New York Wins Bid, Will Host Super Bowl 48
by Andrew602 on May 25, 2010 5:13 PM MDT
in NFL Offseason/Free Agency
Email
PrintThe NFL owners voted to decide the home of Super Bowl 48, which will now take place on a cold winter night at New Meadowlands Stadium. The meeting took place through most of Tuesday afternoon, and after four votes, New York won the bid. For the first time in NFL history, the NFL's glorified game will take place in a cold-weather city excluding dome teams.
New York's slogan before the voting took place was, "Make Some History" - a slogan that fits considering the coldest Super Bowl to date took place in New Orleans in 1972 at Tulane Stadium with a 39-degree night. The average temperature in New Jersey during February ranges from 24 to 40 degrees - not to mention the several inches of rain that should take place.
Most critics argued that if a cold-weather team were to make it to the Super Bowl, the advantage would surely be in their hands. The Cardinals will never be confused with a cold-weather team, having practiced in one of the hottest cities year round and playing in an enclosed stadium. Would there be an advantage? Sure - but as New York stated, it's time to make some history.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Hooray
I for one am sick of the superbowl going to florida. Wonder who will be the half time show? Bet it won’t be another geriatric rocker.
Bet you're right on that one
And yes, I’m sick of Florida Super Bowls too. Why not come back to AZ?
What? I didn't break it, I was just testing its durability, and then I placed it in the woods becuase it's made out of wood and I just thought he should be with his family.
Revenge of the Birds
Because we're all racists?
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
I love it
And I’m also sick of seeing the Super Bowl going to Florida.
I have an idea: After a State gets a Super Bowl they would have to wait 10 years until it can be in that State again, that would allow some more diversity in where the game is played, and it would allow more states to get some money from the game being played there. And I would also have it so that a place with cold weather would get it once every 5 or 10 years
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
You're not the only
one with that concern. I tend to think of the National Football Post as the equivalent to the National Enquirer, but assuming for a moment that they didn’t make this quote up, apparently there are more than a few teams wondering about the wisdom of having a game there in late January/early February, in particular the Ravens (obviously a team not prone to being worried about cold weather).
Forgainst it
I’m both for it and against it. I like the fact that it’s not one of the same tired choices that always seem to host the big game, and what better choice is there than a brand new stadium in one of the largest cities in the world (although the stadium is technically in Jersey). I’m against it because I believe that the Super Bowl should be determined by the team who played the best, and not by the team that was best prepared for a cold weather game. I realize that poor conditions is a part of football, and some of the most memorable games have been played in terrible weather. And maybe I’m thinking too much about that New England debacle 2 years ago, when the Cards looked like they had never even seen snow before (obviously that has nothing to do with the Super Bowl, I just still have a bad taste in my mouth about it). But in my humble opinion, the Super Bowl should be the put into the position of being the best game it can be, and I think playing outside in extremely cold conditions puts that at risk. Just my opinion.
Just to add
the Ravens’ owner expressed concern about being about to get 70,000 people to a game in two feet of snow, and how bad it will look if the game has to be rescheduled because of it.
Good point
The Cardinals had no answer for the snow and the same could happen if they played in the snow again.
What? I didn't break it, I was just testing its durability, and then I placed it in the woods becuase it's made out of wood and I just thought he should be with his family.
Revenge of the Birds
disagree - a different team from the n.e. bismal affair. the cards can play in snow that n.e. game was an abberation.
that game just got off to a horrid start and yes the weather was a factor but not the determining one. i’m not for the whole cold weather super bowl but it is and i believe by 48 the cards will be running team.
But
they’ll still be a running team that never plays in the snow. Having the Super Bowl in New York obviously gives a distinctive edge to teams in cold climate areas. There is no proof the Cardinals can play in snow, that’s an assumption.
by cardsfanforlife24 on May 28, 2010 11:54 AM MDT up reply actions
by the time super bowl 48 rolls around i would imagine there would be some more evidence to support or shoot down my thinking!
you are right that it is an assumption because the current roster of az hasn’t proven a thing positive about playing in the snow yet. i personally think the cleats played a huge role in that n.e. game as the team couldn’t even stay upright. i also think playing in snow is an attitude. i do agree completely that playing in new york in those conditions favor heavily cold weather teams.
I could buy into
that argument if pro teams were largely regional in their rosters like college teams, but how could guys like Beanie, Fitz, Levi, Breaston, etc., not be able to play in snow when they came to us from the Big Ten and the Big East? Just the same, the Jets have a starting QB from USC so the idea that playing in the snow is that big of an advantage/disadvantage to me is largely an excuse.
And Sanchez looked horrible in the cold weather games.
Lifelong Arizona Cardinals/Chicago Bears fan [I have always lived in Arizona, dad is from Chicago].
I can't stand fair-weather/bandwagon fans, stick with your team, throughout the good and the bad. And don't switch to whichever team wins the Super Bowl each year.
Lousy weather will just make the game more memorable.
So long as it’s not blizzard conditions causing a postponement I’m ok with bad weather. A florida superbowl could just as easily suffer from a deluge. Mud, rain, snow, wind all just adds to the experience. Hail, that would suck. A player getting injured because a piece of ice blew a hole in his helmet ain’t cool.
The perceived weather advantage is a moot arguement. The 2014 superbowl could just as easily be Arizona – San Diego or New England – Chicago. The concern owners and other vested interests have is money related. What bad weather could do to revenues is their worry.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- The Shutdown Corner Podcast: Greg Cosell on the NFC South Draft
- BREAKING: Tim Tebow did not become a great quarterback today
- Jerry Jones says Cowboys championship window is closing; Tony Romo disagrees
- Lawrence Taylor was told his Super Bowl ring was bought by Charlie Sheen
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
