Why should it be any different than a playoff game? The best team might lose a playoff game because of the weather. So it's not a given that the best two teams are even in the Super Bowl. Every NFL stadium should be able to host the Super Bowl. Elements be damned.
I did not write that the tuck rule call was due to snow. I wrote that I thought the Raiders were a better team than the Patriots that year. Truth be told, I hate both teams and was actually rooting for the Patriots to win that game. I thought the Raiders were a threat to win the Super Bowl, but I didn't think the Patriots could win the Super Bowl. Of course, we know what happened. It is important that I was responsing to a Patriots fan. He wrote that Super Bowls should not be played in sites that could potentially have nasty weather. So I took all that info and suggested that the Raiders may have won that game if it wasn't played in snow.
if you take a crazy logical jump i suppose you might be right. he said the game does not need to be played in a dome. as has been pointed out football is often played in less than ideal conditions and nobody ever complains about the results of those games. i get that people want to see the two most talented teams playing to the best of their abilities but being forced to play in the cold and wind and snow and rain shows which of the teams really wants it IMO.
If this actually affects our chances, Goodell should resign from his position. That's a ridiculous thought.
Not really. Teams earn homefield by how they play in the regular season, so if you get a weather advantage in the playoffs you earned it. Not so with the Superbowl which is played on a neutral field in an attempt to give no specific advantage to one team over the other. Otherwise, why not just have the Superbowl be a home game for the conference winner with the best record.
Regular season I agree, but when it comes to the big one I want it to be a festival of good football without weather being a factor. I guess also, like the other guy said, I harbour dreams of going to a Superbowl one day and when I do, I don't want to be sitting in a parka and six sweaters - I want to spend three days drinking my own bodyweight in beer as my pale Northern skin goes a delicate shade of lobster and I want cheerleaders complaining that their bikinis are making them too hot.
I would welcome a return to the league title game being held in a non-neutral site. In the pre-Super Bowl era there were two conferences in the NFL. The site wasn't based on record, however. A rotation system was in place. Eastern Conference winner would host the title game in even-numbered years and the Western Conference winner would host the title game in odd-numbered years.
Not that it's a football argument for where the SB is played, but I think the league will lose revenue if they start having SB's outdoors in northern states. Unless it were my team in the SB, I wouldn't go. I think alot of rich folks who go to SB's may not go either.
Well, the genie is out of the bottle and never coming back in. The Super Bowl will always be in a neutral site. As for your final two sentences there, I think a Giants at Ravens Super Bowl would do well (cold weather or no cold weather) just as neutral site Super Bowls do well. I don't see how there would be a big difference. Hell, the league may put a Super Bowl in New Jersey. If the Giants or Jets don't make it to such a game and it's, say, Denver vs Seattle, I'm sure the game is going to sell out and the rich folks will be there.
You're looking at it the wrong way. The LEAGUE won't lose money, the SCALPERS will lose money. The league will sell out regardless of location, guaranteed. Most of the ticket prices get inflated by brokers anyway. A better argument would be decreased revenues for the host city. However, it's hard to argue that a team like Tampa or Miami, if hosting (fat chance) would lose money whether it were a situational site or a fixed in advance site. For the other locations, like Baltimore, Foxboro, Green Bay, etc, they may not bring in as much money as a Miami would, but they also aren't candidates to host under the current structure. ANY tourist revenue from hosting is a boost over where they currently stand.
Ability to adapt to a changing environment contributes to whom is deemed best. It is understandable in Minnesota, but IMO Indy and NO are unnecessary (though a good argument could be made by the people of the crescent city for the Superdome's right to exist).
I instantly have less respect for teams that play in Domes, it's just a wussy move in my opinion. The best games are the ones where its 2 degrees in Buffalo/Green Bay/Chicago/Denver, and snowing. That's football. Not some air-conditioned perfect temperature dome. Go watch Arena Football if you like that. I always find it hilarious when a team like the Rams have to play a team like the Bears in Chicago and its snowing like hell. The best teams can win in any condition. I would love to see a Superbowl up north, can you imagine an epic Snow Bowl Super Bowl?:beer:
