2013-2014 NFL Thread

[Jake]

I'm glad it's going to be in cold weather - why can you play in NY/Chicago/Green Bay/etc. one weekend but not two weeks later? It is much more exciting to see people play in "bad" weather

[Jenksismyhero]

It should be on Saturday night every year anyway.

[IlliniKrush]

I'm glad it's going to be in cold weather - why can you play in NY/Chicago/Green Bay/etc. one weekend but not two weeks later? It is much more exciting to see people play in "bad" weather

Yeah, if you like a worse brand of football.

 

OMG IT'S SNOWING HOW COOL.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah, if you like a worse brand of football.

 

OMG IT'S SNOWING HOW COOL.

 

Come on, that game in Philly this year was awesome.

 

Edited January 23, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Natural disasters are something you can't plan for or expect. Cold/wind/snow in NY in February? Not a surprise. They are proactively planning around expected weather. There's your difference.

I seriously can't imagine they'd move the game for "expected weather". What the area got 2 weeks ago would be reason to move it, something causing serious disruptions of public transportation (2+ inch an hour snowfalls the entire day, 2000+ flights canceled) might be a reason to.

[LittleHurt05]

I'm glad it's going to be in cold weather - why can you play in NY/Chicago/Green Bay/etc. one weekend but not two weeks later? It is much more exciting to see people play in "bad" weather

 

Yeah, why is it OK to play an NFC Championship game in 0 degree weather but the Super Bowl has to be ideal conditions?

[BigSqwert]

Yeah, why is it OK to play an NFC Championship game in 0 degree weather but the Super Bowl has to be ideal conditions?

Because the stadium full of millionaires want to have a pleasant experience.

[Steve9347]

Because the stadium full of millionaires want to have a pleasant experience.

Ha.

 

Those dolts knew it would be in new joizey. This is what they get.

[StrangeSox]

Because the stadium full of millionaires want to have a pleasant experience.

Yeah but the big sponsors are going to be in their heated boxes anyway

[Dick Allen]

I prefer watching games in ideal conditions. It lessens the chance the game is not decided by who played and/or was coached better, but by a freak play. Players are at their best IMO, in ideal conditions, and so is the quality of football.

 

If Rahm wants a Super Bowl in Chicago, add about 10k to Soldier Field and throw on a roof. You'll get some Final 4's, some Big Ten championships, a Super Bowl or 2, and who knows what else? Plus they would have to go to fake turf which would finally end that back and forth.

[bmags]

I'm fine with NFC championship game because there is a degree of Home Field advantage that the home team played for all year. The Super Bowl is supposed to be a neutral field, and s***ty weather kind of ruins that appeal for me.

[pettie4sox]

Yeah but the big sponsors are going to be in their heated boxes anyway

 

The underlings they brought will probably be in the cold.

[cabiness42]

First of all, they aren't going to move the game for just anything. It's going to take a catastrophic event--heavy snow combined with enough wind to create whiteout/blizzard conditions. While weather forecasts 10 days out are not entirely reliable, we already know that there is an incredibly small chance of this happening.

 

Secondly, they have to be pretty certain that the day they are moving it to is going to be significantly better.

 

Also, as for permanently moving the game to any day other than Sunday--that is never ever going to happen. TV ratings are the reason.

 

Now, since we long ago gave up having the holiday for Washington's Birthday on his actual birthday, I see no reason why we couldn't move the holiday a bit farther from his birthday and have it on the first Monday in February instead of the third Monday.

[Balta1701]

I'm fine with NFC championship game because there is a degree of Home Field advantage that the home team played for all year. The Super Bowl is supposed to be a neutral field, and s***ty weather kind of ruins that appeal for me.

It's kind of neutral in that it's s***ty and not what they're used to for both teams.

[Dick Allen]

It's kind of neutral in that it's s***ty and not what they're used to for both teams.

It is bad for both teams, and maybe not this year an issue, one team might be used to the cold, the other team not so much, and why have a championship be possibly determined by a wet ball or a gust of wind, slipping on a snowy field? Unless you play indoors, you obviously can't eliminate it entirely, but IMO, the last thing you want to be a factor if not the determining factor when it's a one game winner take all for best in your sport, is weather.

 

They made it this far playing in domes and warm weather cities. The old don't fix what isn't broken comes into play here.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Dick Allen

[StrangeSox]

It is bad for both teams, and maybe not this year an issue, one team might be used to the cold, the other team not so much, and why have a championship be possibly determined by a wet ball or a gust of wind, slipping on a snowy field? Unless you play indoors, you obviously can't eliminate it entirely, but IMO, the last thing you want to be a factor if not the determining factor when it's a one game winner take all for best in your sport, is weather.

 

They made it this far playing in domes and warm weather cities. The old don't fix what isn't broken comes into play here.

Wasn't there a pretty good rain coming down in the 2006 SB?

[Dick Allen]

Wasn't there a pretty good rain coming down in the 2006 SB?

Yes, and as I stated, you can't eliminate weather entirely unless you play indoors, and they are going to be moving the SB around, so that really is not realistic. But you have almost a 100% chance of weather being a big factor if the SB is played in NY or Chicago. They threw NY a bone, I would bet if the weather is anywhere near awful, the only cold weather cities to host a SB from now on , will have a dome to play in.

 

 

[DrunkBomber]

Deservedly so, my point is that the word thug is used to describe black athletes even if they have no real criminal pasts like Sherman.

The thug named Richie Incognito needs to be out of the NFL for a long time, maybe even permanently.

[StrangeSox]

The thug named Richie Incognito needs to be out of the NFL for a long time, maybe even permanently.

John Kerry also called Syrian dictator Assad a "thug." Something often having a racial context doesn't mean it always and exclusively has a racial context.

[DrunkBomber]

John Kerry also called Syrian dictator Assad a "thug." Something often having a racial context doesn't mean it always and exclusively has a racial context.

That's convenient.

[StrangeSox]

yeah understanding how language works is a convenient thing

 

edit: for an obvious example, "boy" doesn't universally have a racial context, but it sure as hell does when used in certain ways and directed at certain people.

Edited January 23, 2014 by StrangeSox

[DrunkBomber]

yeah understanding how language works is a convenient thing

No, its the fact that Incognito was specifically brought up as an example and has the same profession as Sherman, and he was called a "thug" by the Washington Times. Big Ben was also specifically mentioned, Ben Roethlisberger Is a Thug, in this thread. Those are a lot more comparable considering Big Ben and Incognito are both in the NFL. Its unfortunate that peoples first reaction to certain things is to immediately assume racism.

 

Dont get me wrong, I realize there is racism and I have read some of the things said to Sherman via social media and I find it repulsive. However, I dont think its fair to immediately point fingers at someone on this message board and imply theyre racist because they used the term thug. I personally dont have any real issues with Sherman but I certainly can see how people could be annoyed by his antics after the NFC Championship game.

[StrangeSox]

No, its the fact that Incognito was specifically brought up as an example and has the same profession as Sherman, and he was called a "thug" by the Washington Times. Big Ben was also specifically mentioned, Ben Roethlisberger Is a Thug, in this thread. Those are a lot more comparable considering Big Ben and Incognito are both in the NFL. Its unfortunate that peoples first reaction to certain things is to immediately assume racism.

 

Dont get me wrong, I realize there is racism and I have read some of the things said to Sherman via social media and I find it repulsive. However, I dont think its fair to immediately point fingers at someone on this message board and imply theyre racist because they used the term thug. I personally dont have any real issues with Sherman but I certainly can see how people could be annoyed by his antics after the NFC Championship game.

 

I think people have been talking more about the general reaction, especially in the media, versus a specific poster here. Look at that report from deadspin about how "thug" was used 625 times on TV on Monday, more than any other day in at least three years. That includes a day when the Secretary of State called a foreign leader a "thug" during the middle of pretty heavy media coverage of the Syrian civil war.

 

And then look at the three people compared in your post. Sherman was obnoxious in a post-game interview and insulting to an opponent. Incognito intimidated a teammate and hurled racial slurs at him for months. Roethlisberger has very likely raped at least one person. One of those things is not like the other.

Edited January 23, 2014 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

I'm fine with NFC championship game because there is a degree of Home Field advantage that the home team played for all year. The Super Bowl is supposed to be a neutral field, and s***ty weather kind of ruins that appeal for me.

 

So what if one of the teams is a dome built team, and the other is a power running team that benefits from being outside? The field isn't playing neutral at that point.

[DrunkBomber]

I think people have been talking more about the general reaction, especially in the media, versus a specific poster here. Look at that report from deadspin about how "thug" was used 625 times on TV on Monday, more than any other day in at least three years. That includes a day when the Secretary of State called a foreign leader a "thug" during the middle of pretty heavy media coverage of the Syrian civil war.

 

And then look at the three people compared in your post. Sherman was obnoxious in a post-game interview and insulting to an opponent. Incognito intimidated a teammate and hurled racial slurs at him for months. Roethlisberger has very likely raped at least one person. One of those things is not like the other.

The only reason I posted those links was because people in this thread said that when the term thug is used towards athletes that it is only used when talking about black athletes. Big Ben and Incognito were brought up specifically, not by me.

 

"You dont hear Big Ben and Incognito being called thugs"

 

*Posts proof that Big Ben and Incgonito have indeed been called thugs*

 

"Ya but what those guys did was way worse than what Sherman did!"

 

My point is that on the surface the word thug is not a racial slur. Do you think of the 625 times that it was said on TV that every time it was used racially? As you said people everywhere have different interpretations of words so is it really fair to just assume that anyone that uses it is racist?