2014 Super Bowl in New York

[People's Champ]

So its pretty much a done deal. 17 owners are needed to vote yes to New York hosting the '14 Super Bowl. There are two sides of thought when it comes to playing a Super Bowl in NY. Some believe this willl be nothing but great for the league. Finally, the top 2 teams will have to battle the elements in the biggest game of the year. A different change to the warm weather we see each year. However, there is concern for the fans who will attend the game. What if there is a snow blizzard, just for example? At $2,000 a ticket, will it be worth freezing over instead of watching it in HiDef at home? All the festivities we see, such as the halftime show, will they be able to continue if snow is falling at an inch per minute?

Now these are just general concerns and thoughts around the league. Nothing specific. But what is almost a slam dunk is that its going to happen. Rodger Goodell is high on doing it, and so are most of the owners. So its not really a matter of if, but when will it finally be announced.


So I want to know what you think of a Super Bowl being played in early Feburary in N.Y. Do you think this is good or bad for the league? And would you personally like to see a Super Bowl game played in cold maybe snowy elements?

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

This is a bunch of East Coast Bias Bull Shit. Goodell lifting the cold weather rule so New York can host a superbowl. Hope its snowing and cold as fuck, costing some precious east coast team a superbowl.

This is a stupid decision, did anyone look at the weather in New York during last years superbowl, there was a fucking blizzard going on, as far as I know there's no dome on this new building, on top of the fact that this stadium isn't even in New York, its in fucking New Jersey.

What about all the other cold weather teams that are going to want superbowl bids now, this is a hypocritical move if I've ever seen one.

 

[Stormtrooper]

This is a bunch of East Coast Bias Bull Shit. Goodell lifting the cold weather rule so New York can host a superbowl. Hope its snowing and cold as fuck, costing some precious east coast team a superbowl.

Because we all know how there isn't some South/Warm Weather Bias Bull Shit. Football is played regardless of the weather every week from September through (not) February, so why should the Super Bowl be played in "Warm weather cities?" Also, you're bitching about the weather, well the weather has been shit in past Super Bowls too. Super Bowl XLI (in Miami) was in a downpour. I think there was cold/rain in this years event too (in Miami).

It's not like Miami or Tampa need more Super Bowls. Give it to someone else. And you speak of this lifting a ban to give New York something, well since Wellington Mara pretty much built the fucking league into what it is now (by agreeing to Revenue Sharing, knowing it will kill his profit), lets fucking throw a bone to his family maybe.

This is a stupid decision, did anyone look at the weather in New York during last years superbowl, there was a fucking blizzard going on, as far as I know there's no dome on this new building, on top of the fact that this stadium isn't even in New York, its in fucking New Jersey.

So you're not only a weatherman, but you can predict the weather for 4 years from now?! Damn, you should be a meteorologist or something. There is no roof on the new building, so yes, it will be cold when New York/New Jersey (the bid is for New York/New Jersey, not just New York) has the Super Bowl, but as I said before, FOOTBALL IS PLAYED IN THE GOD DAMN COLD, get the fuck used to it.

What about all the other cold weather teams that are going to want superbowl bids now, this is a hypocritical move if I've ever seen one.

If a cold city has the hotels and everything needed to host a Super Bowl, then they should have just as much a chance to get it as Miami, LA, or New Orleans. All they deserve is to be able to have a shot, and that's all even NY/NJ is getting.

Forcing cold-weather teams to play in the warm is just as much of a bias as forcing a warm weather team to play in the cold. If Denver, Boston, Green Bay, or Seattle want it, they should bid, and have an equal chance as the same damn cities every year. It's called fucking equality.

Besides, did you know that fucking DETROIT held a Super Bowl 4 years ago? Last time I checked Detroit's fucking cold. Get off your fucking high-horse and realize the whole country deserve equal rights to a Super Bowl.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

So they change the rule so NY can make even more money? Cool. Nothing against NY but when rules get changed just for someone's benefit is bullshit. I saw Trooper saying football is played in the cold, but the Superbowl shouldn't be. The rule of having domes or good weather is to keep an even playing field, weather should not have something to do with the Superbowl. As for Detriot it was played in a dome, and it helped out on of the most economic troubled cities in the U.S., New York is far from needing any help.

This is a bad call on many levels and does show that little East Coast bias everyone on the Atlantic coast seems to know nothing about.

 

[Super Hans]

I have only just got into NFL this last 4 years and ive always wondered why it was always hosted in warm weather cities.I always thought it should be like the Champions League over here in Europe with different cities holding it each year.If you have the stadia and all the other criteria(which all NFL teams have) met,then why shouldnt other states be allowed to hold it.Hell the Champions League final 2 years ago was held in RUSSIA!! 2 English teams travelled over to Russia for the biggest showpiece in Europe.The weather doesnt matter,these guys are paid millions of dollars to play in whatever condition they encounter.And from what i can understand Ney York/New Jersey is a pretty big fucking deal over the pond and they can handle the pressure and everything that comes with holding a Superbowl.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Because we all know how there isn't some South/Warm Weather Bias Bull Shit. Football is played regardless of the weather every week from September through (not) February, so why should the Super Bowl be played in "Warm weather cities?" Also, you're bitching about the weather, well the weather has been shit in past Super Bowls too. Super Bowl XLI (in Miami) was in a downpour. I think there was cold/rain in this years event too (in Miami).

That's east coast too, I thought the point of the superbowl was to figure out the best team, not who can outlast who in a blizzard.

It's not like Miami or Tampa need more Super Bowls. Give it to someone else. And you speak of this lifting a ban to give New York something, well since Wellington Mara pretty much built the fucking league into what it is now (by agreeing to Revenue Sharing, knowing it will kill his profit), lets fucking throw a bone to his family maybe.

A rule is a rule, Goodell want's to be strict on one end, but break rules on the other, hypocrite.

It's not like Wellington Mara is still around to enjoy it, like New York need a bone thrown their way. New York gets everything thrown their way.

So you're not only a weatherman, but you can predict the weather for 4 years from now?! Damn, you should be a meteorologist or something. There is no roof on the new building, so yes, it will be cold when New York/New Jersey (the bid is for New York/New Jersey, not just New York) has the Super Bowl, but as I said before, FOOTBALL IS PLAYED IN THE GOD DAMN COLD, get the fuck used to it.

NFL has made it so the superbowl is about battling the other team, not the elements. Who really wants to see another icebowl, keep it in warm weather so its about the football and not the weather.

Again, a rule is a rule, and Goodell is a hypocrite for breaking it.

If a cold city has the hotels and everything needed to host a Super Bowl, then they should have just as much a chance to get it as Miami, LA, or New Orleans. All they deserve is to be able to have a shot, and that's all even NY/NJ is getting.

Forcing cold-weather teams to play in the warm is just as much of a bias as forcing a warm weather team to play in the cold. If Denver, Boston, Green Bay, or Seattle want it, they should bid, and have an equal chance as the same damn cities every year. It's called fucking equality.

Besides, did you know that fucking DETROIT held a Super Bowl 4 years ago? Last time I checked Detroit's fucking cold. Get off your fucking high-horse and realize the whole country deserve equal rights to a Super Bowl.

Forcing teams to play in nice weather puts them at a disadvantage

I didn't make these rules, they are there for a reason, to make it about the football and not the weather. Goodell breaks the rules to give New York a nice public BJ, like it needs another one of those.

 

[People's Champ]

SSC I agree with your point. Must be a Cali thing.

But in all seriousness, playing the Super Bowl in a cold weather city is a bad idea. While it is enjoyable to see teams play a regular season game in some harsh weather conditions, having that in the Super Bowl would not be good. As SSC said, the point is to see which team is better than the other. You can't determine that if you got heavy snowfall or some other bad weather. And it will only make for a sloppy game. Should there be snow for instance, that turns the teams into run first offense. You will see bad handoffs, sloppy tackling, all kinds of football I don't want to see in the biggest game of the year.

 

[Big Sexy]

Some of these responses are ridiculous. If a team isn't capable of winning a cold weather game in bad conditions (which there is no guarantee the conditions will even be bad) then they don't deserve to call themselves the best team in football. In fact there are some players that prefer a little colder conditions. This is football we are talking about. One of the most mentally and physically tough sports to play in the entire world. A lot of teams in the NFL have to deal with bad conditions for a large part of the season while others play their home games in sunny Florida or California. Weather is part of the game. I personally think it's bullshit that the same 4-5 cities are constantly getting the Super Bowl and I'm glad they are switching it up.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

Some of these responses are ridiculous. If a team isn't capable of winning a cold weather game in bad conditions (which there is no guarantee the conditions will even be bad) then they don't deserve to call themselves the best team in football. In fact there are some players that prefer a little colder conditions. This is football we are talking about. One of the most mentally and physically tough sports to play in the entire world. A lot of teams in the NFL have to deal with bad conditions for a large part of the season while others play their home games in sunny Florida or California. Weather is part of the game. I personally think it's bullshit that the same 4-5 cities are constantly getting the Super Bowl and I'm glad they are switching it up.

This is not a permanent change, this is a lets change the rules this once so New York/New Jersey can get what they want, and I'm sure this won't hurt the NFL's pocketbooks either.

If they want to make it so every stadium has their own fair shot than so be it, but it's set up like this for a reason. The NFL doesn't want there BIGGEST game the year to be decided by weather.

When Kansas City wants a shot but they get turned down because of the weather rule it won't seem to fair, but everyone's always trying to slip New York a secret under the table handjob. I'm sure someone in the Mara family paid Goodell off real nice, Goodell should be up for Hypocrite of the year.

 

[Big Sexy]

This is not a permanent change, this is a lets change the rules this once so New York/New Jersey can get what they want, and I'm sure this won't hurt the NFL's pocketbooks either.

If they want to make it so every stadium has their own fair shot than so be it, but it's set up like this for a reason. The NFL doesn't want there BIGGEST game the year to be decided by weather.

When Kansas City wants a shot but they get turned down because of the weather rule it won't seem to fair, but everyone's always trying to slip New York a secret under the table handjob. I'm sure someone in the Mara family paid Goodell off real nice, Goodell should be up for Hypocrite of the year.

I don't agree with that part of it. I definitely think every city should be given equal opportunity. I was more debating the people who think that the Super Bowl should always be played in a warm weather city or a dome. Again, if a team can't win a bad or cold weather game then they don't deserve to call themselves the best team in football.

 

[People's Champ]

For me, I just don't want to see a sloppy game of football, ie Colts vs Bears. Yes teams should be able to win in bbad weather, but personally I just don't want to see that type of game.

And I read on ESPN that this was made as an exception for Ny/NJ, not an actual change to the rule. So no, there's not going to be any more cold Super Bowls. This was a one time deal for this new stadium. Which speaks to the hypocrisy that SSC mention. Once again, Goodell bends the rules for what he sees fit.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

I don't agree with that part of it. I definitely think every city should be given equal opportunity. I was more debating the people who think that the Super Bowl should always be played in a warm weather city or a dome. Again, if a team can't win a bad or cold weather game then they don't deserve to call themselves the best team in football.

It's more about making sure that the weather is not detrimental to play. To see which team is in fact better, imagine a Superbowl win for a team that hinged on one play that was effected by inclimate weather. That would leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. If the Superbowl is played in a dome or in good weather the better team will usually come out on top because their team executed better. The thing I'm most pissed about is that the rule was changed just for New York to get a Superbowl, not for any other spots.

 

[Stormtrooper]

Some of these responses are ridiculous. If a team isn't capable of winning a cold weather game in bad conditions (which there is no guarantee the conditions will even be bad) then they don't deserve to call themselves the best team in football. In fact there are some players that prefer a little colder conditions. This is football we are talking about. One of the most mentally and physically tough sports to play in the entire world. A lot of teams in the NFL have to deal with bad conditions for a large part of the season while others play their home games in sunny Florida or California. Weather is part of the game. I personally think it's bullshit that the same 4-5 cities are constantly getting the Super Bowl and I'm glad they are switching it up.

Finally someone who put the nail on the head. If you can't win in all conditions, you don't deserve to win in any condition. If the game is decided in snow, then the better team will still win. If the game is decided in perfect weather, then the better team will still win. And I for one am glad they aren't going back to Miami or to Tampa. Florida has had about 92112351 Super Bowls, give it to someone else for a change.

This is not a permanent change, this is a lets change the rules this once so New York/New Jersey can get what they want, and I'm sure this won't hurt the NFL's pocketbooks either.

If they want to make it so every stadium has their own fair shot than so be it, but it's set up like this for a reason. The NFL doesn't want there BIGGEST game the year to be decided by weather.

When Kansas City wants a shot but they get turned down because of the weather rule it won't seem to fair, but everyone's always trying to slip New York a secret under the table handjob. I'm sure someone in the Mara family paid Goodell off real nice, Goodell should be up for Hypocrite of the year.

1. The warm weather rule is bullshit, because it favors the warm-weather teams.
2. The Mara's, Tish's, and Johnson's (the 3 NY/NJ owners) didn't pay off the NFL. They spend nearly 2 BILLION dollars building a new stadium with the agreement that new stadium=Super Bowl bid.
3. Most cold-weather cities would likely get turned down, because they lack the ability to house all the events/people congregating there. NY/NJ, Boston, DC, and maybe Philly would be able to hold it no problem.

It's more about making sure that the weather is not detrimental to play. To see which team is in fact better, imagine a Superbowl win for a team that hinged on one play that was effected by inclimate weather. That would leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth. If the Superbowl is played in a dome or in good weather the better team will usually come out on top because their team executed better. The thing I'm most pissed about is that the rule was changed just for New York to get a Superbowl, not for any other spots.

If weather is a factor, then why is the Super Bowl not played in a Dome every year, since that is the only way to ensure that the game is played unfairly for the warm teams, instead of unfairly for the All-Weather teams?

If for some weird reason people give a shit about being warm for all the off-the-field nonsense, then why is it in Indianapolis in 2012, and why was it in Detroit 4 years ago?

Again, NY/NJ owners got a reward for spending 2 BILLION dollars to build a new field. No reason to bitch about it.

And finally, This rule is not a new rule. It was likely implemented decades ago, and more likely then not done because back then fields were not able to be playable as easily. Nowadays (thank to heating technology) fields can be cleaned with relative ease.

 

[Davi323]

I am all for it. If the NFC and AFC title games can be played in complete shit, determining the teams that play in the Super Bowl, then why not the big game itself? Basically, I am sick of the double standard. Teams play the entire season with weather as a factor. They play in high winds, rain and snow during the season, and the playoffs. Basically, man up. If you can play at Lambeau field mid January for a spot in the Super Bowl, you can play at Lambeau field two weeks later in the Super Bowl itself. While this is in New York, I hope eventually that it will be expanded to include the home stadiums of every NFL team, and that the Super Bowl location is rotated fairly between them. Bad weather and all.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Finally someone who put the nail on the head. If you can't win in all conditions, you don't deserve to win in any condition. If the game is decided in snow, then the better team will still win. If the game is decided in perfect weather, then the better team will still win. And I for one am glad they aren't going back to Miami or to Tampa. Florida has had about 92112351 Super Bowls, give it to someone else for a change.

I'm not a fan of every Superbowl being played in Florida either, but I also don't want to see a sloppy ass snow covered Superbowl either. But the thing is that if a game is played in inclimate weather the best team might not win. There is always a chance of fumble or grip issues, speed on the field, and vision are all effected in bad weather. I understand it's fair because both teams have to play in it but it ups the chances for bad plays that wouldn't have been made in a controlled climate.

1. The warm weather rule is bullshit, because it favors the warm-weather teams.

Brett Favre plays much better in domes and in good weather, didn't he play in the frozen tundra most of his career?

2. The Mara's, Tish's, and Johnson's (the 3 NY/NJ owners) didn't pay off the NFL. They spend nearly 2 BILLION dollars building a new stadium with the agreement that new stadium=Super Bowl bid.

So they grabbed the NFL by the balls and said they'll spend money for a Superbowl? So how come they get this stipulation? We build a stadium and we get a Superbowl, what the fuck is that shit?

3. Most cold-weather cities would likely get turned down, because they lack the ability to house all the events/people congregating there. NY/NJ, Boston, DC, and maybe Philly would be able to hold it no problem.

Agreed.

If weather is a factor, then why is the Super Bowl not played in a Dome every year, since that is the only way to ensure that the game is played unfairly for the warm teams, instead of unfairly for the All-Weather teams?

The turf. They have to switch it up a little bit.

If for some weird reason people give a shit about being warm for all the off-the-field nonsense, then why is it in Indianapolis in 2012, and why was it in Detroit 4 years ago?

For me it's not how warm it is it's the possibilty of bad weather effecting the outcome of the biggest game of the year. Those are both domes though.

Again, NY/NJ owners got a reward for spending 2 BILLION dollars to build a new field. No reason to bitch about it.

Yes there is. The weather is what we are bitching about here.

And finally, This rule is not a new rule. It was likely implemented decades ago, and more likely then not done because back then fields were not able to be playable as easily. Nowadays (thank to heating technology) fields can be cleaned with relative ease.

Then why change it for New York? Why change a rule for one city?

Regardless of how quickly the can shovel the snow it doesn't change the fact that they can't stop that bitch Mother Nature from fucking with the biggest game of the year.

 

[TwistofRKO]

I don't like it, because I don't want anyone to have a clear one-sided advantage, and every team plays in warm climates and domes through the season, and many teams can only play one cold-weather game. It'll be fun to watch, but I don't like it from a fairness standpoint.

The one thing I ask though, is if this works out they'll be willing to go to other cold-weather stadiums. Everyone will say Green Bay, but that may be a bit much. Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are in about the same conditions as the New Meadowlands and have state-of-the-art stadiums. I don't want this just to happen because its New York.

 

[Davi323]

That's just it though...the same cold weather teams have an advantage IF they have home field during the conference title games, but that doesn't get any flak. How is playing a Super Bowl in the cold any more unfair than a warm weather team having to play in the cold for either the NFC or AFC title game? Should the 2001-2002 Patriots have to give back their Super Bowl trophy because it was patently unfair that the Oakland Raiders, a warm weather team, had to play a playoff game against them in Foxboro, in the snow? Of course not. Its all part of the game. Basically, if you are going to argue that the Super Bowl needs to be played in a warm weather location or dome to ensure "fairness", then you would also have to be consistent and say that all playoff games need to be equally fair, and then you have to take that to the next logical step, and ban open stadiums in the north completely. You can't claim that cold weather/rain/snow is perfectly okay during the regular season, might have an affect on who makes the playoffs, that it is perfectly okay that it might help determine the teams playing the Super Bowl in the playoffs, but then suddenly claim its not okay for the Super Bowl itself. It's a double standard.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

That's just it though...the same cold weather teams have an advantage IF they have home field during the conference title games, but that doesn't get any flak. How is playing a Super Bowl in the cold any more unfair than a warm weather team having to play in the cold for either the NFC or AFC title game? Should the 2001-2002 Patriots have to give back their Super Bowl trophy because it was patently unfair that the Oakland Raiders, a warm weather team, had to play a playoff game against them in Foxboro, in the snow? Of course not. Its all part of the game. Basically, if you are going to argue that the Super Bowl needs to be played in a warm weather location or dome to ensure "fairness", then you would also have to be consistent and say that all playoff games need to be equally fair, and then you have to take that to the next logical step, and ban open stadiums in the north completely. You can't claim that cold weather/rain/snow is perfectly okay during the regular season, might have an affect on who makes the playoffs, that it is perfectly okay that it might help determine the teams playing the Super Bowl in the playoffs, but then suddenly claim its not okay for the Super Bowl itself. It's a double standard.

Yes, the weather is a factor in the regular season, and it's a factor in the playoffs. That all has to do with the home field advantage, like you said, the only problem with that is the superbowl is not about home field advantage, its about determining the best team on a neutral playing field, one that has no effect on the outcome of the game.

Please, stop with the "cold weather teams are at a disadvantage playing in good conditions" what a huge load of shit, playing in ideal conditions doesn't lessen your playing abilities.

This is how the NFL has set it up, they wanted it like this, its about the best team, not the team that outlasts the other team during shit weather conditions.

Also, I will claim that the braving the elements during the regular season, and even the playoffs is part of the game.... but guess what, not during the supebowl, the NFL set it up like that, and I agree with it. I don't agree with changing the rules just to give New York and special under the table hand shake. Goodell comes off as a major hypocrite, players better not be falsely convicted or your gonna be suspended, but if you've got enough money to slip Goodell you can get anything you want.

One more time, you earn your home field advantage for the playoffs, warm weather, cold weather, dome weather doesn't matter, you earn this advantage by braving the elements during the regular season, after all of this, the two best teams then play on a neutral to determine the best team, If you end up with the Pats playing the Cards in the superbowl you've just handed New England homefield. Do you understand? The superbowl is not about braving the elements, its about the football. Home field advantage and weather may help you get to the supebowl, but once your there, its about the football, not the weather.

 

[Little Jerry Lawler]

I don't really care about the Super Bowl being played in New Jersey. I look at from a fan's and the media's perspective. From a fan's perspective, the cold weather and possibility of snow may be a turnoff. From a media's perspective, at least it gives them something to do for the two weeks and they can go out and enjoy the New York nightlife. We don't know if the cold weather will be an advantage or a disadvantage. You could have two cold-weather teams play in a Super Bowl. For every great SB, you usually get three to four mediocre or bad ones so SB 48 may be one of the greatest or it may be one of the worst but I don't think weather would be a huge factor.

 

[TwistofRKO]

That's just it though...the same cold weather teams have an advantage IF they have home field during the conference title games, but that doesn't get any flak.

Completely different. You earned the right to play at home in the regular season. In the Super Bowl you are in the same boat as the other team.

How is playing a Super Bowl in the cold any more unfair than a warm weather team having to play in the cold for either the NFC or AFC title game? Should the 2001-2002 Patriots have to give back their Super Bowl trophy because it was patently unfair that the Oakland Raiders, a warm weather team, had to play a playoff game against them in Foxboro, in the snow? Of course not. Its all part of the game.

Wow, you really thought this was a strong point, didn't you? It isn't.

Basically, if you are going to argue that the Super Bowl needs to be played in a warm weather location or dome to ensure "fairness", then you would also have to be consistent and say that all playoff games need to be equally fair, and then you have to take that to the next logical step, and ban open stadiums in the north completely. You can't claim that cold weather/rain/snow is perfectly okay during the regular season, might have an affect on who makes the playoffs, that it is perfectly okay that it might help determine the teams playing the Super Bowl in the playoffs, but then suddenly claim its not okay for the Super Bowl itself. It's a double standard.

Did this post evolve? Nope. Same, poorly-thought out idea for the 70th time in one post. If you play a home playoff game in the playoffs, you earned it by your play in the regular season, hence the term home field ADVANTAGE. Are you going to complain about the #1 seed playing less games to get to the Super Bowl than the #6 seed now? In the Super Bowl, you have the two best teams, one from each conference, neither holding a sustainable advantage over each other. Why should a 14-2 Patriots vs a 14-2 Cardinals be played in snowy conditions? Both have the same record, but the other is in an unmistakable advantage.

HORRIBLE logic. Worst post I've seen in a loooong time.

 

[Theo Mays]

I've been calling for a cold weather city to host the Super Bowl for as long as I can remember. It adds that extra element and planning to the game. Weather is just as much part of the sport as anything else. I for one would love to see a snowy Super Bowl, as it would make the game that much more enjoyable to me. I don't really see the big deal and I for one would love to see some other cold weather teams get Super Bowl bids (especially the Vikings when/if we get a new stadium). Big Sexy hit it on the nose. If you are truly the best team you can win no matter what the weather brings your way. And who knows what the weather will be like. The football Gods usually bless the Super Bowl host with excellent weather of late (minus the rainy SB in Miami between the Colts and Bears).

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

I fell that the weather is not big deal and their is no gurantee that the weather would be bad. And are we forgetting that one of if not that greatest game in football history was the ICE BOWL

 

[Davi323]

Completely different. You earned the right to play at home in the regular season. In the Super Bowl you are in the same boat as the other team.



Wow, you really thought this was a strong point, didn't you? It isn't.



Did this post evolve? Nope. Same, poorly-thought out idea for the 70th time in one post. If you play a home playoff game in the playoffs, you earned it by your play in the regular season, hence the term home field ADVANTAGE. Are you going to complain about the #1 seed playing less games to get to the Super Bowl than the #6 seed now? In the Super Bowl, you have the two best teams, one from each conference, neither holding a sustainable advantage over each other. Why should a 14-2 Patriots vs a 14-2 Cardinals be played in snowy conditions? Both have the same record, but the other is in an unmistakable advantage.

HORRIBLE logic. Worst post I've seen in a loooong time.

Were you actually going to counter my arguments in your diatribe, or just tell me I am wrong without backing it up? Did your response to my post evolve? Nope. Same poorly thought out argument. Are NFL players men, or *****es? Why should the Pats/Cards hypothetically play in the cold? How about because if you want to be able to claim you are best team in the NFL, you need to be able to prove it regardless of conditions? Doesn't bad weather affect both the home team and the away team? When it rains does only the visiting team get wet? If its cold and snowy, so be it.

PS. the fucking greatest game in NFL history is called the ICE BOWL. Playing in a cold weather stadium in the cold and snow is no more a guarantee of a bad game as playing in a warm weather stadium is a guarantee of a good team. In fact, we have seen quite a few piece of shit worthless Super Bowls played in beautiful weather, haven't we?

Then there is the obvious economic aspect. The Super Bowl has been played in Miami and New Orleans 10 times each. That means almost half of the Super Bowl, and almost half of all tourism revenue was split between the same two cities. Hundreds of millions of dollars, two cities. How is that even remotely fair to the other 30 cities that host an NFL team? That money isn't part of revenue sharing, the hotels in Miami don't split their profits with hotels in Denver, restaurants in New Orleans don't share with restaurants in Green Bay. Southern NFL cities get a clear economic boost that isn't shared by anyone else. And why? Because NFL players aren't tough enough to play a Super Bowl in New York? It's the greatest city on the entire planet, but its not good enough for the NFL? Ridiculous. You know damn well New York is going throw one hell of a party in 2014.

Whats the name of the Super Bowl trophy again? Oh, that's right. The Lombardi trophy. The VINCE Lombardi trophy. Named after the guy who won 12 NFL titles in Green Bay, the coldest NFL city their is come playoff time. You trying to tell me that they can't play the game that awards the trophy named after him in the same town he coached in to get his name on that trophy? It's the Vince Lombardi trophy, what city would be more appropriate to host the trophy named for him than Green Bay?

 

[Megatron]

I'm all for this, tbh. I know they're two completely different sports, but if the MLB can play it's whole season in the summer, only to have to finish it off in the cold October/November whether, then why can't the NFL, which is constantly playing in cold(er) weather, play it's biggest game of the season in a cold weathered city. These guys are men, not *****es. If they can't play the biggest game of the season in bad weather because it's too cold for them then I guess they really don't care about being champions.

 

[People's Champ]

This whole stupid "they're men not *****es" is the fucking dumbest argument made.I don't recall one person saying it will be too cold for football. Not one! Where the hell are you getting this? Do you understand the argument made? Its that playing in a cold weather poses weather problems for a game that is purely about football. This game is to decide which team is better than the other. Weather should not play a factor in that. This is purely 2 teams, with perfect conditions, trying to outplay the other. What's hard to understand about that?

And this whole Ice Bowl thing, who cares? I don't want to see a Dallas team that relies on the passing game to be their best, having to factor in the elements and no longer can be at their best. Its stupid. And all this for what? One game in NY/NJ? Its complete garbage.