Originally posted by CajunMan Yep that is what I was talking about, glad you noticed! Now where did I or the article say scrap the SB??? Glad you read!
Well what you said was:
"Here's another way to look at it."
Followed by a link that discussed how major sporting events in general rarely bring in the projected income for local economies. It had nothing to do with whether New Jersey was a suitable venue for a Super Bowl (aka the matter being discussed in the thread) rather that if Jersey - or anywhere else hosting an upcoming SB - thinks it will benefit the local economy to the tune of half a billion, then they'll be disappointed.
What WAS your point? To provide a link to a point that, while well made, has nothing to do with the discussion? Well done!
Originally posted by thecubsfanIt's seemed like the media is 100% against this, with the stated reason being the weather affecting the game.
I think the reality is they all see the Super Bowl as a one or two week vacation and much rather go some place warm to get out of the cold.
Bingo! Playing indoors/on turf/in warm weather favours teams used to those conditions, but that's fine. Fuck going somewhere cold in February though, even if it is on a corporate jolly.
Originally posted by Psycho PenguinI don't know who pissed in your corn flakes, but sorry I don't have a comprehensive list of 'good games played in the elements'. Probably because there's quite a few now that it's not really a big deal. The Ice Bowl is one of the more famous ones.. hence it having the name.
Let me repeat what you said.
Originally posted by Psycho PenguinI don't remember anyone thinking the Ice Bowl was a bad game.
You don't remember the Ice Bowl just like *I* don't remember the Ice Bowl, because it happened before both of us were alive. There isn't really any anecdotal evidence of that game other than (1) it was really fricking cold and (2) Starr's sneak won it.
Now, what can we learn from this actual source of information about the actual game?
- The teams combined - COMBINED - for 65 rushing attempts for 172 yards, an average of 2.6 yards per carry. - Dallas QB Don Meredith was 10-for-25 for 59 yards. He was also sacked eight times for -76 yards. That nets out at -17 yards passing for the Dallas QB. - 387 yards combined total offense for both teams.
Given these facts, I don't see how anyone could argue that the Ice Bowl was a "good football game". It had a dramatic conclusion because Dan Reeves hit Lance Rentzel with a halfback pass for a TD to give Dallas a 17-14 fourth quarter lead, despite their obviously complete ineptitude on offense. The only reason anyone remembers the game is because the Packers answered and won the game.
Two seconds of Googling would've given you enough information to determine that the Ice Bowl was a pretty bad game with a memorable ending.
Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....
*snip*
Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Originally posted by JayJayDeanTwo seconds of Googling would've given you enough information to determine that the Ice Bowl was a pretty bad game with a memorable ending.
Having seen the entire game on film, I'd say it was a pretty compelling game. Was it a high-powered offensive battle the likes of Dallas-Pittsburgh in SB XIII? No. Doesn't mean it wasn't a great game, though.
One interesting piece of information that helped the Packers defense - early on, the team recognized that Bob Hayes would have his hands in his pockets (the built in kind on the front of his jersey) on any play that he wasn't the intended receiver.
Originally posted by Sec19Row53Having seen the entire game on film, I'd say it was a pretty compelling game. Was it a high-powered offensive battle the likes of Dallas-Pittsburgh in SB XIII? No. Doesn't mean it wasn't a great game, though.
Would you say it is likely that your affinity for the Packers would make it more likely to give you that point-of-view? I would and I would think that fans of whichever teams make it to SB XLVIII will have no problem discounting the weather when they are deciding whether the game is good or bad. It's the fans of the other 30 teams that could be the problem.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the idea of a cold-weather Super Bowl, just a problem with poorly reasoned-arguments. I can't imagine that if SB48 played out like the Ice Bowl we'd all be sitting around Monday talking about how awesome the game was unless our team won. (I mean, NEGATIVE 17 passing yards!)
Holy fuck shit motherfucker shit. Read comics. Fuck shit shit fuck shit I sold out when I did my job. Fuck fuck fuck shit fuck. Sorry had to do it....
*snip*
Revenge of the Sith = one thumb up from me. Fuck shit. I want to tittie fuck your ass. -- The Guinness. to Cerebus
Originally posted by Sec19Row53Having seen the entire game on film, I'd say it was a pretty compelling game. Was it a high-powered offensive battle the likes of Dallas-Pittsburgh in SB XIII? No. Doesn't mean it wasn't a great game, though.
Would you say it is likely that your affinity for the Packers would make it more likely to give you that point-of-view? I would and I would think that fans of whichever teams make it to SB XLVIII will have no problem discounting the weather when they are deciding whether the game is good or bad. It's the fans of the other 30 teams that could be the problem.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with the idea of a cold-weather Super Bowl, just a problem with poorly reasoned-arguments. I can't imagine that if SB48 played out like the Ice Bowl we'd all be sitting around Monday talking about how awesome the game was unless our team won. (I mean, NEGATIVE 17 passing yards!)
Oh, I'm sure my affinity for the Packers has something to do with it. I also happen to think that it was still a very compelling game. The game was different then.
Just curious - would you enjoy a 1-0 baseball game? I do, because each pitch is that much more important.
Originally posted by Sec19Row53 Just curious - would you enjoy a 1-0 baseball game? I do, because each pitch is that much more important.
This isn't directed at you, but why is it in American sports culture that a 1-0 baseball or hockey is a great game, but a 1-0 soccer match (or a 0-0 draw) a crime against humanity?
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Originally posted by Sec19Row53 Just curious - would you enjoy a 1-0 baseball game? I do, because each pitch is that much more important.
This isn't directed at you, but why is it in American sports culture that a 1-0 baseball or hockey is a great game, but a 1-0 soccer match (or a 0-0 draw) a crime against humanity?
I think we're able to process and understand what the defense & pitcher/goalie accomplished easier (for us) in baseball and hockey than in soccer.
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects. "Well. Shit." -hansen9j
Seemed like an ok game but not what I was remembering either so thats kinda disappointing. The point being that 'you can't have a good game under the elements' is total bollocks. The chances will obviously decrease, but the Super Bowl doesn't guarantee a good game anyways.. the streak of good ones for the most part since 2002 has been unusual compared to the 80s and half of the 90s where seemingly every one was over by halftime.
If it gets a Super Bowl in Pa. then I am all for it. Then again, the reality is that 25% of the live crowd are fans of the teams while the rest is corporate bitches. Regardless, I am sitting my ass in a heated room with a beer, chips and a hopefully a routing interest.
Originally posted by hansen9jI think we're able to process and understand what the defense & pitcher/goalie accomplished easier (for us) in baseball and hockey than in soccer.
There seems to be some weird misconception about soccer that it's this bizarre alien sport where nothing seems to make sense. As soon as you start thinking along the lines of "it's basically field hockey without the sticks", there's not much more to grasp.
Unless I've missed it, I don't think anyone in this thread has mentioned that really bad weather wouldn't just affect HOW the game is played, it could affect WHETHER (har har) the game is played.
What was the weather like in New York in February of this year? Wasn't that around the time they had 17 inches of snow and the streets of Manhattan were nothing but icy, sludgy, misery? How many fans are going to re-think their plans of traveling across the country to a football game, Super Bowl or not? How many people won't even be able to GET to the game because of canceled flights and/or closed airports?
Is moving the game at the last minute even an option? I mean, you could postpone the game I guess, but I feel that would be the biggest logistical nightmare in modern sports history. Then again, finding an alternate "bad weather site" for a Super Bowl sounds just as ridiculous.
Originally posted by StingArmyUnless I've missed it, I don't think anyone in this thread has mentioned that really bad weather wouldn't just affect HOW the game is played, it could affect WHETHER (har har) the game is played.
What was the weather like in New York in February of this year? Wasn't that around the time they had 17 inches of snow and the streets of Manhattan were nothing but icy, sludgy, misery? How many fans are going to re-think their plans of traveling across the country to a football game, Super Bowl or not? How many people won't even be able to GET to the game because of canceled flights and/or closed airports?
Is moving the game at the last minute even an option? I mean, you could postpone the game I guess, but I feel that would be the biggest logistical nightmare in modern sports history. Then again, finding an alternate "bad weather site" for a Super Bowl sounds just as ridiculous.
Originally posted by Psycho PenguinHow often do football games get postponed due to weather? Outside of hurricanes, I don't remember too many.
Not many, true, but again I'm not suggesting that a game might get postponed or moved because the weather is too shitty to play in. I'm talking about a game getting postponed or moved because nobody can even GET to the site where the game is being played due to delayed flights, canceled flights, closed highways, things of that sort. Assuming the teams could even get to East Rutherford, NJ (in the case of Super Bowl XLVIII), they wouldn't play a Super Bowl in an empty stadium, right?
Originally posted by StingArmyI'm not suggesting that a game might get postponed or moved because the weather is too shitty to play in. I'm talking about a game getting postponed or moved because nobody can even GET to the site where the game is being played due to delayed flights, canceled flights, closed highways, things of that sort.
It's a reasonable concern, but when was the last time it was impossible to get to NJ/NY by any means due to bad weather? Most fans tend to get to whatever city is hosting the SB at least a day or two in advance (assuming they don't already live there) and you've gotta think once they're there then the local authorities will move heaven and earth to allow people to get to the stadium. There was crazy snowfall around the turn of the year down the east coast and stadiums were still packed out from what I remember.
Those who plan to travel the day before or on the day of the game? Well, flights are delayed all the time for any number of reasons so people know there are risks to leaving travelling to the last minute, wherever they're going. Pilot falls ill, freak storm, someone checks their baggage in then doesn't get on the plane, volcanic ash, take your pick. And anyone travelling *from* a cold weather area is as likely to be screwed by the weather at their end regardless of where you host it.
Obviously the chance of travel problems is marginally higher here, but it's still something tremendously unlikely that would only affect a tiny percentage of ticket holders.
Originally posted by StingArmy Assuming the teams could even get to East Rutherford, NJ (in the case of Super Bowl XLVIII), they wouldn't play a Super Bowl in an empty stadium, right?
The "assuming the teams can even get there" thing takes you back to the "when was the last time a game was postponed?" response. It's not like the home teams have just been kicking off anyway
I'll admit it would probably take historical levels of snow to cause travel problems significant enough to do what I hypothesized. But I think it is worth mentioning because it was just this year that we DID have historical levels of snow. I know flights get delayed (and even canceled) all the time, but surely you must remember reading about the nightmares all over the country this winter. Some airports were completely shut down for days. You're right, if people are traveling the day of or the day before the Super Bowl they are asking for trouble regardless of what the weather is supposed to be like, but if flights aren't available for days at a time, it could cause nightmares even for people who tried to plan ahead.
If that happens to all the NYC metro area airports, what then? I guess the Super Bowl teams (and the fans and game crew and television crew and halftime entertainment and...) could fly into whatever the closest open airport is and then drive the rest of the way, but that seems pretty far from ideal. And let's not forget that a lot of those people HAVE to be there at least a week before game day and need to be mobile for all the pre-Super Bowl festivities (especially Media Day).
Thread ahead: USC to receive two-year postseason ban Next thread: Favre Update: He will return if............ Previous thread: SCOTUS lays the smackdown on Goodell & Co.
With the draft a week away I was wondering who everyone would like to see there team draft.
Being a Raiders fan I think they can do allot with their 4 picks in the first two rounds.
Thread rated: 4.46
#
#
#
