Living in the Northeast, we are all used to the change of seasons — winter is frigid, summer is sweltering. Not many outside of this region get to experience the best and worst of both temperature ratings. Elsewhere in this country, specifically in the south and west, it’s almost always comfortably warm. That’s why the National Football League loves to host Super Bowls there. The nearly perfect weather — or at least 50 degrees in the NFL’s definition — in early February presents a perfect setting for the biggest game in sports.
This may all change in 2014.
The Giants and Jets are lobbying to have the Super Bowl played at their new $1.6 billion stadium, which they’ll move into this season. Signs are pointing to it becoming a reality, too. If so, it would be a major victory for both New York football franchises, as well as other chilly towns hoping to one day entertain the event.
In Super Bowl history, only three cold-weather cities have hosted the game: Pontiac, Mich. (1982), Detroit, Mich. (2006) and Minneapolis, Minn. (1992). Indianapolis, Ind. will host the game in 2011. The similarities between these four cities is that each have domed stadium. The new Meadowlands Stadium, however, will be completely outdoors.
Owners will vote on May 25 to decide whether East Rutherford, N.J., Tampa, Fla. or South Florida will host Super Bowl 48. If New York is passed up, it may be years before they are ever considered again. Because if not now, when? Nowhere have I read that global warming is expected to bring the tropics to New Jersey 365 days a year.
The NFL should award the game to the Big Apple. Over the last 100 years, the city has experienced more wonderful history than another would hope to experience in 100,000. The only thing the metropolitan area has never witnessed, though, is a Super Bowl, right in its front yard. It would truly be unlike anything viewers will ever see — not an All-Star Game, World Series or Stanley Cup could come close. This is the whip cream, sprinkles, chocolate syrup and birthday candle on top of the cupcake.
Some may argue that if the weather is snowy and near zero on the thermometer, it would make for a miserable experience. To that I ask: for who? New York fans, who would make up a large portion of the crowd, love the feeling of football in the winter time. The players, as tough as they come, can endure the three hours on the frozen turf. In fact, many thrive in those conditions as half, if not more, of the NFL’s 32 teams play their home games in winter conditions. Cold weather would perhaps even keep players inside their hotel rooms rather than out wandering the streets getting into trouble. (A Cheeseburger in Paradise and Red Lobster is about all the excitement there is in a two-mile distance.)
The NFL loves to try new things. They’re always looking for the next big broadcasting tool and better ways to engage the fans. Why not do something that hasn’t been done at all since the game was created in 1966?
For both teams, getting the Super Bowl would be a major financial gain as well. Since they haven’t sold the naming rights to their stadium yet, this would definitely allow them to add a few zeros to the price tag. The Super Bowl is the most viewed and publicly discussed event of the year. The exposure of having your name said over and over again throughout the course of several weeks leading up to the game would be a better financial investment than any you would make on Wall Street these days.
As for those other cold-weathered cities looking for Super Bowls, specifically Washington, New England and Chicago, they’ll probably have to wait until after a New York-hosted game before they’re even considered. After all, if it can’t work in New York, it probably won’t there either.
Do you think the Super Bowl should be held in New York? Tell us your thoughts in the comment’s section below.