is what it is all about.

One reason the league might be willing to try this is, the New York area can still draw rich spectators for the weekend regardless of the game conditions because it is New York. What would millionaire jet setters do in Green Bay for a Superbowl weekend in February?

The other side of that coin of course is, if by chance weather is very bad, flights get delayed or canceled and those wealthy folks can get in or out of town the whole thing blows up in the leagues face. Another point have haven't heard anybody mention is that the networks pay huge money for the right to televise the game and count on the biggest advertising rates of any event. A bad weather game means less passing which means a faster running game clock and a shorter telecast, equals less commercials. Or they can make the players stand around in the freezing cold for a greater percentage of network time outs while they peddle products. Something I don't believe will help the bottom line for anyone.

posted by Atheist at 01:05 PM on May 27, 2010

Everything Atheist just said.

posted by yerfatma at 02:44 PM on May 27, 2010

Ok, but would you agree playing the game in a place where it could snow a great deal opens the door for a large problem? Talking about the aesthetics of the game is immaterial. I liked the Indy/ Chicago game in the pouring rain, but the Superbowl isn't designed for hard-core fans. It's designed to maximize revenue opportunities. If they care about fans at all, it's designed for the opposite of the hard-core fan, as an attempt to lure in the people who only watch one game a year.

posted by yerfatma at 05:11 PM on May 27, 2010

See "Super Bowl XVI"...

Cold-weather or warm-weather, indoors or outdoors, I don't think there is anything that could have saved people from the horror of being asked to watch "Up With People" perform at half-time.

posted by grum@work at 05:36 PM on May 27, 2010