PDA

View Full Version : NFL Could Reschedule Super Bowl If Snowed In



OrangeHoof
12-18-2013, 11:36 PM
http://www.newsday.com/sports/football/super-bowl/nfl-could-reschedule-super-bowl-in-case-of-snow-1.6635123

For those frightened of Manning playing in harsh winter weather, a glimmer of hope although not much. How the NFL can cavalierly think they can jack with so many people's lodging and travel plans is mind-boggling. They made it work once for 9-11 but that took switching dates with a car dealership convention and months of advance notice.

Can't imagine the TV network that had coverage is pleased to hear this either. It's only their biggest ratings night of the year and to be told the game is even an hour late is going to lead to major anxiety attacks with sponsors.

dogfish
12-18-2013, 11:43 PM
:lol: :lol:

Poet
12-18-2013, 11:53 PM
Hey guys, we made the SB outdoors....but we don't want it to be too outdoorsy.

Joel
12-19-2013, 12:27 AM
This is what comes of handing out SBs as a reward for building a fancy (i.e. pricey) skybox-filled stadium with all the latest jumbotron magic. Maybe next time NYC wants to be really cutting edge they should consider a retractable roof. The fumblicious Colts-Bears Water Bowl was bad enough, but at least that was in Miami so the stuff wasn't solid as well as slick.

Homefield to get there is one thing, a deserved advantage for the teams who won their divisions and posted the best record, but the whole point of a neutral site is that the TEAMS should decide the championship. Not the crowd, not familiarity with the stadium, not injuries (hence the bye was introduced,) not even the WEATHER. I hope they DO play in a sudden unforecasted blizzard, just so the most watched event on Earth can showcase the NFLs idiocy and embarrass it on a scale that prevents this ever happening again.

Joel
12-19-2013, 05:20 AM
Then there's this take on the same NFL comments, complete with a binding online referendum (I mean, it's from Rasmussen!) saying 2/3 fans want a Super Blizzard: http://tinyurl.com/q25v5b4

sneakers
12-19-2013, 06:58 AM
If it is the storm of the century, yeah they will reschedule, but anything less than that, no

sneakers
12-19-2013, 07:02 AM
Hey guys, we made the SB outdoors....but we don't want it to be too outdoorsy.

They could have heated coils underneath the surface like in lambeau, and have the coils magically malfunction the day of the Championship game (looking at you ice bowl)

VonDoom
12-19-2013, 09:10 AM
If it is the storm of the century, yeah they will reschedule, but anything less than that, no

Exactly. There's a lot more head shaking and finger wagging about this than it warrants. There is a 99.9% chance that the game is played as scheduled, in cold but otherwise normal conditions.

Tned
12-19-2013, 09:21 AM
This is what comes of handing out SBs as a reward for building a fancy (i.e. pricey) skybox-filled stadium with all the latest jumbotron magic. Maybe next time NYC wants to be really cutting edge they should consider a retractable roof. The fumblicious Colts-Bears Water Bowl was bad enough, but at least that was in Miami so the stuff wasn't solid as well as slick.

Homefield to get there is one thing, a deserved advantage for the teams who won their divisions and posted the best record, but the whole point of a neutral site is that the TEAMS should decide the championship. Not the crowd, not familiarity with the stadium, not injuries (hence the bye was introduced,) not even the WEATHER. I hope they DO play in a sudden unforecasted blizzard, just so the most watched event on Earth can showcase the NFLs idiocy and embarrass it on a scale that prevents this ever happening again.

Did you actually read the article or just rant based on your preconceived notions?

The spokesman, who was likely responding to a question, said they have postponement contingencies for every game, every week. As it relates to the SB, he referred to a cataclysmic event that prevented anyone from getting to NYC. There was nothing in there that said they would postpone the game if there was a bunch of snow on the field. What he was describing would be the exact same issue that they would have with a dome, such as in Detroit or Indy or other northern domed stadiums.

While it had zero to do with the article posted, on the subject of weather being something that de-neutralizes a game, you need to put your critical thinking hat on and go a little deeper.

Take many of the GB, Pitt and other teams over the years, that built teams that were ground and pound teams designed to win games late in the season and in the playoffs in bad weather. You put those teams in a dome against a team like the current Saints, or Manning's Colts or Warner's Rams and the domed "neutral site" becomes a huge advantage to the fast, dome team and disadvantage to the team built to win in cold weather in December/playoffs.

I'm not sure why we've reached the point that we believe that warm or domed is automatically neutral, when in fact it can be just as big an advantage to one team over the other as snow and cold can be.

Joel
12-19-2013, 10:08 AM
Did you actually read the article or just rant based on your preconceived notions?

The spokesman, who was likely responding to a question, said they have postponement contingencies for every game, every week. As it relates to the SB, he referred to a cataclysmic event that prevented anyone from getting to NYC. There was nothing in there that said they would postpone the game if there was a bunch of snow on the field. What he was describing would be the exact same issue that they would have with a dome, such as in Detroit or Indy or other northern domed stadiums.
I read the OP article and the related ESPN article I linked:
Supovitz and other Super Bowl officials sought to reassure the public Wednesday at a news conference detailing plans for snow removal. But in a worst-case scenario, the game would be held on a different day. Possibly Saturday, Feb. 1. Or the Monday or Tuesday after the game. Or even the following Sunday."There are contingency plans for multiple different days,'' Supovitz said. "There is a potential of a move-up scenario. There's a potential of a move-back scenario."
If fans were forced to rent hotel rooms beyond their expected stay, Supovitz doesn't believe that would be an issue.
"If there is such a cataclysmic event people have to come to the game on Monday, nobody's getting to the hotels,'' he said. "They'd already be booked, and nobody's coming to New York or New Jersey because they won't be able to get here."
The snow removal discussed at the news conference was for the STADIUM, not the city; the ESPN article I linked goes on to mention the company that handles MET LIFE STADIUMS snow removal and quotes various figures for how many tons they can remove in a given amount of time. Supovitz used the phrase "cataclysmic event" to explain why SB ticket holders WOULD get hotel rooms, even if they DO move the game due to weather: Because if the weather's that bad no one will come to NYC, so the SB guests ALREADY THERE could keep their rooms.

I think he's making a bit of an assumption to say weather bad enough to delay (or advance) the SB would completely shutoff the nations largest city from the rest of the world, but maybe. However, he's not in ANY sense saying they'd postpone/advance the game because SB attendees couldn't get hotel rooms, he's saying changing the date wouldn't make them LOSE rooms ALREADY BOOKED, because no one will want them.

Bigger questions might be whether hotels are willing to give free rooms for the extra days, or what happens to people who've already spent thousands of dollars for SB tickets, and a similar amount for airfare and hotel rooms the weekend of Feb. 2, if the NFL moves the SB to, say, Jan. 30 (TNSB! Only on NFLN! Yea, money! ;)) or Jan. 26. Supovitz DID say they might move it forward OR back if the weather looks bad the first weekend of February.


While it had zero to do with the article posted, on the subject of weather being something that de-neutralizes a game, you need to put your critical thinking hat on and go a little deeper.

Take many of the GB, Pitt and other teams over the years, that built teams that were ground and pound teams designed to win games late in the season and in the playoffs in bad weather. You put those teams in a dome against a team like the current Saints, or Manning's Colts or Warner's Rams and the domed "neutral site" becomes a huge advantage to the fast, dome team and disadvantage to the team built to win in cold weather in December/playoffs.

I'm not sure why we've reached the point that we believe that warm or domed is automatically neutral, when in fact it can be just as big an advantage to one team over the other as snow and cold can be.
It's relevant to the article because many are cheering the prospect of Ice Bowl II. Because it was so epic when Lombardis fear of an arctic overtime decided an NFL Championship (with 0:10 and no time outs, a failed run would've ended the game, so Dallas played the pass, but Starr suggested a run and Lombardi reportedly responded "run the thing and let's get the Hell out of here.") That's a stupid way to choose the best NFL team.

Neutral sites with neutral weather are better because they don't DISadvantage anyone. Retractable roofs mean indoor stadiums have no obligation to astroturf (which is being literally supplanted by FieldTurf anyway: That's what Met Life Stadium uses, so I guess the ground pounders are STILL screwed.) Regardless, if a dome team runs circles around a smash mouth team, it's not the dome teams fault their opponents are slow, it's something the other team can train and draft to correct, and they can still compensate with physical play.

The main thing is that NEITHER team is incapable of executing their gameplan SOLELY due to weather rather than something they or their opponents do. If we're going to claim indoor stadiums give dome teams an advantage as much as playing on ice gives outdoor teams an edge, then I guess we just can't have a SB without SOMEONE having an unfair competitive advantage; it's just a question of which style of play we want to punish/reward. This year may be an exception, but the NFLs made its general preference quite clear.

Big 'splosions mean big ratings, which mean big money. No one—least of all NFL owners—wants to see a 6-0 Super Bowl out of 1903.

weazel
12-19-2013, 10:45 AM
I honestly like watching snow games. I dont relly watch the CFL but if the Grey Cup is played outdoors and it happens to snow, Im watching it.

Joel
12-19-2013, 11:04 AM
I honestly like watching snow games. I dont relly watch the CFL but if the Grey Cup is played outdoors and it happens to snow, Im watching it.
Forgot about them; according to Wikipedia, ALL CFL stadiums use turf precisely BECAUSE of the weather. I like snow games fine, I just think teams—NOT weather—should decide championships.

weazel
12-19-2013, 11:06 AM
Forgot about them; according to Wikipedia, ALL CFL stadiums use turf precisely BECAUSE of the weather. I like snow games fine, I just think teams—NOT weather—should decide championships.

I see your point. as for the CFL, I dont care who wins so its just an entertainment thing for me.

powderaddict
12-19-2013, 11:34 AM
That's a stupid way to choose the best NFL team.



That's your opinion. It's not like the rest of the game that got them to that point didn't count.

Joel
12-19-2013, 12:46 PM
That's your opinion. It's not like the rest of the game that got them to that point didn't count.
It's a sport; it should be decided by athletes and competitors, not meteorology. Teams who don't play inside can still run just as fast and cut just as sharply as their opponents, but it's harder for everyone to play football when the ball's a frozen brick and the field's slick and hard. We don't need another NFL Championship decided by the fact the local team knows which sporting goods stores to hit for new shoes at halftime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_NFL_Championship_Game

The whole reason for the pre-Super Bowl bye is that the commissioner, owners and fans tired of championships decided by who was hurt least instead of who played best. Same reason the Super Bowl denies homefield advantage. They got there with the aid of homefield (except those who won on the road, who obviously got there DESPITE the field,) but earned that advantage by winning the most season games. Not in the SB; those teams got there by beating their conferences best, and should win because they're the best PERIOD, not just best in favorable weather.


Yes, that's my opinion, but I'm fairly confident it's the opinion of everyone whose team doesn't play on tundra and consider it a "disadvantage" to play on anything but an ice rink. People who crave a cold smash mouth championship should try hockey.

OrangeHoof
12-19-2013, 01:45 PM
I'm not sure why we've reached the point that we believe that warm or domed is automatically neutral, when in fact it can be just as big an advantage to one team over the other as snow and cold can be.

Probably because those championship Packer, Steeler and Patriot teams had darned good passing attacks despite playing in the frozen north. No disadvantage to them playing in a dome.

BTW, one of the most underrated performances I ever saw was when Michael Vick and the Falcons (southern dome team) went up to Green Bay and smoked the Packers in below freezing temps. The media made it sound like a cinch win for the Packers but Vick and the Falcons just murdered them. They blew up a bunch of dome team myths that night.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=230104009

powderaddict
12-19-2013, 01:50 PM
I
Yes, that's my opinion, but I'm fairly confident it's the opinion of everyone whose team doesn't play on tundra and consider it a "disadvantage" to play on anything but an ice rink. People who crave a cold smash mouth championship should try hockey.

And people who don't like their sports impacted by the world around them should try Baseball. Or Basketball, that's an indoor sport.

Joel
12-19-2013, 02:09 PM
And people who don't like their sports impacted by the world around them should try Baseball. Or Basketball, that's an indoor sport.
Impact, sure, but if it impacts one team far more than the other that's the definition of competitive advantage. Again, the reason the Super Bowl's played at a neutral site is so the best team wins, not the one with homefield advantage. Like OrangeHoof said, a controlled environment let's both teams do anything and everything they like: It's wide open, instead of making one team play with one hand tied behind their back. Why would we want to take options off the table in the biggest game of the year, the one that decides EVERYTHING?

I don't want another "may the least-worst team win!" Water Bowl, let alone a Sneakers Game. Even Lombardi didn't want another Ice Bowl—but he was on the sideline, not in front of a TV. ;)

Joel
12-20-2013, 03:43 AM
And people who don't like their sports impacted by the world around them should try Baseball. Or Basketball, that's an indoor sport.
Come to think of it, the baseball comment's ironic because the VERY FIRST NFL Championship was scheduled for Wrigley Field—until an unexpected blizzard forced them INSIDE to Chicago Stadium, even though it was just 80X40 yds. That indoor game changed pro football radically and permanently, introducing hashmarks so teams weren't snapping with their shoulders literally to the wall after sideline plays, moving the goalposts from the end line to the goal line (for obvious reasons) and, most importantly, legalizing passes EVERYWHERE behind the LoS.

I've heard they also moved the ball back to the 20 everytime someone crossed midfield, but the biggest change was that the rules only allowed passes 5 yds behind the LoS. But, during a scoreless fourth quarter tie, Bronko Nagurski started to run, changed his mind and threw a TD to Red Grange, even though EVERYONE unanimously agreed he was NOTHING like 5 yds behind the line. The TD proved decisive and the losing Lions screamed about it the whole offseason, until the NFL retroactively legalized all passes from anywhere behind the LoS.

It's not some new-fangled heresy corrupting the game: Indoor NFL championships are literally as old as NFL championships themselves.

Agucua
12-21-2013, 05:53 AM
New Orleans is the overwhelming choice of teams and media as the best city for food, fun, and entertainment. To reschedule the game would inconvenience so many people and foul weather will affect both teams ability to play at their peak , which is what the game is all about. Who made this decision in the first place? Just another example of the dumbing down of the NFL. It's sad.

OrangeHoof
12-21-2013, 11:30 AM
The rotation of Miami/New Orleans/SoCal worked really well and all three had enough of everything to keep everyone happy. It's when they started getting creative and awarding Super Bowls to hellholes like Detroit that this silliness got started. Even Atlanta froze over for that Tennessee-St. Louis Super Bowl and Dallas froze the time Jerry World hosted the event.

More than a game, the Super Bowl is a huge corporate party where the Fortune 500 come to hobnob with the chic and elite, flying in on private jets. And, really, wouldn't you rather do that somewhere that is warm?