I've wanted to talk about this for a while and today seems like a good day to bring it up. When did the NFL get the idea that a Super Bowl should be played in a city where cold and even snow could be a factor? In my opinion, this is a silly notion. In the weeks leading up to Super Bowl 48, people were talking about the weather forecast as much as anything else. They were asserting that Peyton Manning cannot play in the cold or the snow (this, by the way, is a false assertion), and that if the snow was falling the Broncos would be a distinct disadvantage. Of course, the weather was a non-factor, but the Broncos were at a disadvantage anyway because of their superior opponent.
That said, long before anyone knew the teams that would participate in Super Bowl 48, I thought it was a strange idea to introduce the notion of playing the Super Bowl in a cold, snowy climate. This isn’t about New Jersey; I’m talking any cold weather city, Denver included. My viewpoint is that a Super Bowl should be played in a warm city. The Super Bowl is the biggest game in professional sports, so shouldn’t the winner be determined by talent, will, and execution of a game plan rather than who can better handle playing in inclement weather?
The NFL is all about parity, not giving anyone an unfair advantage. So, consider for example, if the New England Patriots play the New Orleans Saints in the Super Bowl in a cold weather city. The Patriots are used to the snow and the cold, thus they would have an advantage over the Saints who are a dome team. Of course the Saints might still win in this example, but they aren’t playing on level ground, so to speak. My opinion on this is that the NFL should stick to what they've done all these years: playing the Super Bowl in a warm weather city.
Kevin
No comments:
Post a Comment