2013 NFL Football

[Fourputt]

Regardless of other considerations, at least neither team will have a home field (or home city if you will) advantage this time, since neither NY team will be participating.

[iacas]

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

What was the score of the Eagles game this past weekend? 54 points combined, you say?

[RonTheSavage]

Ok you got me there but even the announcers said something about this is just "sandlot" football. Didnt they just flat out stop kicking the ball at times during that game? Thats the part thats scary to me about the SB, you're down 2 but you cant attempt a FG becasue it's too much snow? Either way I'll be watching, just the SB wasnt broke before why mess with it?

[newtogolf]

Regardless of other considerations, at least neither team will have a home field (or home city if you will) advantage this time, since neither NY team will be participating.

Jet's are still mathematically still in it, it's a huge long shot, but still in it.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

What was the score of the Eagles game this past weekend? 54 points combined, you say?

Ok you got me there but even the announcers said something about this is just "sandlot" football. Didnt they just flat out stop kicking the ball at times during that game? Thats the part thats scary to me about the SB, you're down 2 but you cant attempt a FG becasue it's too much snow? Either way I'll be watching, just the SB wasnt broke before why mess with it?

When one complete facet of the game is eliminated by the weather, then it's simply not a fair game.  They wouldn't even try a PAT for Pete's sake.  At least with wind you can make short field goals and PAT's.  Cold has an effect, but doesn't eliminate kicking.  No way to kick out of 6" of snow.  The same day that a kick in 10° chill sets a new record, out east they can't even try a PAT.  Something is wrong with that.

The long runs weren't due to particularly good play, they were simply luck of the draw with defenders falling down like dogs on ice.  If you actually think that that would be good fare for a Super Bowl... then you really aren't into good football.  Championship games shouldn't be decided by refs, and they shouldn't be decided by weather.  They should be decided by football talent.

Quite a few years ago Green Bay was playing in Denver.  Louis Wright (Denver CB) returned an interception for a TD early in the game for something like a 10-7 lead, then a major snowstorm blew in and nobody scored another point in the next 3 quarters.  Green Bay was the better team, but the conditions were such that even their famous tolerance to weather was neutralized.  To have the same thing happen in a Super Bowl would make the NFL a laughing stock because they have the option of not even taking the risk.

In my opinion, teams which choose to play in domes at home take their chances when playing outdoors, but that doesn't mean that anything goes.  Severe weather may make for amusing anecdotes, but it doesn't make for good football.

[dsc123]

When one complete facet of the game is eliminated by the weather, then it's simply not a fair game.  They wouldn't even try a PAT for Pete's sake.  At least with wind you can make short field goals and PAT's.  Cold has an effect, but doesn't eliminate kicking.  No way to kick out of 6" of snow.  The same day that a kick in 10° chill sets a new record, out east they can't even try a PAT.  Something is wrong with that.

The long runs weren't due to particularly good play, they were simply luck of the draw with defenders falling down like dogs on ice.  If you actually think that that would be good fare for a Super Bowl... then you really aren't into good football.  Championship games shouldn't be decided by refs, and they shouldn't be decided by weather.  They should be decided by football talent.

Quite a few years ago Green Bay was playing in Denver.  Louis Wright (Denver CB) returned an interception for a TD early in the game for something like a 10-7 lead, then a major snowstorm blew in and nobody scored another point in the next 3 quarters.  Green Bay was the better team, but the conditions were such that even their famous tolerance to weather was neutralized.  To have the same thing happen in a Super Bowl would make the NFL a laughing stock because they have the option of not even taking the risk.

In my opinion, teams which choose to play in domes at home take their chances when playing outdoors, but that doesn't mean that anything goes.  Severe weather may make for amusing anecdotes, but it doesn't make for good football.

Why do you equate good weather with what football is supposed to be?  Or with fairness? Football is a fall/winter sport played outdoors. I don't get why you would think that dealing with the elements = bad football.

For example, not being able to kick makes the game worse?  Lol, you might be the first person I've ever heard talk about PATs as if they're the most exciting part of the game.  If anything, I think the additional challenges make it more interesting. Its certainly fair because both teams are playing in the same conditions. Also, you're going to ridiculous extremes.  There won't be 6" of snow on the field--they shovel and plow.

The most talented team doesn't always win.  There's talent, there's preparation, strategy, matchups, luck, wind, rain, snow, power outages, etc.  If the game were just about accumulating the most talent, they wouldn't have to play the games.

[RonTheSavage]

It's not football if you cant kick field goals or extra points.

[Golfingdad]

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.

This is a good thing!!!  Isn't it agreed that it's a BAD thing that the regular fan is priced out of the game in favor of the "big money" types, and the corporate honchos?  (And wasn't this a big issue with the season tickets and seat licenses when you guys got your new stadium?)  So, then wouldn't it be a really GOOD thing if a lot of those corporate honchos decided that it was too cold for them, thus leaving the seats open, and thus the resale ticket prices down a little bit for the "real" fans?  Certainly the tickets will sell out at face value (they probably already have), and that is the only money that the NFL sees.  (And even that is probably a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total take for the NFL)  If it turns out that the bigwigs won't shell out 10k a seat, thus requiring the brokers to re-sell them at more "reasonable" prices, and in turn, allowing "real" fans to go to the game, how is that not a win-win??  The only person that gets screwed in that scenario is the ticket broker ... and who gives two s**ts about those guys?? ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

What was the score of the Eagles game this past weekend? 54 points combined, you say?

Ok you got me there but even the announcers said something about this is just "sandlot" football. Didnt they just flat out stop kicking the ball at times during that game? Thats the part thats scary to me about the SB, you're down 2 but you cant attempt a FG becasue it's too much snow? Either way I'll be watching, just the SB wasnt broke before why mess with it?

And don't forget about Baltimore vs. Minnesota ...

which combined for 55 points, 510 yards passing, and 5 passing touchdowns.

And last nights Bears Cowboys game ... which wasn't played in the snow, but was played in 8*, with a wind chill of -7 ... and featured 73!!!!!!!!!  total points, and saw Josh McCown throw for almost 350 yards and 4 touchdowns.

Let's not kid ourselves.  These guys can play football in any weather, and also don't forget that they are running around with their blood pumping, and they spend a lot of time sitting on heated benches, next to heat lamps, and with coats on ... they really aren't that cold or affected by the weather much at all.

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Why do you equate good weather with what football is supposed to be?  Or with fairness? Football is a fall/winter sport played outdoors. I don't get why you would think that dealing with the elements = bad football.

It's not football if you cant kick field goals or extra points.

Really?  When you think about what you like about football extra points are near the top of your list?  And you're forgetting that cold weather could put kickoff returns back into play, which have pretty much been eliminated.

[Golfingdad]

When one complete facet of the game is eliminated by the weather, then it's simply not a fair game.  They wouldn't even try a PAT for Pete's sake.  At least with wind you can make short field goals and PAT's.  Cold has an effect, but doesn't eliminate kicking.  No way to kick out of 6" of snow.  The same day that a kick in 10° chill sets a new record, out east they can't even try a PAT.  Something is wrong with that.

The long runs weren't due to particularly good play, they were simply luck of the draw with defenders falling down like dogs on ice.  If you actually think that that would be good fare for a Super Bowl... then you really aren't into good football.  Championship games shouldn't be decided by refs, and they shouldn't be decided by weather.  They should be decided by football talent.

Quite a few years ago Green Bay was playing in Denver.  Louis Wright (Denver CB) returned an interception for a TD early in the game for something like a 10-7 lead, then a major snowstorm blew in and nobody scored another point in the next 3 quarters.  Green Bay was the better team, but the conditions were such that even their famous tolerance to weather was neutralized.  To have the same thing happen in a Super Bowl would make the NFL a laughing stock because they have the option of not even taking the risk.

In my opinion, teams which choose to play in domes at home take their chances when playing outdoors, but that doesn't mean that anything goes.  Severe weather may make for amusing anecdotes, but it doesn't make for good football.

I find it ironic that the guy on this forum who is one of the most "play it as it lies" rules follower type of guys, is arguing that football is only football in good weather.  It's like you are arguing for football "winter rules."

Why do you equate good weather with what football is supposed to be?  Or with fairness? Football is a fall/winter sport played outdoors. I don't get why you would think that dealing with the elements = bad football.

For example, not being able to kick makes the game worse?  Lol, you might be the first person I've ever heard talk about PATs as if they're the most exciting part of the game.  If anything, I think the additional challenges make it more interesting. Its certainly fair because both teams are playing in the same conditions. Also, you're going to ridiculous extremes.  NY won't be 10 below, and there won't be 6" of snow on the field--they shovel and plow.

The most talented team doesn't always win.  There's talent, there's preparation, strategy, matchups, luck, wind, rain, snow, power outages, etc.  If the game were just about accumulating the most talent, they wouldn't have to play the games.

Bingo.  And extra bingo for the bold part.  Everybody is talking like its a guarantee that they will be playing in a blizzard and in 4 feet of snow, when realistically, the chances of them playing with snow on the ground (if what my NY family tells me about snow not sticking there very often is true) is a lot closer to 0%.

[newtogolf]

This is a good thing!!!  Isn't it agreed that it's a BAD thing that the regular fan is priced out of the game in favor of the "big money" types, and the corporate honchos?  (And wasn't this a big issue with the season tickets and seat licenses when you guys got your new stadium?)  So, then wouldn't it be a really GOOD thing if a lot of those corporate honchos decided that it was too cold for them, thus leaving the seats open, and thus the resale ticket prices down a little bit for the "real" fans?  Certainly the tickets will sell out at face value (they probably already have), and that is the only money that the NFL sees.  (And even that is probably a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total take for the NFL)  If it turns out that the bigwigs won't shell out 10k a seat, thus requiring the brokers to re-sell them at more "reasonable" prices, and in turn, allowing "real" fans to go to the game, how is that not a win-win??  The only person that gets screwed in that scenario is the ticket broker ... and who gives two s**ts about those guys?? ;)

Regular fans still won't be able to afford to gain access to the tickets.  We won't know the weather forecast for game day until long after all the tickets are sold.  it just means that the stands will look empty if the weather is bad because all the "corporate honchos" are inside drinking hot chocolate and trying to stay warm.

[RonTheSavage]

Please dont put words in my mouth, I never said thats what I "like" about football. I did say that is a part of the game. Football isnt football without the part of the game where players actually put foot to the ball and kick the darn thing.

[Ernest Jones]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

Really?  When you think about what you like about football extra points are near the top of your list?  And you're forgetting that cold weather could put kickoff returns back into play, which have pretty much been eliminated.

Please dont put words in my mouth, I never said thats what I "like" about football. I did say that is a part of the game. Football isnt football without the part of the game where players actually put foot to the ball and kick the darn thing.

Some would say it's not football if you're using your hands...

[Fourputt]

I find it ironic that the guy on this forum who is one of the most "play it as it lies" rules follower type of guys, is arguing that football is only football in good weather.  It's like you are arguing for football "winter rules."

Tell me where I said the words "good weather".

Still waiting......

What I said was that a championship game should not be decided by extreme weather.   That's a big, big difference.  That would be weather which makes an integral part of the game unplayable.  The game is called football because you are supposed be able to kick the ball.

[newtogolf]

Why do you equate good weather with what football is supposed to be?  Or with fairness? Football is a fall/winter sport played outdoors. I don't get why you would think that dealing with the elements = bad football.

For example, not being able to kick makes the game worse?  Lol, you might be the first person I've ever heard talk about PATs as if they're the most exciting part of the game.  If anything, I think the additional challenges make it more interesting. Its certainly fair because both teams are playing in the same conditions. Also, you're going to ridiculous extremes.  There won't be 6" of snow on the field--they shovel and plow.

The most talented team doesn't always win.  There's talent, there's preparation, strategy, matchups, luck, wind, rain, snow, power outages, etc.  If the game were just about accumulating the most talent, they wouldn't have to play the games.

In weather like they had in Philly, it's not about football, it's about who has the best shoes for the snow / ice covered surface.  You could see that the Eagles had the advantage because they had better traction on the slippery surface.  McCoy ran for 200+ because he had traction and the defense didn't.

Also when the weather is bad, the offense has the advantage because the offensive player knows what direction / cut they plan to make where as the defense has to react which causes them to slip and slide more.   I would attribute the cold, frozen and in some cases snow covered fields for the major reason the scores were so high this week.

[RonTheSavage]

Oh so you flew in for the game on Sunday but the weather is so bad we're pushing the SB back to Tuesday sorry for the inconvenience. But the game will be still be awesome in the snow dont you think? Contingency plans, according to the Sports Business Journal, include moving gameday up a day or pushing it back a few days. Of particular concern to the NFL is the possibility of a paralyzing Nor’easter. “We have to look at all the angles: storm arriving day-of-game, storm arriving prior to game, storm arriving after game,” a source told Daniel Kaplan. The game is scheduled for Feb. 2, and changing the date would cause all sorts of travel headaches for fans, who would be trying to reschedule flights with the possibility that flights could be canceled and the area’s three airports closed down. Moving the game up would be a problem as well because many fans arrive on the day of the game. “You know it will be a lot cooler, but there will be a lot of people and transportation issues regardless,” Jeff Miller, NFL vice president of security, told SBJ. “When you have a lot of moving parts and large crowds, you are moving on transportation systems already overloaded with daily commuters, so you’ve got some issues to deal with.”

[dsc123]

Please dont put words in my mouth, I never said thats what I "like" about football. I did say that is a part of the game. Football isnt football without the part of the game where players actually put foot to the ball and kick the darn thing.

Well, if you don't like that part of the game, then why argue against weather conditions that might eliminate it?  I don't think you really mean that

I find it ironic that the guy on this forum who is one of the most "play it as it lies" rules follower type of guys, is arguing that football is only football in good weather.  It's like you are arguing for football "winter rules."

I was going to say this but for some reason struggled to put it into the right words.  And he's from Colorado when he's not living it up in the Bahamas, right?  I totally would have expected him to be on the other side of this debate.  Could you imagine the glare he would give you if you asked to take relief when your perfect drives lands in a divot?  Not picking on fourputt at all--I'm just surprised.

Bingo.  And extra bingo for the bold part.  Everybody is talking like its a guarantee that they will be playing in a blizzard and in 4 feet of snow, when realistically, the chances of them playing with snow on the ground (if what my NY family tells me about snow not sticking there very often is true) is a lot closer to 0%.

A lot of concern over nothing.  Even if there was a foot of snow, which happens maybe once every other year in NY, they'd plow the field.  You would only have an inch or two of accumulation on the field, and they would keep cleaning it up.  That's what they do in Buffalo.

Here in DC we've got hit on sunday, and monday morning, and again this morning.  All federal and local governments are closed (which here is basically everything) and the newscasters are warning people to stay off the roads and to stock emergency kits with high calorie food, knives, sleeping bags, all sorts of strange things.  Here's a picture from my office window.  Across the street you can see the small grassy areas were some snow accumulated.  Actually, the picture was taken an hour ago and that's mostly melted.   Its all relative.

[dsc123]

In weather like they had in Philly, it's not about football, it's about who has the best shoes for the snow / ice covered surface.  You could see that the Eagles had the advantage because they had better traction on the slippery surface.  McCoy ran for 200+ because he had traction and the defense didn't.

Also when the weather is bad, the offense has the advantage because the offensive player knows what direction / cut they plan to make where as the defense has to react which causes them to slip and slide more.   I would attribute the cold, frozen and in some cases snow covered fields for the major reason the scores were so high this week.

If you're right, then the equipment manager for the lions should be fired and every team should take notice and buy the right shoes--advantage gone.

The cold doesn't really affect the score much, but it affects the play.  Teams run the ball more and its sloppier.  Its harder to run, but its even harder to defend.

I just don't get why that's a bad thing for a game that's played in the elements.  Wind and rain make kicking and passing difficult, but I don't think anyone here would advocate only playing in domes.  Or playing all playoff games in neutral sites?  If cold is so bad for the game why do we let NE play at home in the conference championship?

Why don't you view adapting to the elements as "good football"?