or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NFL Football
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2013 NFL Football - Page 25

post #433 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post

It has the potential to not determine the team which plays the best football, but he one who is most used to the weather.  That isn't what the championship game should be about.  They all may have to deal with some weather to get there, but it is patently unfair to have Miami to have to play a championship game against Green Bay in weather like they had in Philly.  They are giving Green Bay an advantage which has nothing to do with which is the better football team.  

I'm saying this from the point of view of one is adamantly opposed to domed stadiums.  I agree with you in general that football should be played outdoors.  But when it comes down to teams which play most of their games in such completely different climates, the playing field for the championship game should be leveled as much as possible or they have failed in their intent to determine the best football team.

Why is being able to adapt to changing conditions not part of finding the "best" team?

Being able to play in bad weather is a skill. Since half of the NFL regular season is played when the northern half of the country is cold and potentially snowy, not building a team that can handle the elements should have the chance to be punished.

Think of it this way: Every NFL team is built primarily to play in their home climate. Indy (or St. Louis, or Detriot) can afford to have more long-play receivers and speedy running backs, because they play at least half of their games in a dome and several others in warm weather. You can say the same thing about Tampa or San Diego. Teams in outside, northern climates (Green Bay, NY, New England) have to build their teams to play a bunch of games in cold weather outdoors. Power running backs with surer hands and shorter passes.

As long as the Super Bowl is played primarily in warm climates, the NFL is rewarding the prior set of teams, because those northern teams haven't played their entire seasons with the ability and roster to run to the outside and throw it deep.
post #434 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

It has the potential to not determine the team which plays the best football, but he one who is most used to the weather.

 

So? You could say the same thing about playing in 80° heat too. I don't know about you, but "football weather" is closer to 40° than 80°.

 

I disagree that "it isn't what the championship game should be about." I think it should be about football. Good teams can adapt to different conditions, or else they wouldn't let the Patriots play in New England, the Eagles or Steelers to play in PA, the Browns to play in Cleveland, the Bills to play in Buffalo, etc. without domed stadiums.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

They all may have to deal with some weather to get there, but it is patently unfair to have Miami to have to play a championship game against Green Bay in weather like they had in Philly.  They are giving Green Bay an advantage which has nothing to do with which is the better football team.  

 

They'd be giving Miami an advantage playing it in south Florida against Green Bay in temperate conditions.

 

In other words, again, I disagree with you. I know your reasons. They just don't convince me. I've understood the "non-football" reasons (i.e. easier to have a two-week-long party in a temperate place, fan comfort, etc.), but the football reasons are weak. They don't convince me.

 

So you honestly feel that a championship game should come down to a fiasco like what we saw in Philly on Sunday.  If that's the case then we have no common ground for discussion.  

post #435 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

So you honestly feel that a championship game should come down to a fiasco like what we saw in Philly on Sunday.  If that's the case then we have no common ground for discussion.  

 

Of course we don't. But you're wrong in calling it a "fiasco." I thought it was entertaining. People who weren't even fans of the teams playing tuned in to see it. Football was still played, and the same rules were applied.

post #436 of 1006
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

I want to type "those cities have domes…" but surely you know that, so why is this relevant? This is the first northern outdoor Super Bowl, isn't it?

If you had any inkling at all to type that then I think you probably didn't read my previous post where I said ...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post
 

Just remember that the only thing different here is the weather at the actual game.  Just for those 4 hours, if it happens to be really cold, or rainy or snowy, will they get much flak for this decision.  Detroit has hosted 2 Super Bowls, Minnesota 1, and Indianapolis 1 as well.  Traffic is going to be bad at every Super Bowl every year everywhere.  Weather outside may suck at any of those venues.  Not to mention the chance of rain at all of the Florida games.

 

Everything about having a Super Bowl in New York makes perfect sense ... except for the possibility of bad weather DURING the game.  If it turned out to be anything like yesterday's Philly game, then they probably will never have another cold weather outdoor Super Bowl again.

 

I was simply trying to refute points made by @newtogolf (and although his post came after, it also applies to @SloverUT) that the problem of weather at any time other than during the game is a big (and new) deal.  People made a big deal about this venue choice being a mistake, and the only thing different about it than the games I mentioned is the fact that its not a dome.  That means that the "this is a bad decision because people don't want to party in cold weather" and "this is a bad decision because transportation will suck in bad weather" don't really fly because those issues are nothing new.  Those Super Bowls, as far as I know, were successes, and none of those cities are nearly as "desirable" of a destination (at any time of year) as New York.

 

Now, as far as the weather at the game itself, I agree 100% with you and @jamo.  Weather is absolutely an integral part of football ... otherwise they would have tarps and rain delays.  And Jamo is also dead on in regards to teams building their rosters to fit their home fields.  Insisting that all games be played in domes or warm weather stadiums - when half the teams play half their games in cold - would be as silly as arbitrarily saying that only pitchers parks are the true type of baseball stadiums, therefore, next time the Astros make the World Series against the Giants, they have to play all 7 games in San Francisco.

 

Further, some of the best and most memorable football games have been played in cold weather (ice bowl), and/or snow (tuck rule game).  And while thinking about writing this post I was watching the Bears/Cowboys playing in Chicago in 8* (-7 wind chill) weather, and I realize that I love these types of games.  I think this Super Bowl is going to be a rousing success all around and they will come back to New York (or perhaps Philly or DC) a lot sooner rather than later.

 

P.S.  You are dead right about yesterday's Philly/Detroit game.  If the weather was good, I would have skipped right on past it ... but seeing them playing in the snow was completely fun so I stuck around.

post #437 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golfingdad View Post


Now, as far as the weather at the game itself, I agree 100% with you and @jamo
.  Weather is absolutely an integral part of football ... otherwise they would have tarps and rain delays.  And Jamo is also dead on in regards to teams building their rosters to fit their home fields.  Insisting that all games be played in domes or warm weather stadiums - when half the teams play half their games in cold - would be as silly as arbitrarily saying that only pitchers parks are the true type of baseball stadiums, therefore, next time the Astros make the World Series against the Giants, they have to play all 7 games in San Francisco.

Couldn't agree more with this.
post #438 of 1006
Either way, its a high risk decision for the NFL in my mind. The problem with games played in the extreme elements like that is while they can be (and often are) extremely entertaining and memorable, they can also be really poorly played games as well. As big as an Eagles fan as I am, there were stretches of Sunday's game that were just unwatchable. I'm sure iit was a great game for those who were at the stadium, but only becasue they won in fairly dramatic fashion so now the snow becomes an added element to their story.
post #439 of 1006

I simply said what I would do in regards to weather and assume there are others like me.  If I was going to spend $$ on going to the Super Bowl it would not be this one.  I am not a cold weather fan and don't enjoy paying lots of money to freeze my ass off.  If I wasn't going to watch my team (Titans) play, and was only going for the Super Bowl experience, then I'd wait for one in a warmer climate.

 

My main point is there are probably not many people who would pass on going to a Super Bowl because it was going to be in 70-80 degree weather but I bet there are quite a few, such as me, that would pass if its going to be below freezing.

 

A venue choice can still be successful but still not be the best decision they could have made.

post #440 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post

I simply said what I would do in regards to weather and assume there are others like me.  If I was going to spend $$ on going to the Super Bowl it would not be this one.  I am not a cold weather fan and don't enjoy paying lots of money to freeze my ass off.  If I wasn't going to watch my team (Titans) play, and was only going for the Super Bowl experience, then I'd wait for one in a warmer climate.

My main point is there are probably not many people who would pass on going to a Super Bowl because it was going to be in 70-80 degree weather but I bet there are quite a few, such as me, that would pass if its going to be below freezing.

A venue choice can still be successful but still not be the best decision they could have made.

I don't think that matters. They fill MetLife, Lambeau, and Gillette in terrible weather for regular season games and playoff games. Why would the Super Bowl be any worse?
post #441 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by GangGreen View Post

Either way, its a high risk decision for the NFL in my mind. The problem with games played in the extreme elements like that is while they can be (and often are) extremely entertaining and memorable, they can also be really poorly played games as well. As big as an Eagles fan as I am, there were stretches of Sunday's game that were just unwatchable. I'm sure iit was a great game for those who were at the stadium, but only becasue they won in fairly dramatic fashion so now the snow becomes an added element to their story.


I don't have much of a problem with a championship being decided in bad weather even though the "best" team probably has a higher likelihood of losing the game than in "normal" weather.

 

Ice is the worst case scenario and much worse than snow.

 

Northern states are much better equipped to handle winter weather than southern states and unless all states in the south are excluded except Florida there is always the possibility of a winter storm. There was a college game in Texas last Saturday where they announced that anybody that could get to the stadium could get in free and it looked like only a handful of people made it. There was a "snow bowl" game either in Mississippi or Louisiana a few years ago with just as much or more snow than there was at the Eagles game last weekend. 

 

I have missed many more days of work due to winter weather in the last 18 years in Alabama than I missed in the previous 18 years in north Missouri because they don't have as much equipment to clear roads.

post #442 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post


I don't think that matters. They fill MetLife, Lambeau, and Gillette in terrible weather for regular season games and playoff games. Why would the Super Bowl be any worse?

 

Because filling the stadium isn't all that the Super Bowl is about.  I imagine there are thousands that go to the Super Bowl city that never even go to the game.  Concerts, parties, all kinds of stuff.

 

I'll guess that the Super Bowl game is going to be 100% filled up no matter where they host it.  To me, it is the extracurricular activities, that would make it more or less successful.  After all, that is why these cities want to host the SB in the first place.  They want to boost their local economy.

post #443 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post

Because filling the stadium isn't all that the Super Bowl is about.  I imagine there are thousands that go to the Super Bowl city that never even go to the game.  Concerts, parties, all kinds of stuff.

But the NFL doesn't make money off that. At least not directly. If anything, they might wish everyone was at home parked on their couches so the ratings are better.
post #444 of 1006
Alright.
post #445 of 1006
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamo View Post

But the NFL doesn't make money off that. At least not directly. If anything, they might wish everyone was at home parked on their couches so the ratings are better.

 

I almost started typing the same thing.

post #446 of 1006
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post

Because filling the stadium isn't all that the Super Bowl is about.  I imagine there are thousands that go to the Super Bowl city that never even go to the game.  Concerts, parties, all kinds of stuff.

I'll guess that the Super Bowl game is going to be 100% filled up no matter where they host it.  To me, it is the extracurricular activities, that would make it more or less successful.  After all, that is why these cities want to host the SB in the first place.  They want to boost their local economy.
And at the risk if repeating myself for the fourth time now ... Why would you think New York would be any worse for this extracurricular stuff than, say, Detroit, Minneapolis, Detroit AGAIN, and Indianapolis?
post #447 of 1006
For the third time now.. I didn't say they would. I said I don't think they would be AS successful as places that are in warmer climates. The SB site is always going to be successul to an extent because its the SB. The SB could be hosted in Iraq and still be successful but that doesn't mean it was as successful as a more premiere location would. Either way I am done arguing the point further.
post #448 of 1006
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SloverUT View Post

For the third time now.. I didn't say they would. I said I don't think they would be AS successful as places that are in warmer climates. The SB site is always going to be successul to an extent because its the SB. The SB could be hosted in Iraq and still be successful but that doesn't mean it was as successful as a more premiere location would have allowed.
Everyone agrees that the NFL is all about making money, right? Doesn't the fact that they're about to return to a cold weather city for the fifth time tell you all you need to know about how successful it has been? You think they'd do this is there was a significant drop off in success from Miami or New Orleans??
post #449 of 1006
Baaaaaad idea, and I just hope the game goes off without any problem. Why risk having the title decided in some flukey fashoin like New England's '01 Snow Bowl? The drama of the Superbowl isnt enough the league wants to sell DVD copies of the "New" Ice Bowl where players use their feet to clear a patch of grass for a last second field goal to win the game? Final score 6-3 lol
post #450 of 1006

Big money types, corporations, etc all go to the Super Bowl, very few "real" fans get to go to such a game.  I agree with @SloverUT big money doesn't want to sit in an open stadium and freeze their butts off in the rain or snow.  It's a bad move, at least in domes, the indoor temperature is regulated.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sports
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The 19th Hole › Sports › 2013 NFL Football