Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Super cold

Some of the more memorable games in NFL history were played in cold, snowy weather. There was the Ice Bowl, the NFL championship game in 1967 between the Packers and Cowboys at Lambeau Field, where the game-time temperature was 13 below zero. And what Patriots fan could forget the 2002 division playoff game between the Pats and Raiders in Foxboro. This game is also remembered as the "Tuck Rule game," in which a Tom Brady fumble wasn't ruled as such, allowing New England to maintain possession with under two minutes left in the fourth quarter. With 27 seconds left, Adam Vinatieri hit a 45-yard field goal through several inches of snow to send the game to overtime. He kicked another one in overtime to win it.

Of course, given the plays that were made and what was on the line, these games would be pretty memorable regardless of the weather. But the cold and snow is, no pun intended, the icing on the cake.

What if we had memories like those of a Super Bowl?

According to reports from the NFL owners meetings, the 2014 Super Bowl is expected to be played in the Giants' and Jets' soon-to-be-built $1.6 billion stadium. There will be no roof, so the team that wins Super Bowl XLVIII (48) likely will have to do so in cold, winter weather.

The fear for some, who oppose holding the Super Bowl at an outdoor stadium in a cold-weather city, is that this could set precedent and open the door for other cold-weather cities to campaign for the NFL's title game. If that's the case, this is good news for Patriots and Packers fans, among others.

In all likelihood, the Super Bowl is never coming to Green Bay, simply because the city is probably too small to accomodate the tremendous influx of people. But a guy can dream of the NFL's biggest game being played at its most historic stadium, can't he?

The chances of New England playing host is more of a legitimate possibility. But in any case, being fans of cold-weather teams, how great would it be for the Packers or Patriots to have the advantage of playing the Super Bowl in cold weather? Of course, if two cold-weather teams ended up meeting in a cold Super Bowl, said advantage is nullified.

Still, while some will whine and cry about how it's not fair to play the Super Bowl outdoors anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line, this is a great move by the NFL. Hopefully XLVIII in the Meadowlands goes well and places like Foxboro, Chicago, Philly, and maybe even Green Bay will be considered in the future.

7 comments:

Scott Barrett said...

This is a stupid idea. It's New York just trying to make itself the center of the universe.

If you're OK with making cold-weather cities sites for the Super Bowl, why don't you just have homefield advantage?

I've been to a Super Bowl, and I know Josh has, too. I can't speak for how it went down in Jacksonville (talking to Josh, none too good), but in Phoenix, it was a weeklong party, not just the game. It was great weather that week and made the entire week enjoyable.

Now imagine that same week, and all of the fun leading up to it, indoors, or in frigid temperatures. On media day, players are interviewed on the field. Well, that certainly won't happen.

Like the NCAA tournament, the Super Bowl is fine the way it is and there's no need for this degree of change.

Anonymous said...

It's about time ! I think every city with an NFL team should be able to host a Super Bowl. Same goes for the Pro Bowl. Football is an outdoor sport after all. Of course the NFL is all about the owners, players and money not the fans.

Scott Barrett said...

I think, and hope, this move backfires. With high def TVs becoming the norm, fans generally will want to watch games in the comfort of their own homes - where they can see replays, commericals, consume cheap food and beer - than in a blustery seat in the nosebleed section.

Anonymous said...

I'm one who thinks football should be played outdoors and I love the fact Gillette stadium DOESN'T have a roof......HOWEVER, I think the Super Bowl should be in a dome/warm weather city and it has nothing to do with the comfort of the fans (I've been to 2 Super Bowls myself. New Orleans and Houston)

Mark my words, this will happen. Say one team is HEAVILIY favored over the other. The Game is played in a BLIZZARD...There are 10 fumbles. The UNDERDOG team wins....I GUARANTEE the next day the MEDIA will be screaming about how it was a FLUKY,TAINTED victory and how the favored team would have won under "normal conditions"....I can see this coming a mile away.....

Cheryl said...

Well, personally, I'd go to a cold weather Super Bowl. People go to the Winter Olympics in droves and pay big bucks to do so. And that lasts for two weeks. So why is it such a stretch to think that the Super Bowl wouldn't be successful in a cold weather venue?

Far as I know, NY has plenty of hotel rooms, restaurants and other means of entertainment to keep patrons occupied (ie:spending money) prior to game day. Sure there wouldn't be a players golf outing but I'm sure some creative marketing folks could figure it out.

Anonymous said...

It has NOTHING to do with the fans and how cold they might get..(who cares about that?).........IT'S ALL ABOUT THE GAME.....in the SUPER BOWL you want the game played on a GOOD FIELD who wants a SUPER BOWL played in a possible blizzard?.....(other than casual fans who think it's "funny" to see the players slipping and sliding all over the place).....bottomline, the ULTIMATE game should be played on a GOOD,CLEAN,FIELD......END OF STORY

Cheryl said...

I would rather see how the team handles the adversity of cold, snow, wind etc rather than playing in a hermedically sealed dome. I think it would separate the good players from the great players. Any average quarterback can hit his target if all he has to think about is the route. It's the great ones that can do it factoring in that his receiver might slip or have cold hands or that the wind might push the pass left or right etc.


I will agree it is about The Game. I don't care about all of the hoopla but I think a cold weather game would be fun for a change.