Wednesday, May 26, 2010

NFL Playing Russian Roulette For No Reason With Super Bowl Outdoors In New Jersey

The NFL’s greed knows no bounds. They are going to play the Super Bowl outdoors in New Jersey in February in 2014 and were rolling the weather on that particular day the last five years as an example of why it won’t be so bad.
The first week of February is when the weather is generally about as bad as it gets in the Northern regions of this country. Often, at that time of the year, the storms are overwhelming. The NFL is playing a Russian Roulette here with the Super Bowl. And just might get what it deserves as result.
What is the point of messing with the Super Bowl like this? Not for just a few more television ratings points, can it? It’s already the highest-rated show in the free world. Don’t tell me it’s not going to compromise the integrity of game. It clearly will. If New York wanted the Super Bowl so badly, the solution was simple - put a roof on the stadium. They do have retractable roofs, remember?
It’s a gimmick from a league, that honestly, doesn’t need one, a headline grabber in 2010 that could come back haunt the NFL big-time in 2014.

My column in Wednesday's Oakland Press on Michigan football's self sanctions: http://tinyurl.com/33u49tq

Labels:

8 Comments:

Blogger Chris said...

I have to disagree Pat. A cold weather Super Bowl sets up the possibility of a classic. What are the most rememberable games in NFL history? The tuck game in New England, the Ice Bowl, the fog bowl in Chicago, etc. The weather made the game a classic. Last year may have been the top rated show of all time, but you know what, I can't remember a single play other than Manning's interception. Hardly anything 'classic' about it.

1:25 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree 100% with Caputo. You hit the nail on the head with this one. No reason that New York can't get a roof. They should be required to have one anyways.

5:32 PM 
Anonymous Bill said...

I've always thought that one of the participants should host the Super Bowl. Why should comfort of the journalists play any part in the choice of venue? I'm getting a little tired of hearing people, mostly media types, complaining about the weather in some NFL cities. Man up and grow a pair.

12:33 PM 
Blogger Martimus said...

Pat,

I have no problem with a Super Bowl being played in bad conditions. It will only really effect the fans who go to the game anyway, and I won't be one of those.

As for the reason, I don't agree. I feel it is leverage for the Jets and Giants to sell the naming rights of the stadium, to help defer the $1.6B cost to build it. At the moment, they have been unable to find someone willing to pay for naming rights, but the Super Bowl might entice someone to pony up.

-Marty

7:42 PM 
Blogger Pat Caputo said...

Chris,
I'm talking about from a competitive standpoint. Why bring elements into it? Make it as equal as possible. It's different leading up it - teams earn home field edge. But there should be equal footing for ultimate game both, earning spot equally.
Caputo

1:34 PM 
Blogger Pat Caputo said...

Anonymous,
They spent all that money anyway. Why no roof?
Caputo

1:35 PM 
Blogger Pat Caputo said...

Bill,
Comfort of journalists isn't an issue. They are nice and cozy in press box anyway. It's fans and players who would suffer for your pleasure.
Caputo

1:36 PM 
Blogger Pat Caputo said...

Marty,
One thing I do like about bad weather football, especially snow, is the way it looks on high def TV. Definitely added to its appeal.
Caputo

1:37 PM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home