Joe Flacco admits that he's a wimp who doesn't appreciate football.

[htismaqe]

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.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

But championship games in bad weather are where legends arise. Would anyone remember the 1934 championship game if it wasn't the Sneaker game? Would Bart Starr's sneak be played on NFL Network 100 times per year if it was in San Diego? Football should transcend weather. Football should be so cool that it shrugs its mesomorphic shoulders and points at a map and says, "We're playing the championship game here," whether it's in Chicago or Miami or Finland. Football should not be extending its lower lip and saying, "We only want championship games where it's warm and sunny." Cold and snowy are the womb from which Football was birthed.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

But championship games in bad weather are where legends arise. Would anyone remember the 1934 championship game if it wasn't the Sneaker game? Would Bart Starr's sneak be played on NFL Network 100 times per year if it was in San Diego? Football should transcend weather. Football should be so cool that it shrugs its mesomorphic shoulders and points at a map and says, "We're playing the championship game here," whether it's in Chicago or Miami or Finland. Football should not be extending its lower lip and saying, "We only want championship games where it's warm and sunny." Cold and snowy are the womb from which Football was birthed.

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.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

[Lex Luthor]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by 300 Bowler

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.

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.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by Dave

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

Neither does Cleveland. /rimshot

[BigMeatballDave]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

Neither does Cleveland. /rimshot

LOL

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

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.

[COchief]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

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

[COchief]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

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.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by COchief

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.

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

[ReynardMuldrake]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

Football is not about comfort. It's supposed to be hell. Who fights harder and who wants it more. Mud and rain and wind and snow and sweat and sacrifice is what football is all about.

Screw the spectators. It's all about TV dollars nowadays anyway.

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

This isn't 1975.

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

Many of them teenaged girls who come only to watch the halftime show and hopefully be seen on national television.

Think about the children!

[swayy07]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

But championship games in bad weather are where legends arise. Would anyone remember the 1934 championship game if it wasn't the Sneaker game? Would Bart Starr's sneak be played on NFL Network 100 times per year if it was in San Diego? Football should transcend weather. Football should be so cool that it shrugs its mesomorphic shoulders and points at a map and says, "We're playing the championship game here," whether it's in Chicago or Miami or Finland. Football should not be extending its lower lip and saying, "We only want championship games where it's warm and sunny." Cold and snowy are the womb from which Football was birthed.