ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Football Joe Flacco admits that he's a wimp who doesn't appreciate football. (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=269444)

mr. tegu 01-29-2013 10:33 AM

I am not really a fan of these new artificial turf fields with the little rubber pellets that get kicked up everywhere. I much prefer the grass fields that get worn, muddy, and sloppy.

Rain Man 01-29-2013 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulAllen (Post 9361297)
Could KC handle an event like that? Jacksonville was a disaster and it has a bigger metro area.

There was a Super Bowl in Jacksonville?

DaKCMan AP 01-29-2013 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9361281)
So refresh my memory. Kansas City couldn't host a Super Bowl because we have an open-air, old, stadium in a Midwest city that gets chilly in early February. Unlike like New York.

Right?

FYP

BigMeatballDave 01-29-2013 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9361271)
Joe Flacco plays in Baltimore. He doesn't have any problem with the elements.

Having the Super Bowl in New York, in February, absolutely IS stupid.

Why should all the warm weather cities get to reap the benefits?

RealSNR 01-29-2013 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 9361307)
FYP

The stadium is brand-spanking new with its renovations.

The NFL doesn't have problems putting the Super Bowl in AIDS-riddled cesspools like Detroit and Indianapolis. Why the hell not KC (besides the closed roof issue)?

If city sexiness matters in the Super Bowl site, then Kansas City is a SIGNIFICANT upgrade from those two hell holes.

RealSNR 01-29-2013 10:38 AM

Have any of you BEEN to downtown Indianapolis where Lucas Oil Field is? That city smells like a ****ing sewer. It's disgusting.

Yeah, let's put everybody THAT city. They have a new stadium! That's a greeeeaaaaat idea

DaKCMan AP 01-29-2013 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9361314)
The stadium is brand-spanking new with its renovations.

The NFL doesn't have problems putting the Super Bowl in AIDS-riddled cesspools like Detroit and Indianapolis. Why the hell not KC (besides the closed roof issue)?

If city sexiness matters in the Super Bowl site, then Kansas City is a SIGNIFICANT upgrade from those two hell holes.

Detroit & Indy built NEW stadiums. KC renovated an OLD stadium. Should it matter? No. Does it? Yes.

IMO, Super Bowls should only be played in Miami, Tampa, New Orleans, LA, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, and maybe Dallas or Houston.

DaKCMan AP 01-29-2013 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9361322)
Have any of you BEEN to downtown Indianapolis where Lucas Oil Field is? That city smells like a ****ing sewer. It's disgusting.

Yeah, let's put everybody THAT city. They have a new stadium! That's a greeeeaaaaat idea

Yes - I have. Having the SB in Indy & Detroit & NY/NJ is stupid. Just as having it in KC would be stupid.

Rain Man 01-29-2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9361304)
This isn't 1975.

The Super Bowl is an event that draws THOUSANDS of people from all over the country.

Letting them freeze in New York or Detroit is just stupid.

All of those nostaligic scenarios you're talking about happened when championship games WEREN'T played on neutral fields.

If you want Super Bowls to be played in the cold and snow, go back to having them played on somebody's home field and don't make it a 2-week all-out media extravaganza.

Okay, we have a deal. Home field it is.

I recognize the marketing value of letting rich people who don't know about football sit in the stands for three quarters at $5,000 per person. But in the long term, the next generation of real fans needs their own nostalgic scenarios or their appreciation of the game will fade. The Super Bowl has been a short-term marketing game played at the expense of long-term market loyalty, and at some point it's going to be a losing proposition. But every commissioner looks at it in the short term and kicks the can down the road for the next guy to worry about.

Rain Man 01-29-2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 9361323)
Detroit & Indy built NEW stadiums. KC renovated an OLD stadium. Should it matter? No. Does it? Yes.

IMO, Super Bowls should only be played in Miami, Tampa, New Orleans, LA, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, and maybe Dallas or Houston.


Be honest. That's just because you don't own a coat.

BigMeatballDave 01-29-2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 9361323)

IMO, Super Bowls should only be played in Miami, Tampa, New Orleans, LA, Atlanta, Phoenix, San Diego, and maybe Dallas or Houston.

Pussy. :)

Why?

htismaqe 01-29-2013 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 9361311)
Why should all the warm weather cities get to reap the benefits?

Come on man.

Does Cleveland bitch when everybody vacations in Boca Raton?

Sometimes "practical" takes precedence over "fair".

htismaqe 01-29-2013 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 9361332)
Pussy. :)

Why?

Because nobody wants to spend 2 weeks in February in Kansas City.

It is what it is.

Lex Luthor 01-29-2013 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9361304)
This isn't 1975.

The Super Bowl is an event that draws THOUSANDS of people from all over the country.

Letting them freeze in New York or Detroit is just stupid.

All of those nostaligic scenarios you're talking about happened when championship games WEREN'T played on neutral fields.

If you want Super Bowls to be played in the cold and snow, go back to having them played on somebody's home field and don't make it a 2-week all-out media extravaganza.

Completely agree. As I was reading this thread, I figured I'd be the first one to post a dissenting opinion, and that I'd get blasted for being a wimp who doesn't appreciate real football. I'm glad htismaqe beat me to it.

I want the Super Bowl to decide who the best team is, and the way you guarantee that is to play the game in a warm weather site or in a dome. I don't want extreme weather conditions to decide the Super Bowl winner.

Don't get me wrong, I love watching regular season games played in blizzards (as long as I get to watch it on my HDTV), and I have no problem with playoff games being played in blizzards and ice as well. But the Super Bowl is a two-week extravaganza. Flacco is right: it's reeruned to play the game in a cold-weather city.

I hope next year's Super Bowl is played in zero degree temperatures, blinding snow, and perhaps even an ice storm. It will be fun to watch from the comfort of my living room, and the NFL may just learn something from the experience.

BigMeatballDave 01-29-2013 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9361335)
Come on man.

Does Cleveland bitch when everybody vacations in Boca Raton?

Sometimes "practical" takes precedence over "fair".

Last I checked, Boca doesn't have an NFL team.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.