It's official, Super Bowl 48 is in New Jersey

Not the most shocking news. Based on looking at Google Maps, the drive from Manhattan to the stadium is comparable to what the tourists will find if they stay in Downtown Dallas for the upcoming Super Bowl. I don't care too much, so long as the Who Dat Dynasty (yes I said it) is in the game. Your thoughts???

Most of the "experts" are saying that this was sort of a deal worked out a few years ago when they were planning to build the stadium, to get the city and the Giants a little compensation of sorts. But as long as the cold weather gives the Pats a little edge over the NFC team they will inevitably face in the Super Bowl, I'm all for it.

I think its a great idea. Now if only we could get the Super Bowl in Lambeau one of these years. February in Green Bay? Yikes!

I hope it snows all damn week and all during the game. Should have came back to Tampa. Tampa is a Superbowl town. Not New Jersey.

I thought that football was meant to be played in all sorts of weather?

I think they should have a rotation that would include every football city.

Im from jersey...but ill admit having the SB there in february is not a good idea... If its 40 degrees at kickoff they should consider themselves lucky. The middle of january through to the middle of february is total ice hell in the north east.

As a Jets fan I am glad that they will get to play the Super Bowl in their home stadium. :)

I am happy its come north. The sport of football is great all year, then turns into a marketing gimmick for the last game. Its always played in some sissy azz warm land, on some fake grass. Its about time the men that play the sport will have to act like men and get cold. Half the teams play in the cold a good portion of the year, its about time they get rewarded with some home field advantage. I hope it snows the dickens that day:) If i could scrounge up a ticket i will be there.

the whole meaning of playing in a warm climate area or dome was so neither team had a advantage over the other.....I mean if a team like SD (you can insert all nice area teams here all FLA teams) plays a team like GB, Giants, etc.....I would think that a team playing the majority of their home games in that type of weather would have a advantage over the other.....and not only that, who the heck wants to pay all that dough for a ticket only to possibility sit in very cold, rainy or even worse snowy weather?

Think about Miami when the Colts won.....Rain is the type of weather that is fair for both teams...not snow.

It states in the NFL rulebook that the Superbowl must be played in an area where, if outdoors, the temperature in February must average over 50 degrees. Does New York ever see 50 degrees in February?

Glad we can bend the rules to make New York and their new stadium happy. I hope there's a blizzard and the game is barely visible and the score is 3-0. Sorry but New York, if you wanted the Superbowl you should have been made to make an indoor stadium. They shouldn't have even been on the ballot for the Superbowl. Of course they won in spite of the rules because the other 2 options were Miami (last year's superbowl) and Tampa Bay (the year before that)

Regardless rules are rules and this decision is tough to watch.

Preach it brother!

I'm not quite sure I understand that argument. If both teams are playing the game in the snow, why isn't it fair? If the SB is held in a dome and the game is between a "Dome" team & a Northeast team with an outside stadium, wouldn't that make the game unfair to the outdoor team?

I hate domes, unless I am at a game, it gets too cold up here. The wind right off the lake is brutal.

Is this a serious arguement? If I'm paralyzed from the waist down and have played wheelchair basketball the past 10 years, and decide to play you in basketball but make you use a wheelchair that's a fair game right?

.... Teams that play in the snow, play better in the snow. It's fine in the regular season, that's why you play as many home games as away games, different advantages. But the Superbowl is supposed to be as neutral as possible which is why IN THE RULES it states the temperature average has to be at least 50 degrees. It's a dumb move the owners made for the money and prestige and superceded the rules to do it. Just admit it and stop trying to say it's fair if the conditions are the same. Why do you think Denver has such an advantage at home? The conditions are the same for both teams so it's fair right? Silly silly arguement. And the dome arguement is silly because if you're good at kicking / throwing / running in spite of wind and rain and other elements than you'll just be better or at least as good when all of those elements are taken away. Because at home, because you're used to the conditions, you're good in them but are still good IN SPITE of them.

Teams that play in a dome are better in a dome. Traditionally, teams that play in a dome are built for speed & a more open passing game because their home games are played on a field where the conditions are always the same. Cold weather, outdoor teams are traditionally built to grind it out with power running. Does thta not give a dome team an advantage?

As for your arguments about the 50deg rule, that rule is place for the corporate "Fans" that go to the game, not the players. If the NFL was truly concerned about cold weather games they wouldn't allow indoor teams play in outdoor stadiums during the regular season. As for your "Denver" argument, it's just silly. Every team has a home field advantage whether they play indoors or outdoors. Bottom line is if two teams are playing on the same field, at the same time, in the same weather conditions, then it's fair for both teams.

Because the team that has played in the snow the most is much more experienced. Don't tell me that in the early to mid 2000's when the Patriots ripped the Colts in the snow it didn't have a lot to do with the fact that Brady has played a lot in the snow and Manning had hardly ever. And in 2009 the Pats killed the Titans in the snow in October; when was the last time it snowed in Tennessee in October? And in 2008 the Pats killed the Cardinals (a team that made it to the Super Bowl) in the snow around Christmas time, the fact that they practice (every week) and play half of their games in Arizona had no effect.

Throughout the season every team plays in warm weather and every team plays in rain, but not every team plays in temperatures under 50 and most teams never play in the snow. Look, I'm a Pats fan (as you could have guessed from the above) so I would love the Pats to win, but giving them (or the Jets, or the Packers, or the Giants, or the Bills (hahahaha, the Bills will never get to the Super Bowl this year, just kidding)) an unfair advantage because of cold and snow is just wrong. The NFL is doing this for their own selfish reasons, like they don't make enough money already.

Boy, I thought you were starting to make some good points until I realized you're a Pats fan :).

I just don't see what the big deal is. Has the NFL really become so woosified that teams can't play the biggest game of the year in the cold? Btw. I'm planning on heading to The Meadowlands to watch the Jets/Pats game on sept 19th. Looks like the AFC East is going to be a very fun division to watch this season. GO JETS