CodeMonkey Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Because better teams don't win 6-3 games and luck is only present during a blizzard? Games with horrible weather evens the playing field giving the worse team a much better chance to win. New York doesn't have an adequate supply of hotel rooms for a Super Bowl? Wasn't talking about NYC here, but small cities like Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Games with horrible weather evens the playing field giving the worse team a much better chance to win. First, says who? Where is your evidence that bad weather helps bad teams? It sure didn't help the Bills against the Pats* two years ago on that crazy wind day. Second, so what? That's a variable in any game. If the Super Bowl is in Miami and it's pouring rain, are you suggesting they postpone the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKillerRobots 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. I agree with this completely. I think you vote no because you know this is an exception instead of the rule. On top of that, it's an exception for Giants/Jets charity. They're having trouble selling the seats for their new stadium because of the pricing and the economy, so the NFL is going to throw them a bone to juice up excitement. My question is, if you're giving out charity, then I think there are more deserving teams (i.e. Bills). This is like the Wall Street bailout - they overspent and weren't properly hedged against a turn in the economy and now they are in trouble unless the league does something about (by "in trouble" I mean relatively, not that they're going under). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmallow 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. 1. Why was that rule created? Money. A warm weather destination allows them to stretch out the superbowl event for a week. 2. Most of those other cities you mentioned are dumps. NYC is the only destination that people would still want to spend the week, even if it were cold. Imagine a SuperBowl where Baltimore plays Atlanta in Buffalo. The game wouldn't even sell out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 First, says who? Where is your evidence that bad weather helps bad teams? It sure didn't help the Bills against the Pats* two years ago on that crazy wind day. The playing field can only be leveled so much. Far superior teams should still win. One would hope that the teams playing a superbowl would be better matched than the Bills and the cheaters were 2 years ago. Second, so what? That's a variable in any game. If the Super Bowl is in Miami and it's pouring rain, are you suggesting they postpone the game? They can't postpone obviously. My suggestion, if I were the God of the NFL, would be to require a dome to host a superbowl among the other requirements like hotel rooms etc. Are you suggesting that either watching a superbowl in pouring down rain would be as enjoyable to watch from a competition perspective or would show which is the better team? How about the in person fan experience? Pay all that money to sit in a monsoon and watch two good teams fumble to each other all day. Not sure about you but man that would really piss me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 In my opinion it is stupid to have a superbowl decided by weather. Im sure the Bears were saying that when it rained when they played the Colts a few years back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxelRipper Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 well according to S&R, they just announced its gonna be jersey 2014 EDIT: per espn: http://espn.go.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 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..... Don't be so sure that you live closer to Giants stadium then anyone else I live about 2-3 miles away from Giants Stadium as well. New Jersey got the Super Bowl and its something I think that they should do once. I don't think they should do a cold weather non-dome city that often (Maybe once every 10-15 years). All in all it should usually be in a dome or a warm weather city BUT to never have it be in a cold weather non-dome city is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 My suggestion, if I were the God of the NFL, would be to require a dome to host a superbowl among the other requirements like hotel rooms etc. It sounds more like you'd skip the game altogether and just award the championship to whoever you assumed was the "better team". Are you suggesting that either watching a superbowl in pouring down rain would be as enjoyable to watch from a competition perspective or would show which is the better team? How about the in person fan experience? Pay all that money to sit in a monsoon and watch two good teams fumble to each other all day. Not sure about you but man that would really piss me off. Actually, I couldn't care less how much money someone paid to go to the game and if they got cold or wet. You must really hate games in Buffalo, huh? The "better team" is the one that wins the game, regardless of the weather. Great teams adapt to the situation and environment. You assertion that a championship game is somehow lacking in validity if not played in perfect conditions is simply ridiculous. It's football, not ballet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 The playing field can only be leveled so much. Far superior teams should still win. One would hope that the teams playing a superbowl would be better matched than the Bills and the cheaters were 2 years ago. They can't postpone obviously. My suggestion, if I were the God of the NFL, would be to require a dome to host a superbowl among the other requirements like hotel rooms etc. Are you suggesting that either watching a superbowl in pouring down rain would be as enjoyable to watch from a competition perspective or would show which is the better team? How about the in person fan experience? Pay all that money to sit in a monsoon and watch two good teams fumble to each other all day. Not sure about you but man that would really piss me off. Weather has been part of football since it's invention. Fumbles/Ints/Missed fg's/missed blocks/sacks happen whether it's rain/snow/wind/sunshine/hail/sleet/hot/cold etc etc. If you dislike weather so much please stop watching The NFL. As someone who lives 8 miles from giant stadium I think it's pretty damn cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 It's a done deal... http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/1343907...g=headlines;nfl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 It sounds more like you'd skip the game altogether and just award the championship to whoever you assumed was the "better team". Whatever. You just can't talk to some people. Actually, I couldn't care less how much money someone paid to go to the game and if they got cold or wet. You must really hate games in Buffalo, huh? 1) I'm not watching a superbowl in Buffalo. 2) I haven't paid $500 or more to see said game in Buffalo. 3) If I paid superbowl prices to see a Jan game in Buffalo and it was pissing down rain or snow and blowing like hell, yeah I'd hate it. 4) I don't generally go to late season games in Buffalo because of weather (and over drunk !@#$s). The "better team" is the one that wins the game, regardless of the weather. Great teams adapt to the situation and environment. You assertion that a championship game is somehow lacking in validity if not played in perfect conditions is simply ridiculous. It's football, not ballet. Your better team comment is true ... to a point. But when it comes down to two otherwise good teams trading 3 and outs and whatever team fumbles the least wins, yeah it's invalid at that point to me. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Weather has been part of football since it's invention. Fumbles/Ints/Missed fg's/missed blocks/sacks happen whether it's rain/snow/wind/sunshine/hail/sleet/hot/cold etc etc. If you dislike weather so much please stop watching The NFL. I'll watch whatever I want to watch, in the stands or on my couch. Whatever I see fit. As someone who lives 8 miles from giant stadium I think it's pretty damn cool. Enjoy the game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 1) I'm not watching a superbowl in Buffalo.2) I haven't paid $500 or more to see said game in Buffalo. 3) If I paid superbowl prices to see a Jan game in Buffalo and it was pissing down rain or snow and blowing like hell, yeah I'd hate it. 4) I don't generally go to late season games in Buffalo because of weather (and over drunk !@#$s). I don't know how old you are or where you live, but a lot of us have attended playoff games in January in Orchard Park & had no problem whatsoever paying playoff prices & bundling up. Some playoff games have been ice cold, some have been warm-40s in January, some have had snow, some rain. Did you know that the greatest comeback game had some windy, rainy moments & nobody who was there hated it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 I LOVE the idea of playing a championship game in the elements. I am an old-school football guy, as most of you know. Football is supposed to be played in the elements. That is where true champions are determined. Do you think that Lombardi's Packers were sitting around boo-hooing "it's too cold."? Do you think that the great Cleveland Browns teams of the 1940s were saying, "we need to be cozy to play the game."? What about the 1958 Championship game? For decades, the champion was determined in the elements. Now, since we are putting skirts on quarterbacks, we need to have Super Bowls in warm-weather cities. Oh no. It might be slightly chilly with the possibility of a slight breeze. Chas and Buffy might have to put on a jacket while sipping their appletini's. The horror of it all. Those who do not want weather to determine the champion fail to realize that the elements have already determined who is playing in the championship game. The regular season and the playoffs are played in the elements. Heat. Cold. Rain. Snow. Wind. It is all there, determining who is playing in the championship game. The Super Bowl NJ: Bring it on. I would love to be there. If only it were affordable for the average fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 I LOVE the idea of playing a championship game in the elements. The Super Bowl NJ: Bring it on. I would love to be there. If only it were affordable for the average fan. It is a entirely different game now than it was in the 50's (for better or for worse), but I certainly respect your opinion about playing in the elements. The affordable issue is a whole other discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibran Chandan Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 Would you really want to see the Super Bowl played in weather like in the Bills/Colts game? YES! A million times yes!! However, I do understand the concern. The Super Bowl is supposed to be about who's better at playing football, and weather is a factor that the teams simply can't control. Some teams simply do not have the means to practice and practice and practice in frigid temps and snow. It's completely beyond their control; it's just something they can't do, and that's that. So if you end up with a foul-weather team playing against a fair-weather team, the geographic location of the teams suddenly becomes a major factor in who will win the Super Bowl - and that just doesn't seem right. That said, I stand by my first statement - I would love to watch a Snow Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
judman Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 NYC is a totally unique place. It is the perfect place for a super bowl. Even with the weather. This is football folks, not basketball! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Bills Fan Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 First, says who? Where is your evidence that bad weather helps bad teams? It sure didn't help the Bills against the Pats* two years ago on that crazy wind day. Second, so what? That's a variable in any game. If the Super Bowl is in Miami and it's pouring rain, are you suggesting they postpone the game? I agree. Football should not be played like golf where weather is the deciding factor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted May 26, 2010 Share Posted May 26, 2010 I think the Super Bowl should also never be played on real grass. When those pretty uniforms get all dirty it just looks so yucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts