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.

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler (Post 9361340)

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.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 9361344)

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

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 9361352)

Playing the Super Bowl in a warm weather stadium every year benefits teams who play in warm weather all year (or indoors). A team that's built to survive cold-weather football in order to win its division then doesn't have a chance to play for a championship in that weather? That just doesn't seem right.

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 9361352)

Playing the Super Bowl in a warm weather stadium every year benefits teams who play in warm weather all year (or indoors). A team that's built to survive cold-weather football in order to win its division then doesn't have a chance to play for a championship in that weather? That just doesn't seem right.

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 9361357)

Neither does Cleveland. /rimshot

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 9361374)

Given that the Pats, Packers, and Giants have dominated in recent memory, I don't think cold weather teams are at much of a disadvantage.

Originally Posted by COchief (Post 9361406)

In the future when I am crafting my snark-reply, could you please refrain from stealing my thunder with a factual and straightforward post?

Originally Posted by COchief (Post 9361393)

I absolutely concur sir, I have never looked at it from this angle before. That certainly would benefit the warm weather teams, which is why you'll never see a cold weather team like NYG, GB, Pitt, or NE win the big gam...

Your theory, it needs work doctor.

Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9361281)

So refresh my memory. Kansas City couldn't host a Super Bowl because we have an open-air stadium in a city that gets chilly in early February. Just like New York.

Right?

Originally Posted by dirk digler (Post 9361421)

Pretty much. IMHO they should rotate the SB around to every team in the league.

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.

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 9361411)

Think how good those teams would be if only they could play the championships in cold weather.

Originally Posted by Rain Man (Post 9361426)

That's exactly how it should be done. If it's good enough for the regular season, it's good enough for the Super Bowl. Plus, it would do wonders for the economic situations of Buffalo and Cincinnati.