Who wants to see some snow in the Super Bowl?
"People talk about the weather, but, you know, this is football, not beach volleyball," New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg told the NFL Network.
The NFL owners voted on Tuesday to hold the 2014 Super Bowl in New York City, inside the new $1.6 billion Meadowlands that will be home to the Jets and the Giants.
This is new territory for the league, which continues to expand the stamp of "innovation" that commissioner Roger Goodell seems to want to leave. Super Bowls have been hosted in cold-weather cities before, but each time the stadium has had a dome. That won't be the case in the Meadowlands. This was supposedly a one-time exception to the rule that only teams with a dome or an average temperature of 50 degrees+ could bid on the Super Bowl, but if the buzz is high in 2014, I wouldn't be surprised to see more cold-weather non-dome stadiums receive a Super Bowl.
Vote in the poll below on whether or not you support the Super Bowl being in New York, and also whether you would like to see the February weather play a factor.
0 recs | 296 comments
At Bodog.com:
What Will be the Temperature at the Start of Superbowl XLVIII at the New Meadowlands Stadium in New Jersey?
Wager will be graded from official weather service
34½
(-120)o
(-120)u
-
Will it Snow during Superbowl XLVIII at the New Meadowlands Stadium in New Jersey?
Wager will be graded from official weather service, game time counts only
Yes +600
No -1200
rolub - May 26, 2010
Hey, maybe Cleveland can have a Superbowl!
BuenosAires_Dawg - May 26, 2010
This is when the cynical Cleveland fan in me starts yelling in my head, that this is just a ploy to get Cleveland’s hopes up, only to have the rug yanked out from under us. Would they host a Super Bowl in New York? It’s kinda surprising that they haven’t already. When Cleveland’s turn came up would there be anyone in the NFL that would support it? I doubt it, just because it’s not New York.
Chief WaDrew - May 26, 2010
There will never be a SuperBowl in Cleveland. Not enough hotel rooms to accomodate the influx of tourists.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
The only way that we’ll ever see a Superbowl in Ohio is if Columbus continues to grow at the rate it has over the last thirty years. I don’t know why they’d ever play a Superbowl in Columbus, but it’s the only city in Ohio that has any hope of ever being large enough to host the event.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
They could sell 100,000+ tickets? That’s all I got.
rufio - May 27, 2010
Well I disagree there has been far smaller towns holding large events. I don’t see why Cleveland can’t host a super bowl. You can nay say all you want but I don’t see why this can’t be seen as a challenge. You may never see a Super Bowl in Cleveland but I am not going to join you in that belief. Go Browns and Cleveland home of the 2024 NFL Super Bowl.
Suppa Bob - May 30, 2010
As I suspected, as of now the snow lovers are winning this poll by a large margin. I’d expect nothing less from Browns fans.
OTOH, I wanted to hit Colin Cowpoke (I know, I know) with a pie this morning when he claimed that 99% of his listeners loved offensive fireworks and crisp fall days for football, despite claiming to love crappy weather, snow bowls, and ‘real football’ instead. Way to call you listeners liars, jackass.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - May 26, 2010
Hell yes I support it.
Why should the teams that play outdoors in bad weather keep having a disadvantage when it comes to the Super Bowl?
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
Why do those teams have a disadvantage in the Super Bowl?
Buckeye Brad - May 26, 2010
You can argue this however you want, but if one team is from a primarily warm weather area, then they will have an advantage over a primarily cold weather team. Or vice versa if you wanna flip the location of the
Superbowl. You can’t honestly tell me you think that plays no role do you?
Kimble_79 - May 26, 2010
Warm weather in the middle of winter does not create a disadvantage for anyone. Cold weather does.
Geez, would I really feel proud to see my team beat the Arizona Cardinals in the Super Bowl simply because the field was covered in snow?
Spidey - May 26, 2010
See below my comment to Brad
Kimble_79 - May 26, 2010
So, you would feel proud to win the Super Bowl like that? (By putting another team at a clear disadvantage?)
Spidey - May 26, 2010
I would feel proud to win the Super Bowl. They don’t announce the Super Bowl the day before the game. Every teams knows the location a few years in advance.
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
Huh?!?!?!?!
The teams from the north have many years to plan for the Super Bowl in a warm climate. I fail to understand your response.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
I’m not talking about cold teams preparing for warm super bowls. I’m not on that side of the argument. I’m saying the warm weather teams have just as much time to prepare for a cold Super Bowl as cold weather teams do for a warm one.
If you don’t want to be at a disadvantage, build a balanced team. Or at least one capable of playing a balanced style of football.
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
Ahhh, so we agree that the argument about “fairness” on the field is a poor argument.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
I wasn’t making that argument. I think there are certain points to both sides, but not enough for me to choose one nor search for evidence to support.
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
Cold weather teams can simulate a warm weather environment indoors at practice. Warm weather teams can’t simulate a cold weather environment in practice.
A_James - May 27, 2010
I think the weather would have a greater effect on roster construction than on game day preparation
Villeslgr - May 27, 2010
Yes. This is really the issue. I would say it is more likely that a team like the Colts would be at a disadvantage in bad weather because they have an all-world QB and a team constructed on the belief that he can score points for them.
I think the NYJ, as an example, have a better chance of winning against Indy in a sloppy, cold, wet game.
I also think the chances of the game being played in that poor of conditions are pretty low. How many times in the past 5 years has it been that bad in Cleveland? 4? 6? I feel like we play one game/year that is really bad (i.e. Jets 2007).
rufio - May 27, 2010
Yeah, that last paragraph is my main point. Games with really bad weather are pretty rare even in the northern cities, so I don’t agree with the people saying that northern teams are at a disadvantage because they build their team to play in the snow and cold because that type of weather just doesn’t happen that often. Northern teams are just as used to playing in warm weather as southern and dome teams.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I am trying to argue the “acclimated to X conditions” point, not the “we built our team X way” point. I see the team built like the Jets at an advantage in a wet, sloppy game regardless of where the team is from.
I still think that while all players have experience playing in warm/good weather, some teams are more used to it than others. Not that they have less experience in those conditions per se, just that they haven’t been there both recently and consistently.
And while an indoor facility imitates playing outdoors in the heat pretty well, it still isn’t the same as playing with the Florida sun beating down your neck, with wind and all that.
rufio - May 27, 2010
If it means a Super Bowl for Cleveland…. Hell yeah, I’ll take that!
Seriously though, I wouldn’t feel any less happy about the Browns winning a Super Bowl whether or not it was snowing.
Simmsinns - May 27, 2010
Almost all NFL players are used to playing in both cold and warm weather. I can see how cold weather and snow can affect a team if you’re not used to it, because that changes some aspects of how the game is played, but how does warm weather change the way the game is played? It doesn’t. Every team practices in warm weather in training camp. Every team plays in nice weather — with no snow and freezing whether — for most of the first two or three months of the year. I think of nice weather as netural — it doesn’t affect anybody and lets the players perform on the field like they naturally would. How is that possibly an advantage?
Buckeye Brad - May 26, 2010
I completely disagree. If your Oakland and you are used to playing October-December games in fair weather (yes I know they travel, but atleast 50% of those games will be home), vs a team that is plays October-December in cold weather, I think that gives the other team an advantage. They would have had all season to practice, play, ect in this weather, while the other team is not. You won’t win me over on this argument.
Kimble_79 - May 26, 2010
I do agree however, that cold weather is more of an advantage for the cold weather teams though. I just also think, warm weather does the same. It may not be a huge advantage, but a small one nonetheless. Every advantage counts in a SB
Kimble_79 - May 26, 2010
I disagree as well, I think teams can gear their style of play to weather. See Browns in the cold down the stretch last year. We are starting to build this team to be able to run the ball in cold weather games.
Roger Dorn - May 26, 2010
You can also run the ball in fair weather games.
There is this cliche that if you play in a northern cold weather city then you need to have a run-based offense to be successful, but we’ve seen plenty of examples to the contrary. The Packers with Favre and the current Patriots were both teams in cold weather cities that put up a ton of passing yards. Heck, our own Browns had a playoff game in the snow and cold a few years ago against Pittsburgh where Kelly Holcomb had one of the all-time best passing games. You don’t need to be a run-oriented offense to win the in cold weather.
Buckeye Brad - May 26, 2010
I don’t agree. Sure there are exceptions, but to be able to run with ease when the weather gets worse (wind in particular is a huge advantage for the team that has a running style of play.
I should mention that the Browns inability to win that cold weather playoff game was two-fold, 1. their inability to run the clock out down the stretch and 2. play defense (the companion to the running game for a cold weather team.
Roger Dorn - May 26, 2010
Those same two points could be made in a 80 degree game in September as well. It has nothing to do with the cold weather.
Buckeye Brad - May 26, 2010
By the way, in regards to your earlier comment, we ran the ball at the end of the year last season not because we were a “cold weather team” but because our QB’s were terrible. I’m sure if we had Brady or Manning at QB then we’d have been throwing a heck of a lot more.
Buckeye Brad - May 26, 2010
I would hope we would throw the ball a lot if we had those two guys no matter where we played. If you are like most teams though, it would be advantageous to steer your club in a direction that plays well in your home stadium environment. Until we get a Brady or Manning, the Browns should focus on running the ball and playing defense. And yes, I would change my tune a bit if we were in a dome.
Roger Dorn - May 26, 2010
Look at Tom Brady’s game log from his record breaking season.
Look at his QB rating. Once December rolled around, Brady was still good, but he wasn’t as good as he was when the sun was shining and the birds were chirping.
Then you look at Laurence Maroney’s game log of the same season. Bilicheck switched to a running game through the end of the season into the playoffs.
We are talking about the greatest passing offense of all time. When the weather went bad (for example the Jets game was played in a snow/sleet/wind storm) the Pats went to running the ball and playing tough defense.
It doesn’t hold true all the time, but teams that play outside in bad weather face things that other teams don’t. Why can’t that be part of the Super Bowl?
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
You don’t need to “prepare” to play in fair weather. It’s not an advantage.
Buckeye Brad - May 26, 2010
If you are Green Bay and you go to Miami for the super bowl and all of a sudden it is 90 degrees hotter than you are used to, that wouldn’t mess with you even a little?
rufio - May 27, 2010
thank you rufio! I’m not saying its some lopsided adavantage, that the other team is sure to not overcome. But it is an advantage, albeit small, but still. I don’t see how Brad or Spidey doesn’t see that.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
Because EVERY football player is used to playing in warm weather no matter what team they play for, because it’s warm everywhere in August and September when they’re playing. It’s not a huge adjustment for them like you’re making it out to be. How do you not see that?
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Agree to disagree I guess. LOL
I just think playing 3 straight mo’s in cold weather for team A and 6 straight mo’s of warm weather for Team B, gives Team B and advantage. Small, but still an advantage.
That said, the better team will still win. Case in point: Pitt vs Arz
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
I just don’t see how a football player who has played football in all types of weather for years and years is all of a sudden going to think “whoa, I haven’t played in warm weather for a few months, I don’t know what I’m going to do!” They have plenty of experience in their lifetime playing in warm weather. It’s not hard to adjust.
Besides, they have a whole week to practice beforehand. They will be just fine by the time the game starts.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
forget the players….think play calling, think schemes
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
As I said below, if you’re building your team and calling your plays to ONLY win in the cold and snow then you’re not going to win many games. To be a great team you need to be able to win in all types of weather, not just cold and snow (which you really play only 1 or 2 games a year in). So I don’t see how it hurts a team to play in good weather when they’ve already played at least 10 or 12 games in good weather. They are well-prepared for it.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Have you considered all the players coming out of the South these days and then some of them getting drafted by a Southern or California team? Some of those guys probably have never seen snow or really felt a really cold day, by Northern standards. I know these guys are like the modern day gladiators or whatever, but they are still mere men, not supermen.
Western Reserve - May 27, 2010
Right, which is why I do agree that teams from the south playing in the north in December or January are at a disadvantage because many of their players probably aren’t used to playing in the cold and snow.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
yes, I think both are advantages, but warm weather teams coming to Cleveland in the cold is a much bigger advantage.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
I see now you are more interested in cold teams going to warm places. Maybe a bit more difficult to judge it that way, but still, if you haven’t been around it for a few months, there might be some difficulty getting acclimated.
Western Reserve - May 27, 2010
They’ve played plenty of games in warm weather in their lifetime, and they have a week to practice before the Super Bowl to get reacclimated (if that’s necessary).
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
flag for steelers positivity.
Dawg Nuts - May 27, 2010
yes.
Dawg Nuts - May 27, 2010
I know every player has played in good weather previously, but just living in a freezing cold climate and then going somewhere warm, it is a bit of a shock.
At OSU we used to practice through the winter both indoors in places like the RPAC and ARC, and outside at places like Tuttle Park. If it was above 0 and there was no ice, we were playing.
Then, we’d go to places like Stanford or Texas or North Carolina and play. it was a lot harder playing in the heat because we’d been in the cold so long.
It wasn’t a lack of experience playing in the heat, it was just that your body wasn’t ready for it again yet because you’d been playing in the cold. And it wasn’t like we just showed up the day of, we spent spring break doing sprints on a beach in Texas or practicing in Austin and we were still dying in the heat come the weekend.
Maybe there was something we could have done better to avoid this, but we were hydrating all week, and drinking gatorade and water until we were sick at the tournaments but people were still cramping up and dead tired.
And I know it is Ultimate and not Football, but you still have to sprint, you still have to deal with people bumping you (like a DB on WR), and you still have to throw things and gauge how the air will affect the thing you are throwing and you as a thrower. I am guessing throwing at Lambeau in the winter is a little different than throwing in Miami.
If you can take a week to adjust and you adjust, that’s great—and this is certainly something I see an NFL caliber athlete being able to do even if I couldn’t.
But the thing that I think makes it an advantage—a very small advantage—is that one team has to adjust while the other does not have to adjust.
rufio - May 27, 2010
I moved to Minnesota from Atlanta the past year.
I went home in February. It was 10 degrees when I left MN and 65 when I landed in Atlanta. Let me tell you, it is surprising that even being away from the “heat” for a short amount of time, made a HUGE difference.
Bodies adapt even over short amounts of time. Three months in freezing weather really messes you up when it comes to 75 and sunny in Miami. I am not even factoring in running around and playing a sport.
Bernie19Kosar - May 27, 2010
First of all, it’s not freezing in Ohio for the entire months of November through January so they won’t be coming from “three months of freezing weather.” In Cleveland, the average high temperatures are as follows:
November – 49
December – 37
January – 33
Secondly, the team arrives in the Super Bowl city a week before the game so I’m pretty sure that six or seven days is plenty of time for your body to adjust. What about during the regular season, when teams come from cold weather to warm weather the day before the game and play — do you hear players complain about the warm weather messing with their body? I’ve never heard that.
I think you’re making way too big a deal about this. You really think that supremely talented athletes can’t adjust from 30 degree weather to 75 degree weather in seven days?
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I am actually pretty sure I just read about how the Dolphins love playing at home in the winter vs cold weather teams because they can see the other team wear down at the end of the game.
Let me see if I can find it again.
rufio - May 27, 2010
Well, just because a player says that doesn’t actually make it true. That’s the kind of thing a winning team says after the game to give a reason for their victory; we can’t really know if it’s true or not.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I don’t know how you would go about proving an advantage for either team without the use of subjectivity i.e “Rate from 1-10 how you felt after the game. On a scale of 1-10 how bad did you feel compared to normal” etc.
rufio - May 27, 2010
Downplaying the weather in Northeast Ohio has to be second only to downplaying how awful the economy is in the area. Thirty-seven degrees in December? Sounds okay. Oh, did we mention the wind chill, the potential for lake effect snow or the fact that we damn near built the open-air stadium on Lake Erie?
Western Reserve - May 28, 2010
This is kind of the point I am trying to make.
Even if you can deal with that by hydrating well, and acclimating yourself in other ways over the SB week, that’s one more thing the cold weather team has to check off their list in preparation and that’s a small advantage to the warm weather team.
rufio - May 27, 2010
But it’s not freezing for three months beforehand — that’s the point. Besides, teams practice indoors and the players live indoors so they don’t have to be outside much before the game, anyways, so it’s not like their body will be in freezing weather all the time even if it is cold outside.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
It isn’t freezing, but if you are trying to tell me there is no significant difference in temperature between Ohio and Atlanta/Miami in the winter, I don’t know where you have been living.
And like I said elsewhere, practicing indoors with no wind at 65 degrees is different than practicing outside at 65 degrees with sun.
rufio - May 27, 2010
When did I say there is no difference in temperature?
Well, I guess if youi’re going to be that specific about it, then I suppose every team has a disadvantage when traveling to the Super Bowl because you can always find something that’s different about the conditions than from where you left. Maybe it’s a few degrees warmer, or cooler, or it’s too windy, or it’s not windy enough, or it’s too bright, or it’s too dark, etc. But if players practice indoors with no wind for the whole season and adjust perfectly fine when they play a game in the regular season then I think they’ll be just fine for the Super Bowl.
I think some people are making way too big a deal about this. Football player learn to play in everything from 100+ degree heat in July and August to cold and windy in December and everything in between. Most of them have been doing it since they were in junior high school. They know how to handle it.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Except the southern players who are at a disadvantage playing in the cold, right?
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
It’s hot in Green Bay in July and August when they’re practicing and in September when they’re playing games. All those players are used to playing in warm/hot weather. It’s not a disadvantage at all.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Not true, though. While it remains nice weather then, it gets COLD as heck for 3 months. Other southern cities do not deal with that for the final 3 months. It is an advantage.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
I know it gets cold, but that’s not what you’re talking about. You said it’s a disadvantage for northern teams to play the Super Bowl in warm weather because they’re not used to playing in that, and I’m showing why that’s wrong. The fact that it gets cold for a few months is irrelevant. The players still have plenty of experience playing in warm weather so it’s not a disadvantage.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Totally disagree.
Bernie19Kosar - May 27, 2010
Ahem, Jan 4, 1981???
Besides, both teams have 2 weeks to prepare for the weather…
Spidey - May 26, 2010
ok then, Cleveland has two weeks to prepare for the superbowl, however our personnel and our play calling has been based on cold weather for the past 3 mos. Arizona (for example) has been playing in fair weather all year except on traveling dates here and there to cold cities. They have the personnel and play calling already down to a science over that time period. They have no adjustment to make!!!
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
Once again, you don’t need to make personnel and play calling adjustments to warm weather.
You forget that it’s not always cold and snowy in Cleveland and other northern cities in November and December. There are plenty of games where it’s in the 50’s and there is no weather to deal with at all, so this idea that the Browns have their entire game plan built around “cold weather” strategy is just false. They have to win games in nice weather all year long, so why would it be any different in the Super Bowl?
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
/sigh
I don’t think we are going to find a happy medium here. LOL
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
I have to go with Buckeye on this one. Out of 16 games in a season the Browns probably play up to 4 in really crappy weather. August-October is usually no snow. It gets colder in October but still usually around 50. November is the crap shoot month. Sometimes it snows, but sometimes it doesn’t snow until Christmas time. So 3/4 of the regular season and all of pre-season and training camp is in warm to fair weather. Plus they have an indoor practice facility.
When Cleveland goes to Miami in December this year and it’s 75 degrees out I don’t thing Cleveland will be at any disadvantage. Remember that too. Even the warm weather teams go down to the 50’s to 70’s in the winter. It won’t be 90 in Florida in December.
A_James - May 27, 2010
I understand his point. I guess my point is all in play calling. When you play the final 4 to 6 games in colder weather it just seems harder for me to think the play calling can be revamped/revisited in 2wks time to prepare for a SB vs a team that plays indoors or in warm weather all year (55+deg). Yes, you may have been using those plays earlier in the season, but I’m just thinking the players would be clicking on what they have been running the past several weeks and it could be difficult for them to return to what they were playing previously. My opinion though. I get his point, but it still doesn’t really change mine.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
You’re forgetting that teams play half of their games on the road. The Browns can play in warm weather or in domes in December and January. Plus, it doesn’t always snow in December in Cleveland, anyways. There is no reason to think that there is a big change in play-calling between October and December. They’ve been using the same plays all year long.
And, really, if a team loses because their players can’t run a play correctly that they haven’t used in a game in a couple months — if that is even the case — then that team doesn’t deserve to win anyways. I mean, these guys are supposed to be professionals and you’re treating them like fragile objects who can’t adjust from playing in 20 degrees one week to 70 degrees two weeks later. They’ve been doing this their whole lives!
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Except for the players from the South who are at a disadvantage playing in the North. They’re professionals, but we’ll allow them an excuse, right?
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
There is a huge, huge difference between saying that a player has never played in the snow and cold and saying that he hasn’t played in warm weather in a couple months (which is what he said above). And I’m pretty sure you know that.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I have to agree with Golan. Its a 2-way street. If they are professionals, then why should it matter going the other way. They aren’t fragile objects after all.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
also, if players have half their games on the road, there shouldn’t be a difference either cold going to warm or warm going to cold based on your argument.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
Of course it’s different, because ALL teams play about half of the season in nice weather!! You keep forgetting this. Warm teams only play in the cold when the travel to the north in late November and December, and that doesn’t happen very often.
Are you really not understanding any of this?
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I told you in the beginning you weren’t going to convince me of this. It seems to be the same for me trying to convince you.
I give you an A for effort though. :]
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
OK, but can you really not see the difference between playing in the cold and snow after playing in mostly nice weather you whole life — which is true for many players who went to southern and western colleges and play for sourthern or dome teams in the NFL — and a cold weather team playing in warm weather for the first time in 2 or 3 months, even though they’ve played dozens and dozens of games in that weather in their career. How can you possibly say those are the same thing?
There’s a huge difference between not doing something EVER (or doing it very rarely) and not doing something in 2 or 3 months.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I do see that difference. Colt will be in for a treat with that come December.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
But that’s not what you said above. You said that you agreed with Golan’s statement. Then you said:
No, there is a difference. That’s the point.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Your talking about college rookies. Yes I get your point.
If we are talking about “players” in general then no. They should be able to execute in 10deg weather the same as 60deg weather if they are NFL players.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
I was referring to this. An NFL player (non-rookie) should be able to play in any weather. This goes both ways. Warm to cold, and cold to warm.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
I’m not talking about just rookies. Even players who have played in the NFL 3 or 4 years might not have played any games in the cold and snow unless they play for a northern team. So, yes, playing in that type of weather can be a slight advantage for the northern team because you have to make adjustments for the snow. You don’t have to make adjustments for warm weather, though, which is why I don’t see how it’s an advantage or disadvantage.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
You just said above that they travel yes? So they would play in a cold game at some point. So they should be professionals and play like such in both. So that argument really doesn’t work.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
This is false. No matter if you’re moving from cold to warm or warm to cold, there is an adjustment to be made, and the team that doesn’t have to make that adjustment has an advantage.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
I meant the players have to make adjustments for playing in the snow and wind because it’s not a normal condition, so it affects things like their footwork, passing, catching, and kicking.
Please explain to me how a team coming from the north has to make adjustment for normal conditions when they’re practicing in normal conditions all year long and they’ve played most of their games in normal conditions.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Define normal.
We don’t practice in a controlled environment. Mangini has the team out in the rain and slop, the snow and sleet; whatever the conditions, our players are practicing in it. As they should.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
Sigh. I know you like to be argumentative, but please try to follow the point of the conversation instead of just coming up with something to disagree with just to be disagreeable. It gets really old after a while.
It’s good that Mangini has the team practicing in the snow and sleet and cold and all kinds of weather because the team needs to be prepared for those conditions in Cleveland in December. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.
Some people are trying to say that the Browns will be at a disadvantage if they play in a Super Bowl in warm weather because they won’t be prepared for those conditions coming from Cleveland in January. I’m saying that the Browns have an indoor practicie facility where they can practice and train in conditions very similar to what they’ll be playing in for the Super Bowl, so no adjustment will be necessary. Yes, if they are going to be playing a game in the cold and snow then they can practice outside in those conditions, but if they are going to be playing a game in 70 degree weather then they can practice inside at 70 degrees. So why will an “adjustment” be necessary? You still haven’t answered that question.
Buckeye Brad - May 28, 2010
The Dolphins have a ProBowl kicker. We have a guy who can’t get the ball into the endzone on kickoffs but is really good at dealing with piss poor conditions. Advantage Miami.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
I think this same comparison could probably be made for QBs.
They say a human has to make a movement in the some conditions 10,000 times before it really becomes “muscle memory”.
My guess is that some QBs are better at throwing in the cold as well, due to having played in it much more over the course of their lifetime.
rufio - May 27, 2010
Yeah, it applies to a lot of positions I think. Over time a player acclimates himself to a certain climate and adjusts his game to match the conditions he’s most likely to face. To move him from that climate is to put him at a disadvantage.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
In my experience, just living in the cold place makes you better adjusted to the cold/less adjusted to the heat in the same way that you become adjusted to living at altitude.
rufio - May 27, 2010
Every time I’ve been down south, I’ve been absolutely miserable. It get’s hot in Ohio, but it doesn’t get Mississipi hot.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
I moved from Ohio to Atlanta.
The first summer I was miserable. I grew more and more acquainted with the heat but it never gets easy. 100 and muggy just isn’t fair.
Bernie19Kosar - May 27, 2010
They had the College Ultimate Championships in Austin TX one year.
Carleton (MN) was favored entering the weekend. Several of them ended up in the hospital with heat stroke, one having to stay a full extra week to recover while missing his graduation.
They did not do well.
rufio - May 27, 2010
Bingo. I think this basically makes the point.
Western Reserve - May 28, 2010
No way. Do you really think that a group of college kids traveling to Texas for a weekend is the same as a professional football team, complete with nutritionists, trainers, and doctors, playing in the Super Bowl with an entire week in the city to prepare? Do you really think those college kids are in the same physical condition as professional athletes?
Also, what time of year was that Ultimate Championship? Was it in the winter when the temperature is in the 70’s or in the summer when it’s in the 90’s and 100’s? That’s a huge difference.
Buckeye Brad - May 28, 2010
Ok, but they are still human beings. We aren’t comparing aardvarks to antelopes here. Even if the drastic temperature change doesn’t affect the players health- which it likely won’t- there is still the issue of comfortability and its affect on performance. Athletes perform best when they are comfortable. Taking an entire team of athletes who live, practice, and play in South Beach for 90% of their year and placing them in a foreign climate where they will be expected to perform at their best isn’t going to happen.
gahnki - May 28, 2010
Well, then, I supposed you could say that about ANY team playing in the Super Bowl in a different city no matter where it is or where they’re coming from.
Buckeye Brad - May 28, 2010
To a degree. If you are going from, say, Pittsburgh to Cleveland, there will be very little variation. But if you are traveling from Pittsburgh to Miami there is going to be more of an issue.
gahnki - May 29, 2010
‘No,’ to your rhetorical questions.
I think heat, especially extreme heat, can make a difference though.
Western Reserve - May 29, 2010
But they Super Bowl is played in the winter when there isn’t extreme heat in the south so I don’t think that would matter. If you’re talking about a game in September then I would agree.
Buckeye Brad - May 29, 2010
It really doesn’t need to be extreme, especially to be a big difference vs. places like Green Bay.
rufio - May 30, 2010
These kids were definitely in great shape. They stole all their D3 college varsity athletes because they are 100x more professional than any D3 sport (at Carleton, at least).
They were not the physical freaks that NFL athletes are, but they were undoubtably in great shape for someone who hasn’t won the genetic lottery. They were in good enough shape for it to be a valid comparison.
We are talking 4×3 hour practices/week, 2 1-1.5hr mandatory track workouts and optional morning lifting, sprints and drills. Coaches and players know they need to take care of their bodies and that doing so will affect their performance.
The time of year of the championship is in May. In Minnesota, they were playing in the cold due to an unusually long winter. We are not talking about freezing temperatures, but we are talking a swing of 40ish degrees (50s to 90s, or so they said). A similar swing could happen from Cleveland to Miami in February (30s-70s), no?
They also would have had the week to prepare as many schools are out by the time the championships are played.
The thing is this; everyone talks about the length and depth of preparation that both players and coaches go through in the NFL, especially when the stakes are that high. Adding one more thing such as a large environmental change that needs to be monitored naturally sucks resources away from other things that need to be prepared for.
So if it is only “one more little thing to think about” it could have a significant impact on the preparation for one team.
rufio - May 30, 2010
But you would assume that these games would be at the end of the season, when you are supposed to be playing at your best going into the playoffs.
If you add in homefield advantage for the playoffs, that would tack at least 2 more games onto the schedule. Now we are talking 7 weeks of preparation and planning for cold weather football.
If the other team doesn’t have to do that, how can that not be considered an advantage?
Bernie19Kosar - May 27, 2010
couldn’t agree more. you’ve made some great points in this thread.
Dawg Nuts - May 27, 2010
This. its a neutral site all the way around. people talk about all of the cold weather teams and how they’re tougher, how they need teams that can win in harsh conditions. how often do games get played in snowstorms anyway? not very much if you look at all the games in a season.
Dawg Nuts - May 27, 2010
Let us say that the Browns get home field advantage throughout the playoffs (I can dream can’t I?). They have to play in snow, wind, sleet, etc. in order to get to the Super Bowl.
They would gear their game towards this style of football. Look at what we did in the Steeler game last year for example.
Then, when we get to the Super Bowl. All the sudden it is a complete flip. It is 70 degrees and sunny. These dome, southern, and western football teams do not have to adjust their games like this. They just keep on throwing the ball all over the yard.
That is a disadvantage in my eyes. Doesn’t mean that a bad weather city can’t win, it just doesn’t help.
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
But the Browns may not have to play in the snow, sleet, etc. because there are many Sundays in the winter it doesn’t snow or sleet, so they would be playing in mostly the same conditions as any other team.
Also, see my comment above about the “style” of football that you need to win in the cold and snow. That’s just an old cliche which isn’t really true, just like saying that southern and domes teams all throw the ball. San Diego has been a great running team this past decade and Miami has had great defenses recently. This entire argument is based on cliches and not facts.
Buckeye Brad - May 26, 2010
San Diego has been all around great on offense, and would probably fair well in cold weather.
Roger Dorn - May 26, 2010
Well, how about if the warm weather team plays with 10 men on the field if they are playing a cold weather team in the Super Bowl. Will that “help”?
Spidey - May 26, 2010
How does this even correlate to the discussion?
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
I don’t think any of us are saying this is some lopsided advantage. I just think it should be recognized that it would favor the warm weather team.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
2014 – Cleveland Browns reach their first superbowl in New York. Heavey snow become problamatic for a struggling southern franchise while the Browns, used to playing in the sleet, continue to grind it out in a classic hard-nosed fashion leading to their eventual win.
BrownDawg1409 - May 26, 2010
And Cleveland fans are stuck in Cleveland unable to attend the game because the airports are closed in New York.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
I don’t live in Cleveland, but if i did in the airports were closed in New York I’d call Cuba and the rest of my dogs.
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
This made me laugh.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
It’s Cuba. It’s mandatory that you laugh. Whether with him or at him.
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
Always at him. Always.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
I would snowshoe there.
rufio - May 27, 2010
I think it’s an awesome plan. Maybe by playing it in the cold the NFL is trying to get back to its roots and open a few seats for it’s middle class fan base rather than just provide a cushy place for the upper class to mingle. Then again I’m sure the average joe is not going to want to shell out the $$$$ for a NY hotel. Either way – I’m all for a snow covered super bowl.
tnbrownie - May 26, 2010
Y’know, a lot of regular Joe’s go to these games, too. Sure, there are a lot of corporate bigwigs, but they will be warm no matter where the game. I feel bad for us average Joe’s who are saving our money to go to the big game, only to be stuck in the cold…
Spidey - May 26, 2010
Grow a pair.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
or drink a few
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
Or shut the hell up.
SpecialBrownie - May 26, 2010
this, that is how I survive Morgantown games in December.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
Seriously, if you are lucky enough to attend the Super Bowl, deal with the climate.
Roger Dorn - May 26, 2010
I’ll deal with whatever comes my way – but if given a choice, I’ll take Miami or Tampa. And for some reason, everyone is arguing against me on that point… Florida? New Jersey? Florida? New Jersey? In February?
Seriously?
Sure, beggars can’t be choosers, but when given a choice, I’m surprised all of the Browns fans are taking a weekend of rain, sleet, and snow… (note: see my comment below about the fact that the SB for fans of the teams is more than just the 5+hours spent at the stadium).
But, I suppose that is the nature of Clevelanders – no slight intended and with all due respect.
Spidey - May 27, 2010
If your concern is the climate and your surroundings go on vacation, don’t go to the Super Bowl.
rufio - May 27, 2010
I am just saying that if you are fortunate enough to attend the Super Bowl, be grateful. NYC is a better place to visit than most of these Super Bowl locations anyway, weather is what prevents it from being held there.
Roger Dorn - May 27, 2010
I’d go so far as to say that NYC is a better place to visit than any place a Super Bowl or college bowl game has ever been played.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
I should also mention that it doesn’t snow a lot here (compared to growing up on the East side of Cleveland)
Roger Dorn - May 27, 2010
Thank god for outdoor stadiums. Fans of dome teams are second tier fans IMO
HenryDawg - May 26, 2010 via mobile
big surprise the fans here in cleveland love the idea of a snow super bowl.
Personally the fact that the super bowl is always played in the south makes me want to puke. The game has grown into too much of an “event” and it is starting to detract from the game itself. Football is meant to be played in all manner of elements, especially in the northern part of the country. Arguably a big part of the strategy of the game is planning to deal with the changing weather elements as the season progresses into december and january. In my opinion it is against the spirit of the game to keep it cooped up in a dome or protected in warm weather cities, as the very nature of the sport is to be played in all manner of inclement conditions.
Unforunately, economically it makes sense to keep the super bowl in places like south florida most of the time. This is the real reason why they have decided to have a super bowl in New York: It will be very profitable.
jaws. - May 26, 2010
pretty much agree with everything here.
notthatnoise - May 26, 2010
right on the money!
tnbrownie - May 26, 2010
Amen to that.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - May 26, 2010
Very well stated.
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
well put, can’t really argue with that…
jimvols - May 26, 2010
Agreed with all of the above. I saw Tedi Bruschi say on OTL that the ideal conditions for football are whatever Mother Nature gives us, and he’s absolutely right. Weather gives and takes equally, it’s up to the teams to prove who’s more equipped to handle it. If you can’t handle the weather that day, then you’re not the better team.
Legoman0721 - May 26, 2010 via mobile
The vote certainly reflects a strong opinion of Cleveland Browns fans, but is it necessarily because of the cold-weather experience of being from Cleveland? Or, the fact that the Browns have never been to a Super Bowl?
I voted for “warm weather” – and had to swallow hard because of the dome reference— I really wish you had a choice for warm weather only.
You see, if (when???) the Browns make it to the Super Bowl, I would be royally pissed if the SB were in anyplace other than a warm climate. Why in Freakin’ God’s Name would I want to go party in NYC or Detroit?!?!?!? The gentleman’s clubs of Windsor Canada aside, give me San Diego, New Orleans, or Miami in February over any other place.
Come on, guys. You gotta set aside your ideological purity and admit that a Super Bowl represents several days when the fans party together at the center of the sports universe. Do you want to crash the Maxim Super Bowl party in 20 degree weather or in 75 degree weather??? Hell no!!! Warm weather… It’s a no-brainer!
I like going to cold weather games like the rest of you. Heck, I went to the 2-degree playoff game between the Pats and Titans in 2004 and had a great time. But, I didn’t drink/tailgate because I had no interest in shedding 4 layers of clothes to take a leak. And I was happy the halftime was just 15 minutes. And thankful that commercial breaks were rather brief. And blessed that I did not have to stand in a long line to get through security. And… Do you know how long the Super Bowl is??? Fans have to be at the game over an hour early and the game runs long – you’re talking about far over 5 hours spent in that weather.
Or, maybe you guys don’t worry about the Browns being in the Super Bowl…
Spidey - May 26, 2010
this is the question, when does marketing and what fans want, over rule the basis of the game being played in all weather conditions?
Kimble_79 - May 26, 2010
When the game is free for all to attend. If I’m a fan of the team playing, and have to shell out $$$$ to travel and watch the game, my choice is for warm weather over cold.
All of these purists sound like Communists to me. Let the markets decide where it should be.
If you want to watch a championship game in cold weather, go follow the CFL.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
this, while I see your point and understand it, you also have to think of the nature of the NFL. It’s played in all weather, all season, regardless of fan base. I get your point. I really do, but again, your in a way undermining the integrity of the game. I would not want to go to a game in cold weather in February vs Miami, but the point remains.
Kimble_79 - May 26, 2010
How does it undermine the “integrity” of the game. Who says the game has to be played in snow and cold?
Buckeye Brad - May 26, 2010
Yes, please explain the point about “integrity”…
Spidey - May 26, 2010
I think Jaws comment above explains that pretty well. Look at all the REC’s it has received. The game is meant to be played in all types of weather. Not some dome, or some sunny day in Miami/New Orleans type place every year. I’m glad they changed it.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
I don’t think the game was meant to be played in all types of weather. Sure, it can be played in all types of weather, but when people first started playing football I don’t think anyone said “let’s play this game in the snow and freezing cold because that will make it more fun.” Just because it can be played in that weather doesn’t mean it was meant to be. The NFL season is based in the fall, not the winter, so they obviously wanted to avoid the snow as much as possible (otherwise they’d start the season in November). It only stretches out to January and February now because they league has added teams and games over time.
I still don’t see how it undermines the “integrity” of the game to be played in nice weather. I want to see the game affected by the players on the field and who performs the best, not the weather.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I get what your saying. I guess I am just more of an old school and want to see OL’s and DL’s breath when they line up. That is just football to me. My opinion though.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
Clearly all sports should be played indoors in controlled climates. That way the results are an accurate reflection of the performance of the players and not an indication of a players’ ability to deal with less than ideal conditions.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
I wonder how many tournaments that cheating bastard Jack Nicklaus won with the wind at his back.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
Uhhh . . . what??
Listen, I know you like to say things just to piss people off, but you know this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said above. Please just stop trying to pick fights.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
This is an internet message board. If a fight breaks out, something’s gone horribly wrong.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
The machines are alive!
rufio - May 27, 2010
So what exactly was the point of that comment? How is he cheating if everyone plays under the same conditions?
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Hey, just because there’s a goalie doesn’t mean you can’t score.
That’s cheating under hockey conditions.
SpecialBrownie - May 27, 2010
anyone can score in an empty net
Villeslgr - May 29, 2010
Or if the net is unreasonable big.
Ughhhhhh.
SpecialBrownie - May 30, 2010
WHAT? What evidence is there that early football teams wanted to avoid the snow? I was curious so I looked up an old team, canton bulldogs. they consistently played 2-3 games in december per year. we play maybe 4…What is the huge difference that proves they wanted to truly avoid inclement weather.
If that was the case, they would have had scheduled their season like baseball…not starting in mid-fall…
bross09 - May 27, 2010
It would be interesting to see some supporting evidence about the intent of the early football pioneers regarding weather. That said, for decades weather has been a significant factor in NFL games, and that rich tradition is something I think the NFL has grown to internalize. I know that many of us fans have internalized it, at least.
Games are always decided by the players (and coaches, etc) on the field and how they perform. That doesn’t change in a snowstorm. If the weather conditions change, the question becomes how do they adjust their play or game planning to the conditions, or can they? It’s a random factor that has to be dealt with, and the skill with which one does so determines in part whether you succeed or fail.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - May 27, 2010
Are you kidding me? Voting for warm weather so you can have a better place to party? How about going down there some other time, this poll was about the Super Bowl, not the parties that are held for it.
AG7 - May 26, 2010
Ummm, have you been to the Super Bowl? Have you been to a college bowl game? Heck, have you been to a game at CBS? Gameday is more than just the 3 hours spent in the stadium – it’s about tailgating and sharing the experience with others. Yes, it is about parties and enjoying one of the biggest events of the year with friends and fellow Browns fans.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
I’ve been to plenty of games at the old stadium. The best tailgate parties were always in December with snow on the ground and a bone chilling breeze coming off the lake.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
The only home game i’ve been to, was two years ago in December when we played Cincy, I think that was the game that Grad got in. I had decent seats but by the start of halftime I was two rows from the bench because everyone had left. I also had frozen beer.
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
We have different fans now than we did back in the old stadium. We traded our factory workers and mechanics and electricians for office workers and insurance agents. People used to be a lot tougher.
And as far as the frozen beer goes, you’ll know next time to bring a popsicle stick. :)
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
Actually I know I just need to drink it faster
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
yeah…I didn’t even know beer could freeze like that? I mean eventually yeah, but I thought the alcohol in it would prevent it, at least for a while.
bross09 - May 26, 2010
we still in general get good attendance numbers, but I agree. Not that fans that aren’t from “blue collar” jobs can’t be tough. My grandpa was a pharmacist and my dad is a banker and they both have toughed it out in some terrible games. they were both at the Red Right 88 game (before my time)…that was some bad weather.
but In general, I do agree the fans don’t seem to be as tougher.
bross09 - May 26, 2010
I’ve been to bowl games in cold ass Memphis.
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
And you spent money to go?
They say a fool and his money will soon be parted, but it’s any wonder how the fool and the money ever got together in the first place…
I really feel sorry for college teams going to those bowl games…
Spidey - May 26, 2010
Yeah I paid to go, because I support my teams. I go to games to watch my teams play not to enjoy the weather.
I guess a jackass fairweather fan and his bandwagon are soon parted as well. I guess I could say go root for Buffalo, but it might get too cold there for you.
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
If I’m paying $500+ for a ticket, plus hotel and air; you better believe I will prefer to go to Miami over New York. I will go wherever the game is played, but if you give me a choice between New York and Miami in the first week in February? C’mon. Is that a serious question?
Besides, I’ve boycotted spending any money in New York since the Yankees when to the WS in 2003. The money we spend at that Super Bowl will be indirectly funding the Evil Empire.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
That’s fine, but I was talking about a $30 ticket to a bowl game.
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
This made me laugh. Tribe fans and their penis envy…
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
Actually it was the 2003 ALCS when the Yankees beat the Red Sox. Last I saw a Tribe-Yankees game in 2007 I didn’t hear any “Yankees Suck” chants. Really, Tribe fans are relatively classy when it comes to Yankees hatred.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
I agree with tribe fans being classy.
However, I have come to dislike the sox more than the yankees. I dislike the yankees purely out of principle but I have spent time with a fair amount of people from both fan bases and sox fans piss me off more…boston fans in general seem to.
bross09 - May 26, 2010
Hate the Red Sox, too. But 2003 was a very different time.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
yep…Actually at that time, I kinda liked the sox, but I have changed that opinion with experience. To me, the yankees are the lesser of 2 evils but they are both very evil.
bross09 - May 26, 2010
We actually kind of own the Yankees in every respect except winning the World Series which is where the bitterness comes from.
Roger Dorn - May 26, 2010
College football bowl games are even worse.
The SEC/ACC/Pac-10 has a massive built in advantage when it comes to BCS games.
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
That has nothing to do with weather and everything to do with proximity of fan base and travel distance after a long layoff.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
Or it has to do with how many tickets a school can sell.
Unless you think more people would rather watch a USC-Wisconsin Rose Bowl in Madison? It is all about selling tickets.
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
So, you are not arguing that the weather is what gives the SEC/ACC/Pac-10 an advantage at these games? (Because that is what I was responding to)
The bowls started many decades ago to attract wealthy midwestern alums to spend money in resort/tourist town in the west/south. It’s has always been about selling tickets.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
I think the advantage is being closer to a home base.
For example, Ohio State playing LSU in New Orleans for the NC. USC playing the Rose Bowl. Florida playing Oklahoma in Miami.
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
No, it has a lot to do with weather.
gahnki - May 27, 2010
The Rose Bowl seemed about half scarlet to me.
rufio - May 27, 2010
Reply fail
rufio - May 27, 2010
And is that a man or a woman with arms stretched high???
Spidey - May 26, 2010
Sorry to reply to my own post, but I think it’s Rex Ryan.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
I’m 100% in favor of cold weather Super Bowls:
1. Heavy snow and freezing temperatures may save us all from watching yet another over-the-hill rock star make a fool of himself at halftime (ala Springsteen, Townsend and Daltry).
2. The worse the weather, the more fun a football game is to watch. Players slip-sliding in slushy slop; Tom Coughlins purplish black frost-bitten jowls; crushing hits that make you cringe on your couch; chip shot field goals that are anything but sure-things… Seriously, what’s not to love? Beats the hell out of watching two teams run up and down the big green carpet and kicking field goals for three hours.
3. This may just be me, but the idea of a bunch of rich twats from down south freezing their asses off in the stands makes me giddy. I have absolutely no love for anyone who can drop 2 grand on a ticket for a game featuring two teams they don’t even care about. Let ’em freeze!
3.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
Haha. Extra 3.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
fill in the blank for readers?
Kimble_79 - May 26, 2010
3b. The Cheerleaders are ‘extra perky’ in the cold.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
nice
Kimble_79 - May 26, 2010
I can’t believe that Tom Coughlin didn’t have his nose amputated.
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
rec for the bitterness of #3..
Dawg Nuts - May 27, 2010
Jim Brown always said right around 40 degrees was the best football weather. When I played in college it got really cold on the bench so what do I know. Lets see how it works. Maybe one day they will have a Superbowl in Cleveland and us fans can finally have a Championship game in Browns Town. Yeah probably not.
champion64 - May 26, 2010
Weather must be a factor occasionally to be entirely fair.
Simmsinns - May 26, 2010
Fair weather is unfair?
Now, I think I’ve really heard it all…
Spidey - May 26, 2010
…Dude, you are being the exact opposite of your signature. Dramatic irony at it’s best!
SpecialBrownie - May 26, 2010
“Fair weather” isn’t actually fair in the first place.
That is why I never called it “fair” weather.
Having the Super Bowl in warm weather climates 100% of the time gives an advantage to teams that play in those climates much more often.
Simmsinns - May 27, 2010
So, are the Browns playing at a disadvantage when playing a warm weather team in September and October – even if the game is in Cleveland? (That’s what it sounds like you are arguing).
I still don’t understand how 70 degree weather is a disadvantage to one team or another.
I can see that a passing team is NOT disadvantaged because of the weather, but I do not see how any team is put at a disadvantage simply because the weather is dry and 70 degrees (or in a dome).
Besides, I look at the past match-ups, and I don’t see any team with any advantage or disadvantage due to home city or playing in a dome. 2007? Indy over Chicago? (Chicago sucked – that was their disadvantage; along with Rex Grossman). Maybe 1996, when Dallas beat Pittsburgh? Nah, Dallas was clearly better. How about Dallas over Buffalo in 1994? But, the theory does not fly because Buffalo was a passing team.
Spidey - May 27, 2010
No, what I’m arguing is that it is more fair to select cities (for the Super Bowl) without warm weather absolutely having to be there. Perhaps it’s worded better this way: Warm weather should not be a “must” when selecting a city to host the Super Bowl.
In the same way that selecting a northern city every single time would be less fair.
Simmsinns - May 27, 2010
I see NYC getting the Super Bowl largely as a reward for the Giants and Jets organizations for constructing their new 1.6 billion dollar stadium. It serves as a symbol to the rest of the league as to what benefits a new stadium might bring your team and city. As such, it provides leverage for both the league and the 30 other team owners in their quest for new stadiums of their own and the public subsidizes to help them finance it.
jimvols - May 26, 2010
I am 100% in favor.
SpecialBrownie - May 26, 2010
I hope it snows and it’s a very low scoring game. Give me a 13 – 9 final score. All teams need to be prepared to play in cold weather anyways.
Brownie's Year - May 26, 2010
And that will be the last Super Bowl played outdoors in a cold climate.
So, what do you really want? The NY Super Bowl to be an utter fail with awful weather that convinces the NFL to never return? Or, a decent weather game what reinforces the original decision to move it north?
Spidey - May 26, 2010
The worse the weather the better the ratings, the more memorable the game, and the more likely they are to have another in a northern city. I’m hoping for a Nor’easter.
golanbatrac - May 26, 2010
Look back at some of the most memorable football games of all time.
The Ice Bowl
The Tuck Game
The Fog Bowl
The Snow Plow Game
Every time we play Buffalo
Seahawks-Packers Divisional playoff 42-40
Packers Giants NFC Championship
The Leon Lett game
The Vikings Browns OT Thriller
Colts over the Giants in the 1958 Championship game.
Cold, crappy weather doesn’t mean it won’t be awesome to watch.
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
I would say you forgot Red Right 88, but you are probably trying to forget it…
bross09 - May 26, 2010
Hear, hear!
RelapsingDawgCatcher - May 27, 2010
We play Buffalo every year these days. We beat them too.
BuenosAires_Dawg - May 27, 2010
B19K = the winner
Thread closed.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
Perfect conditions isn’t what football is about. Weather does play a major role. Heat, cold, wind, rain, snow, plastic beer bottles…. you have to play your best.
Brownie's Year - May 26, 2010
Rec for ‘plastic beer bottles’.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
Since this is about the time the Browns will be playing in the Super Bowl, I’m all for it, as it will allow a natural cold-field advantage to our Northern toughened players.
gahnki - May 26, 2010
Sorry to repeat the topic, but I’m with Buckeye Brad here and am amazed that he is putting up a one-man fight:
Now, I know that these quotes came from three separate posters, but the argument is the same: a cold weather team built for cold weather will be at a disadvantage when playing in a Super Bowl with fair weather (75 degrees? 80 degrees?).
Are you guys kidding me???
Are you saying that the Browns have a built in excuse for sucking in September and October? (The average daytime temperature in Cleveland is 60s+ for the first 2 months of the season). We all know they will be playing at a huge disadvantage against Tampa and Jacksonville – and oh my! we are playing on the road in Jax in late November – Yikes, we better have a top-grade game plan to handle the disadvantage the elements will provide there. And oh no! Early December in Miami? What are we going to do in those mild temperatures?
I didn’t realize the deck was stacked so high against our team!!!
Yea, I know I’m being a bit facetious, but come on! Are you guys really arguing that fair weather is unfair?
Spidey - May 26, 2010
Teams that always play in good weather have an advantage in good conditions over a cold weather team. Just like we would have an advantage over Tampa Bay in January.
Since when do we need good weather to decide who is a better football team? Our wins against the Bills and Steelers (both in wind tunnels) count just as much as any Dolphins home win. Why should the Super Bowl any different? To take away a teams ability (or inability) to play in poor weather isn’t fair.
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
Since when do we need bad weather to decide?
Spidey - May 26, 2010
We don’t. Shouldn’t we let mother nature decide that?
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
If I remember correctly, survival of the fittest means that one thing can correctly use it’s advantages of surroundings and itself to convincingly throw another thing from the gene pool correct? With a few pieces here and there of course.
SpecialBrownie - May 26, 2010
We don’t need mother nature to decide, but we shouldn’t let mother nature determine where a game is played. In order to be fair, you can rotate where the games are played as if weather was no factor.
Roger Dorn - May 26, 2010
Sounds good.
I would love for a Super Bowl to be in Green Bay.
Bernie19Kosar - May 27, 2010
THIS
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
That will never happen. Not nearly a big enought city to accomodate all the fans. Which is also why Cleveland will never host one.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
That is a much better reason for the Super Bowl not to be played there than “possible bad weather”.
I can still dream though. How great would a Browns-Bears Super Bowl in Green Bay be?
Bernie19Kosar - May 27, 2010
I still have no idea why, because every NFL team plays games in good weather and practices in good weather so every NFL player is used to playing in good weather. They don’t have to make any adustment because they’ve had plenty of experience playing in good weather. How is that an advantage?
Yes, it is an advantage when Tampa Bay plays in Cleveland in January because many of those players might never — or vary rarely — played in the cold and snow. As you mentioned, southern and western college teams vary rarely play in the cold or snow because they don’t ever travel to the north and if a player spent his whole NFL career in Tamp then he may have only played a few games in the north in December or January. So, yes, that would be an advantage because that player isn’t used to playing in that weather.
But ALL players are used to playing in good weather, no matter what city you play in, so I don’t see how that’s an advantage for the southern and dome teams. Players don’t have to make an adjustment because they have plenty of experience playing in that weather. Teams don’t have to adjust their game plans because they’ve already played plenty of games in good weather in September and October (and November and December when they’re on the road). I think everyone is acting like northern teams play in the cold and snow every week and thus they don’t know how to handle the nice weather, but that’s just not true.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I found some data for the weather for Browns games last season. The Browns played two games where the temperature was below freezing and one game where it snowed. They played four games when the weather was above 70 or in a dome. So they actually played more games where the weather was nice than when it was cold and/or snowing.
The point being, as I said before, that I don’t see how it’s a disadvantage for a team from the north to play the Super Bowl in nice weather because they’ve had plenty of experience playing in it. And they don’t build their entire game plan around playing in the cold and snow because they only play a few games a year in that weather so they have to win most of their games in nice weather anyways.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
2008 season, the final 6 games were 36deg or less though.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
The Browns were 2-0 in sub freezing weather, 4-1 in sub 40 degree weather, and 1-10 when it was above 40 degrees. The one game they won when the temperature was over 40 degrees was in wild and windy Buffalo.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
That’s too small of a sample size to draw any conclusions from. Also, I think most people would conclude that the Browns won their last four games because the team improved and the game plan focused on the strength of our team (running the ball and keeping it away from our crappy QB’s), not because of the weather.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
You could write-off anything in football due to small sample size, but a gambler looks at things like these. Can we prove it with this sample size? No. I wouldn’t write it off though.
Roger Dorn - May 27, 2010
What if a particular team only played its best football in cold weather (perhaps because it tends to be more difficult to pass and kick in these conditions)? Wouldn’t they then be disadvantaged in having to go play in a warm weather environment, especially considering the last month and half of the season and throughout the playoffs they were able to take advantage of cold weather?
Western Reserve - May 27, 2010
You’re assuming they played all of their games in the last month and a half of the season and throughout the playoffs in cold weather. And, as I’ve said before, plenty of teams have shown that you can pass in the cold and snow. In fact, I’ve heard players say that it’s easier to pass in the snow because it’s harder for DB’s to keep up with WR’s because they have to react to WR’s movements and that’s harder to do when the ground is slippery, so the snow is an advantage for the offense, not the defense.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I was merely suggesting, hypothetically, that a team play its best football in cold weather. It seems entirely plausible.
Western Reserve - May 27, 2010
its also the exact same sample size you used above…
notthatnoise - May 27, 2010
But I wasn’t using it to draw any conclusions about a cold weather team playing better in cold weather (of vice versa). I was just using it to show that even northern teams don’t play that many games in snow and freezing weather and they play plenty of games in nice weather. Sure, I could have posted years of data but I didn’t want to take the time to do that and I think we can all agree that last season’s weather patterns weren’t anything unusual that would cause a discrepancy from other years. So the sample size really didn’t matter.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Why are you having such a hard time understanding what we are saying? ITS NOT A HUGE ADVANTAGE, BUT AN ADVANTAGE NONETHELESS!
If the Browns have geared their play calling for the final 3mo of the season toward cold weather, then suddenly need to flip back to warm weather mode vs Arizona (for example) who have geared their play calling for the ENTIRE SEASON toward warm weather, they have no adjustments to make for the weather. Seriously man. That is a small advantage. SMALL ADVANTAGE
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
But they don’t play in the cold and snow the entire final 3 months. It can be sunny and 55 in Cleveland in November and December, and they play half of their games on the road. If the Browns are building their team to ONLY win in snow and cold then they’re not going to win many games — it’s that simple.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Dawg Nuts - May 27, 2010
My opinion is that weather weather good or bad is part of the game. My only question is why was the decision made to effectively (?) remove that from the game?
Villeslgr - May 26, 2010
To those who are whining about a fair weather game, do you think that SB 41 should be replayed? How dare it RAIN in a hot southern city.
THAT’S NOT FAIR!
SpecialBrownie - May 26, 2010
Who’s arguing that???
I think you misinterpret my reasoning and the disagreement. I could care less about the weather. I am arguing against people who are saying:
1. It is finally fair for the game to be played in the north so that northern teams will no longer be at a disadvantage
2. A game played in 70-degree weather is unfair to teams from the north
3. It’s about time a southern/dome team has to suffer through the elements of a snowy/icy game for the biggest game of the year (because, northern teams have had to suffer for way too long playing in warm weather or a dome).
In fact, these folks are the one’s arguing “The game is in a domed stadium. IT’S NOT FAIR!” Those of us arguing against the New York SB are not arguing it is unfair.
Now, the other argument is about the fans freezing their butts off while watching a northern Super Bowl. While it is fun to think about the bigwigs freezing their butts off, I argue that if given a choice between spending $1,500 to go to a football game in New York and Miami/Tampa – I don’t know why someone would choose to spend a weekend in February in New York instead of Miami/Tampa.
The Super Bowl is more than just the 60 minutes of football. Heck, isn’t there talk about moving the Super Bowl to President’s Day weekend? Or, moving President’s Day to the day after the Super Bowl?
When you go to the Super Bowl, you spend several days enjoying the experience in that town – you own the town. People bow down to you when you enter any establishment with your team’s jersey.
Folks don’t seem to see it that way here. It seems that all that matters is the 60 minutes of football played. No hype. No parties. No spontaneous chants in a beachside bar in Clearwater while the sun is setting (okay, so maybe that’s a bit too romantic).
Nope, for me the Super Bowl is more than a game – and I want sunshine and mild weather to make it easier to enjoy all there is to offer.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
If the Browns made the Super Bowl, I would pay $1,500 to watch it in the Arctic Circle.
Bernie19Kosar - May 26, 2010
And I would say you are crazy (or an Eskimo) if you prefer to go to the Arctic Circle over Miami in February.
And, yes, I would spend $1,500 to go to the Arctic Circle if that were the only option.
Spidey - May 26, 2010
That’s not at all what we are arguing. We think it is reasonable for the game to be played in New York because weather should not have a determining say in where the game is played. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn’t about giving certain teams a weather advantage. It is about ignoring weather completely when determining where the game should be held.
Roger Dorn - May 26, 2010
That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
At least that is something I can agree with. But, I still believe weather should be considered since the event is more than just the game – it is a multi-day event that I would really be disappointed if I had to go to Detroit, New Jersey, St. Louis, Seattle, or any other cold climate in the middle of the winter. I would still go, and be happy to support the Browns; but, knowing that I could have gone to Tampa or New Orleans would be a disappointment.
I also don’t think the NFL can ignore the potential for serious weather causing problems with travel and logistics. Four to six inches of snow the morning of the game could be a nightmare for the event, with traffic, parking, and everyone getting to the stadium. With the hundreds of millions of dollars riding on the game, I think it is a big risk that should be avoided. It will catch up to the NFL one of these years with games in Indy and KC, too.
If moving the game to the Meadowlands represents all cities getting the Super Bowl, then I’m on your side, but that will not be happening.
It’s all about the money – and this Super Bowl bidding is becoming as crazy as the Olympic host city bidding. Fairness in hosting the game? That passed when the game was played at Tulane and Rice Stadiums. Now, the NFL bribes cities to raise taxes to pay for new stadiums and upgrades in exchange for a Super Bowl. It’s a shame, because the return is not that great for these cities.
Rotate the game among San Diego, New Orleans, Tampa, and Miami. And keep it at that. (Maybe add Dallas to the rotation). From what I hear, Jacksonville, Houston and Glendale were not enjoyable cities for the game. These 4-5 cities are enough to maintain the competitiveness to attract the Super Bowl – so these cities will always be working to upgrade their stadiums. We will never find a time when the game will be played in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or Cleveland (I’m still scratching my head about the game being played in KC) – so let’s avoid any impression of trying to be fair about distributing the game to a northern city.
Spidey - May 27, 2010
You know, maybe it’s just romanticism from too many games at old Cleveland Municipal or brain damage from too many Ohio winters, but I can’t think of many football moments I’d rather experience than waking up in the host city the day of a Cleveland Browns Super Bowl to six inches of freshly fallen snow on the ground. That, my friends, is football.
I’d take my vacation to New Orleans another year. I’d wear a parka to every tailgate, rally and bar if need be and be damned glad to do it.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - May 27, 2010
That’s exactly it. Many Browns fans grew up thinking football has to be played in the cold and snow and romanticize about it. And we think we’re tougher than fans in the south who don’t have to deal with that. But the reality is that it only snows for 1 or 2 games a year, if that, so most of the time the players don’t have to deal with it.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
You also have to remember where I’m from and where my college team plays. I just love great games in cold, snowy, crappy weather. I’m born to love it with Morgantown being my favorite place in the world late in football season.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
BB, you say this as if our tradition and its attendant romanticism is somehow a bad thing. Au contraire, mon frère.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - May 27, 2010
That’s certainly fine if you want to feel that way, but that doesn’t mean everyone else does.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I never meant to imply it was any kind of universal, but I guess I don’t see why it’s any less valid a perspective.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - May 27, 2010
I never said it was less valid. I’m just saying I think that’s the reason so many Browns fans want to see the Super Bowl played in bad weather, because they think it’s “real football” weather. (And I’ve heard that from many people besides just here. I have a friend who can’t stand watching a football game played in a dome.)
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
6 inches of snow on the morning of the game would likely mean you will be stuck on the NJ Turnpike because some idiot driver from a southern city causes a 5 car pile up because he’s never driven in a snowstorm.
Besides, the last thing I want to do in February is fly in/out of Newark Airport.
Spidey - May 27, 2010 via mobile
I’ll be in town early.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - May 27, 2010
Partying and tailgating, cold be damned.
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
Wearing my parka and thoroughly stoked with the requisite antifreeze all the way.
RelapsingDawgCatcher - May 27, 2010
I’ve been stuck behind that guy, only it’s been in Columbus and Denver and he’s been a native both times.
rufio - May 27, 2010
so the NFL should pick the warm climate cities and show economic favoritism towards them?? I don’t see how that makes any sense.
What, so if te super bowl was played in St. Louis or Kansas City, it wouldn’t maintain the competativeness??? there is no logic in that.
I understand you would rather go see a game in a warmer climate, but just because you wouldn’t want to see it in NYC if you had the choice, doesn’t mean that there won’t be people who will want to see it. Not all football fans think that the game is best played when its 75 degrees and sunny.
bross09 - May 27, 2010
The reference to competitiveness is about cities working hard to maintain attractiveness to the NFL.
Another point – and here I’m showing my Cleveland spirit – is that until this NY decision NY, Chicago, Boston and the other cities up north were with Cleveland on the outside looking in. The huge advantage these cities have due to economics did not exist. Now, that all changes. 2017? DC. 2019? Boston. 2021? Chicago. 2023? Baltimore (it will be a dying wish to that stinkin’ traitor. Then, back to NY. Cleveland? Pittsburgh? Cincy? Fat chance! Buffalo? Come to think of it, Toronto will probably sneak on to the list. The freakin’ Super Bowl will be played outside the United States before Cleveland has a snowball’s chance.
It’s just one more reminder of the haves and have nots. And if a small market wants to compete it has to screw the taxpayers to fund a megastadium.
But that’s just my heart speaking.
Logically speaking, the cold weather is too much of a risk for problems with everything planned.
Spidey - May 27, 2010 via mobile
I don’t see however that we shouldn’t have it in the snow just because so many large market teams play in the snow. The browns have one of the newer stadiums I believe in the NFL. I looked it up, right now I believe we have the 10th newest but once the new NY stadium is built we will have the 11the newest. It is in relatively good condition so I do not see the Super Bowl demanding a whole new stadium in cleveland. Qualcomm Stadiums was built in the 60s. Miami’s stadium, the 80s. I don’t get the argument that you have made that the SB nees a newer stadium in cleveland.
Saying we shouldn’t play Football in cold weather because it may benefit the economies of Boston, Chicago, or NY is really cutting off the nose to spite the face.
bross09 - May 27, 2010
I think there is a misunderstanding. I was not trying to make that argument – and I was trying to be clear by saying it was my heart talking. Large markets have to host because of hospitality issues- that’s why Jax won’t get it again.
Spidey - May 28, 2010 via mobile
yes. but I still think it is not that unlikely that cleveland got it if they started doing northern cities.
bross09 - May 28, 2010
If Cleveland ponies up for a new stadium, then maybe (maybe!) Cleveland will get the Super Bowl.
All the NFL has done is rescinded the rule that the Super Bowl must be played in a dome or in a city with 50+ degree weather. The NFL has not committed to playing the SB in every NFL city. The rule they have is that the SB must be in a city with an NFL team.
And given that the NFL rescinded the 50-degree rule, you can expect them to rescind the other rule before Cleveland gets a Super Bowl. (The same can be said for Cincy, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo).
In fact, I put would give greater odds that the Super Bowl will be played on foreign soil before Cleveland.
The sooner folks realize that this move to The Meadowlands is not an attempt to have a cold-weather Super Bowl and ALL ABOUT making loads of money, the sooner everyone will be able to remove all romantic ideas about the game being in the cold.
Spidey - May 28, 2010
what would lead you to believe this? we have one of the newer NFL stadiums. Right now, it is the 11th newest but will be 12th newest when the New Meadowlands stadium is built. Here are some other interesting facts I found out about browns stadium
-Ranks 9th overall in attendance including about 4500 seats more than the league average stadium.
-Ranks 11th in the amount of Club seats and has about 500 more than the league average
-Ranks 12th in the amount of luxury suites and has 10 more than the league average (which is skewed by the combined almost 600 suites in fed ex field and cowboy stadium).
The website I found a lot of the data about stadiums on also had ratings of stadiums and rated the overall fan experience at a game. they haven’t rated cowboys stadium or the New meadowlands, but Browns Stadium is still 7th out of the 29 they have rated.
So by all this data, browns stadium looks to be in the top 1/3 stadiums in the league. I can think of much worse venues for a super bowl (like candlestick park which is only still alive because of the magic of duct tape).
As an aside, we have more luxury suites, total seats, and club seats than the Rogers Centre (a below average stadium by the NFLs standards.
I understand why, because its cleveland, they may not have the super bowl here, and I understand because of the weather. However, using our stadium as a selling point of why it won’t be played here really doesn’t work.
I used club seats, luxury boxes, and total seats because I figured these were things people planning it care about (more seats=more fans and more revenue, more luxury boxes for bigwigs). In this sense, I don’t see how we are any worse then anyone else.
Didn’t you say the SB had to be played in an NFl city? even though there may have been rumors, Buffalo is not going anywhere anytimes soon. they might go to toronto 12-15 years down the road but it is highly unlikely that it is sooner. its also highly unlikely that the Rogers Centre plays host to the SB within 10-15 years of being in the league…it just isn’t a great stadium.
DUH!!
bross09 - May 28, 2010
Concerning the logistics, Super bowl XXXIV was in Atlanta (aka hotlanta for its hot humid climate) and there was an ice storm that pretty much shut down the city and the show went on.. Now, if a city like Atlanta thats so far south it has a limited budget for snow and ice maintenance can handle an ice storm, I’m pretty sure that NY can handle whatever comes its way.
If we limit the super bowl to mild climates and domes we’re basically saying whichever team can play the best in perfect conditions is the best team in the NFL. That removes the endurance to the elements factor to a sport that was meant to be played in ALL weather conditions and I think that takes away from the game. If you want to watch a irrelevant half-a$$ game while on a sunny vacation go to the pro-bowl. But if you want to celebrate the greatest American sport, which in its spirit represents the way we overcome any and all obstacles in order to be the best then keep the game outdoors and deal with whatever conditions the football gods see fit.
tnbrownie - May 27, 2010
Your response implies that the Super Bowl has been an irrelevant half-a$$ed game up until now (since it has not been open to all the elements).
The game went on in Atlanta, sure, but it was a logistical nightmare.
I’m with Buckeye Brad- I don’t understand why playing football in snow is how the game is meant to be played. Just because pro football started in the 1920s and 1930s in industrial metropolitan areas – which happened to be in the north – does not mean the game is meant to be played in cold weather. Heck, football fields were painted dirt for most of the season – should we get rid of the grass?
Spidey - May 27, 2010 via mobile
for years, it was not an entertaining game to watch. lots of blowouts. the super bowls this decade have been more entertaining than most.
bross09 - May 27, 2010
Football is not meant to be played in the snow. it’s meant to be played outside in whatever weather mother nature sees fit, whether that be 10 and snowing or 70 and sunny.
notthatnoise - May 29, 2010
This is precisely what I’m trying to get at.
Simmsinns - May 27, 2010
Irrelevant to this particular post, but there is a good article on yahoo sports NFL front page on Holmgren if anyone has missed it. Some of it is regurgitated things from earlier, but some of it I have not read before.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
oh how nice. We also made the front page of ESPN NFL page. Walker is talking about our RFA’s not signing. He fails to mention though that they have til June to sign or they will be offered even lower salaries. Funny that 4 of the 6 have the same agent also. I picture this Drew Rosanhaus (don’t know if that is spelled correctly) as a greased hair, used car salesman, type of guy.
Kimble_79 - May 27, 2010
You missed Rosenhaus in TO’s driveway?
rufio - May 27, 2010
Since I don’t know who to respond to up above, I wanted to point out examples of cold weather teams that were not able to even be competitive in the past 2 year because of snowy conditions. I used the Patriots as my example because I know it snows there quite a bit, but even if you acknowledge them as a good team, these warm weather teams had no prayer of competing in the snowy conditions.
NE 59, Tennessee 0 Link
NE, 35, Jax 7 Link
NE 47, Arizona 7 Link
I don’t think there is any way you can see these scores were a function of the disparity between the teams, considering the Cardinals in that last game went to the Super Bowl and were facing a Tom Brady-less Pats team.
Roger Dorn - May 27, 2010
First line should say *warm weather teams
Roger Dorn - May 27, 2010
I don’t think anybody is disagreeing with the fact that warm weather teams sometimes have trouble when games are played in the snow because they’re not used to it, but that’s not the discussion. The discussion is the other way around — are cold weather teams at a disadvantage in warm weather, and I say they’re not because they play plenty of games in warm weather so they players and coaches are all used to it.
Also, you know that picking out a few games and posting scores doesn’t prove anything. I could post some score of cold weather teams going to a warm weather city to play and winning handily, but that wouldn’t “prove” my point.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
Well I guess that hasn’t been my debate. My debate has been to construct a team as the Patriots have done that will clean house in cold weather games. It should be an automatic win for the Browns if any team has to come to Cleveland in miserable conditions.
My only point with citing specific scores is that Belichik craves playing in those conditions at home because he knows his team is more ready than the other team. I want the Browns to be just like this because we know it will happen a few times a year and heaven forbid, a home playoff game.
That is the only argument I am trying to make.
Roger Dorn - May 27, 2010
Yeah, I understand that — wanting to take advantage of the weather in Cleveland by the way you play in December. We just need to make sure that we can play great the rest of the year when the weather is good (and I know you’re not implying that we shouldn’t, just pointing that out).
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
this should have nothing to do with weather conditions. belichik has his team more prepared than the other for most games, whether in september or january. i sure hope this becomes the case with the browns too. i want them more prepared to win every game they play, whether its sunny and 75 degrees or snowy and 30 degrees.
we need to construct a winning team, not a winning in “less than ideal conditions” team.
Dawg Nuts - May 28, 2010
You aren’t really disputing my point. You are basically arguing we should field the best team possible….great, I can’t disagree with you now.
Belichik knows there is a special advantage in having his team ready for those terrible condition games. He has said as much when he has indicated before playoff games that he is hoping for a snowstorm. The Patriots own in those games and part of it is because of where they play their home games and how he coaches the team. They are even better in those games than they are in normal games.
Roger Dorn - May 28, 2010
Amen, BB.
I have yet to see anyone support the argument that a cold weather team played at a disadvantage in the Super Bowl when playing a warm weather team. Just one Super Bowl game. Please???
I don’t care about home field advantage in the playoffs for a cold weather team. That’s not what we are arguing. It’s an advantage that the team has earned by having the best record. In the Super Bowl the advantages should be removed.
Spidey - May 27, 2010 via mobile
That’s fine, but I am also not arguing the same thing as you. I haven’t paid enough attention to know who you are arguing with in the first place.
Roger Dorn - May 27, 2010
When it comes to removing the advantages, a neutral field, no matter where or what the conditions, should suffice, no?
golanbatrac - May 27, 2010
These guys are being payed millions, they should be able to play in any conditions and the coaches should be able to coach in any conditions
tnbrownie - May 27, 2010
They should, but it just doesn’t happen.
Roger Dorn - May 27, 2010
It doesn’t matter how much money you pay them; bad weather is still going to affect players that aren’t used to it. Money has nothing to do with it.
Buckeye Brad - May 27, 2010
I understand that brad. I’m just saying that in my opinion I think football is a better game when it has the added challenge of playing in variable conditions because it’s more physically and mentally taxing on the players. I enjoy seeing which players have the strongest character and the drive to keep going when they meet these obstacles. So, long story longer, I think that games played in mild weather are great because you get to see who has better athletic ability and games in bad conditions are great because you get to see which players have the strongest character. Either way, I love football and I JUST WANT SEPTEMBER TO GET HERE!!!
tnbrownie - May 28, 2010
Both teams’ players and coaches will deal with the conditions: they will play/coach the game to the best of their ability given any conditions.
Whether one set of conditions gives one team the ability to deal with the conditions better than the other team is the question.
rufio - May 27, 2010
Okay well then for all the people complaining that the weather poses an unfair advantage in either scenario I pose to you this:
What about games played in Denver? Yeah every player is a “finely tuned machine” but going from sea level to high altitude is a drastic change. What’s your call on that? Especially if the Super Bowl were to be played there in winter conditions.
3PON Nemo - May 27, 2010
It actually isn’t that bad to 5280. It is much worse going from mile high to say 10,000 feet. It is noticeable up to 5280, though, and it is an additional home field advantage for Denver.
If the SB was played at altitude, both teams would be adjusting to the same variable (unless one of them were Denver), so I see it as neither team gaining an advantage.
rufio - May 28, 2010
I think your missing the point that some of us are trying to make. We are not saying there is an “unfair advantage” like it is some unsurmountable two touchdown deficit. I keep hearing all through this thread that people are making too big a deal about this. Whoa, and hang on for a sec. What some of us are simply saying that it is a SMALL advantage to the other team. Whenever one team has to have an adjustment, even small ones, that gives the other team an advantage. Again, its not some huge deal, but I don’t understand why some people refuse to acknowledge that it is a small advantage.
Kimble_79 - May 28, 2010
I get the point people are trying to make.
1) Super Bowl isn’t about the game… Its about the experience and the marketability and business aspect of it.
2) How do warm-weather teams prepare for cold weather games while the cold weather team has advantage, etc.
And so on….
My thoughts are:
-So what? Football is nationally an all-weather sport. I still view muddy fall days as perfect football conditions.
-People will pay the price for the Super Bowl no matter where it is located or who plays in it. Granted, yes, I’d much rather spend my vacation time in a warm sunny beach location for the Super Bowl week events as those places usually have more attractive women, better nightlife and usually more attractions to see. Not many bronze bikini babes walking through NYC in the middle of Jan/Feb. But thats what the Pro Bowl was all about in Hawaii. VACATION.
3PON Nemo - May 28, 2010
I think most of us arguing that the team making the adjustment (cold to hot or hot to cold) is at a disadvantage also agree that the game should be played outdoors in all sorts of weather.
Alternating the game between cold and warm places would mean that both cold weather teams and warm weather teams could be at an advantage. Right now, some of us see warm weather teams being at an advantage because they know the SB will be played in their types of conditions (either dome or in a warm city).
I would love to see the game played in Green Bay, Cleveland, NY/NJ, Seattle, Arizona, Denver, anywhere—and everywhere.
rufio - May 30, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Dawgs By Nature to post a comment.