Super Bowl in NY (NJ)

by GiantSunDevil on Feb 5, 2010 3:22 PM EST

Okay, so I apologize if one of these has already been done, I checked back a month or so, but I'm really curious what everyone thinks about having the Super Bowl at our new stadium in 2014. Politi from nj.com just wrote a nice article about why it should be at home, despite not having a roof, retractable or not.

http://www.nj.com/super-bowl/index.ssf/2010/02/politi_no_reason_new_meadowlands_stadium_shouldnt_host_super_bowl.html

My comment, on his page, was basically if one can be in Indianapolis in 2 years, why not? Yes I understand they have a new dome, but other than that, what would entice me to take out (another) mortgage to "vacation" in glorious Indianapolis in the beginning of February? Everyone wants to talk about the weather being the main factor, but aside from the mere 4 hours or so during the actual game itself, what else is the NFL going to do with EVERYTHING else surrounding the game? The NFL Experience, the media events/parties, etc. That should be a blast with historically much colder temperatures and much, much more snow than NY/NJ in February. If everything is inside, I hope they have some ginormous facilities to handle the huge crowds necessary for Super Bowl events. I'll be very curious to see how all that turns out in a couple years. If it does go over smoothly, I think that's even more reason to think it would flourish in the big city...

I could go on for a while, but I'll finish with this - arguably the biggest issue is the "fans" sitting in the cold. First of all, what's the percentage of actual fans at the Super Bowl? I doubt it's a large # seeing as though, from what I hear, it's basically corporate execs and celebrities who just "want to be seen". Even though I haven't been to one, come on people, realistically, watching them on TV, even split, the crowds just don't seem that into it. Not like 2 weeks past when a non neutral site held it and you could see the love (or hate) in every seat. The Super Bowl should be like college bowl games. Half one color, half the other.

So the "fans" sitting in the cold would be an issue, eh? They obviously didn't ask me, because I'd be more than happy to sit in the cold if Jack Nicholson or whoever opted out. And I don't think they have to look too far back to prove this point...1/20/2008, -3 degrees and -24 degree wind chill, fans shoveling their seats out and not an empty seat in the house to see arguably the greatest Conference Championship ever.

I think it would be fantastic for the NY/NJ area, for TV, for true fans and for the NFL. What do you guys think?

Poll

If you were in the market for a Super Bowl vacation, would the fact that it would be held in NY/NJ ultimately have you opt out?

Yes, if I'm blowing $ I don't have, I at least want to be somewhere warm

10 votes

Hell no, that's the way the game should be played! Bring on the snow and cold!

42 votes

52 votes | Poll has closed

FanPosts are written by community members. This is simply a way for community members to express opinions too long to be contained in a comment.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm a football fan...

…I wouldn’t pay $1000 to freeze my ass off unless my team was involved.

http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/

by New York Sports Jerk on Feb 5, 2010 4:41 PM EST reply actions

I should have been more specific

Yeah, I was obviously referring to fans going to see their team. And $1000? If I knew where to get a ticket 2 years ago at that price, I would have been down the street in Glendale. $2500 to get in is what I found. But I agree, even $1000 to see, say this years game in Buffalo, sorry, I’d pass too.

"Uh-huh, uh-huh. Okay. Um, can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about the...things? Uh… the things?" - Homer Simpson

by GiantSunDevil on Feb 5, 2010 8:41 PM EST up reply actions

It probably won't happen

because of Football politics. There’s the obvious business part to it where the corporate execs and celebrities pay top dollar.

Also, the teams that are pass happy (The colts, maybe even the pats) would be livid.

If it was up to me, it be out here. The best games are in cold conditions. Nothing is better than a football game in a blizzard.

Never assume skill at bouncing a ball makes you smarter than the guy who built the court.

When there's a WILL there's a WAY

by Willgfass on Feb 5, 2010 7:27 PM EST reply actions

Amen!

I agree with all of that. Some of the most classic games were in less than perfect conditions, and ya know what, the fans still poured in didn’t they?

"Uh-huh, uh-huh. Okay. Um, can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about the...things? Uh… the things?" - Homer Simpson

by GiantSunDevil on Feb 5, 2010 8:43 PM EST up reply actions

Eli tossed 251 against Green Bay in -1

If others can’t handle it thats their problem

by DukBudr on Feb 10, 2010 2:19 PM EST up reply actions

Why not!

First off the Giants would have to be in the Super Bowl for it to be a great game(just my opinion). Fans have become so accustomed to going to Miami drinking Mai Tai’s and Mojitos and they forgot the game of football is more exciting when played in less than perfect conditions. In our youth wasn’t the best games played in the snow or rain. Did we forget the ICE BOWL, or how about the NFC Championship game when the G-men beat the Packers, those conditions were terrible but the game was fantastic. So let’s not get wrapped up in the glitz and glamour of Miami and let’s get back to the game and how it should be played; rough, tough and full of excitement.

by G-MEN#1 on Feb 7, 2010 3:07 PM EST reply actions

Absolutely

The more I hear, and think about it, I honestly think there’s a good chance this will happen. As it is, it’s a 1/3 chance right? Between the Meadowlands, down MY street here in Glendale, and Miami (again). May be another but still, I see them giving it a shot. What do they have to lose? I could understand if they were contemplating, say, Buffalo. Call me, well, hopefully nothing THAT bad, but I really see this happening. It’d be great for the sport of football (especially if we got our ish together and played a home game)

"Uh-huh, uh-huh. Okay. Um, can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about the...things? Uh… the things?" - Homer Simpson

by GiantSunDevil on Feb 8, 2010 1:02 AM EST up reply actions

Super Bowl should be played in every NFL city

On a rotating basis.

Its why the Super Bowl never lives up to past championships.

With the Super Bowl we killed the spirit of the Ice Bowl and what used to make football great. I still remember that crazy playoff game between the Bengals and Chargers.

The elements are part of the game, and all of the fair weather sites make it boring.

by giantblue63 on Feb 9, 2010 3:31 PM EST reply actions

Good.

Now you pay $1000 for a ticket on a day like today.

Enjoy the game.

http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/

by New York Sports Jerk on Feb 10, 2010 4:20 PM EST up reply actions

That would be the coolest thing ever

Playing football on a day like today….

It makes me warm and fuzzy inside (although very cold and bitter on the outside)

Never assume skill at bouncing a ball makes you smarter than the guy who built the court.

When there's a WILL there's a WAY

by Willgfass on Feb 10, 2010 7:08 PM EST up reply actions

Not to be a dick, but...

it was overcast and 65 here in Phx. But seriously, I lived a half hour east of Syracuse, so trust me, I know what THOSE days are like, and sorry, I have to disagree again. I’d bundle up, pregame with some Jim Bean and be nice and toasty sitting in the blizzard. And again, it’s way more than $1000, of which if I had it and the Giants were at home in the Super Bowl during a nasty nor-easter, guess you’d be watching my blue ass on tv…and not from the paint! To each their own. Just wanted everyone’s opinion, I find it interesting.

"Uh-huh, uh-huh. Okay. Um, can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about the...things? Uh… the things?" - Homer Simpson

by GiantSunDevil on Feb 11, 2010 5:21 AM EST up reply actions

Yeah I would be watching on TV...

…NFL games in person are awful. Enjoy those extra long timeouts every time there’s a change of possession too.

And the question shouldn’t be whether or not you’d go to see the Giants, it should be would you go see a non-Giants Super Bowl in a blizzard.

More importantly, how about a matchup of the Chargers and Saints in the Super Bowl. How much would it suck for fans of those teams to shell out thousands of dollars to freeze to death? That has to be considered, more than just the “oh man it would be so cool to see a SB in a blizzard” factor.

http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/

by New York Sports Jerk on Feb 11, 2010 12:20 PM EST up reply actions

Fair Enough

Again, to each their own. I personally don’t mind the timeouts when I’m at the games, because I enjoy the ambiance. Yes, I actually said that. Plus the timeouts are just as long at home or at the game. But I get it, longer outside in the cold.

I could have worded my question that way, but personally I could care less about seeing another team in the Super Bowl, which is why I worded it the way I did. While there are many that want to go just to say, I’ve been to a Super Bowl, most people, I would guess, wouldn’t spend that kind of money not to see their team. So assuming that, I’m sure they definitely wouldn’t want to sit in a blizzard not to watch their team. I freely admit I wouldn’t.

SD-NO Super Bowl in the Meadowlands? I think if their fans wanted to see the game bad enough, they’d go. If not, someone else most certainly would. I just don’t see the need to cater to warm weather areas is all. I’d be willing to bet in, say a GB-SD Super Bowl, the Packers and their fans would much rather have the game outside in snow and cold. So shouldn’t that be taken into account as well?

And regardless what you or I think, it’s a fact that the ratings would be astronomical and would make a killing, which, as we all know, is what it’s all about. For that reason alone, I see them giving it a try, maybe not in 2014, but at sometime in the near future.

"Uh-huh, uh-huh. Okay. Um, can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about the...things? Uh… the things?" - Homer Simpson

by GiantSunDevil on Feb 11, 2010 5:38 PM EST up reply actions

Ratings are already astronomical...

…how would playing a Super Bowl in cold weather affect that in any way? They just set a record for viewers and the game was played in Miami. I don’t see how playing it somewhere cold would mean anything at all, ratings-wise.

And if you lived in Green Bay, where winter lasts six months, where would you rather go for a Super Bowl:

1) Miami, where you can enjoy the sun for a week.
2) New York, which is nearly as cold as where you live.

It’s a no-brainer.

http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/

by New York Sports Jerk on Feb 12, 2010 9:55 AM EST reply actions

Ratings would be even greater

due to the fact no one has seen a NFL Championship at stake outside of Miami or a dome it seems like, in about 50 years. Yes, it’s quite obvious the ratings go up regardless, but I’d be willing to bet they’d increase at a higher rate from the previous season than at any other point in Super Bowl history.

As far as the Green Bay theory, first, not all GB fans live in GB, but assuming for the sake of your argument we’re only referring to those living in GB, if my team had somewhat of a home field advantage by playing SD in a blizzard in NY, thus improving their chances to win, that would entice me to sit in the cold to see a Championship. And really, for Packer fans that attend games in GB, going to Jersey would be LIKE Miami comparatively.

I really do see your points, but I guess I’m just as stubborn as you in my opinions. I suppose I can put it like this…Me, personally, if I had the time and money, and the Giants were playing in the Super Bowl, I’d go wherever the game was. Buffalo in the winter, Phoenix in the summer, the Rain Forest in Africa, shit, I’d even brave it in Iran/Iraq. I just was curious as to what the readers of BBV thought and as of now 80% feel the same as I do. That’s all.

"Uh-huh, uh-huh. Okay. Um, can you repeat the part of the stuff where you said all about the...things? Uh… the things?" - Homer Simpson

by GiantSunDevil on Feb 12, 2010 9:28 PM EST reply actions

That's fair...

…you have your opinion and I have mine, but you’re sorely mistaken about TV ratings increasing due to the location of the Super Bowl.

The only factor with any measurable affect on the game’s ratings are the teams involved and the quality of the actual game. Your speculation aside, it’s absurd to suggest that a northern location would do anything to change that. There’s simply nothing to that statement except your own opinion, not a fact as you said before.

In terms of “share” these are the most watched Super Bowls of the last 25 years:

SB XX – Bears vs. Patriots: The 2nd largest TV market in the US where nearly every set was tuned to the game. Also you had the Boston market. Share: 70

SB XXIII – 49ers vs. Bengals: Competitive game that came down to the final drive. Share: 68

SB XXX – Cowboys vs. Steelers: A classic matchup featuring two very popular teams. Close game into the 4th quarter. Share: 68

SB XXXII – Broncos vs. Packers: Favre. Elway. One of the best Super Bowls ever. Share: 67

It’s the quality of the teams involved that generates the ratings, not the venue.

As for the poll, 80 percent of people know they’ll never have the money to go to the Super Bowl, and it’s very easy to say, “sure play it outside in a blizzard” when chances are you’ll be watching on TV anyway.

http://newyorksportsjerk.blogspot.com/

by New York Sports Jerk on Feb 14, 2010 12:31 AM EST up reply actions