The 34-minute power outage at the Super Bowl in New Orleans proved there’s nothing magical about Sun Belt stadiums, despite the NFL’s preference for holding the game in Southern climes. Nor is there anything foolproof about indoor stadiums.
Since the first Super Bowl in 1967, the league has picked New Orleans to host 10 of the 47 championships, with Florida or southern California getting most of the others. The decision to hold next year’s game at New Jersey’s new Meadowlands stadium required an unusual waiver of the rule favoring domes and warmer climates.
Comments
A retort to this ridiculous editorial from Peter King in this week's Monday Morning Quarterback column in Sports Illustrated:
The Super Bowl will be held in East Rutherford, N.J., on Feb. 2, 2014, outdoors in MetLife Stadium. Kickoff, unless the NFL amends recent history, will be at 6:30 p.m.
Exactly one year before that, on Saturday night at 6:30 in East Rutherford, here were the weather conditions:
Temperature: 27 degrees.
Winds: 10 mph from the west.
Wind chill temperature: 17 degrees.
Light snow began to fall at about 8 p.m., which a year from now would likely be around the two-minute warning of the first half.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/news/20130204/baltimore-ravens-win-super-bowl-xlvii-peter-king-monday-morning-quarterback/#ixzz2K1gMLZCl
i can see the thousands of people lined up to pay thousands and thousand of dollars to the new jersey superbowl and all the events staged in the freezing cold. brilliant idea!!!
I don't see the correlation here. There's been one delay in 47 Superbowls. If you want to argue that cold weather should not be an impediment to allowing the game in a cold weather region then go ahead. But don't base your argument for that on an anomaly. In fact, that delay did nothing to degrade this years game -- which by all measures was a terrific game. Bad weather however, could definitely be a major factor in how the game is played and the quality of the game itself.
The decision to play the SuperBowl in NJ next year is one of the most stunning examples ever of power politics being inflicted on thousands of people. Not only are the fools affected who will not have the good sense to stay away from seeing the game in person, but all of the television audience will be hit as well. There is no way that the game will demonstrate the skill set of pro athletes. It will be an exercise in stupid futility. The Globe is on the wrong side of this debate with this editorial. Take a lesson from Mitt and shift your position.
Don't agree with you djm71. Next years's SuperBowl will allow many NFL patrons from the NE, MidWest and Canada to finally afford to attend the biggest game they will ever experience in their lifetime.
Many of us don't need the balmy weather, liquor, beads and late nights to enjoy good foot-ball!
Gee, the teams play in all kinds of weather. . . right up to the Superbowl, then suddenly, they cannot play in snow, cold, or rain? Huh?
It has nothing to do with the teams, it has all to do with the NFL making LOTS of money on the BIG game of the year.
Weather being weather, Al Gore saying we have global warming, it may well be a balmy 60 in NJ next year. And who knows, we may be watching it on Al Jazeera....
I don't understand why this subject needed an editorial. All you have to do is go to Gillette when it's freezing. Hard core fans remain in their seats to watch the game but those in the red seats abandon their seats for warmer confines, along with food and drinks. Those attending the Super Bowl are representative of those in the red seats. The Super Bowl is an event for those looking for a good time, which, for most, means being in a warm climate, not freezing your butt off in New Jersey.
what if this weekend's weather occurred last weekend leading up to the SB? How many people would be stranded trying to get to the Northeast?