It’s a stupid policy, but whaddya gonna do? You can’t have the game at a home field; unlike the World Series, it’s one game, no back & forth.
So you have to have it at a neutral site. So as long as you’re picking neutral sites, you might as well play it in nice weather.
I think the ticket distribution policy adds another layer of unreality to the game, though. College Bowl games are played in neutral sites, and the stands tend to be full of regular fans, who actually care who wins the game. A much smaller proportion of Super Bowl tickets are given to the teams (no cite – whaddya think this is, Great Debates?) so you get a stadium full of corporate honchos and friends of friends of people with connections.
The Miami Dolphins’ home stadium (first the Orange Bowl, then Pro Player Stadium) has hosted 8 Super Bowls. (9th next year)
The Dolphins were in the playoffs 4 of those 8 years, but didn’t make it to the Super Bowl. But they have been to 5 Super Bowls.
New Orleans has hosted 9 Super Bowls, but the Saints didn’t make the playoffs in any of those years.
Tampa and San Diego have each hosted 3 Super Bowls, but the teams didn’t make the playoffs.
Atlanta hosted 2 Super Bowls, the Falcons weren’t in the playoffs those years, but they missed their home stadium by one year.
In the Super Bowl- 1998 season. Hosted the Super Bowl- 1999 season.
I swear we looked at the list of Super Bowl match-ups, and I don’t know how we missed the All-CA and All-NY bowls :smack:
Thanks for all the replies and assorted trivia! I’ve got to teach my kids to be Real Americans; what better way than to fill their impressionable young minds with meaningless sports tidbits?
What do you mean “you have to have it at a neutral site”? That’s not true at all.
The Superbowl this year is in Detroit. If the Lions had made it (yeah, funny, i know) would they have moved the game? There’s always a possibility that the home team will compete in the SuperBowl, and that wouldn’t change if it were held in a northern, open-air field.
Sorry, i can’t agree.
Sure, it’s possible that if they played a SuperBowl in, say, Green Bay, that it would end up being the Patriots against the Carolina Panthers, and that this might give the New England team the edge in cold weather.
But so what? One could argue that forcing a team from a cold-weather state to play in a hot weather stadium is also unfair. Part of the attraction of a sport like football, for me, is that teams need to learn to adapt to various conditions. Some teams play nearly all of their games on natural grass, but you don’t hear any cries of “unfair” if they are then forced to play a SuperBowl on Astroturf. And anyone who has run and played sport on these two surfaces knows that the differences can be quite significant.
Furthermore, if you’re going to make this argument, wouldn’t it be fairer to have all playoff games at neutral, warm-weather stadiums? After all, divisional playoff and conference championship games are important too—they decide who gets to play in the SuperBowl—and no-one has a problem with home-field advantage or cold-weather stadiums in those games.
The Super Bowl is like a Championship game turned up to 11, far more media, far more “dignitaries”, far more people period. There were complaints last year about the lack of hotel rooms in Jacksonville.
I meant, you can’t have it at one team’s home field every year. If it happened that Detroit got in, lucky break for them.
Hmmm…I can think of no counter-argument to this.
Wait…just thought of one. The NFL hype machine needs more than two weeks advance notice of where the game’s going to be played (I didn’t say it was a good argument.)
Perhaps. But most people involved with the game (including players I have seen interviewed) don’t make that argument. I don’t know why. (Maybe because the beginning of the season is hot almost everywhere? I really don’t know.) But generally speaking, the weather conditions seem far more intimidating when a visiting team has to go to “the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field” or to Mile High Stadium, where the altitude can figure in. It’s hard to get psyched out when you have to go to Miami. (I personally think all NFL stadiums should get into the rotation to host Superbowls, because all that $$ coming into an area is very good for the local economy, but I might be abnormal in that respect.) All I know is, historically, the Packers have not has as much trouble playing in temperatures over 75°F as the Bucs have had playing in temperatures below 30°F.
No argument from me here - I think artificial turf should be outlawed everywhere in the known Universe. If we can land a man on the moon we should be able to figure out how to get grass to grow in a dome. But, I have heard players complain that the artificial turf did affect their play in big games, particularly when their team lost. It’s a sad excuse, but people do use it.
Probably, but then that wouldn’t be fair financially to those northern cities with football teams. Philadelphia could definitely use the money, as could Detroit, and Buffalo, and Chicago, etc. They playoffs don’t generate as much money as the Big Show, but it’s not a walk in the park, either. (Can’t find a cite, sorry.) I think the system is highly imperfect, believe me, but until I win the lottery and can buy a team of my own (you’ll know I have when you start hearing about a team called “The Mighty Meerkats”) I don’t have a say in the process. Unfortunately.
There’s a better counter-argument, besides the impracticality: The Super Bowl is ostensibly between the best teams in each of the two conferences, the AFC and NFC. The deal is this: you win your conference, you’re the champ. You deserve a simple mano a mano battle against the other champ to determine who is the best team. A neutral field means that the battle will most likely come down to factors such as talent and coaching skill, as it rightly should.
The conference playoffs, on the other hand, are a Malthusian meat-grinder of pigskin prowess. One must remember that the playoffs are the “second season” and come after the regular season. In fact, the entire regular season is played not with an eye towards getting into the Super Bowl, but rather towards best positioning one’s team to succeed in the playoffs–hence the home-field advantage going to the team with the best record. A neutral field for the playoffs would render the regular season as meaningless as a missed extra point.
In 1992, Super Bowl XXVI, the Redskins beat the Bills in the Metrodome in front of 63,130 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Cold weather indoor site in January. The NFL went with a whole lot of indoor exhibitions and events – as well as mucho “Winter Carnival” style events outside.
IIRC Mucho b^tching from the press corps about the weather – but I heard non from the Players or fans.
On that score it was fine.
OTOH it had the lowest attendance since Superbowl I (in LA) and was the only Superbowl since I to have less than 70,000 spectators
I think your distinctions, for all their philosophical rhetoric, are spurious.
So what if the SuperBowl is a battle between conference champs. This doesn’t change the nature of the game itself. And while “Malthusian meat-grinder” might sound poetic, i’m not sure that Malthus would look favorably upon your allusion.
Also, you say that the SuperBowl should “come down to factors such as talent and coaching skill.” I completely agree. But you offer no compelling rationale for why the conference playoffs should be any different. Surely, if one team makes it to the playoffs with a record of 15-1, while another team has a record of 11-5, the difference in quality between those teams should be evident in the score, whether the 15-1 team has home field advantage or plays on a neutral field.
Anyhow, my main argument in this thread is not in opposition to a neutral ground for the SuperBowl (the current system makes it statistically unlikely that the host city will make it to the big game), but to the NFL’s refusal to play the big game in cold weather. That’s my main gripe.
The Rose Bowl was chosen for a few Super Bowls instead of the L.A. Memorial Coliseum (site of two Super Bowls) pretty much because it seated more people than the Coliseum and had better sight lines. The Rose Bowl at the time seated close to 100,000 (it’s around 90,000 now), although it only had benches and had few luxury boxes. But during that same time, the Coliseum had a dismal reputation and even the 1984 Olympics didn’t restore it.
Both facilities are historic and have been the scenes of some great football games. The Powers That Be in Southern California have decided that the Coliseum (greatly modified) would be the home to any L.A. NFL team. If that happened, there would be a Super Bowl there eventually.
Most of the NFL – and here by NFL I mean “the players” – couldn’t give a toot where the game is played. San Diego, Green Bay, Antarctica, on the Moon – wherever they need to go and whatever they need to do to get there, they’ll do. It’s the frickin’ Superbowl, for Pete’s sake! I don’t care where they play it, either: there’s something immensely satisfying to me about the thought of Drew Brees losing his mind in a Buffalo whiteout (if Schottenheimer could stop choking). The problem here is the owners. They ultimately vote on the sites. But I don’t want to fight with Al Davis over this, because he can (and would) kick my tuchus.
Well, the stadium is nice. And, as I mentioned before, we could use the money. But you’re pretty much right. Then again, Boathouse Row makes for some pretty stunning visuals. When it’s not turned off. Just in time for the NFC Championship game.
Both the Giants and the Jets play in New Jersey. I can’t stress that enough as a Bills season ticket holder. The only New York team.
On the radio this morning I heard that the face value on some of this years SB tickets is $700. For that much money I can’t see people wanting to sit in the cold and watch a game. Damn Pansies I tell you.
Today in Buffalo it’s in the 40°’s and no snow in sight. Bring on the Superbowl!
I believe they were changing the lighting system; apparently it looked too charming and needed to be cheapened up a bit… :rolleyes:
Yes, people here would enjoy hosting a Super Bowl. And we could easily absorb it. Beyond that, I’ve been to a number of January playoff games here in nasty weather the past few years and, guess what, I lived! We all lived. It’s football.
I’m still not convinced that Green Bay is actually incapable of hosting a Super Bowl. Some hotshots might not get the royal treatment, but so what. Let them stay home. I actually think it’d be a very healthy move for the league to allow a cold weather outdoor game. Who wouldn’t tune in to watch a February game in Green Bay or Buffalo?!
Green Bay won the first couple of SBs, the fans always sell out Lambeau and Arizona can’t even fill the stadium for home games. Something seems profoundly unfair that the former is de facto ouf of the running and the latter is automatically in the running of a very small field of candidates.