The possibility exists that the big game could be played outdoors in 2014. Joe Fortenbaugh
In 2012, the city of Indianapolis—which isn’t exactly known for its tropical climate—will join Minneapolis and Detroit as the only cold-weather cities to host a Super Bowl.
The city of East Rutherford (New Jersey!) is looking to join this exclusive club in 2014.
However, the difference between the New York Giants & Jets new stadium—set to open in 2010—and the stadiums in Minneapolis, Detroit and Indianapolis may prove to be a hiccup in landing the biggest game on the planet.
New York’s stadium isn’t a dome.
With the recent news that Arizona has dropped out of the bidding for the 2014 Super Bowl, speculation has been mounting that the Giants and the city of East Rutherford may actually have a fighting chance at hosting the first outdoor cold-weather Super Bowl.
But New York ownership knows there is still a long way to go.
"I think there is some support for us, but we still have to do a good job of convincing 30 other teams that it's OK to play it in cold weather," Giants co-owner John Mara told Ralph Vacchiano of the New York Daily News. "There are still some hurdles to overcome. But what this region gives us are far greater resources than any other region in the country. There are a lot of advantages to playing a Super Bowl here."
The idea of having a cold-weather Super Bowl is one that has been kicked around for quite some time. Would it create a disadvantage for teams like New England that are used to playing their home games outdoors in the cold? Would the fans who shell out over $1,000 per ticket be willing to sit through a blizzard? Would everyone who likes to take part in all of the Super Bowl week festivities be inclined to do so if they were taking place in a city where you couldn’t walk around outside?
Therefore, I pose this question to the fans: Would YOU want to see a Super Bowl played at the new Giants Stadium in 2014?
Hit me up on Twitter: @JoeFortenbaugh
I'd have no problem with a home game for the Super Bowl in 2014.
I'm getting sick of hearing about this. It's not going to happen and the only reason it's getting thrown around right now is because it's a good subject for debate and these writers need something to keep the paychecks coming in. How can anyone say it's fair to have a Super Bowl where the possibility of frigid temperatures and/or snow exists. Try to justify it to the teams and fans in places like New Orleans or San Diego. It's not going to happen.
"How can anyone say it's fair to have a Super Bowl where the possibility of frigid temperatures and/or snow exists"
Because football is generally played outdoors, and at home field of the host. The current Super Bowl system is inequitable, and favors teams that play indoors or in warm weather cities. If the above statement is true, which I do not believe, then ANY AND ALL outdoor stadiums must be banned.
The fact is, real football fans would welcome a Super Bowl in the great outdoors, and a bit toward the north. The reason it WON'T happen is because real football fans don't go to the Super Bowl, rich people do.
jbuskirk
ANY AND ALL outdoor stadiums must be banned!? Ridiculous. The Super Bowl should be played in an environment where weather won't be a factor. How can the Super Bowl ever favor teams that play in warm weather cities or domes? You listen way too much to these writers. The two teams that have won the most Super Bowls over the past ten years play outside in cold weather. It's never hot enough in any city in February for heat to be a factor. And I would love for anyone to try and explain how a dome team has a bigger advantage in a dome than a cold weather team would have in the snow. The only reason domes teams ever had any advantage was the speed of the turf. With all the new synthetic turf being placed inside and outside that advantage is disappearing.
Joe,
I looked up the temperature in East Rutherford, NJ while the Super Bowl was being played....11*-14* degrees during the game....Not a good idea. Didn't the owners consider moving the Conference Championship games to warm weather cities a few years ago?....It was great meeting you last November at the NFPost Headquarters opening in La Jolla, CA
"How can anyone say it's fair to have a Super Bowl where the possibility of frigid temperatures and/or snow exists"
Because football is generally played outdoors, and at home field of the host. The current Super Bowl system is inequitable, and favors teams that play indoors or in warm weather cities. If the above statement is true, which I do not believe, then ANY AND ALL outdoor stadiums must be banned.
The fact is, real football fans would welcome a Super Bowl in the great outdoors, and a bit toward the north. The reason it WON'T happen is because real football fans don't go to the Super Bowl, rich people do.
"jbuskirk - ANY AND ALL outdoor stadiums must be banned!? Ridiculous"
I stated the above conditionally on the belief of your statement - "How can anyone say it's fair to have a Super Bowl where the possibility of frigid temperatures and/or snow exists". I do not agree with the assertion, therefore I think Super Bowls should be rotated randomly amongst all 32 cities. How is it unfair to play a Super Bowl in Buffalo for example, and a regular season game in Buffalo outdoors is somehow fair? I just don't see a difference.
jbuskirk - "I just don't see a difference. "
The difference is quite simple. One is a regular season game and one is the Super Bowl. That's why home field "advantage" is so important to teams like Pittsburgh and New England come playoff time. I haven't seen San Diego or Indy roll into Heinz field or Gillette in the playoffs and come out too successful. Most of the time in the regular season a team has a chance to redeem themselves if they lose in poor conditions. If the game costs them then they can look back at others games, maybe even home games, that put them in a situation that came down to one game. The Super Bowl is played at a "neutral" site for a reason, so no team has any advantage over the other. Picture it if you will: 2014, Super Bowl 48 in new Meadowlands Stadium, New England vs Arizona. A snow storm hit the night before and continues through Sunday. New England winds up destroying Arizona 45-0. Go into the Cardinals locker room and tell them you don't see the difference.
Why wouldn't New England (in your NE-Arizona example) be at a similar disadvantage at a warm weather sight on a 75 degree clear day? I understand and respect your opinion, but I just don't see the current system being as equitable as as 'round robin' scenario that includes all cities. If the Super Bowl is to be 'neutral', then it should be played at sights that can represent all types of weather just as the regular season does.
jbuskirk
Because 75 degrees is perfect football weather. It gets fairly hot in the summer in New England and they can play in the heat. Most every team has exposure to playing in warm conditions, maybe not serious heat but there's the exposure. Not all teams get the cold weather exposure. I think it would be cool if every city git a chance to host a Super Bowl too. But I would hate to see weather be a factor in the outcome of a game. As I'm sure lots of other people would too. Like I said, in the regular season you have a chance to redeem yourself. Plus I'm sure the team that won wouldn't want the excuse of weather being the reason the other team lost, I can guarantee you the weather would be a subject of mass debate after the game. If this years Super Bowl was played outside in the snow the NFL would have been worried. Granted there weren't as many points scored as people thought there might be, but with snow the chances of an offense-happy game would be way less. I love football and I love games in the elements, just not ones with as much on the line as the Super Bowl.
Why shouldn't weather play a part in the game. It has a part in the other 20 weeks of the season. Football is at its best when both teams have to suffer through the same weather conditions, no matter what those conditions are.
Eric Krasner
Suffer? You think East coast teams that play outside suffer in the snow as much as West coast teams and dome teams? That's what I'm talking about here, weather can play a factor in giving one team an advantage, which wouldn't be fair. Why would anybody wanna watch a Super Bowl where weather clearly played a role in giving one team an advantage? The game would lose a certain level of validity as far as one team being better than the other. You would have a bunch of rubes saying after the game "Yea well if it wasn't snowing such and such team would have won." Do you think the NFL wants that for their Championship game? Who cares what team plays better in the snow? I want to see who the better team is without weather being a factor. Why is this concept so hard for people to understand? Geez
This article is beyond idiotic. The Redskins are not in any way considering this.
Dont quit your day job, unless this is your day job, then please do quit.
Where will Peyton Manning end...
Velocity and throws to the left...
Who makes up this talented small-school...
A look at the most impressive...
From SEC stud to small-school...
Mar 02, 2010
08:52 AM
I love the idea of playing in the new Giants Staiduim! And give me a break, lets not pretend that they won't be able to sell tickets. Sign me up.
Plus the week of partys could be talked about for years.