- Thread starter
- #1
VC15
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 15,924
- Reaction score
- 215
Discuss.
Message approved.I love the people who say that it gives a disadvantage to passing teams, lol. Shouldnt teams be able to play in all sorts of conditions? And even if the weather is crappy, the game will be more competitive.
Of course you would say that smh.New York sucks ass.
That;s why it's being held in Jersey.New York sucks ass.
They want to make big bucks. Plus it wouldn't be so bad. It's not like football is always played in a hot season.The Superbowl in a cold city?
Thats why why after 2014 the Superbowl will never be played in a cold city again. The Superbowl is meant for warm cities (bands, fans, media, etc.)
but the superbowl in 60-70 degree weather is what has been expected now. the superbowl nowadays is like a big party and nobody wants to pay thousands a dollars and travel that far just to freeze their ass off. in paper playing the superbowl in a big market city like new york sounds like a great idea but in reality it isnt the weather is just not super bowl material. i can assure you that tickets are not going to sell out as fast as they should. im also not bidding for a southern florida superbowl again. but im just saying that they should give some other cities a chance too other than sticking with a city where a superbowl has been hosted more than 3 times. houston imo wouldve been a great option, maybe jacksonvile, san diego wouldve been real good too, heck atlanta wouldve been great too. all im saying is that the nfl is going to regret hosting a cold superbowl. i think that the nfl is global enough that they should be able to host an of country superbowl. i think any country or state would take them with open arms. imagine the superbowl in sidney, italy or better yet spain. now that would be epic....They want to make big bucks. Plus it wouldn't be so bad. It's not like football is always played in a hot season.