T1B

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... -bowl.html

From a purely competetive point of view I see no problem having the Super Bowl in a cold weather city.
Countless playoff games and conference championship games have been held in such conditions.
"Poor" conditions can actually add a little spice to things as far as the TV viewer is concerned.

But the reality is the Super Bowl is a HUGE event apart from "just" the game.

So you're going to have people herded around to all the activities in their puffy coats and earmuffs - turning into popsicles.

That's wack.

Don't they have a 20,000 seat arena right next to the new stadium? One would think that those festivities would be just fine held indoors. Besides, the NY/NJ metro area has more than its share of things to do outside of the fare the NFL offers.

Fart......

Another example of the NFL possibly comprising the championship game for another sweetheart deal. Payback to the investors who came up with the financing for NJ/NY's new stadium. Playoff games in cold weather cities are earned. The Superbowl is suppose to be a neutral site and should be in an environment where the outcome isn't hindered by the elements. In February one out of every three days in NY is shit. Too cold, too windy, icy/snow, etc. Dome teams and others in the south possibly could have many plays that would have to be thrown out because of poor conditions.

As for fans who will have to spend thousands to attend & upwards to 7-8 hours outside (the game starts at 6:20 PM), on a NJ February night. Who cares? The Superbowl hasn't been about the fans for over a decade. Now its mostly corporate players, sponsors, & other "VIPs" who attend. Fuck em'

Jerrah's Cowboys host this year, hmmm, how long before The Daniel and the Redskins put in a bid to host? Not long is my guess.

What's the next thing the NFL will sell out?

Welcome to Kentucky Fried Chicken's Super Bowl 60?

Burger Kings National Football League?

Authentic NFL Whizzinator?

Quite convenient they happened to waive the 50 degree rule this year. And yes Joe, while the actual game is mostly attended by corporate slappys that dont even know 1st down from 1st base, there is usually several events set up for the lowly fans to attend the two weeks prior. Good luck scheduling anything outdoors in that shithole area.

That said, I wouldn't mind watching a snowbowl type superbowl ala the Patriots/Raider playoff game a few years back that gave pops his blood pressure problems.

Bucmonkey wrote:Quite convenient they happened to waive the 50 degree rule this year. And yes Joe, while the actual game is mostly attended by corporate slappys that dont even know 1st down from 1st base, there is usually several events set up for the lowly fans to attend the two weeks prior. Good luck scheduling anything outdoors in that shithole area.

That said, I wouldn't mind watching a snowbowl type superbowl ala the Patriots/Raider playoff game a few years back that gave pops his blood pressure problems.

The New York metro area is not exactly Siberia in the winter. Baring a real monster Nor'easter on game day, they'll be more than fine. And early February isn't prime time for a Nor'easter. That would be early March. Your likely weather scenario will be 35-40 degrees and the precipitation you will see will be rain, not snow. As for the NFL Fan Zone and that kind of stuff, the Meadowlands has an arena for that kind of stuff and NYC has some of the best mass transit in the country.

Joe in PB wrote:The Superbowl is suppose to be a neutral site and should be in an environment where the outcome isn't hindered by the elements. In February one out of every three days in NY is shit. Too cold, too windy, icy/snow, etc. Dome teams and others in the south possibly could have many plays that would have to be thrown out because of poor conditions.

Grow a pair you fucking pussy. Both teams have to deal with the elements. What about the rain in Miami during Super Bowl XLI? I guess that means Florida is out for future consideration. We wouldn't want to take a chance that someone might fumble a slippery football during the biggest game of the year. Oh, and how fair is it that only 10 or so teams even have a chance to host the game? How neutral is that? You want a neutral site for the Super Bowl, play it in Hawaii. Otherwise STFU about how the site is neutral. Jesus Christ, you have one outdoor game in cold weather in 46 years and you fucking weather pussies are acting like it is the end of the world. Get a puffy coat and shut up.

Joe in PB wrote: Jerrah's Cowboys host this year, hmmm, how long before The Daniel and the Redskins put in a bid to host? Not long is my guess.

That was thought out loud by Snyder the other day and the NFL's reaction would be this:

Get a new stadium built on the land where RFK is and THEN you'll get your Super Bowl. Before that happens, get fucked.

BSmack wrote:

Bucmonkey wrote:Quite convenient they happened to waive the 50 degree rule this year. And yes Joe, while the actual game is mostly attended by corporate slappys that dont even know 1st down from 1st base, there is usually several events set up for the lowly fans to attend the two weeks prior. Good luck scheduling anything outdoors in that shithole area.

That said, I wouldn't mind watching a snowbowl type superbowl ala the Patriots/Raider playoff game a few years back that gave pops his blood pressure problems.

The New York metro area is not exactly Siberia in the winter. Baring a real monster Nor'easter on game day, they'll be more than fine. And early February isn't prime time for a Nor'easter. That would be early March. Your likely weather scenario will be 35-40 degrees and the precipitation you will see will be rain, not snow. As for the NFL Fan Zone and that kind of stuff, the Meadowlands has an arena for that kind of stuff and NYC has some of the best mass transit in the country.

I believe that this year the low in NJ the day of the Super Bowl was 16 degrees. Downright balmy compared to the Ice Bowl.

poptart wrote:But the reality is the Super Bowl is a HUGE event apart from "just" the game.

So you're going to have people herded around to all the activities in their puffy coats and earmuffs - turning into popsicles.

Why should anybody give a fuck about those maggots?

How many times do I have to tell you to pull your head out of your ass Brian? The difference is the possibility of crappy weather in Miami is minute compared to NY. NY in February is a shit hole plain & simple. Mass transit to NJ is a nightmare. A 20,000 seat arena for pregame festivities doesn’t take into account the 80,000 plus who’ll attend and sounds ridiculous. The bottom line is people want to see the championship game played without compromising weather conditions. An 11-6 final is not intriguing for most, apart from Brian of course. Sure some New Yorkers might like the idea of the Superbowl in NJ, but just as many would rather see the game in Miami, NO, etc, as would most around the country.

Take a high scoring team team like NO, and have them play against Baltimore in NY in February, advantage Ravens. Without a doubt the 2014 Superbowl has been sold out by the NFL, by possibly compromising the outcome due to weather, end of story.

Get a new stadium built on the land where RFK is and THEN you'll get your Super Bowl. Before that happens, get fucked.

They've got a new stadium, its called FED EX Field.

Joe in PB wrote: They've got a new stadium, its called FED EX Field.

FedEx field is 14 years old, you fucking idiot. That's far from a "new stadium" by NFL standards.

Joe in PB wrote:Take a high scoring team team like NO, and have them play against Baltimore in NY in February, advantage Ravens. Without a doubt the 2014 Superbowl has been sold out by the NFL, by possibly compromising the outcome due to weather, end of story.

Any given year either or both of the conference championship games could be “compromised” by weather. Which in turn might be “compromising” the Super Bowl. It’s fucking football. Deal with it. Because the vast majority of Super Bowls which have been played in warm weather climates have been outstanding games, right?

Joe in PB wrote:How many times do I have to tell you to pull your head out of your ass Brian? The difference is the possibility of crappy weather in Miami is minute compared to NY. NY in February is a shit hole plain & simple.

So fucking what? It's not Miami. Grow a fucking pair.

Mass transit to NJ is a nightmare.

Not to the Medowlands it won't be. One can get to the Medowlands from any of the 3 major airports in the metro area without using anything but public rail. Between those trains and shuttle buses, they'll have zero problem getting people in and out.

A 20,000 seat arena for pregame festivities doesn’t take into account the 80,000 plus who’ll attend and sounds ridiculous.

Only because you're playing the retard and don't know that the Medowlands is more than just Giants Stadium. It's not just Izod Arena, there is also the 5 story Zanadu Mall (largest retail space in the US) that is coming online next year and there is plenty of space for temporary structures to be built for whatever else might be desired. Oh, and there's the Medowlands Race Track as well. All of these facilities will be available in one fashion or another to the NFL.

The bottom line is people want to see the championship game played without compromising weather conditions. An 11-6 final is not intriguing for most, apart from Brian of course. Sure some New Yorkers might like the idea of the Superbowl in NJ, but just as many would rather see the game in Miami, NO, etc, as would most around the country.

The bottom line is that you're talking out of your ass. Cold weather conditions do not guarantee low scoring. The Giants and Packers played in sub-zero weather in the NFC title game just 2 years ago and that game ended 23-20 with both starting QBs throwing for over 200 yards. Oh, and the visiting team won that game. Maybe you recall?

Furthermore, you need to stop saying "people want to see" something unless you have some fucking evidence to back that up. Which of course you do not.

Take a high scoring team team like NO, and have them play against Baltimore in NY in February, advantage Ravens. Without a doubt the 2014 Superbowl has been sold out by the NFL, by possibly compromising the outcome due to weather, end of story.

Honestly, I'd say advantage Ravens this season because the Ravens might just be the best team in football. They have an offense that is finally the equal of that defense. But be that as it may, if you can't run on offense and stop the run on defense, you have no business winning a Super Bowl. So pardon me if your mewling is falling on deaf ears. Because I don't give a fuck.

.....umm...Crapchester vs. Socal ?? 16 degrees and blowing snow vs. 77 and scattered high clouds...Who's talkng out their a$$ ??

ChargerMike wrote:.....umm...Crapchester vs. Socal ?? 16 degrees and blowing snow vs. 77 and scattered high clouds...Who's talkng out their a$$ ??

Seriously, all you SoCals need to STFU about weather right now. Rochester and New York City have entirely different weather. I wish I had a dollar for every time I saw a NYC or LI resident freak out over November snow when I was attending upstate SUNY schools. Those people don't know what real winter is about.

What's that got to do with comparing New Jersey or Crapchester weather with SoCal's?

Van wrote:What's that got to do with comparing New Jersey or Crapchester weather with SoCal's?

I have no idea why Tradebait brought up Rochester weather. The Super Bowl is being played 300+ miles away from here.

So what? The point still stands. New Jersey weather in February is a helluva lot more similar to Crapchester's than SoCal's.

Van wrote:So what? The point still stands. New Jersey weather in February is a helluva lot more similar to Crapchester's than SoCal's.

There's a HUGE difference between a 15 degree day and a 35 degree day. They're not even in the same ballpark. Bringing up February weather in Rochester to argue against NYC/NJ getting a Super Bowl is just straight up stupid.

B:

You DO realize that you're trading band-width with a buncha Losers that have only SEEN weather when their favorite team has played on the road, correct? These are the same mooks that reach for their NorthFace parkas when the temperature approaches 50 in their respective cities.

Rack New York. But I wanna see Superbowls played in Gillette Stadium. And Lincoln Field, Invesco, and Arrowhead. And let's just see how well Garret Hartley or Adam Venatieri negotiate kicking into the south endzone of Heinz Field. I could give a flip if Phillip Rivers or Rew Brees goes 11-for-26 because his hands were cold. Mix in a running game, Losers....

Man's Game. Man's weather. Fuck the sunbelt and their sissified fans.

Truman wrote: These are the same mooks that reach for their NorthFace parkas when the temperature approaches 50 in their respective cities.

Hell yeah, you weathered men are certainly way tougher then the rest of us...

BSmack wrote:

Van wrote:What's that got to do with comparing New Jersey or Crapchester weather with SoCal's?

I have no idea why Tradebait brought up Rochester weather. The Super Bowl is being played 300+ miles away from here.

....The idear was birthed out of Bri and Joe, on opposite ends of the weather spectrum, having a mini-war over choosing NJ for a Super Bowl. My point......Bri's perspective coming from a frozen, wind chilled, snow blowing hell hole like Rochester vs. Joe's sunny, warm, calm, beach front pad in Pacific Beach. Not much of a stumper which Jackass takes which side.

Oh, and you're telling me Rochester in January or February is a summer get away compared to New Jersey? is that what your saying? I didn't think so. Same friggin cold POS.

Come on CM, there's a HUGE difference between 15 and 35 degrees :wink:

These Sunbelters are representing up in this bitch like Katy's stank vag. What a bunch of whiny fucking pussies.

ChargerMike, he's saying the opposite of what you just supposed. He's saying that Rochester is markedly colder and snowier than New Jersey, so your comparison holds no water.

Regardless, the difference between 15 and 35 degrees is still a lot less than the difference between NJ's 35 degrees and SoCal's 75 degrees, so his point remains a non sequitur.

Hell, if it were up to me, the Super Bowl would either be in one neutral, warm-weather location every year or they'd rotate it each season among all 32 NFL cities. I don't want to see a crappy game that is overly affected by inclement weather, but it's not that big of a deal either. I like watching shitty-weather games, and Minnesota deserves to never win a Super Bowl for giving up one of the best December home field advantages in all of football in favor of a fucked up, antispetic dome.

ChargerMike wrote:Oh, and you're telling me Rochester in January or February is a summer get away compared to New Jersey? is that what your saying? I didn't think so. Same friggin cold POS.

No, just the opposite. NYC in February is downright balmy compared to Rochester. God, do I have to explain EVERYTHING to you Calis?

Van wrote:ChargerMike, he's saying the opposite of what you just supposed. He's saying that Rochester is markedly colder and snowier than New Jersey, so your comparison holds no water.

Regardless, the difference between 15 and 35 degrees is still a lot less than the difference between NJ's 35 degrees and SoCal's 75 degrees, so his point remains a non sequitur.

Which if you would have read ALL of CMike's post, you would have realized that he was drawing some kind of dichotomy between my support of the site and the climate I live in vs Joe's opposition and the climate he lives in. Which of course is bullshit. Plenty of folks on this board from warm weather states have gone on record supporting a Super Bowl played in the elements.

Yep. I'm one of them.

Most Super Bowls are shitty, underwhelming games even in perfect conditions. I don't see why a little cold or snow gets anybody's panties in a soiled wad.

I don't know about that. We have had a run of pretty good games recently.

The bottom line is that the elements are part of the game and even dome teams need to be able to compete in them. If they can't...fuck em. I also don't give one dried up dog turd about the comfort of media maggots and hangers on. They can suck it up or fuck the fuck off. Hell, I think a Superbowl in Buffalo would be awesome if for no other reason than to listen to them screech and whimper for two weeks.

I was born in Duluth Minnesota, also lived in Chicago & outside of Washington DC. I've gone to games in Dec in Washington, Philly & Pittsburgh. I know shit weather, maybe that's why I live where I do.....

My point is simple, take last years Raven team, good not great, Vs last years NO team that won the Super Bowl in Miami. Instead lets say they play the game in the meadowlands. There's a very good chance the Ravens come out on top, in part because the elements limit NO's playbook.

Is that what everybody wants to see? Championship games compromised by the weather? If so, then why not rotate the Superbowl every year? Because shitty weather sucks when it comes to Superbowls & the accompanied activities.

This moves reeks of promises by the NFL to the Giants/Jets stadium financiers.

To me, scheduling a championship game that has a much higher chance than normal of be compromised by the weather is a sell out.

Expect more in the future.

So certain cities should NEVER benefit from hosting a SB because some teams like to chuck the deep ball on every down?

Fucking gay.

Joe in PB wrote:This moves reeks of promises by the NFL to the Giants/Jets stadium financiers.

No it doesn't. It reeks of the NFL jacking up the bidding war for Super Bowls. And hopefully it will be spread amongst the 30+ markets. No longer does Sunbelt Socialism rule over the NFL.

War free market capitalism!

If you think the Super Bowl is going to EVER by rotated to all 32 teams you're a moron. Teams with updated stadiums, like FED EX, which has two levels of luxury boxes and the capacity the NFL stipulates could. I'd expect Baltimore, Foxboro, Washington, & others to start lobbying to host.

Joe in PB wrote:I was born in Duluth Minnesota, also lived in Chicago & outside of Washington DC. I've gone to games in Dec in Washington, Philly & Pittsburgh. I know shit weather, maybe that's why I live where I do.....

Enjoy the big one.

My point is simple, take last years Raven team, good not great, Vs last years NO team that won the Super Bowl in Miami. Instead lets say they play the game in the meadowlands. There's a very good chance the Ravens come out on top, in part because the elements limit NO's playbook.

I've seen QBs throw for 400+ yards in snowstorms and I've seen teams run the ball for over 200 yards in winter weather. And I've seen 11-10 games that were kickass defensive battles. The elements don't dictate, the players ability to execute does. I see you've ignored my example of the 2007 NFC Championship game. That wasn't exactly a defensive stalemate. Both QBs threw for over 200 yards in that game. Both teams scored 20 points in regulation. And the weather was infinitely worse for that game than it will be at the Meadowlands.

Is that what everybody wants to see?

Judging by the reacts here, I would say yes.

Championship games compromised by the weather? If so, then why not rotate the Superbowl every year? Because shitty weather sucks when it comes to Superbowls & the accompanied activities. This moves reeks of promises by the NFL to the Giants/Jets stadium financiers. To me, scheduling a championship game that has a much higher chance than normal of be compromised by the weather is a sell out. Expect more in the future.

This is definitely a bone tossed to the Jets and Giants. They stepped up and guaranteed the NFL will have teams in its biggest market for the foreseeable future. There's no reason they shouldn't have gotten some Super Bowl love for that.

And if another "cold weather" city has the kind of indoor capacity to host the ancillary events the Super Bowl is known for, then they should get consideration as well, no matter if their stadium has a roof.

BSmack wrote:I've seen QBs throw for 400+ yards in snowstorms...

Here's one that comes to mind:

Patriots 59
Titans 0

In snowy Foxboro last year. Brady threw for six touchdowns, 380 yards. The Pats scored 35 points in the second quarter alone.

Oh, poor passing teams! What are they to do in a little bit of snow?

The elements don't dictate, the players ability to execute does.

I beg to differ.

Sincerely,



Obviously examples can be made where weather did & didn't affect the outcome of a playoff game. Why take that chance in a Superbowl?
Money.

Joe in PB wrote:Obviously examples can be made where weather did & didn't affect the outcome of a playoff game. Why take that chance in a Superbowl?

Because weather is part of the game, wanktard.

Joe in PB wrote:

The elements don't dictate, the players ability to execute does.

I beg to differ.

Sincerely,



Obviously examples can be made where weather did & didn't affect the outcome of a playoff game. Why take that chance in a Superbowl?
Money.

Fouts and the Chargers didn't fold because of the weather, they folded because they were not as good as the Bengals. Remember, they were the same team that allowed Don Strock to go upside them for 400 yards in relief AND allowed the Dolphins to come back from being down 0-24 to take them to nearly a full overtime period the week before?

That's DON STROCK you fucking retard. And you think that team belonged in the Super Bowl?

Tears Jerry. Tears.

"Enjoy the big one."


...we've had a series of them lately, the largest being a 7.2 down Mexicali way. About half way between Calexico and Mexicali (or was it calimex and leximexical) Several other smaller ones in the 5.0 range. As long as Starbucks stays standing, I'm good.
Oh, the Quakes last about 30 seconds on average, how many months are you trying to find your car buried in a 12 foot snow bank?

EARTHQUAKE