Snow Bowl

The NFL has recently announced that the 2014 Super Bowl will be played in New York at the new Meadowlands Stadium, home to the AFC New York Jets and NFC New York Giants. This is somewhat surprising, but not a shock by any means. New York has the largest media market and is home to its headquarters in downtown Manhattan. It is a unique opportunity for the league, which traditionally awards the Super Bowl to warm weather host cities or until recently, cold weather cities with new stadiums with a roof or dome. Plus, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said the success of the 2014 Super Bowl would determine whether more championships are played at cold-weather sites. My brother-in-law recently asked me what I thought about the subject and after talking through several points; here are some pros and cons.

Pros
The 1958 NFL championship, dubbed “The Greatest Game Ever Played” was played on a bitter cold Sunday night at Yankee Stadium.
It brings memories of “the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field” in early Super Bowls. If you are for nostalgia, this has all the makings for a distinct place in history. Old school football, in the freezing temperatures, like it was once played. This game would be a mix between modern and historic, the future meets the past, if you will. Maybe we can even get the teams to wear throwback jerseys to add to the effect.

A unique opportunity for the NFL to showcase why it is the leader above all other sports.
The Super Bowl is the top-watched sporting event every year and football in general the top-watched sport. The NFL is a model of marketing and meeting the demand of its product. Why do you think they constantly update technologies so we can see and hear every aspect of this glorious game? Digital and hi-definition televisions, ability to manage your fantasy teams from your phone or computer, on-field cameras to capture the action, the list goes on and on. Now in the center of the nation’s largest media market, comes the biggest game on the absolute biggest stage, live from the Big Apple.

The distinct possibility to have the host teams playing one another for the championship.
With the Jets in the AFC and the Giants in the NFC, all I am saying is that it could happen, it does not necessarily mean it will. Both have decent teams, the Jets went to the AFC championship last year and the Giants won the Super Bowl two years ago. It is just an interesting wrinkle that could only happen in New York that has two host teams. For the record, I don’t want to see this happen; it would have shades of the Yankees/Mets World Series in 2000, no one for the most part outside of the general New York area invested in who won or lost.

Cons
It’s cold; the average temperature in late January/early February is between 22 and 37 degrees.
Most people that go to the Super Bowl treat it as a vacation, bring a lot of sunscreen and enjoy the warm weather. I don’t know about you, but I have the cold winter at home, right out my front door. So I guess this will turn a lot of people off, especially cold-weather team fans who want to enjoy a trip to Florida or San Diego, not traveling from one cold-weather city to another. Some fans will tell you they don’t care if their team is in the Super Bowl, but I guess they will quietly wish that they were wearing a Bermuda shirt instead of a heavy overcoat and gloves.

Dealing with the elements means dealing with a lot more problems.
With cold weather comes snow and possibly ice and weather could effect more than just the game. Getting around the city, flights to and from the airport and different events during Super Bowl week could be affected. This is another issue that many fans don’t want to deal with; cold weather makes people want to stay in hotel rooms, not out doing things in the city, even if it is New York. I would guess the money that people normally spend would be limited due to this fact. And if weather affects people getting to the game, it might not be the intimate scene the NFL is hoping for, an old-school championship in the cold, but rather a bitter cold, partially empty stadium. But I guess that means that the sports bars will be packed (so maybe the money would be spent anyway).

Owners in other cold-weather cities will ask the question, why not us?
Daniel Snyder (Washington Redskins owner) was one of the first owners to speak up to say he wanted his stadium, FedEx Field, one of the NFL’s largest, to host the Super Bowl. When asked for his comment on the 2014 New York Super Bowl he is quoted as saying, “it’s warmer in Washington DC and you can quote me on that”. And Robert Kraft (New England Patriots owner), when asked the same question, “Football should be played in the elements”. Kraft, though was surprising not bitter about the small possibility of hosting a Super Bowl in the equally cold winter conditions of New England. He stated that that was the very reason for not adding a roof to Gillette Stadium during construction, he was an old school guy and football was meant to be played outdoors. Along the same line, why not Chicago? What about Pittsburgh? How about Green Bay? Each of these places has a special place in the history of the NFL and each could have a legitimate argument as to why they should host the big game.

As a parting thought, what about a neutral site like the Rose Bowl?
It’s warm (Pasadena, California), a huge stadium (it holds over 100,000 people) and has hosted several huge events, including the Super Bowl five times, the last in 1993. It seems like a legitimate and logical place to return to and host this huge event; I mean it has only been there five times. Look, I am all for hosting a Super Bowl in my city (Indianapolis is hosting the 2012 Super Bowl) but I also understand the fans wanting a warmer climate to cheer on their team. Plus a lot of cold weather cities aren’t going to get the chance; I mean who wants to go the Super Bowl in Cleveland? (Sorry Browns fans, but it’s the truth). If the NFL wants to have a neutral site, I say the Rose Bowl is the perfect place.