Amstel Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I just read on PFT the Bills are one of 5 teams opposed to the idea of the 2014 SB being played here in Jersey. I probably live closer to giants stadium than anyone else on this board. I live exactly 3 miles from it. I don't know why Ralph would be against it. Perhaps cause he knows Buffalo would never be selected to host a SB. However, I think it would be great for a SB to be played in the elements. Why not? Its the game of football- rain, snow, heat and whatever else nature throws at us. Its another potential obstacle that teams should need to perservere through. I in most likely won't be living this close to the stadium then but I'll be in the same County I'm sure and it will be a complete pain in the ass for me and my wife that week traffic wise I can tell you. However, I think it would set a great precedent. I also can't say I mind they're actually mentioning Jersey and not just calling it New York. I'd be just as for it if it were Denver or Foxboro. I think the game should be played in the elements. BTW the only way I'd attend the NJ/NY SB would be if the planets aligned and the Bills were playing in it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I just read on PFT the Bills are one of 5 teams opposed to the idea of the 2014 SB being played here in Jersey. I probably live closer to giants stadium than anyone else on this board. I live exactly 3 miles from it. I don't know why Ralph would be against it. Perhaps cause he knows Buffalo would never be selected to host a SB. However, I think it would be great for a SB to be played in the elements. Why not? Its the game of football- rain, snow, heat and whatever else nature throws at us. Its another potential obstacle that teams should need to perservere through. I in most likely won't be living this close to the stadium then but I'll be in the same County I'm sure and it will be a complete pain in the ass for me and my wife that week traffic wise I can tell you. However, I think it would set a great precedent. I also can't say I mind they're actually mentioning Jersey and not just calling it New York. I'd be just as for it if it were Denver or Foxboro. I think the game should be played in the elements. BTW the only way I'd attend the NJ/NY SB would be if the planets aligned and the Bills were playing in it..... A little confused as to why the Bills would even get a vote, it should be teams that have a chance of playing in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgrid Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 doesnt make sense for them to be against it. I always thought the Bills would've won one of those SBs if it were in cold weather. at least the Dallas game(s) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I think it's dumb and I'm glad the Bills are against it. There are SB site selection rules that have been in place a long time. It must be indoors or in a city where the average high for early Feb is 50 or above. Rules are rules. I also think it's great that it's always in good weather. Would you really want to see the Super Bowl played in weather like in the Bills/Dolts game? So if the do have it in NJ does that mean that the present rules are off? Does this open it up to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle? I might think it's OK if that's the case, but somehow I don't think it is. So yeah, vote NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowgirlsFan Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 doesnt make sense for them to be against it.I always thought the Bills would've won one of those SBs if it were in cold weather. at least the Dallas game(s) I will agree. You would've won BOTH!!! I'm old enough to remember Dallas in the Ice Bowl in 1967 and that one was a disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I think it's dumb and I'm glad the Bills are against it. There are SB site selection rules that have been in place a long time. It must be indoors or in a city where the average high for early Feb is 50 or above. Rules are rules. I also think it's great that it's always in good weather. Would you really want to see the Super Bowl played in weather like in the Bills/Dolts game? So if the do have it in NJ does that mean that the present rules are off? Does this open it up to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle? I might think it's OK if that's the case, but somehow I don't think it is. So yeah, vote NO. Anyone who blithely says that they want to see the SB in bad weather should be forced to watch the tape of Super Bowl IX, played in a steady cold rain in Tulane Stadium in New Orleans. It is on YouTube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quikchomp Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I think it's dumb and I'm glad the Bills are against it. There are SB site selection rules that have been in place a long time. It must be indoors or in a city where the average high for early Feb is 50 or above. Rules are rules. I also think it's great that it's always in good weather. Would you really want to see the Super Bowl played in weather like in the Bills/Dolts game? Uh yes, I do. A decent amount of NFL games are played in bad weather during the season and especially the playoffs, and that should be represented every once in a while in the title game. Leave the exhibition game for the climate control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 In my opinion it is stupid to have a superbowl decided by weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanC883 Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Steelers are voting against it also. Not sure what that menas, but the Rooney's generally have their heads on straight regarding football-related issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 In my opinion it is stupid to have a superbowl decided by weather. As far as I know, the proposal would still include having two teams with an equal number of players and equal application of the rules contesting the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I think it's dumb and I'm glad the Bills are against it. There are SB site selection rules that have been in place a long time. It must be indoors or in a city where the average high for early Feb is 50 or above. Rules are rules. I also think it's great that it's always in good weather. Would you really want to see the Super Bowl played in weather like in the Bills/Dolts game? So if the do have it in NJ does that mean that the present rules are off? Does this open it up to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Baltimore, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle? I might think it's OK if that's the case, but somehow I don't think it is. So yeah, vote NO. Point well made. And I would completely agree. Personally, I would love to see the Super Bowl rotated through all NFL team's cities. But, I agree, I'd bet that's not close to the proposal. So, yes, I would vote no if the only intention is to show favoritism to another big market team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I'm in favor of it because it means if I want to go to the game I can drive down there the day of the game. Say the Bills are in it that year, it would even be drivable from Buffalo. I can't see why anyone who lives in the northeast would be against it, especially when it's drivable if your team makes it & you can get a ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Point well made. And I would completely agree. Personally, I would love to see the Super Bowl rotated through all NFL team's cities. But, I agree, I'd bet that's not close to the proposal. So, yes, I would vote no if the only intention is to show favoritism to another big market team. I don't want any more favoritism to big market teams. You know there is no way Buffalo would ever get a SB in our city (probably even if we had a domed stadium) so why should NYC/NJ get to host a game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 In my opinion it is stupid to have a superbowl decided by weather. But it's ok for all the preceding playoff games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 But it's ok for all the preceding playoff games? Not much of a choice there. Unless they wanted to change the playoffs to some kind of a neutral field format which would be a disaster or force all stadiums to be domes. The superbowl site is already neutral, and I would prefer to see the better team win than see a 6-3 blizzard bowl where the luckier team wins for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 I don't want any more favoritism to big market teams. You know there is no way Buffalo would ever get a SB in our city (probably even if we had a domed stadium) so why should NYC/NJ get to host a game. A couple of points. With the exception of Miami, Tampa, and New Orleans, getting a Super Bowl in your town is a reward by the NFL for building a new stadium. At least as it stands now, if Buffalo were to build a fancy new glistening high tech dome, then a Super Bowl would be played there within 4 years. They just want to put it in NJ to reward them for building the new stadium. Only problem is, they have rules saying it can't be there. I like it the way it is and see no reason to change anything. Goodell on the other hand, wants to change everything. I do like the idea of cycling it around to all NFL cities on a rotating basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 There are other rules that come into play as well regarding number of hotel rooms etc. There is a lot more to hosting a superbowl than just the stadium itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Not much of a choice there. Unless they wanted to change the playoffs to some kind of a neutral field format which would be a disaster or force all stadiums to be domes. The superbowl site is already neutral, and I would prefer to see the better team win than see a 6-3 blizzard bowl where the luckier team wins for example. Because better teams don't win 6-3 games and luck is only present during a blizzard? There are other rules that come into play as well regarding number of hotel rooms etc. There is a lot more to hosting a superbowl than just the stadium itself. New York doesn't have an adequate supply of hotel rooms for a Super Bowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Apparently they've been "against" it since 1993! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Trust me if they play the game in NY/NJ, Barcelona won't be far off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts