Blog Entry

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

Posted on: May 25, 2010 5:52 pm
When Congressman Steve Rothman (D-NJ) said the NFL made a "extraordinary and bold choice" in awarding the 2014 Super Bowl to the New York area he got it right. But then he characterized it as "the right choice," too, and there I'm not so sure. In fact, I'd have to object.

Look, I live in New York City so I'd like to see a Super Bowl coming here ... if, that is, it's played between May and October. But it's not. Having a Super Bowl at the Meadowlands in February makes about as much sense as holding the NHL's next Winter Classic in Tampa. I've heard owners talk romantically about having football played outdoors and their fond memories of the Ice Bowl, but there's one thing they didn't tell you and that is this -- THEY DON'T SIT OUTDOORS! They're in the climate-controlled comfort of a luxury suite where the room temperature is almost as warm as the seven-course meals that they're serving.

Spectators aren't so lucky. The ones going to the 2014 Super Bowl will pay upwards of $1,000 per seat to endure the elements -- and that could mean sub-freezing climate, snow, ice or freezing rain. Ah, yes, the great outdoors. There's a reason they invoked the 50-degree rule way back when, and it wasn't for the love of the great outdoors. Owners wanted to insure the best possible experience for fans and their teams, and playing a Super Bowl in a cold weather climate without a roof is not what they had in mind.

So why did this pass? I think owners like the novelty of the idea. I think they like the idea of the biggest game of the year played in the biggest city in the country, too. But more than anything, they like the idea of following their leader -- and make no mistake, commissioner Roger Goodell was leading the charge here because, as Rothman said, it's extraordinary and bold. He supported the idea, and owners support their commissioner. Simple as that.

So they're willing to take a risk, only this is one gamble that could backfire big time. On Super Bowl weekend this year Washington D.C. was paralyzed by over 30 inches of snow. Tell me what that would do to New York City. Or how about 15 inches. Or how about an ice storm like the one that hammered Atlanta for Super Bowl XXXIV. The NFL is not in the risk-taking business, but it just crossed its fingers and said a prayer with this vote. And what it's hoping for is one week of good weather.

Or is that good luck? They're going to need both.
Category: NFL

Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: May 26, 2010 4:22 am

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

The Superbowl used to be played at an NFL team host city.  It got moved to warm weather cities only BECAUSE of the money they could make.The Super Bowl has never been played anywhere but a warm-weather city or a city with a dome. The only time it's been played north of the 34th parallel was in Palo Alto, Calif.

doesnt   a warm climate team have a  a dvantage when they play a cold weather team?No, it doesn't. The cold-weather team has that kind of weather in its city for the first half of the season, and has had plenty of time to practice and play in it. For them, it's like going back to late September. In a warm-weather city, there is no weather advantage. In a cold-weather city, there is an advantage. 

That's why in the Notre Dame-Southern California football series, the game is always played in October when Notre Dame is the host team and in December when USC is the host team. In October, the weather in South Bend, Ind., usually hasn't turned cold enough to give the Fighting Irish an advantage. In December, the weather in Los Angeles usually has turned cold enough to strip the Trojans of an advantage. The teams play the game in as neutral weather conditions as possible.
Those against it must be against the current playoff format which involves games played in the cold and snow.Wrong. Those games are fine, because the team hosting the game has earned it with a better regular season. The Super Bowl is supposed to be at a neutral site, which means weather is not a factor.

Since: Nov 10, 2006
Posted on: May 26, 2010 3:52 am

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

doesnt   a warm climate team have a  a dvantage when they play a cold weather team?

Since: Jan 17, 2007
Posted on: May 26, 2010 3:15 am

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

bchen: Whatever gave you the idea that football was a "winter sport"?  Back in the beginning, the college season ended at Thanksgiving for most teams, and the only bowl was the Rose, until the mid-1930s.  Then the Orange, Sugar, Sun and Cotton Bowls started up as a way to boost tourism and dollars during the Depression.  Notice that all these games were in places that usually have good weather even on Jan 1.  The idea was to have a holiday "vacation" with a football game as the main attraction. The NFL didn't start until 1920 and still didn't play deep into December until quite a few years later.  But they still wound it up before New Year's day, normally having the championship game the last weekend in December.  It was NEVER supposed to be a "winter sport".  Playing in February is just plain dumb, and especially in an outdoor stadium, which is virtually guaranteed to have crappy weather.

Since: Sep 18, 2006
Posted on: May 26, 2010 2:16 am

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

Most of the people against this think the NFL is doing it for money.  Look at the Playoffs.  The other posters are right.  The conference Championships are played in the weather, depending on home field advantage.  The Superbowl used to be played at an NFL team host city.  It got moved to warm weather cities only BECAUSE of the money they could make.  This is a one time deal where the NFL owners said "screw" making more money in Tampa, and gave it to New York.  I think it should be in a northern city at least once every 4 years, not just once, but I think this will be it for now.  The current format favors "Dome" teams and "finesse" teams.  I think it would be more fair to randomly have a cold weather game occasionally.  Those against it must be against the current playoff format which involves games played in the cold and snow.  In fact, lets kick Green Bay out of the league altogether because if just gets too darn cold there.....

Since: Sep 9, 2006
Posted on: May 26, 2010 1:25 am

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

everyone seems to forget just 3 years ago, the bears were supposed to have an advatange agiainst the colts, becuase they were a running team, and the rain was supposed to neautarlize the colt offense, well guess what the colts adjusted to the weather and ran the ball down the bears throats, and i get tired of these whiny sportswriters, as hello if we have a season in 2011, uh the superbowl, oh yeah in indy

Since: May 26, 2010
Posted on: May 26, 2010 12:56 am

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

i guess this is just a natural progression of the softening of america today.  When a warm weather team goes to play a cold weather team in the conference championship in bad weather, can they just show up and say "but its too cold out to play, we wont be able to throw for 400 yds and 5 tds.... not fairrrrr,.... wahhhhhhhhhhh"

these so called football fans sound a lot more like golf fans

i can't wait till a teams excuse for losing the superbowl was "it was too cold outside"

Since: May 6, 2007
Posted on: May 26, 2010 12:51 am

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

Yeah it's "romantic" to play in the weather.  However as nostalgic as some may be about certain games as far as an ice bowl superbowl i'm not a fan.  The league has gone out of it's way to turn the NFL into a passers league.  Now what happens if you get say the Colts and Saints in the superbowl in NY in freezing temps, snow, and a craptastic field due to weather?  We get two pass happy teams who won't be able to pass for jack and instead will run the ball a few yards at a time or throw incomplete passes to receivers sliding around a snow packed field.  Who cares who wins that's not a true test of either team.  It's who brought the better spikes or slid the farthest when tackled.  I want the super bowl to be an equal affair that actually shows who the better team is.  As far as the fans being uncomforatable i could care less.  At the rediculous ticket prices i'll sit at home with friends and watch it on tv eating hot wings and laughing at the commercials.  Give me a game that will show who the better team is. 

Since: Sep 21, 2009
Posted on: May 26, 2010 12:49 am

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

But it would be fair if Miami played in their weather conditions?  You make no sense...  Coupled with the fact that teams have players from all over the country it makes absolutely no difference.  And pick a better analogy the Dolphins have a strong running game therefore pounding the rock and running in adverse weather would give Miami an advantage over Cutler attempting to throw 50 times a game through Meadowland Winds.  Stick to hockey analysis bud.

Since: May 26, 2010
Posted on: May 26, 2010 12:34 am


A)  This is ONE YEAR, the superbowl is not going to be in NY every year.

B)  The odds of there being a huge rainstorm in Florida are far greater than having a snowstorm in NY

C)  Since when is football a game for soft girls?  Isn't it supposed to be a tough sport where conditions shouldn't give you an excuse for losing?

D)  If you can play playoff games, including NFC/AFC championship games, and no one complains about the weather in those, why can't you have inclimate conditions in the superbowl?  the other playoff games don't count?  should we move all playoff games to neutral warm weather sites, or all regular season games for that matter?

E)  you are telling me baseball, which is not known for being as tough as football, and is more likened to summer and spring time, can play their world series in harsh november northeast conditions, but football can't?

F)  How many people on this board actually attend the super bowl?  less than 0.00001%?  is it going to affect your enjoyment of the game when you are sitting in your living room getting fat and drunk?

G)  So a team like the Saints can light up the scoreboard in a dome or outside good weather condition game, bc they are belt for that style, but a running cold weather team has to suffer?  sucks when the shoes on the other foot.

H)  you are telling me if you did have the opportunity to go to the super bowl or just attend the festivities, you would rather do it in Jacksonville? where there is absolutely nothing to do or so but the artificial superbowl site, than NY?

I)   THe recently deceased owner of the Giants, Marra, is the reason why all of your small market favorite teams are enjoying the success of the NFL, and sharing equal in the revenue, instead of folding up or hardly competing, can you give the guy one year to honor his city in his memory?

I'm sorry that my argument is so well reasoned, you guys can go back to complaining about it "being chilly" and "unfair bc my football players will be shivering too much to play good football" and "bc i will be too cold when i attend a super bowl i cant even afford to go to"

Since: Mar 5, 2008
Posted on: May 26, 2010 12:18 am

Super Size Me: NFL Takes Big Gamble

i live 15 minutes from the meadowlands and love the g-men and i dont want the superbowl played here.  it should be in a static environment where the top players have the ability to perform.   The dont have the summer olympics in alaska just because they can...even most former NFL players agree..!!

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or