Options
This years Super bowl
soundgard
Posts: 650 ✭
in Sports Talk
Could be played during a blizzard 
haha
Discuss
hahaDiscuss
0
soundgard
Posts: 650 ✭
soundgard
Posts: 650 ✭
soundgard
Posts: 650 ✭
soundgard
Posts: 650 ✭
haha
Comments
<< <i>The thought of it likely happening is sickening. Throwing weather in as a variable into determining the super bowl winner is ridiculous. The super bowl should always, always be played in warm weather/dome site. >>
Why? I myself like the change. I dont like inside games and get tired of seeing the super bowl played in the same 4 stadiums. Football is a sport played in all elements including cold weather.
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
<< <i>I understand football is an all weather sport but doesn't it make for a better game to have the teams determine the outcome and not the weather? >>
Well, since both teams have to play in it, they can both make adjustments.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I am praying for 24-30 inches of snow, and that they play in front of a half-filled stadium because fans can't get to the game.
<< <i>it RUINS the fan experience. I'm just guessing, but the actual game experience at a Super Bowl is probably fairly lousy to begin with (with the increased security, the super long commercial breaks, and watching a washed up band from the 70s perform at halftime). Now add freezing cold weather into the mix. Ask any fan if they'd rather spend 3 or 4 days in Miami, San Diego, Tampa or New Orleans in early February or New York City, and you will get an overwhelming number of votes for the warm weather site.
I am praying for 24-30 inches of snow, and that they play in front of a half-filled stadium because fans can't get to the game. >>
I don't mean to sound condescending but have you ever been to a Super Bowl? I've been to four over the past 20 years, most recently in Houston, and it's exponentially grown corporate. In '93, I would probably peg it around 40ish% to '04 around 80%. If I were to guess today, most likely 90+%. While there are a lot of fans, the suits are a huge overwhelming majority. My impression was they just wanted to say they were there, rather than paying attention to the game.
Consider this: Let's assume the average ticket face is $1,000 (think minimum is $500). Multiply that by 70,000 and you get $70MM. Now, each broadcast partner pays at least $1B per year, with the SB rotating. I think you're putting too much stock into the actual in-game experience when their primary revenue source and target is via tv.
Let's not forget SB XLIV in Miami and the heavy rains. According to Wiki (Link)
<< <i>With an average US audience of 106.5 million viewers, this was the third most-watched Super Bowl, trailing only the 111 million viewers for Super Bowl XLV the following year and 111.3 million viewers for Super Bowl XLVI. At the time, it was the most-watched program of any kind in American television history, beating the 27-year-long record previously held by the final episode of M*A*S*H, "Goodbye, Farewell and Amen", watched by 105.97 million viewers.[12] An estimated 153.4 million total viewers watched all or part of the game.[13] The game drew a national Nielsen rating of 45.0 with a 68 share, the highest for a Super Bowl since Super Bowl XXX in 1996 (46.0/68). The telecast drew a 56.3 rating in New Orleans and a 54.2 rating in Indianapolis, first and fourth respectively among local markets.[4] >>
Just sayin...
<< <i>I agree 1985....beyond the obvious disadvantages a team like Miami would have playing against the Packers in such a Super Bowl
>>
So, it OK for that to happen in the AFC or NFC Championship, but not the Super Bowl??
<< <i>
I'm just guessing, but the actual game experience at a Super Bowl is probably fairly lousy to begin with (with the increased security, the super long commercial breaks, and watching a washed up band from the 70s perform at halftime). Now add freezing cold weather into the mix. Ask any fan if they'd rather spend 3 or 4 days in Miami, San Diego, Tampa or New Orleans in early February or New York City, and you will get an overwhelming number of votes for the warm weather site.
>>
Since it'll be a sellout no matter what, what's the difference if some fans don't like it? They should consider watching it on TV if they can't handle the weather.
<< <i>The Ice Bowl is one of the most famous playoff games in NFL history, yet it wasn't even for the championship.
Just sayin... >>
What's your criteria for most famous?
<< <i>So, it OK for that to happen in the AFC or NFC Championship, but not the Super Bowl?? >>
For the playoffs, teams know where there going based on seeds (subject to lower seeds winning) a couple weeks in advance. With the SB, everyone knows 5(?) years in advance. I think that's more than enough time to prepare for potential weather conditions.
Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!
<< <i>
I am praying for 24-30 inches of snow, and that they play in front of a half-filled stadium because fans can't get to the game. >>
I hope for more...it would be amazing if the conditions were so bad they couldn't even play the game.
Instead of focusing on which team is better, we'd have to argue about which team the conditions favor more. A team based more on the run is going to fare better, and that has less to do with their opponent than the weather, and that's insanity.
The only reason NY is getting the super bowl is because the NFL is based there. I'd love to see Green Bay and Chicago argue for it then get denied, even though they have just as much a place in the history of the league as NY does.
<< <i>The SB that will be played 2/14? Yes, that's 4 years instead of 5(?), ignoramus. >>
The 2014 super bowl was awarded May 26th, 2010. The game will be played February 2, 2014. So 3 years, and 8 months, which is more than a *bit* off from your 'about 5' prediction. Either way, it's a ridiculously short sighted and frankly idiotic idea to suggest teams have to revamp their style of play for the super bowl. This cold weather city idea is, to put it simply, dumb.
The only people who are in favor of a cold weather site are either (a) those who hate the 'glory boys' of today's football, who somehow think the players of yesterday were 'tougher', or (b) people who live in terrible climates who hate the fact that there exists places with either fantastic year round weather or teams with a dome.
I am not alone in thinking this is a terrible idea, which sets an awful precedent. The super bowl has always been played in either a dome or warm weather climate, which makes the game a fair competition of two teams. Bringing up some old game that has NO LIKENESS whatsoever to today's game is as flawed an approach as it is to tell teams 'you got x number of years, change your style!'
I can't wait for the weather to be so awful that it keeps fans away, that it makes the NFL look like fools for going after an obvious cash grab, and the resulting outcry prevents this type of nonsense from ever happening again.
<< <i>
<< <i>So, it OK for that to happen in the AFC or NFC Championship, but not the Super Bowl?? >>
For the playoffs, teams know where there going based on seeds (subject to lower seeds winning) a couple weeks in advance. With the SB, everyone knows 5(?) years in advance. I think that's more than enough time to prepare for potential weather conditions.
Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!
Yup. The more snow I say the more memorable the game will be.
<< <i>
Yup. The more snow I say the more memorable the game will be. >>
Just because it would be memorable doesn't mean it will be a good game.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Yup. The more snow I say the more memorable the game will be. >>
Just because it would be memorable doesn't mean it will be a good game. >>
Wouldnt be the first bad super bowl game. Been plenty.
<< <i>I agree 1985....beyond the obvious disadvantages a team like Miami would have playing against the Packers in such a Super Bowl >>
But if the Dolphins played the Packers in Miami that wouldn't be an advantage?
<< <i> Ask any fan if they'd rather spend 3 or 4 days in Miami, San Diego, Tampa or New Orleans in early February or New York City, and you will get an overwhelming number of votes for the warm weather site. >>
If demand really is overwhelmingly lower, that will make it less expensive to attend
<< <i>I am praying for 24-30 inches of snow, and that they play in front of a half-filled stadium because fans can't get to the game. >>
Isn't that what happened in 1982?
<< <i>But if the Dolphins played the Packers in Miami that wouldn't be an advantage? >>
Exactly. At what point do we draw a line in the sand for the continued wussification of America and allow some paper pusher to decide what's "fair"? Is it "fair" for teams to have a home field advantage? Is it "fair" some teams are superior to others and have to rely on 'any given Sunday'? Is it "fair" that all teams don't make the playoffs? Heck, is it even "fair" to have a winner and loser? Life isn't fair and having some disadvantage makes people compete harder, assuming they still have the will to win.
<< <i>If demand really is overwhelmingly lower, that will make it less expensive to attend >>
Which would give Joe-Six-Pack an opportunity to see the game in person that he otherwise couldn't afford. They should put every seat in a lottery and prohibit any secondary sales (with perhaps an exception for immediate family members like a PSL). Those fans wouldn't give a dang about weather conditions and would be absolutely ecstatic just to have a seat, which is a life long dream for *many* die hard fans.
No, I have not, but I think you just made my point. Going to the Super Bowl appears to be a fairly lousy proposition. Going to a Super Bowl and watching in 15-20 degree weather would be infinitely worse.
<<<But if the Dolphins played the Packers in Miami that wouldn't be an advantage?>>>
Much less so, if at all. The average high temperature in Miami in February is 77 degrees. At 6:30 kickoff, it's probably closer to 70.
<<<If demand really is overwhelmingly lower, that will make it less expensive to attend>>>
If we weren't talking about NYC, you'd be right. Everything starts at a higher level in NYC, so even depressed prices will make it more expensive than other cities.
<< <i>
But if the Dolphins played the Packers in Miami that wouldn't be an advantage?
>>
The only advantage would be based on the dolphins playing in Miami and less to do with the weather. The weather should be a non factor when it comes to determining the super bowl winner, which is EXACTLY why the NFL has the minimum temperature provision in the first place.
It has NOTHING to do with the so called 'wussification' of sports and anyone suggesting as much hasn't been paying attention to the history of the super bowl. It has to do with providing a true neutral field on which to determine a champion. Accommodation of fans is a secondary concern to providing a truly neutral field for the teams to battle for the title.
I don't disagree with this point. There is ZERO upside to having a Super Bowl in NYC, other than the potential for Goddell to look like a total buffoon (once again).
<< <i>No, I have not, but I think you just made my point. Going to the Super Bowl appears to be a fairly lousy proposition. Going to a Super Bowl and watching in 15-20 degree weather would be infinitely worse. >>
I didn't mean to even remotely imply it was a lousy experience, only mentioned the corporate aspect versus fans of the teams playing. Personally, I had an absolute blast and believe every average Joe should experience it at least once. The weather, regardless if it was burning hot, a comfortable 72, or below freezing, would not change my personal opinion one bit.
<< <i>Much less so, if at all. The average high temperature in Miami in February is 77 degrees. At 6:30 kickoff, it's probably closer to 70. >>
Completely ridiculous. You're saying the Packers have an advantage over the Dolphins in New York , eg a 60% chance of winning; but are on an equal level in Miami, eg a 50% chance of winning snot a disadvantage in Miami. That means the home field is providing an advantage
<< <i>If we weren't talking about NYC, you'd be right. Everything starts at a higher level in NYC, so even depressed prices will make it more expensive than other cities. >>
You now the argument is that the cost is decided by something other than supply-and-demand. If true, the NFL shouldn't really bother considering what the customers want, since it has no effect on how much they're willing to spend
<< <i>Might still be a year away from the super bowl but the Rams are going to the playoffs this year! >>
Both Wild Cards in the NFC West? Interesting, but I don't agree.
<< <i>
<< <i>
But if the Dolphins played the Packers in Miami that wouldn't be an advantage?
>>
The only advantage would be based on the dolphins playing in Miami and less to do with the weather. The weather should be a non factor when it comes to determining the super bowl winner, which is EXACTLY why the NFL has the minimum temperature provision in the first place.
It has NOTHING to do with the so called 'wussification' of sports and anyone suggesting as much hasn't been paying attention to the history of the super bowl. It has to do with providing a true neutral field on which to determine a champion. Accommodation of fans is a secondary concern to providing a truly neutral field for the teams to battle for the title. >>
No such thing as a truly neutral field.
<< <i>I'm starting to like Brick's suggestion; best record gets the SB in their backyard. You'll no longer see the top teams resting their starters in week 16 and 17, every game means that much more, and well... Why the eff not?
>>
Why not? The list is long, but the most common problems:
(1) the logistics involved in putting together something as involved as the super bowl would be impossible to pull off in that amount of time;
(2) there's no way to possibly get travel arrangements done for the countless number of people going in that short a window;
(3) the weather being a factor (and nobody other than a bunch of old fogeys want it in cold, outdoor stadiums). Trust me, after this year, and how terrible the weather will be, will put a damper on any more cold-weather environments for a long time.
The list goes on and on, but giving home field for a team with the best record is impossible and won't happen, period.
<< <i>I'm starting to like Brick's suggestion; best record gets the SB in their backyard. You'll no longer see the top teams resting their starters in week 16 and 17, every game means that much more, and well... Why the eff not? >>
It's far less profitable. That's the only thing that matters -- and the only reason it will be in New York in 2014
Also, what happens when both teams finished 12-4?
<< <i>Al Michaels is a weather man. I'm going to buy that man a drink. >>
Happy birthday, Al!
edited to add:
<< <i>Also, what happens when both teams finished 12-4? >>
Coin flip, best two out of three.
I was referring the weather's impact on the game. I suppose the Dolphins would enjoy some home field advantage playing at home and sleeping in their own beds, but that isn't the discussion.
<<<If true, the NFL shouldn't really bother considering what the customers want, since it has no effect on how much they're willing to spend >>>
I would say the NFL cares more about what makes the most money, not necessarily what the fans want. Sometimes those go hand-in-hand, but not always.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>1985fan, something tells me that if you were into fantasy football, you would be the guy who drafts a kicker in the 8th round. >>
I'm in a number of leagues and sorry to disappoint you but kickers always get drafted in the last round. Next time you make a ridiculous assumption you might want to back it up with why you think it. Otherwise you just look like a generalizing fool.
As far as the idea that players would crumble in the cold? That's not the point or the argument. Throwing weather as a variable is an awful idea and it's exactly why the NFL forces locations to have an average temperature above 50.
<< <i> To assume these players will forfeit all skills and crumble at the sight of snow is ridiculous. A cold Super Bowl requires the players to play at an even higher level all while giving the fans a more exciting game. I have read all of these comments and I still can find no downside to this. It will be fun to watch. >>
<< <i>Throwing weather as a variable is an awful idea and it's exactly why the NFL forces locations to have an average temperature above 50. >>
I think it is a fantastic idea. Actually, I could argue that it is a horrible idea to have the two teams compete in perfect playing conditions. What better way to determine the best of the best by putting both teams under the most difficult conditions?
It's like holding the Home Run Derby in a little league ball park with 200ft walls. I don't want the league to make the game as easy as possible for the two teams, I want to watch a true test of skill for once. It has been too long since we've seen an actual Super Bowl. I cannot wait for this game, no matter the teams playing.
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr. Seuss
<< <i>I was referring the weather's impact on the game. I suppose the Dolphins would enjoy some home field advantage playing at home and sleeping in their own beds, but that isn't the discussion. >>
You were referring to the idea that players on the Dolphins lose some of their ability to play football when it's cold. If true, that must mean their skills are higher when playing in warmth -- giving them an advantage when it isn't cold
I don't believe that, but saying their ability decreases in the cold, yet warmth isn't advantageous to them must be completely wrong
<< <i>I think it is a fantastic idea. Actually, I could argue that it is a horrible idea to have the two teams compete in perfect playing conditions. What better way to determine the best of the best by putting both teams under the most difficult conditions?
It's like holding the Home Run Derby in a little league ball park with 200ft walls. I don't want the league to make the game as easy as possible for the two teams, I want to watch a true test of skill for once. It has been too long since we've seen an actual Super Bowl. I cannot wait for this game, no matter the teams playing. >>
Indeed.
Just say no to wussification.
<< <i>
I think it is a fantastic idea. Actually, I could argue that it is a horrible idea to have the two teams compete in perfect playing conditions. What better way to determine the best of the best by putting both teams under the most difficult conditions? >>
So you're saying the NFL has been doing it wrong the entire super bowl era? What better way? Oh, I don't know, I and an overwhelming majority number of fans would prefer for the weather not to determine the outcome of a game, and let the team's actual SKILLS do the determining. But then, I only have the entire super bowl era and NFL league rules on my side.
<< <i>It's like holding the Home Run Derby in a little league ball park with 200ft walls. I don't want the league to make the game as easy as possible for the two teams, I want to watch a true test of skill for once. It has been too long since we've seen an actual Super Bowl. I cannot wait for this game, no matter the teams playing. >>
No, it's not. In your scenario, you're changing the actual rules of the game to try to make a point. The league isn't making the game easier, they're not shortening the field, they're not getting rid of defenses, they are removing a variable from the equation that has nothing to do with either team's actual skillsets in order to determine a champion. It's not coincidence that the NFL has rules in place to try to assure as even a field as possible. Heck, even the inept NCAA puts the national championship game in cities with either domes or warm weather.
It's been too long since we've seen an actual super bowl? That's hilarious. I guess you really aren't a football fan after all.
It's apparent you folks who long for the 'good ole days' with horrible weather affecting the outcome of the game are so blinded to facts you can't be reasoned with. It's apparent you think today's game and today's players have been 'wussified', despite the fact that the super bowl has been played indoors/in a dome for the ENTIRE SUPER BOWL ERA. I laugh more and more when I read these insane posts of people longing to have the game's outcome determined by weather. It's comical that you think the players would somehow 'try harder!' if the conditions were lousy, as if these best of the best players have some reserve switch they can turn on (you probably think they need a pre-game speech to give 100% too).
Oh, and stown, if bad weather brings out the best in players, why did Houston build a domed stadium? Based on your own extensive 'research', you feel the warm weather/domed stadium for super bowls adds to the "continued wussification of America", yet your own team plays in a dome? Are you saying your own Texans are 'wusses'?
<< <i>Oh, I don't know, I and an overwhelming majority number of fans would prefer for the weather not to determine the outcome of a game, and let the team's actual SKILLS do the determining. >>
You are completely correct. In addition to wanting team skill to determine which team wins, we also know that the weather does not change which team is more skilled. So this point is completely immaterial
<< <i>
Indeed.
Just say no to wussification. >>
So teams that play in domes and warm weather are 'wusses'. Got it. Now go to the Texans website and tell the team and their fans that.