Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38

Thread: Next Year's Superbowl

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Hills, California
    Posts
    1,977

    Next Year's Superbowl

    While Flacco probably did use a poor choice of words by saying "retarded" (although I personally found the choice of words amusing), I think he's right about the super bowl.


    http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2012...-super-bowl-nj

  2. #2
       
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    11,199
    The wind at Giants Stadium makes it hard to play there, so it may not be the best cold weather site. But this is football, a fall-winter sport. I have no problem having the game played outdoors in a cold weather city.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by hobbes27 View Post
    While Flacco probably did use a poor choice of words by saying "retarded" (although I personally found the choice of words amusing), I think he's right about the super bowl.


    http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2012...-super-bowl-nj
    I always found it odd that football, the sport marketed on playing in the elements, always has the biggest game of the year in good weather/climate controlled stadiums.
    Part owner of the 13-time world champion Green Bay Packers

    1929-1930-1931-1936-1939-1944-1961-1962-1965-1966-1967-1996-2010

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by wxwax View Post
    The wind at Giants Stadium makes it hard to play there, so it may not be the best cold weather site. But this is football, a fall-winter sport. I have no problem having the game played outdoors in a cold weather city.
    I think the wind thing is overblown. (no pun intended) The stadium is very nice and it's more than adequate.
    Part owner of the 13-time world champion Green Bay Packers

    1929-1930-1931-1936-1939-1944-1961-1962-1965-1966-1967-1996-2010

  5. #5
    BTW, hopefully I'll be employed by MetLife Stadium next fall. Just put in my application to do security work for the games.
    Part owner of the 13-time world champion Green Bay Packers

    1929-1930-1931-1936-1939-1944-1961-1962-1965-1966-1967-1996-2010

  6. #6
       
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    3,626
    Blog Entries
    5
    I think we can play the game anywhere. I don't see any reason why any region with an adequate stadium (in terms of capacity, really) and an NFL team cannot host the game. Cold, inclement weather can intervene in any other game during the season or playoffs, but not in this one? It simply doesn't make sense. The game settles the championship, sure, but that does not make it fundamentally different from any other playoff game, all of which are single elimination.

    Sometimes I wonder if the neutral site itself has outlived its usefulness. I'm speculating, but I assume that in large the early Super Bowls were played at neutral locations so as to prevent either, independent league (though soon to be merged into one league) from having home field. The idea of the 'bowl' is clearly derived from the language of the college game, but the schedules just aren't the same. Teams basically wait a month between the end of their regular season and playing in their bowl games, giving fans plenty of time to make travel arrangements and so on. Returning to the original point, though, now that everyone is in the same league and subject to the same scheduling rules, I don't particularly see the need for a neutral site, other than to pump economic stimulus into a small group of cities (thirty of forty-seven Super Bowls hosted by New Orleans, Miami, and greater Los Angeles/San Diego, with only four of the remaining seventeen being held in what is conventionally considered a northern city with a dome) and to provide football writers with a reliable vacation spot in late January and early February (I'm not trying to say anything bad about Detroit, but I'm sure there was no end to the grumbling by the press when the game was played there recently). Personally, I would have no problem with the ultimate championship being played in the stadium of the team with the best record remaining and giving the season ticket holders an opportunity to purchase their seats. I don't really expect this to be a popular opinion, but I would have no problem with Lambeau Field, for instance, hosting the game.

    I can understand why we would keep a neutral site because it has been traditionally played at one, but I don't see any reason why we should limit the pool of acceptable venues to exclude half of the NFL's cities and franchises. I understand that the NFL wants to sell a total entertainment package, but the Super Bowl, first and foremost, is a football game. I don't really care about the city's ability to lavish entertainments upon tourists or provide good weather. Most large cities, in fact, have things to do anyway, and football may be played under any weather conditions except (barring extraordinary situations such as hurricanes and tornadoes) lightning. Everything else around the game will take care of itself.
    @kocsan

  7. #7
       
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    11,199
    Schedule it anywhere, I agree. But I don't agree with home field. If it happens, it happens, although the odds are very small. But it's best to make it an even contest. That's the tradition in other knockout competitions as well, both here and abroad, and I can't think of any reason to change it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    West Hills, California
    Posts
    1,977
    The problem with having the game in a cold weather site is that the Superbowl is the featured game of the sport. Many people tune in to watch this particular game, because of what it is. From a pure marketing standpoint, it really doesn't make sense to play your featured game, when you are trying to draw fans to the sport, in freezing conditions. You have sloppy football play, which doesn't highlight the skils of your athletes.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by hobbes27 View Post
    The problem with having the game in a cold weather site is that the Superbowl is the featured game of the sport. Many people tune in to watch this particular game, because of what it is. From a pure marketing standpoint, it really doesn't make sense to play your featured game, when you are trying to draw fans to the sport, in freezing conditions. You have sloppy football play, which doesn't highlight the skils of your athletes.
    Not only does it highlight the skills of your athletes, it also shows the uniqueness of the sport. Football isn't meant to be played in a climate controlled environment with crisp plays. If that were the case, Arena Football would be popular. Football is about the elements, about the physical struggles, great wills matched against each other. Playing those aspects down is only doing a disservice to the sport.
    Part owner of the 13-time world champion Green Bay Packers

    1929-1930-1931-1936-1939-1944-1961-1962-1965-1966-1967-1996-2010

  10. #10
       
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    11,199
    hobbes, I understand that. That has always been the defense of warm weather/dome sites.

    I would argue that wrapping-up the title game in bubble wrap so it doesn't get bruised, isn't true to the nature of the sport, though.

    In truth, it all comes down to marketing. Right now the sentiment on Park Avenue seems to be that playing in non-traditional weather is a good marketing ploy. I assume that will change back at some point, pendulums being what they are.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •