Outdoors as in the (new) Meadowlands. In early February.
Is anyone else hoping for a massive blizzard at game time and a muddy field? In other words, REAL football?
Nope. I think it sucks. The whole purpose of the Super Bowl from Day 1 was to get the two best teams on the field in good weather to reduce any extraneous factors. I don’t really care about the people in the stands, as they’ll have no problem selling the friggin Super Bowl out. I was miffed enough at rain during Super Bowl XL.
Football is largely a cold-weather sport. Hosting the game indoors or in a tropical clime doesn’t make the weather neutral, it just makes it a warm-weather game instead of a cold-weather game. In other words, good weather is no more of a baseline than bad weather.
Weather is, and should always be, part of football. Any team good enough to play in a Super Bowl damn well ought to be able to play and win in inclement weather.
Every Super Bowl in a blizzard? No, that’s not necessary. But once in a while should be acceptable even to the ninnies who don’t like a slippery balls.
No, the whole purpose is to make the non-fans that are there on their corporation’s sponsorship dime comfortable.
Fuck. Them.
I love the idea.
I hope there’s a four foot blizzard, they have to lower the players into the stadium from helicopters, and that the most unpopular and small-market teams are the matchup. Or maybe Miami/Philly.
I say this because though I absolutely love NFL football, I wish to see their attempts at money-grubbing fail spectacularly and massive numbers of feckless, corporate bootlicking heads roll.
I am Miami Dolphins fan and I think it is the worst idea of all time. Why Jets!!! Why!!! Why!!!
I think it’s awesome. A snow game for the Super Bowl? Giddy up! There’s always a good chance the game is a dud anyway. This will only add some interest. Maybe the corporate ticket-suckers will be afraid of the weather and some real fans might get to go.
Actually, I’d be happy if it just rains like a cow pissing on a flat rock and there are corporate logos and empty seats/miserable people forever juxtaposed on national TV.
…and that the game kicks ass! 
I’m okay with it, as long as the NFL starts letting other northern cities with outdoor stadiums have a shot at hosting from now on, too.
This definitely gives the Packers the edge over the Chargers.
You can’t get rid of the extraneous factors. Yes, of course the Packers would benefit from bad weather, but the Chargers would benefit from lack of weather. No matter what you do, you’re making a decision that favors one team over another. The only “fair” way to do it is for the Superbowl stadia to have about the same mix of conditions as the stadia used for the regular season. Which, yes, sometimes means snow.
That said, wasn’t it in an open stadium in Florida a few years back? Granted, they were probably safe in assuming no snow for that, but there could still have been rain.
I don’t buy this argument. No one builds a team based on the weather in the city. New England, Philadelphia, Green Bay, Cincinnati, Denver all have “anti-snow” personnel, and teams like San Diego (of a few years ago), San Francisco, Minnesota (dome), Carolina and Jacksonville all have “maximized for snow conditions” personnel.
The fact is that good weather doesn’t inhibit any aspects of the game, while crappy weather does. I want to see both teams playing at their top capacity and fighting each other rather than the elements.
A-M-E-N!!!
I don’t really care about what the players, teams, etc think…you could argue that a fair weather team like say, San Diego benefits all season long from awesome weather at home…but football is an outdoor sport and always has been, and the elements have always come into play, except until the advent of the Superbowl being played in only domes or fair-weather climes.
Fuck that noise.
I kinda like the Colts as my second favorite team due to Manning, but I vicariously enjoyed watching them struggle against New England in bad weather at Foxboro. Its part of the game and I think this change is a long time coming. I think it would be awesome, for instance, if the owners/committee chose Lambeau for a SB in some future year, and Green Bay played in it.
What’s the capacity of Green Bay? I would love to see the SB alternate between warm-weather and cold-weather venues. Let GB, Chicago, New England and Buffalo get their turns. Instead of having it in Florida - NOLA - Phoenix - San Diego every year.
OMG. If Lambeau had the SB I’d fly up there…screw the price.
Horrible idea. Absolutely horrible.
I’m someone who generally hates the “you’re not a real fan if…” type card, but I have to wonder what the hell is up with anyone who wouldn’t love a blizzard superbowl.
Agree on all points. I haven’t heard a single valid argument against it. Even the whole “but what if there’s a city-closing blizzard?!?” railing falls flat. It would be no different than if the SB were held in Minnesota’s dome – there would be a logistical nightmare in getting everyone safely to and from the stadium, but the city would throw everything they have at making it work, and once 6:05 rolled around, it’d be game time no matter what the conditions.
That’s not true–the Buffalo Bills have built their entire team around running in the snow and look at how…oh right.
That said, if it’s so important that weather not be a factor in big games, why aren’t all of the playoffs held in neutral-site, warm-weather cities? Football is football, it’s held in all kinds of weather and conditions. It rains on the just and the unjust, the good and the bad.