A Cold Weather Super Bowl!

[hogan873]

Ive been to cold sporting events too, and I enjoy them as well..

 

however, for competitive purposes and getting the best game possible for the biggest game of the season I don't see why they wouldn't aim for having the best possible conditions..

 

a couple years ago in a total downpour the Dolphins played the Steelers in a Monday Night "Shootout" that ended 3-0.. it was the most boring game I have ever watched in my life.. i couldn't imagine having to watch a Super Bowl like that

It can rain during the Super Bowl, too. And it has a few times.

[GoodAsGould]

Ive been to cold sporting events too, and I enjoy them as well..

 

however, for competitive purposes and getting the best game possible for the biggest game of the season I don't see why they wouldn't aim for having the best possible conditions..

 

a couple years ago in a total downpour the Dolphins played the Steelers in a Monday Night "Shootout" that ended 3-0.. it was the most boring game I have ever watched in my life.. i couldn't imagine having to watch a Super Bowl like that

 

I dont see why its ok for the conference championship games to be in cold weather environment but not the Superbowl, so its ok for the 2nd most important games of the season to be in blizzards but not the most important

[JuiceCruz16]

I dont see why its ok for the conference championship games to be in cold weather environment but not the Superbowl, so its ok for the 2nd most important games of the season to be in blizzards but not the most important

The conference championships are played on the teams' field that EARNED home field advantage by their regular season record. The Super Bowl is a neutral site, and tries to be as neutral as possible with the weather conditions for that site.

[hogan873]

I dont see why its ok for the conference championship games to be in cold weather environment but not the Superbowl, so its ok for the 2nd most important games of the season to be in blizzards but not the most important

I agree. I see the reason behind having the Super Bowl in a neutral site, but I'm a firm believer in having the big game in different sites, including cold weather venues.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't know who's having it both ways, but there's a ton of people that are upset with the turf at Soldier Field - for exactly the same reason some of us don't like the SB being in possible bad weather.

 

BTW, winter doesn't start in September.

So baseball is a spring sport, then? Not a summer sport?

 

Seems like you are just reaching now, trying to make a pedantic argument about spring/summer or fall/winter to make your point. Football is played, more or less, September to February in the NFL. That means cold, winter weather, often, in northern cities. It is part of the game, always has been.

 

[IlliniKrush]

So baseball is a spring sport, then? Not a summer sport?

 

Seems like you are just reaching now, trying to make a pedantic argument about spring/summer or fall/winter to make your point. Football is played, more or less, September to February in the NFL. That means cold, winter weather, often, in northern cities. It is part of the game, always has been.

LOL, I'm reaching? The majority of the games are played in the fall. You called it a winter sport, which is fundamentally wrong. Furthermore, how many games were played in the snow or terrible weather last year? Not very many. That's my point.

[Balta1701]

LOL, I'm reaching? The majority of the games are played in the fall. You called it a winter sport, which is fundamentally wrong. Furthermore, how many games were played in the snow or terrible weather last year? Not very many. That's my point.

Here's my question in reply...how much higher are the odds of a terrible snowy day in early Feb. than in late December or early January?

[IlliniKrush]

Here's my question in reply...how much higher are the odds of a terrible snowy day in early Feb. than in late December or early January?

I don't know. Slightly more?

 

If you are going to refer to playoff games, teams earned the home field advantage there, it's not a designated neutral site game. Now, I still hope the weather for those games isn't s***ty so the game can be played well - as TRU pointed out, that game in Pittsburgh was stupid - but at least there's a valid reason for it to be there.

 

 

[Balta1701]

I don't know. Slightly more?

 

If you are going to refer to playoff games, teams earned the home field advantage there, it's not a designated neutral site game. Now, I still hope the weather for those games isn't s***ty so the game can be played well - as TRU pointed out, that game in Pittsburgh was stupid - but at least there's a valid reason for it to be there.

I hear your argument on playoff games, but what happens to the team that is fighting for a playoff spot and has to go to Green Bay or Chicago for their last game of the season? If Chicago weather is an advantage for Chicago, that's an advantage that Chicago hasn't earned. Similarly, what about the teams going to San Diego or Kansas City on 100+ degree days late in the summer, while the Saints get to sit at home in a temperature controlled dome?

 

There's plenty of cases of teams having to go into hard weather conditions without having done anything to earn them.

[T R U]

It can rain during the Super Bowl, too. And it has a few times.

 

Yeah it can, but the likelihood of terrible weather in the current cities vs the conditions in New York at 6-7 PM in January-February is a pretty big difference..

[T R U]

I dont see why its ok for the conference championship games to be in cold weather environment but not the Superbowl, so its ok for the 2nd most important games of the season to be in blizzards but not the most important

 

As its already been said, those games are played on the teams home field who earned it.. they aren't neutral sites so I don't really see how you can compare the two..

 

If you are going to put it in cold weather sites, why not just scrap the neutral stadium stuff and just have the best team host it.. then it will at least be in cold and warm places depending on who is there..

[vandy125]

Teams don't give considerations for that.. I don't think Mark Sanchez played a single cold weather game in his college career, does that mean the Jets should have said no thanks to acquiring him because they would have some cold games later in the year? Of course not..

 

Teams are built with players they feel will work in whatever system they are trying to run, I have never once heard of a team passing on someone because they don't feel they fit in the weather of the city..

 

Would you say that the system that teams set up to run is partially dictated by the type of home field they have? I'd say so as you typically have those dome teams running systems with a lot of passing. If my home field is one where crazy wind and weather can come in, I'm not going to have a system that goes crazy throwing the ball unless I have some unique players that can handle that (i.e. Tom Brady). I've always preferred a good running attack in Chicago for precisely this reason. You have to have a very good QB to be able to handle the weather there.

[Texsox]

As its already been said, those games are played on the teams home field who earned it.. they aren't neutral sites so I don't really see how you can compare the two..

 

If you are going to put it in cold weather sites, why not just scrap the neutral stadium stuff and just have the best team host it.. then it will at least be in cold and warm places depending on who is there..

 

 

That would have worked before the NFL managed to make the Super Bowl into a week long event which is much, much, bigger than the game. The game is just one scheduled event, and with corporate entertaining being so much of the SB, having it in NY will be huge. And this is way more about having it in NY (OK New Jersey) than in cold weather.

[T R U]

Would you say that the system that teams set up to run is partially dictated by the type of home field they have?

 

sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with the relationship of weather to player..

 

a power running game is a power running game, the Dolphins and Jets both had top 5 running attacks last season.. how? very good offensive lines and good backs.. the conditions of their homes? complete opposites..

 

 

 

 

 

[vandy125]

sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with the relationship of weather to player..

 

a power running game is a power running game, the Dolphins and Jets both had top 5 running attacks last season.. how? very good offensive lines and good backs.. the conditions of their homes? complete opposites..

 

Eh, I don't really care about the relationship of weather to player since that is too narrow of a view to scope. If we widen the view to the systems which you did admit are partially built based upon their home fields, that is when you get to my point.

 

If a systems are built for outdoor fields in the north and systems are built for fields in the south/dome fields, then why is it that you only have the biggest game of the year in south/dome fields? The teams that are built for the outdoor fields up north would seem to be at a bit of a disadvantage every year.

 

I guess that I'm saying is that throughout the whole season teams play in all kinds of different weather and some systems are set up to take advantage of the type of weather they hit the most. Why would the Superbowl not be played in all kinds of weather?

[IlliniKrush]

Eh, I don't really care about the relationship of weather to player since that is too narrow of a view to scope. If we widen the view to the systems which you did admit are partially built based upon their home fields, that is when you get to my point.

 

If a systems are built for outdoor fields in the north and systems are built for fields in the south/dome fields, then why is it that you only have the biggest game of the year in south/dome fields? The teams that are built for the outdoor fields up north would seem to be at a bit of a disadvantage every year.

 

I guess that I'm saying is that throughout the whole season teams play in all kinds of different weather and some systems are set up to take advantage of the type of weather they hit the most. Why would the Superbowl not be played in all kinds of weather?

Considering you play 8 of your games on the road, and the majority of the home games in likely "normal" conditions, I don't think teams are planning strategies nor personnel around weather. If it snows or rains or something, teams say oh s***, and try to work around it for that game. That's about it.

 

You know what works best in domes? Anything. Colts pass the ball around, they have Manning. Vikings run the ball, they have Peterson. Anything works because it's optimal for performance. What team designs their offense around crappy weather? Bears got Cutler, are they playing to the weather? How often is the weather so bad in Chicago that you can't throw the ball at all? Rarely. The whole Chicago tough running the ball thing is stupid.

 

Why shouldn't the super bowl be played in all kinds of weather? Because it takes away from the performance of the game. It's not optimal conditions. If you play the game on a sheet of ice or 4 inches of snow, it decreases the chance that the better team wins. It becomes a crapshoot. It is a great neutralizer, which is not what I'm looking for in the most important game of the year.

[Steve9347]

Why shouldn't the super bowl be played in all kinds of weather? Because it takes away from the performance of the game. It's not optimal conditions. If you play the game on a sheet of ice or 4 inches of snow, it decreases the chance that the better team wins. It becomes a crapshoot. It is a great neutralizer, which is not what I'm looking for in the most important game of the year.

I could not agree with you more.

[Soxbadger]

I couldnt agree less.

 

If youre the best team, youre the best in all field conditions. Furthermore, all the Super Bowl ever proves is who was the "best team" that day, with those conditions.

 

I dont see how playing in 4 inches of snow or ice decreases the chance that the better team wins. There should be absolutely no correlation to bad weather and upsets. Both teams have to play in the bad conditions, it impacts them both equally. Just the same as if the weather is 100 degrees and humid, 60 and sunny, or -100 and windy. If the Colts are playing the Lions in a snow storm, Id still take the Colts every single day of the week. They are the superior team, why would I think that the Lions would do better?

 

Both teams play in the same conditions, why would it give the underdog an advantage?

 

If anything I would believe that the superior team would more likely win in bad conditions, because they are more talented and therefore should be able to deal with adverse weather better.

 

I guess I just remember football being an outdoor sport. I dont remember not playing games because it was raining, or to cold, or any other excuse. You played with the conditions that you were given, and quite frankly I never remember thinking "Damn were the better team but its bad weather so we just arent going to win." I do remember thinking "Man that other team is going to suffer because its going to be hell getting beat down in bad conditions."

 

/shrugs

 

If you like indoor football, maybe the arena league is for you. I personally like outdoor games and believe that football is at its best in all conditions. It just seems that if the Championship game can be played in abysmal conditions, that the Super Bowl should be as well.

 

But Im a Bears fan and have always loved the winter. Cold weather is when football is to be played. I always hated 2 a days and summer training because it was just to damn hot. Of all the conditions, heat was the one I didnt like to play in. Pads, helmets etc, your just burning up in the summer.

 

 

[kjshoe04]

I couldnt agree less.

 

If youre the best team, youre the best in all field conditions. Furthermore, all the Super Bowl ever proves is who was the "best team" that day, with those conditions.

 

I dont see how playing in 4 inches of snow or ice decreases the chance that the better team wins. There should be absolutely no correlation to bad weather and upsets. Both teams have to play in the bad conditions, it impacts them both equally. Just the same as if the weather is 100 degrees and humid, 60 and sunny, or -100 and windy. If the Colts are playing the Lions in a snow storm, Id still take the Colts every single day of the week. They are the superior team, why would I think that the Lions would do better?

 

Both teams play in the same conditions, why would it give the underdog an advantage?

 

If anything I would believe that the superior team would more likely win in bad conditions, because they are more talented and therefore should be able to deal with adverse weather better.

 

I guess I just remember football being an outdoor sport. I dont remember not playing games because it was raining, or to cold, or any other excuse. You played with the conditions that you were given, and quite frankly I never remember thinking "Damn were the better team but its bad weather so we just arent going to win." I do remember thinking "Man that other team is going to suffer because its going to be hell getting beat down in bad conditions."

 

/shrugs

 

If you like indoor football, maybe the arena league is for you. I personally like outdoor games and believe that football is at its best in all conditions. It just seems that if the Championship game can be played in abysmal conditions, that the Super Bowl should be as well.

 

But Im a Bears fan and have always loved the winter. Cold weather is when football is to be played. I always hated 2 a days and summer training because it was just to damn hot. Of all the conditions, heat was the one I didnt like to play in. Pads, helmets etc, your just burning up in the summer.

The cold/snowy/slippery weather increases the chances for some kind of fluke turnovers, missed field goals, etc. which is something that can lead to the better team getting beat.

 

Also, the bolded part makes me not want to take your argument seriously.

Edited May 28, 2010 by kjshoe04

[IlliniKrush]

I couldnt agree less.

 

If youre the best team, youre the best in all field conditions. Furthermore, all the Super Bowl ever proves is who was the "best team" that day, with those conditions.

 

I dont see how playing in 4 inches of snow or ice decreases the chance that the better team wins. There should be absolutely no correlation to bad weather and upsets. Both teams have to play in the bad conditions, it impacts them both equally. Just the same as if the weather is 100 degrees and humid, 60 and sunny, or -100 and windy. If the Colts are playing the Lions in a snow storm, Id still take the Colts every single day of the week. They are the superior team, why would I think that the Lions would do better?

 

Both teams play in the same conditions, why would it give the underdog an advantage?

 

If anything I would believe that the superior team would more likely win in bad conditions, because they are more talented and therefore should be able to deal with adverse weather better.

 

I guess I just remember football being an outdoor sport. I dont remember not playing games because it was raining, or to cold, or any other excuse. You played with the conditions that you were given, and quite frankly I never remember thinking "Damn were the better team but its bad weather so we just arent going to win." I do remember thinking "Man that other team is going to suffer because its going to be hell getting beat down in bad conditions."

 

/shrugs

 

If you like indoor football, maybe the arena league is for you. I personally like outdoor games and believe that football is at its best in all conditions. It just seems that if the Championship game can be played in abysmal conditions, that the Super Bowl should be as well.

 

But Im a Bears fan and have always loved the winter. Cold weather is when football is to be played. I always hated 2 a days and summer training because it was just to damn hot. Of all the conditions, heat was the one I didnt like to play in. Pads, helmets etc, your just burning up in the summer.

You seriously don't understand how terrible field conditions is an equalizer? Um, wow.

 

If you have better athletes who make better plays, they aren't able to make those plays due to crazy snow/wind/etc. The field/conditions don't allow them to show their true skill. That's why dome/great weather football is awesome. I don't see why people are so fascinated with football in the snow. It's fun to see on your tv for 5 minutes while you drink hot chocolate in your 72 degree home, but after that, you realize how s***ty the game play is.

 

Like TRU said, that Pittsburgh game in the rain wasn't fun to watch, and probably wasn't fun to play in. Don't see how that was productive.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

The cold/snowy/slippery weather increases the chances for some kind of fluke turnovers, missed field goals, etc. which is something that can lead to the better team getting beat.

 

Because the "worse' team couldnt have a fluke turnover or missed field goal that would lead them to be beat?

 

Show me a single correlation that bad weather leads to upsets.

 

Or why bad weather impacts the better team more than the worse team.

 

A fluke can happen in any weather, thats why its called a "fluke". For example, lets say that the sun gets the in punt returners eyes and they muff the punt which leads to a touchdown for the other team.

 

Its a fluke play, impacted by weather. Should games not be played in sunlight?

 

And the bolded part was to show my bias.

 

Unlike some, I atleast know that my position is based on bias, and not supported by any actual facts.

 

{edit}

 

If you have better athletes who make better plays, they aren't able to make those plays due to crazy snow/wind/etc. The field/conditions don't allow them to show their true skill.

 

True skill is showing that you are the best in all conditions.

 

If you are only great on turf or in a dome, then you arent the better player. Youre a limited player.

 

Its not that I dont understand, its that when I played sports, I never for a second have I thought that bad weather would make it so a weaker player would be better than me.

 

I never worried about a fluke play, or if it was muddy, or snowing, or to cold, or whatever excuse you want to make.

 

I went out and I played the damn game.

 

What Im hearing is that you prefer an "offensive" game, and "offense" is more likely to be displayed in pristine conditions.

 

I guess Im just not sure why the best players cant make plays in bad weather.

 

Would Jerry Rice not be the best WR on the field because its snowing?

 

No hed still be better. Maybe not as good as in pristine conditions, but neither would the other players. Same for QB, RB or any other positions.

 

The weather is equal for everyone, what does it matter?

Edited May 28, 2010 by Soxbadger

[IlliniKrush]

Let's try this:

 

Do you have a better chance to beat Usain Bolt in a 100 meter race on a dry track, or in 4 inches of snow?

 

...and why is that so?

[Soxbadger]

Well hes from Jamaica so i guess he might get hypothermia.

 

But Id say my chances are equal.

 

That being the only chance I have is if he dies or get hurt running. Im not beating him in either condition.

 

Ive got just as good of a chance of slipping in the snow as he does.

 

{Edit}

 

And track meets are always in pristine conditions. No rain, snow etc. That is the sport. If they want to make football that way, then I would agree 100% that the Super Bowl should not be played in bad weather. But football is played in all weather, Im not sure why the SUper Bowl should be any different.

Edited May 28, 2010 by Soxbadger

[Chisoxfn]

Clarification please:

 

Its not fair if dome teams cant play in a dome, because they built their team with that expectation.

---BUT---

It is fair to make outdoor/northern teams play in a dome, even though they build their teams to cope with the elements.

 

Is that what you're trying to say?

 

You say "best playing conditions" like it means the same thing for every team. Optimal conditions are relative, the Green Bay Packers would much rather play with the New Orleans Saints in a snowstorm than in a dome.

Just like a fast team might have the infield grass cut a certain way at there home stadium to better accent their abilities.

[Chisoxfn]

lol

 

im sorry but no team builds their teams for weather conditions.. it takes the same kind of players to have a dominant running game in the north as it does in the south..

 

I will give you that having a wide open offense on a turf IS something you can definitely build your team around.. but not weather conditions.. teams in Florida don't look at a FA and say, well hes a very good running back but its prolly too hot for him to play here..

 

Your example pretty much sums up why it isn't fair.. why should a team like Green Bay get to play a super bowl in a snowstorm or freezing weather against a team who almost never has to play in those conditions? It is much more balanced for them to be in the "optimal" conditions, even if it is a dome, than that.. And its not like going to a dome is going to all of the sudden make them slower on turf.. the difference between Green Bay in a dome and New Orleans in a snow storm is huge..

Teams do build themselves around the elements though. You can look around the league and historically speaking the cold weather teams tend to be the teams more built around defense and running the ball where the west coast teams tend to run the high octane offenses (i.e., west coast offense). It really isn't surprising. The same thing happens in football where Big 10 teams play a different style than other teams because quite frankly they have to adapt to the elements.