December 15, 2003

The Super Bowl shouldn't risk being played with snowshoes.: After the Jets beat the Steelers in an ugly 6-0 game in the snow, the New York Times says the Super Bowl should never be played in the snow. "At the Super Bowl, you want more than a result. You want both teams at least to be able to perform at their best. And you want a sellout crowd."

posted by kirkaracha to football at 10:49 AM - 23 comments

I think the Super Bowl should always be played outside, on grass.

posted by kirkaracha at 10:49 AM on December 15, 2003

I think football is not about tropical weather, SoCal sun, and warm ocean breezes. At least, not necessarily. It is a game in which weather plays a role. Deliberately scheduling it indoors or south of the Mason-Dixon line makes no sense to me.

posted by rocketman at 10:57 AM on December 15, 2003

Football is a winter sport and once in a while, every fifth or sixth year, ought to be played outdoors in a cold weather location such as Giants Stadium, Lincoln Field or Gillette.

posted by billsaysthis at 10:57 AM on December 15, 2003

Football is a war-game, and all wars took place within 15 degrees of the equator. (This conclusion follows from the Predator's heat-to-violence correlation) NFL: Never Frozen Legs; all domes, all the time.

posted by garfield at 11:13 AM on December 15, 2003

ALL American football playoff games (including the Super Bowl) should be played in the stadium of the higher seeded team. I don't care if that means Denver or Miami. But the NFL is all about the benjamins, and worries more about the 8 hours of bull$hit pre-game, and teenie boppers lip synching at half time. If the Super Bowl is to be played at a neutral site, then perhaps a single LARGE stadium should be the permanent location, much like Millennium Stadium.

posted by scully at 12:42 PM on December 15, 2003

Terrapin, not a bad idea but I don't think there is a suitable stadium in the US nor a good place to build one unless the NFL decides to permanently cross Los Angeles off the list of potential team sites. Or maybe San diego if the chargers move the 90 minutes north. But then you run into the other problem, which is that the SB currently spreads the wealth generated among cities which host franchises. That's why we need cold weather host sites, so NJ, Boston, GB, Seattle, Cleveland, Baltimore and Pittsburgh can share the wealth.

posted by billsaysthis at 12:55 PM on December 15, 2003

Jesus Christ, terrapin, my eyes damn near exploded when I linked to that page. Day-glo vomit ... As much as I'd love to see a Super Bowl in Lambeau Field, how many of you would like to spend $1,000 on a ticket to sit in -30 wind chill? And how about partying for three days in downtown Green Bay? Woo! Making high-dollar ticket buyers comfortable and keeping them entertained is important, which is why you will always have the same tropical or indoor locations in the rotation.

posted by wfrazerjr at 02:47 PM on December 15, 2003

I vote for Edmonton.

posted by taupe at 09:01 PM on December 15, 2003

Yea...As much as I like being fair to all teams involved, the cold is just miserable.... The super bowl is going to be seriously less profitable if it's that cold. As fun as that game is for all parties involved, the general fun-level goes down a few notches in cryogenic temperatures.

posted by fanaroo at 11:40 PM on December 15, 2003

I know you can play American football in freezing cold weather. The question is, why should you? Surely it makes much more sense for the indoor sports, basketball and ice hockey to be the winter games?

posted by salmacis at 05:25 AM on December 16, 2003

The playoffs are going to be so great this year if New England gets homefield advantage throughout. That's--what?--three weeks of snow games? That's GREAT televsion.

posted by Justin Slotman at 06:57 AM on December 16, 2003

how many of you would like to spend $1,000 on a ticket to sit in -30 wind chill? First of all, while I don't have stats, I am willing to wager that most of the people who get tickets to a Super Bowl don't give a rat's ass about the game. They are there because it is the social/sport event to be at. They want to see Brintey Spears, and hold up signs saying "Look at me! I want to be on Tee Vee!" I don't know any American football fans (personally) who have that sort of money to spend on tickets to a game, but the supporters I *do* know would sit in sub-freezing temperatures to cheer on their favorite team. That's what being a fan is about. As a Steelers fan, I have spent many cold Sundays sitting in Three Rivers Stadium (haven't had the pleasure of attending a game in Heinz Field yet), and I can't imagine why I wouldn't do the same for the biggest game of the year. Luckily I don't have to worry about such things this year, the way the Steelers have performed ;)

posted by scully at 11:54 AM on December 16, 2003

I am willing to wager that most of the people who get tickets to a Super Bowl don't give a rat's ass about the game. Absolutely correct. At least two-thirds of Super Bowl attendees are rich bastards who just came for the partying and idea of being at the big game. As a Steelers fan, I have spent many cold Sundays sitting in Three Rivers Stadium (haven't had the pleasure of attending a game in Heinz Field yet), and I can't imagine why I wouldn't do the same for the biggest game of the year. And that's why they won't be holding the Super Bowl in New England or Pittsburgh any time soon. They could give a crap less about you and your loyalty to the team because you (and I) don't have the grip to buy the big ticket. The NFL knows that putting the SB in a cold-weather city would curtail the number of people traveling to the game, therefore slashing its worth. Football nuts (myself included been to a couple December Soldier Field games) will spend $75 to sit in sub-zero temps and drink beer. Partygoers and trophy wives will not pay $1,000 to do the same thing.

posted by wfrazerjr at 12:13 PM on December 16, 2003

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.