2013 NFL Football

[iacas]

The Championship games are played in New England and Denver because those teams had the best record and EARNED those games at home. Big difference Chief. The SB was given to a cold weather Domeless City by a bunch of rich guys in suits.

Ron, please, we can do without calling people "Chief." It's obnoxious.

And fwiw that's not a "big" difference. Others have claimed that you can't playing a championship football game in a northern outdoor stadium is unfair. The fact that they don't schedule AFC and NFC championship games for warm neutral sites speaks to the opposite of that.

[RonTheSavage]

It was not my intention for it to come off that way, but I can see how it did, you're right and thats my bad. My argument was never about how fair or unfair a northern climate outdoor nuetral site would be. I have always said that the SB the way it is isn't broke so why mess with it? Football in the snow is awesome, but PLANNING to play football in the snow with so much on the line is asking for trouble. (In my humble opinion) Im not even talking about the logistical nightmares with parking and travel concerns. Either way it's gonna happen, I just hope it's not part of the regular rotation.

[newtogolf]

I should have added you to my list of people not fitting my preconceived division of opinions on this.  You're from Long Island, right?  Shouldn't you want those jets of yours to have a cold weather super bowl?  Geno can't throw anyway and defenders would miss him all day long on the ice

I think the bolded part is what I don't get.  The skills of the players determine the winner in both the cold or the warm weather.  The relative value of different skills--say running game and passing game--shift with the weather, but its still skills winning the game.  McCoy ran for 200 yards because the weather favored the running game AND because he's one of the best backs in the league.  If you build a team that wins through the air, you know that you're risking trouble in cold weather games. Why is warm weather, which relatively favors passing, the standard and cold weather the outlier?  Particularly for a game played in February.  The only reason why warm weather is considered the baseline is that "a bunch of rich guys in suits" decided they could make more money that way.

I'm not against cold weather games, I played in them many years (non-pro) and it was loads of fun.  That said, a game on ice and snow isn't a showcase of skills, it's about who has the best shoes for the field conditions.  McCoy didn't gain 200 yards because he's a great back, he's never done it in his career.  He gained 200 yards because he had better traction and the advantage of knowing when he was going to make a cut.

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Ron, please, we can do without calling people "Chief." It's obnoxious.

And fwiw that's not a "big" difference. Others have claimed that you can't playing a championship football game in a northern outdoor stadium is unfair. The fact that they don't schedule AFC and NFC championship games for warm neutral sites speaks to the opposite of that.

It was not my intention for it to come off that way, but I can see how it did, you're right and thats my bad.

My argument was never about how fair or unfair a northern climate outdoor nuetral site would be. I have always said that the SB the way it is isn't broke so why mess with it? Football in the snow is awesome, but PLANNING to play football in the snow with so much on the line is asking for trouble. (In my humble opinion) Im not even talking about the logistical nightmares with parking and travel concerns. Either way it's gonna happen, I just hope it's not part of the regular rotation.

It's not like the Super Bowl was held in the same stadium every year.  And they didn't change anything about the way they awarded it, as far as I know.  A bunch of cities throw in a bid, they choose between them.  They choose new cities all of the time.  Houston, Indy, Jacksonville.  Even though a lot of people may wish they just rotated between Miami, New Orleans, and San Diego, that is not how its been.  So they're not really "messing" with anything, they're just trying something new ... like they've done several times before.  And I commend them for it.

I also don't get the issues people keep bringing up about parking and travel.  (I realize you said you're not talking about them ... but you did)  I've never been to a Super Bowl, but I can't imagine parking and travel NOT being crazy for every Super Bowl every single year, regardless of venue.  How is this unique to New York?  (LOL ... just thought of Ron Burgundy)

[Golfingdad]

because he had better traction and the advantage of knowing when he was going to make a cut.

You've said this twice now, and I don't understand how this applies differently in cold weather than warm?  The offense ALWAYS knows before the defense what they are going to do, no matter what the weather is.  And teams can be unprepared for the field conditions in any kind of weather too.  It's not the weathers fault ... its their own.  These are billion dollar franchises ... I'm pretty sure they can figure out a way to pack a few pairs of shoes for every game.

[dsc123]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm not against cold weather games, I played in them many years (non-pro) and it was loads of fun.  That said, a game on ice and snow isn't a showcase of skills, it's about who has the best shoes for the field conditions.  McCoy didn't gain 200 yards because he's a great back, he's never done it in his career.  He gained 200 yards because he had better traction and the advantage of knowing when he was going to make a cut.

I'm not sure if you mean it literally, but it wasn't actually on ice--just snow.

Quote:

Lincoln Financial Field has a heated playing surface, although it is used when the field is frozen, not to melt snow. The field was not frozen, and to use the heating coils would have created an even sloppier playing surface.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10104386/winter-weather-impacts-nfl-multiple-games-sunday

Obviously, snow is still slippery.  I did find an article about the cleats though.

Quote:

After pregame warmups before Sunday's Snow Bowl at the Linc, the teammate next to McCoy in the Philadelphia Eagles locker room made a suggestion.

Brad Smith told the NFL's leading rusher that he needed to change his shoes.

McCoy didn't hesitate to heed the advice. He changed from shoes with half-inch cleats to a pair with three-quarter inch studs.

"Brad, I listen to," McCoy said, nodding at his teammate.

I suppose there's something to that, but there's really no reason why anyone on the other team couldn't have done the same.  Smith probably learned that playing in Buffalo for a couple years.  I suppose you might say that the other team might not have brought different spikes, but I don't buy that.  If you think its worth having different spikes at home, why wouldn't you bring them with you on the road?

[Fourputt]

Side note:  I find it amazing that in XLVIII years there hasn't been one time where a team got to play a home Super Bowl.

That's easy... until now, no team north of the Mason-Dixon line ever had it's field chosen to host a Super Bowl, aside from a couple of domes.  That greatly reduced the chances of it happening.  Of course, that was before the league management lost their marbles.

If a storm like hurricane Sandy blew in on Super Bowl Sunday, would you all still say "Let the game go on"?

[RonTheSavage]

The cities that you mentioned all either was a warm weather city or had a dome stadium though. What the NFL is messing with I guess is mother nature by choosing an outdoor cold weather venue. Everyone here knows the SB is about more than just the game. It a 2 week party with tons of events, parties etc. That was the only complaint about the Detroit SB, I guess it snowed and it made getting around alot harder. I dont care for his choice of words but NJ native Joe Flacco dont like the idea much either Flacco was asked by Mike Klis of the Denver Post about his thoughts on Super Bowls played in open air stadiums in parts of the country where it is cold in February and Flacco, who grew up in New Jersey, left little room for interpretation with his answer. “Yeah, I think it’s retarded,” Flacco said. “I probably shouldn’t say that. I think it’s stupid. If you want a Super Bowl, put a retractable dome on your stadium. Then you can get one. Other than that I don’t really like the idea. I don’t think people would react very well to it, or be glad to play anybody in that kind of weather.” http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/29/joe-flacco-thinks-cold-weather-super-bowl-is-retarded/

[phan52]

Teams earn those Conference Championship games as a reward for good play during the season and they deserve to have an advantage when trying to advance in the postseason. But the Super Bowl has always been in a neutral site and, in the end, the whole endeavor is supposed to be for the fans, right? I mean, without the fans, there is no NFL. And I think they should be accommodating the fans first and foremost in the Super Bowl. Nice place to visit in the dead of winter would be my idea of accommodating. Having it outdoors in the swamps of North NJ in February is not my idea of accommodating.

Methinks the almighty dollar has won out again. No surprise there.

[MS256]

Teams used to be "built" for the weather they played in. If a team played in a northern outdoor stadium they built their team around a drive blocking power running game. If they were in a dome or in the south they built their team around a speed based air show.

Neither matched up all that well away from home and out of the element they were built for unless they clearly had the other team overmatched.

Not as true as it used to be and almost everybody is using a zone blocking running scheme and throwing the ball much more (even in bad weather). With the rule changes that favor a passing game everybody has to have a chance to win track meets and everybody is built about the same way (except for talent, and that's not by choice).

[Golfingdad]

That's easy... until now, no team north of the Mason-Dixon line ever had it's field chosen to host a Super Bowl, aside from a couple of domes.  That greatly reduced the chances of it happening.  Of course, that was before the league management lost their marbles.

If a storm like hurricane Sandy blew in on Super Bowl Sunday, would you all still say "Let the game go on"?

Well, that's a silly, hyperbolic thing to say.  What does the lack of a dome on the field have to do with them playing a football game in a hurricane?  Of course they wouldn't play it, but they wouldn't play it in New Orleans or Miami in a hurricane either.

Teams earn those Conference Championship games as a reward for good play during the season and they deserve to have an advantage when trying to advance in the postseason. But the Super Bowl has always been in a neutral site and, in the end, the whole endeavor is supposed to be for the fans, right? I mean, without the fans, there is no NFL. And I think they should be accommodating the fans first and foremost in the Super Bowl. Nice place to visit in the dead of winter would be my idea of accommodating. Having it outdoors in the swamps of North NJ in February is not my idea of accommodating.

Methinks the almighty dollar has won out again. No surprise there.

The Super Bowl has rarely "technically" been at a neutral site, as far as I'm concerned.  They held it at the Rose Bowl a few times, and at Stanford Stadium as well, but the vast majority of Super Bowl sites (especially in recent years) are at NFL stadiums chosen well in advance of the season (they are already planned out through 2017).  And as far as I know, they don't try to take into account the quality of the potential home team when they make that choice, nor do they (again, as far as I know) have a contingent stadium to move the game to, were the home team to be successful in qualifying.

So, although it's worked out to be a "neutral site" at every Super Bowl so far, they are certainly taking the chance that one day there will be a home team.  And when that happens, don't you think that they'd have at least as much, if not quite a lot more, of an advantage in that game than a Buffalo or Chicago or Philadelphia would have over a warm weather team in a New York Super Bowl?  Further, wouldn't it be fair to say, that just from a mathematical standpoint, that the chances of a team like Arizona making the Super Bowl next year, or the Niners the following year, are as good, or even greater than the chances of there being a blizzard in New York on February 2nd?

So how come nobody is up in arms at the idea that they hold the Super Bowl in NFL stadiums every year??

But your last paragraph I agree with.  When has the NFL ever NOT been about making money?? ;)

[Slice of Life]

You guys done whining about the weather yet?

[newtogolf]

You've said this twice now, and I don't understand how this applies differently in cold weather than warm?  The offense ALWAYS knows before the defense what they are going to do, no matter what the weather is.  And teams can be unprepared for the field conditions in any kind of weather too.  It's not the weathers fault ... its their own.  These are billion dollar franchises ... I'm pretty sure they can figure out a way to pack a few pairs of shoes for every game.

Have you ever played on a snow covered, frozen field as a defensive player?  I have and it places defenders at an even greater disadvantage because they have to react to what the offensive player does and contend with unstable footing.

In watching McCoy this past Sunday, defenders were slipping and falling all over trying to chase him, on a regular field in a dome, they catch him almost every time.

[newtogolf]

I'm not sure if you mean it literally, but it wasn't actually on ice--just snow.

Obviously, snow is still slippery.  I did find an article about the cleats though.

I suppose there's something to that, but there's really no reason why anyone on the other team couldn't have done the same.  Smith probably learned that playing in Buffalo for a couple years.  I suppose you might say that the other team might not have brought different spikes, but I don't buy that.  If you think its worth having different spikes at home, why wouldn't you bring them with you on the road?

Obviously both teams will bring every cleat they have for a Super Bowl at MetLife, so it's less likely a big factor but a factor nonetheless.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

That's easy... until now, no team north of the Mason-Dixon line ever had it's field chosen to host a Super Bowl, aside from a couple of domes.  That greatly reduced the chances of it happening.  Of course, that was before the league management lost their marbles.

If a storm like hurricane Sandy blew in on Super Bowl Sunday, would you all still say "Let the game go on"?

Well, that's a silly, hyperbolic thing to say.  What does the lack of a dome on the field have to do with them playing a football game in a hurricane?  Of course they wouldn't play it, but they wouldn't play it in New Orleans or Miami in a hurricane either.

So you do have a weather limit?  Good to hear.  That's all I'm saying too.  If the weather is too extreme to allow proper play of the game, then it's a bad idea to play.  I feel that is true for any outdoor sport.  Just because football has this macho image of being tough enough for anything, when you pass a certain point, it just isn't football any more, and football skill or talent is no longer what determines the winner.  Modern football is a chess game, not mud wrestling.

[RonTheSavage]

Problem Solved, just have the Super Bowl at Cowboy (AT&T;) stadium every year. We know darn well they wont be playing in the game!

[GangGreen]

HA!

[Golfingdad]

Have you ever played on a snow covered, frozen field as a defensive player?  I have and it places defenders at an even greater disadvantage because they have to react to what the offensive player does and contend with unstable footing.

In watching McCoy this past Sunday, defenders were slipping and falling all over trying to chase him, on a regular field in a dome, they catch him almost every time.

No.  My football career was only 2 high school seasons long, and although it gets pretty cold in Fresno in the winter, it doesn't snow (its basically a desert so it doesn't rain much either), and I bet the coldest I ever played in was mid 30's.  Oh, and I was usually a tight end, so, well, I have little sympathy for defensive backs and linebackers. ;)  (I did also play defensive line for a bit, but I wasn't very good.  Heck, who am I kidding, I wasn't very good at offense either ... I was, how do I say this politely so I don't offend myself ... a bit of a w**sy and afraid to get hit in high school.)

Anyways, the counter point to your argument is that it doesn't really speak to unfairness of any kind.  Both teams have offenses and both have defenses.  Maybe it'll be higher scoring, but that wouldn't be so bad I would think.

So you do have a weather limit?  Good to hear.  That's all I'm saying too.  If the weather is too extreme to allow proper play of the game, then it's a bad idea to play.  I feel that is true for any outdoor sport.  Just because football has this macho image of being tough enough for anything, when you pass a certain point, it just isn't football any more, and football skill or talent is no longer what determines the winner.  Modern football is a chess game, not mud wrestling.

Yes.  Obviously I'm not rooting for the game to be played in a blizzard.  I'm simply saying that there is nothing wrong with them playing a Super Bowl in cold weather.  And like one of my previous posts, the risk of the weather being so horrendous as to make the game a joke is probably a lot less than the risk of a team getting a home game any given year, so ... why all the fuss?

Look ... I fully get that they are taking one extra small gamble here than they are when they hold it in a dome or the south, but I'm thinking it's a risk that is being A) blown out of proportion, and B) going to provide a decent reward at the end.  I think its going to be a success.