Snow Damages NYC Super Bowl Bid

Shaun Lowrie@@pickwatchContributor IFebruary 11, 2010

19 Jan 2001:  Kicker Adam Vinatieri of the New England Patriots ties the game in the closing seconds against the Oakland Raiders forcing overtime at Foxboro Stadium in Foxboro, Massachusetts.The Patriots won 16-13.  Digital image. Mandatory Credit: Al Bello/Getty Images
Al Bello/Getty Images

This is from my blog at www.offensive-line.com

I've long campaigned that playing the Super Bowl only in domed or warm weather climates detracts from the character of the greatest show on earth.

Think of some of the more iconic moments in the NFL over the years, and some of the greatest images come from games where the elements have come into play.

From the great Bears-Packers rivalry that regularly features games below freezing, the AFC championship game between Indianapolis and New England in 2003 in the snow, and the now infamous "tuck rule" game between the Patriots and Oakland in 2002.

Hey, even Santa getting pelted with snowballs in Philadelphia–it was all part of the game, and when you watch a retrospective on any of these moments, the weather simply adds to the memories.

The NFL insists that to host a Super Bowl, the city must have an average temperature of 50 degrees or more–or else be played in a dome. Whilst I don't have a problem with common sense being applied, it seems a shame that so many stadiums are automatically disqualified from selection on the grounds of their location.

OK, so playing in Lambeau or Soldier Field may be a stretch in February. We all know that secretly even the Packers and Bears players would rather be in a warmer climate, but it annoys me that other cities with more moderate weather are also excluded from the list.

The most obvious example would be Kansas City, who were forced to withdraw their bid to host the Super Bowl in 2015 because Arrowhead does not have a roof, and Jackson County narrowly denied the Chiefs funding to build one in time. The temperature in Missouri at this time of year is not particularly helpful to the cause, but should that prohibit a team from hosting the game? In my view, no.

New York (or New Jersey if we are going to be pedantic) is the next city to try it's luck at a Super Bowl, with the new Giants/Jets stadium widely expected to bid for the big game in 2014 or 2015.

There has been a massive investment in new stadia in the league in recent years, and the idea of Jerry Jones showcasing his new stadium in Dallas whilst the home of the Giants and Jets goes without is not something that sits well with those who have funded the plan.

Unfortunately, with no roof in place, the stadium faces an uphill struggle to convince the league that it is capable of hosting a Super Bowl with no disruption from inclement weather in the area. The problem is not just on the field, but the logistical issues that could arise in the event of a freak snowstorm on the east coast.

One such as hit yesterday, and is expected to hit New York today?

The timing could not be worse, coming as it does at the crucial point where the majority of fans will be arriving in the host city for the weekend.

Of course, in my view, some snow should not detract from the bid, but an epic storm of this scale cannot help but place another element of doubt in the owners' minds that their biggest showcase event could become a farce–or even worse, be postponed–if New York hosts the game.

Even the smallest amount of chance will likely count heavily against northern stadiums, so unfortunately, I don't envisage any situation where the league allows a cold weather city to host the game outdoors in the near future.

Not unless there's an awful lot of money changing hands somewhere...


The latest in the sports world, emailed daily.