I am not a fan of the weather potentially causing an ugly championship game, and possibly playing a large role in who wins the game. I am not outraged over it because a lot of big playoff games are played in crap weather, but I think playing the game on a warm weather site or in a dome is just a much better idea.

Edited May 28, 201015 yr by whitesoxfan101

Well, say the Bears (a cold weather team) and the Chargers (a warm weather team) end up in the Super Bowl. And said Super Bowl was being played in Foxboro. Based on many arguments here the Bears would have an unfair advantage. What if, however, two weeks before, the Chargers beat the Steelers in AFC championship game which was being played in Pittsburgh?

 

I can see both sides of the argument, but I still think the Super Bowl should be played on occasion outside of Florida, California, or a dome. Yes, weather can be a factor in a game. But a snowy field or a wet field or a foggy field is going to affect both teams, not just the team that plays its home games in a dome or under the sun.

 

They could always try to balance the playing field by having a guest referee by the name of Joe West.

They could always try to balance the playing field by having a guest referee by the name of Joe West.

"The call is tails" "I said Heads!" "The call is tails!!!"

"The call is tails" "I said Heads!" "The call is tails!!!"

"That pump fake was a balk! Loss of downs!"

"That pump fake was a balk! Loss of downs!"

Isn't yours just the tuck rule?

Well, say the Bears (a cold weather team) and the Chargers (a warm weather team) end up in the Super Bowl. And said Super Bowl was being played in Foxboro. Based on many arguments here the Bears would have an unfair advantage. What if, however, two weeks before, the Chargers beat the Steelers in AFC championship game which was being played in Pittsburgh?

 

I can see both sides of the argument, but I still think the Super Bowl should be played on occasion outside of Florida, California, or a dome. Yes, weather can be a factor in a game. But a snowy field or a wet field or a foggy field is going to affect both teams, not just the team that plays its home games in a dome or under the sun.

They could always try to balance the playing field by having a guest referee by the name of Joe West.

 

In response to the bolded though....if you play they game in a dome or warm weather site where the weather isn't going to be a factor the vast majority of the time (Bears/Colts being basically the only exception I can think of), the conditions aren't going to determine the champion, who plays better football is. If you play the game in cold and wet weather, yeah both teams are going to have to deal with it, but the conditions still play a large role in who wins. I am not a fan of that.

Isn't yours just the tuck rule?

Wow pretty good debate here. I came in with the opinion cold weather is fine for a superbowl...then kinda changed it after reading some of Illini's posts...but then changed it back by the end of the thread.

 

Football is not just about who can perform the best in optimal conditions. It has never been just about that. External factors have always been part of the game. Who can play through pain. Who can play through the fear. Whoc an play through the pressure. Who can play through the crowd noise. Who can play through the weather. Football is about overcoming obstacles in the toughest of conditions. That has always been the sport.

you know when the Bears built their new field a while back I just couldn't figure out why they didn't go all out and put up a retractable dome so they could still play in 'Bear' weather (always hated that term) and then actually have a shot to get a Super Bowl in Chicago. i'm sure Chicago could always use the extra income that comes with hosting the Super Bowl.

I would feel 100% instead of 90% for this if it went to the home team with the best record.

you know when the Bears built their new field a while back I just couldn't figure out why they didn't go all out and put up a retractable dome so they could still play in 'Bear' weather (always hated that term) and then actually have a shot to get a Super Bowl in Chicago. i'm sure Chicago could always use the extra income that comes with hosting the Super Bowl.

Because when it comes to stadiums Chicago seems to always get it wrong.

you know when the Bears built their new field a while back I just couldn't figure out why they didn't go all out and put up a retractable dome so they could still play in 'Bear' weather (always hated that term) and then actually have a shot to get a Super Bowl in Chicago. i'm sure Chicago could always use the extra income that comes with hosting the Super Bowl.

A retractable dome would officially put an end to cold weather games in Chicago. It would be hard to justify leaving the thing open when its 10 degrees and snowing.

Well, say the Bears (a cold weather team) and the Chargers (a warm weather team) end up in the Super Bowl. And said Super Bowl was being played in Foxboro. Based on many arguments here the Bears would have an unfair advantage. What if, however, two weeks before, the Chargers beat the Steelers in AFC championship game which was being played in Pittsburgh?

 

I can see both sides of the argument, but I still think the Super Bowl should be played on occasion outside of Florida, California, or a dome. Yes, weather can be a factor in a game. But a snowy field or a wet field or a foggy field is going to affect both teams, not just the team that plays its home games in a dome or under the sun.

 

They could always try to balance the playing field by having a guest referee by the name of Joe West.

I remember the Chargers vs. Bengals in Cincinatti for the AFC championship game. -50 wind chill or something like that. Totally frozen field. It was a farce of a game with the frozen field, who would fumble the frozen ball first, slip and make the big mistake first, etc. San Diego had nobody to blame but theirself for not having a better record then Cincy and having to play in those conditions though. Now if that was the Super Bowl where the NFL chose Cincinatti as the venue then that would have been pure stupidity and totally unfair. The weather was THE most important factor in the game, as it eliminated most of the skills each team used all year to get to that game.

Edited May 28, 201015 yr by JuiceCruz16

I remember the Chargers vs. Bengals in Cincinatti for the AFC championship game. -50 wind chill or something like that. Totally frozen field. It was a farce of a game with the frozen field, who would fumble the frozen ball first, slip and make the big mistake first, etc. San Diego had nobody to blame but theirself for not having a better record then Cincy and having to play in those conditions though. Now if that was the Super Bowl where the NFL chose Cincinatti as the venue then that would have been pure stupidity and totally unfair. The weather was THE most important factor in the game, as it eliminated most of the skills each team used all year to get to that game.

 

Your point is even more exemplified by the game that was played the week before when Kellen Winslow was carried off the field with heat exhaustion. Almost a 150 degree temperature difference between the two games.

 

I just do not see the point of having it in NY.