2014 super bowl officially coming to NJ

[Banedon]

Honestly, the people it really effects are the media. That's why they're screaming the loudest about this. For them, it's a week long party in Florida or New Orleans, or California in most years. If it's in NY/NJ, they don't get to travel, and I'm guessing it's a lot harder for them to justify expensing a lot of the stuff they normally can.

 

I don't think it will be tough for them to justify expensing nights out in Manhattan.

 

Yeah? Even if that media is NY based? How would they justify spending the companies dime on spending a night out in the town they live/work in?

 

Most of the media is not based in NY. And the ones in NY still expense their work related functions.

 

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, AP, and Reuters are all based in NYC. ESPN is 2 hours away...and is part of ABC anyway.

 

I understand they'll expense work related functions. I'm saying they'll have a harder time saying some things are work related when they are at "home" than they would when they're "on the road".

[jersey cubs fan]

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, AP, and Reuters are all based in NYC. ESPN is 2 hours away...and is part of ABC anyway.

 

I understand they'll expense work related functions. I'm saying they'll have a harder time saying some things are work related when they are at "home" than they would when they're "on the road".

 

Are those the media members most likely to be there? I think the majority of super bowl attendee media members are not based in NYC. And ESPN being close does not count. I guarantee Chris Berman won't be scared to expense as much as he would in Miami. Guys who appear on sports reporters in midtown get their hotel taken care of, i'm sure it will be the same here. There will be media members from both participants, just like there would be if the Dolphins ever played in a "South Florida" super bowl or if New Orleans played in a Superdome Super Bowl. There will be media members from every NFL city (probably). Plus all the BS media.

[Banedon]

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, AP, and Reuters are all based in NYC. ESPN is 2 hours away...and is part of ABC anyway.

 

I understand they'll expense work related functions. I'm saying they'll have a harder time saying some things are work related when they are at "home" than they would when they're "on the road".

 

Are those the media members most likely to be there? I think the majority of super bowl attendee media members are not based in NYC. And ESPN being close does not count. I guarantee Chris Berman won't be scared to expense as much as he would in Miami. Guys who appear on sports reporters in midtown get their hotel taken care of, i'm sure it will be the same here. There will be media members from both participants, just like there would be if the Dolphins ever played in a "South Florida" super bowl or if New Orleans played in a Superdome Super Bowl. There will be media members from every NFL city (probably). Plus all the BS media.

 

Ok...even conceding the point. I still think the "we don't want a Super Bowl in a cold locale" is more of a media driven thing. I don't think it matter much to most fans.

[jersey cubs fan]

ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox News, MSNBC, Time, Newsweek, AP, and Reuters are all based in NYC. ESPN is 2 hours away...and is part of ABC anyway.

 

I understand they'll expense work related functions. I'm saying they'll have a harder time saying some things are work related when they are at "home" than they would when they're "on the road".

 

Are those the media members most likely to be there? I think the majority of super bowl attendee media members are not based in NYC. And ESPN being close does not count. I guarantee Chris Berman won't be scared to expense as much as he would in Miami. Guys who appear on sports reporters in midtown get their hotel taken care of, i'm sure it will be the same here. There will be media members from both participants, just like there would be if the Dolphins ever played in a "South Florida" super bowl or if New Orleans played in a Superdome Super Bowl. There will be media members from every NFL city (probably). Plus all the BS media.

 

Ok...even conceding the point. I still think the "we don't want a Super Bowl in a cold locale" is more of a media driven thing. I don't think it matter much to most fans.

 

I concur. I once bought the Bill Simmons theory that they should only play in Miami, New Orleans, San Diego and some other warm weather place, until I wised up to the fact that this is just a media driven desire for warm weather. NYC does provide a decent couterpoint though, as it blows away Detroit, Indy, Jacksonville, etc weather or not.

[Soul]

I'm sure those who cover the Super Bowl enjoy their assignment every year to a warm locale. We'll probably be subjected to many stories about the cold temps during the run up to the game that year.

[XZero771679666304]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another. Combine that with the fact I think cold weather, grind it out football is antiquated and boring as hell, and I'm not a big fan of this. I'm not upset or anything, I just don't care for it.

[Banedon]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another. Combine that with the fact I think cold weather, grind it out football is antiquated and boring as hell, and I'm not a big fan of this. I'm not upset or anything, I just don't care for it.

 

It rained during nearly all of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl.

[jersey cubs fan]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another. Combine that with the fact I think cold weather, grind it out football is antiquated and boring as hell, and I'm not a big fan of this. I'm not upset or anything, I just don't care for it.

 

Ideal conditions can just as easily favor one team over another. If a team has to play all year in elements, why should they be forced to adjust their game to a dome to end the season?

[dew1679666265]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another.

 

Being guaranteed perfect conditions in a dome can favor one team over another as well. It works both ways.

[XZero771679666304]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another.

 

Being guaranteed perfect conditions in a dome can favor one team over another as well. It works both ways.

 

Not as much, IMO. A bruising running team can play it's game in just about any conditions. A finesse passing team would be really hampered by cold, wind and rain.

[XZero771679666304]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another. Combine that with the fact I think cold weather, grind it out football is antiquated and boring as hell, and I'm not a big fan of this. I'm not upset or anything, I just don't care for it.

 

It rained during nearly all of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl.

 

A warm rain in Miami is not nearly the same as a cold, rainy, windy February night in NJ.

[Banedon]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another. Combine that with the fact I think cold weather, grind it out football is antiquated and boring as hell, and I'm not a big fan of this. I'm not upset or anything, I just don't care for it.

 

It rained during nearly all of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl.

 

A warm rain in Miami is not nearly the same as a cold, rainy, windy February night in NJ.

 

But it was a factor, which you are unhappy with.

 

Are you upset that the conference championships are in potentially bad weather locales and could favor one team or the other?

[CubColtPacer]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another. Combine that with the fact I think cold weather, grind it out football is antiquated and boring as hell, and I'm not a big fan of this. I'm not upset or anything, I just don't care for it.

 

Ideal conditions can just as easily favor one team over another. If a team has to play all year in elements, why should they be forced to adjust their game to a dome to end the season?

 

Pretty much every team plays the majority of its games in decent weather. Every team has to be built to play in decent weather because if they can't play in that sort of weather, they won't make the playoffs. The majority of teams are only going to have a couple under 40 degree games with significant rain/wind/snow. It's potentially introducing something for the Super Bowl that most teams are not seeing much during the year.

 

Or think of it this way. Does a team play as well in elements as they do in normal weather? Hardly ever. So why would you create an environment where the team that wins plays their overall B game and beats their opponent who plays their C or D game? We want to see at least one team and hopefully both teams play at the top of their game and the best way to do that is to have decent weather.

[SpongeWorthy]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another. Combine that with the fact I think cold weather, grind it out football is antiquated and boring as hell, and I'm not a big fan of this. I'm not upset or anything, I just don't care for it.

 

It rained during nearly all of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl.

 

A warm rain in Miami is not nearly the same as a cold, rainy, windy February night in NJ.

 

But it was a factor, which you are unhappy with.

 

Are you upset that the conference championships are in potentially bad weather locales and could favor one team or the other?

 

Well everyone knows the Super Bowl is a neutral site game from day 1 while you play to earn the right to host the conference championship throughout the year.

[CubColtPacer]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another. Combine that with the fact I think cold weather, grind it out football is antiquated and boring as hell, and I'm not a big fan of this. I'm not upset or anything, I just don't care for it.

 

It rained during nearly all of the Bears-Colts Super Bowl.

 

A warm rain in Miami is not nearly the same as a cold, rainy, windy February night in NJ.

 

But it was a factor, which you are unhappy with.

 

Are you upset that the conference championships are in potentially bad weather locales and could favor one team or the other?

 

The conference championship games are different because that is an earned advantage. Teams have the privilege at playing at home because of their stellar performance.

 

And while I wouldn't consider the Bears-Colts game bad, it still resulted in a sloppy game with multiple unforced turnovers. That isn't really what I want to see in a Super Bowl. Miami's still a great Super Bowl site because that doesn't happen very often.

[jersey cubs fan]

Well everyone knows the Super Bowl is a neutral site game from day 1 while you play to earn the right to host the conference championship throughout the year.

 

Well everyone knows the Super Bowl is going to be played in NJ in 2014 so what is the problem?

[SpongeWorthy]

I don't have a problem with it. An outdoor Super Bowl in weather every few years is no big deal. Southern California isn't going to have a Super Bowl for a long, long time now so they need a new venue anyhow.

[dew1679666265]

Personally, I'd prefer the game be played in a locale where weather isn't likely to be a factor at all, since it could favor one team over another.

 

Being guaranteed perfect conditions in a dome can favor one team over another as well. It works both ways.

 

Not as much, IMO. A bruising running team can play it's game in just about any conditions. A finesse passing team would be really hampered by cold, wind and rain.

 

And a finesse passing team is aided quite a bit by playing on turf in a dome where the only negative weather condition might be the air conditioner blowing a little too strongly. I understand your point in more extreme weather conditions, but a light flurry or moderate falling of rain shouldn't give a huge advantage to one team over another if both legitimately are Super Bowl caliber.

[Banedon]

Well everyone knows the Super Bowl is a neutral site game from day 1 while you play to earn the right to host the conference championship throughout the year.

 

Well, only for 31 teams....but since it's never happened that a team has played at it's home field in the Super Bowl, I'll concede the point.

 

Regardless, if you know that to win your division/conference you have to win games in cold locations, why is it a problem for one more game? You know 4 years in advance that this Super Bowl will potentially be cold. How much warning is necessary?

[dew1679666265]

And while I wouldn't consider the Bears-Colts game bad, it still resulted in a sloppy game with multiple unforced turnovers. That isn't really what I want to see in a Super Bowl. Miami's still a great Super Bowl site because that doesn't happen very often.

 

I'm probably out of the ordinary, but I enjoy less-than-stellar games played in rain or snow or wind. It's a very interesting part of the game to see how the teams adjust to the conditions and which team does it better.

[jersey cubs fan]

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2010/05/this-week-in-f%e2%80%94k-you-people-complaining-about-the-2014-ny-super-bowl.html#more-27006

 

preach it drew

[ELCABALLO45]

So pretend that the Bears made the Superbowl in 2014, and you happened to play the Jets. Would it bother anyone at all that the game was a home game basically for New York? Or am I thinking to much into that?

[TruffleShuffle]

So pretend that the Bears made the Superbowl in 2014, and you happened to play the Jets. Would it bother anyone at all that the game was a home game basically for New York? Or am I thinking to much into that?

 

yes, you're thinking way too much into it. every game played at the superdome could be a home game for the saints. every game in miami could be a home game for the dolphins, glendale for the cardinals, etc.

[Banedon]

So pretend that the Bears made the Superbowl in 2014, and you happened to play the Jets. Would it bother anyone at all that the game was a home game basically for New York? Or am I thinking to much into that?

 

No team has ever played a home game in the Superbowl. I realize the Jets wouldn't be "home" in that scenario, but still. The chances are always there for that, no matter the locale. If the Super Bowl is in Miami, and the Falcons make the Super Bowl against say...the Seahawks....there's definitely an advantage fan-wise there too.

[bukie]

So pretend that the Bears made the Superbowl in 2014, and you happened to play the Jets. Would it bother anyone at all that the game was a home game basically for New York? Or am I thinking to much into that?

 

No team has ever played a home game in the Superbowl. I realize the Jets wouldn't be "home" in that scenario, but still. The chances are always there for that, no matter the locale. If the Super Bowl is in Miami, and the Falcons make the Super Bowl against say...the Seahawks....there's definitely an advantage fan-wise there too.

 

At that point, I'd probably have more of a problem with the Super Bowl featuring two NFC teams.