Super Bowl 48 Awarded to New York
by Bruce Raffel on May 25, 2010 4:50 PM EDT
Email
PrintThe NFL announced today that Super Bowl XLVIII in 2014 has been awarded to New Meadowlands Stadium, home of the New York Giants and Jets. For the first time in league history, the Super Bowl will be played outside in cold weather and unknown conditions. Previous NFL Championship Games, including the Baltimore Colts 1958 victory over the New York Giants, was played outdoors in frigid temperatures.
While many people, including me, think this is not a good move by the league, it does however, open the possibility of the Super Bowl being held in Baltimore at some point in the future. At the same time, I couldn't care less where it is being held, as long as my Baltimore Ravens are playing in it.
What do you think?
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I like the idea
It’s football. Games are played in bad conditions all year long. They were talking about the wind being more of a factor to affect the game than snow would. Here is why Bisciotti voted against the idea.
"After what we’ve been through in Baltimore in the last three months, you really have to wonder if logistically it’s possible the darn thing could get postponed," Bisciotti explained. "I don’t think you could get people into the Meadowlands, 70,000 people into the Meadowlands, in a two-foot snowstorm in New York."
We all saw here in Baltimore during December and February nearly 10 feet of snow between 3 storms (one of which came during Superbowl weekend this year) and it was very tough to get out of those. It would be terrible if one of those storms hit New York during the Superbowl, but I like this idea.
But what about cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia and New England who all have state of the art stadiums that are more than capable of hosting the game as well?
You have to hate losing more than you love winning.
But what about cities like Baltimore, Philadelphia and New England…?
I was under the impression that the NFLPA strongly prefers the Super Bowl to be played in a state with a low or non-existent income tax. That way, the players get to keep most or all of the money they earn from playing that game. There is no personal income tax in Florida, and that’s one reason why you see the Super Bowl happening there frequently.
Water covers 2/3 of the Earth's surface. Ed Reed covers the rest.
Interesting
Never thought of that. Same w/ Arizona?
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 26, 2010 8:42 AM EDT up reply actions
As far as state income taxes go, Arizona has an extremely reasonable 4.5% for the top bracket, Texas (host of two SB’s and the upcoming championship game) has no income tax, Georgia (2 SB’s) and Louisiana (9 SB’s) have a relatively low 6%, and Illinois (2 SB’s) has a 3% flat tax.
The baffling part to me is that California (home to 11 SB’s) currently has one of the highest income taxes in America. I don’t have any evidence on hand to back this up, but I believe that California’s extremely high tax rate is relatively modern and that it was more reasonable in the past when the state hosted the Super Bowl more frequently (five times in the 80’s). That might help to explain (to a degree) why the state has only hosted two Super Bowls in the past 15 years. If anybody actually knows a bit about the history of the California income tax, I’d love to know if it actually trended as I think it did when the California cities were voted into the Super Bowl.
I’m thinking that the selection of New Jersey for the 2014 Super Bowl didn’t take into consideration the whopping 10.75% state income tax (only topped by Oregon and Hawaii!). I hope the players give more than 89.15% effort.
Water covers 2/3 of the Earth's surface. Ed Reed covers the rest.
i’m guessing the whopping amount of money associated with a NY Area Superbowl outweighed any concerns about income tax.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
Something tells me that income tax is not a deciding factor
or else the Canadian Football League would be played in the States for the better exchange rate.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 27, 2010 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions
and we’d have every superbowl in Ontario for the 0% business tax.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
yeah, gets me to thinkin'
LETS HAVE THE SUPERBOWL IN CANADA!!!!!
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
Back to the original setup – Cold weather games are great, equalizes and makes for in your face football. When it’s really cold, the passing game is close to non-existant, so you have to use brute force. That’s what is missing in most football games, but not from the AFC North.
BTW, did you see the fanshot on the DBN about Art’s future gravesite. Gives me a reason to visit Maryland now (you know after that old bag kicks off).
Animadvertistine, ubicumque stes, fumum recta in faciem ferri?
Those Cleveland fans are a sad lot
They love3 the guy for years and then when he fails financially, they want to piss on his grave when he passes. Agreat man for the league and a wonderful human being, who deserves a whole lot more than what those fans give him. Ignorant is the nicest word I can use.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 27, 2010 7:01 PM EDT up reply actions
From a football point of view
There have been at least two games in the playoffs in which baltimore had to travel to Miami to win play off games. Once during our superbowl run, and once during Flacco’s rookie year. Both times we won, both times the weather was out standing. Sunny not too hot, not too cold.
A game like the the (in)famous tuck rule game was played in cold weather in Foxboro. The Patriots earned the right to have that game at home.
The point I’m trying to make here is that since no team hosts the superbowl and since no team can earn the right to have “their” weather affect the game, I don’t see how you can risk a cold weather game that potentially gives one team an edge.
Also, does anybody see a nightmare scenario that pits two warm weather teams in the superbowl, it could possibly be the worst quality football you’ll ever see.
Or
It could be the best game you ever saw.
Or neither
Against all odds, against all circumstance were you don't have a shot, you succeed
-Michael Strahan
All you hear about is the past, the past... the past is the !@#$ing past, this is the present.
THIS IS TEMPORARY! A CHAMPIONSHIP IS PERMANENT
-Same as above
Weather equally affects both teams
One team, whether a dome team or a cold weather team, is comprised of guys who have played in both conditions over their careers. As long as it is not a home game (Dallas in Dallas this February coming), it’s still a level playing field. The game is also for the fans and having it in a cold climate is a downer, period!
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 26, 2010 8:44 AM EDT up reply actions
dont agree
One team, whether a dome team or a cold weather team, is comprised of guys who have played in both conditions over their careers.
Doesn’t change the fact that the team still hasn’t found a rythm playing together in these different conditions in which receivers’ hands will be cold and hard, the ground will be more painful to fall on, etc. There is a well-documented history of Florida teams failing in cold-weather games in the playoffs.
We still don’t know what would happen this year if New Orleans’ road to the Superbowl had to make a stop in Lambeau.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
Yes
Teams who play in a dome (or warm weather) are often constructed in a way that their personnel is selected with an emphasis on speed, quickness and agility, qualities suited toward dome conditions. When a dome team has to play in cold weather, they often lack the proper personnel for that type of game conditions, ie; strong running game, tough possession WRs, big D lineman – an AFC North smash mouth style if you will. I think there can be a decisive advantage for one team better suited to a particular condition, and I’m hoping a perfect example will be when the Saints high powered passing offense comes to Baltimore for a hopefully cold, snowy/rainy game in December.
So yea, I agree jackma, that weather does not equally effect both teams in certain situations.
Which is why
Green Bay went into Arizona and beat the Cards? So much for that theory.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 27, 2010 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions
you're not refuting our theory
we’re saying cold weather is a disadvantage for dome teams, not that cold weather teams cant handle dome situations.
Just look at Florida teams’ success rate in below freezing weather. I can’t produce the numbers for you right now but I remember seeing a Bucaneers game where they ran the stat and it’s overwhelming how badly warm weather teams do in freezing conditions.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
We never said anything about cold weather teams not being able to play in warm conditions. They are ideal for anyone… Kinda goes without saying.
My point exactly then.
So if it is a level playing field in warm weather, but not in cold, why unlevel the most important game of the year. Very poor idea, totally against it and think it is just the league selling out to the big bucks NY will bring them. I bet if the NY temas didn’t have a new stadium, it would definitely not even be in discussion to hold it in a cold weather stadium, regardless of who had a new stadium. Now, they’re obligated to do it again just to disprove the bias.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 28, 2010 9:18 AM EDT up reply actions
Good decision, Football is a sport that is played in all kinds of weather.
If the NFCCG and AFCCG can be played in bad weather, why can’t the SB?
"We're only going to score 17 points?"
Playing the superbowl in New York could be a double-edged sword
Yeah it’s an exciting outdoors Superbowl in a brand-new stadium, with a chance of it being cold; that’s what sold most owners. But smarter owners like ,Steve Bisciotti, read between the lines and looked at the numerous disadvantages.
One of the disadvantages is what if a blizzard strikes? Nobody wants to see the game postponed for another day.It’s called Superbowl SUNDAY for a reason, it’s practically a holiday. Another one is, it’s in New York, as MaLoR stated, the Superbowl is meant to attract income to low profit cities, New York is a booming metropolis. Owners just wanted to jump the gun because of a chance of an exciting cold game, that they think will be as intense as a Steeler’s-Ravens game in December. It’s not going to happen
The only advantages I can see is that cold weather teams such as Baltimore,Pittsburgh, New England, etc.. will have more of a home-like atmosphere that they are used to. So when I think about it, it was a terrible idea.
Bringing Baltimore Beatdown "Create a Caption" for 6 weeks and counting.
Sure, there are disadvantages
A lot of them actually. The tax, draw for low income cities, being snowed in, stuff like that. But if you look at it as just the actual game, then this has the potential to be amazing. I know that whenever I have home tickets to the Ravens I hope for it to be chilly and snowy, it just feels like the way football is meant to be played (as opposed to baseball which hides as soon as a drop of rain is felt). The thought of a Snow Bowl excites me like no other. Especially if the Ravens have a chance at it.
It's supposed to be a neutral site with no home-field advantage.
Cold weather would be an advantage to a cold weather team.
I’m gonna steal form Peter King’s crazy prediction this year, and what if it’s Chargers vs. Packers in 2014. Regardless of team skill, the Packers would already have an advantage because they’re used to playing in cold and/or snow, and on the other hand, the Chargers are not. I don’t want a team to win a Super Bowl, simply becuase they’re more acustomed to the weather.
The AFCCG and NFCCG are different because that team has earned the right for the opponent to play in their weather, because they got Home Field Advantage, but that’s not the same with the Super Bowl.
Also, why the hell didn’t they put a retractable roof on the god damn stadium? They spent an insane amount of money of it, but never did they think to put in a retractable roof.
Everyone thought Baltimore was three easy wins and we got our ass kicked three times. - Dustin Pedroia, After the Red Sox got swept by the Orioles.
by BaltimoreSportsFan on May 25, 2010 8:37 PM EDT reply actions
Ok
When the bills were good and played in the super bowl in florida, think that didn’t affect them being a cold weather team in a warm weather stadium?
Against all odds, against all circumstance were you don't have a shot, you succeed
-Michael Strahan
All you hear about is the past, the past... the past is the !@#$ing past, this is the present.
THIS IS TEMPORARY! A CHAMPIONSHIP IS PERMANENT
-Same as above
No it didn't
Trust me, the warm weather didn’t cause that guy to miss the game winning FG against the Giants. They were 2nd best ALL four times!
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 26, 2010 8:45 AM EDT up reply actions
If there can be an advantage....
because of the material of the field, ie. artificial turf etc, so why can’t there be weather advantages.
Overall, my reaction is EH! Who cares!
I'm all for this.
If anything, it keeps one year of Super Bowl money out of Jim Jones’ greedy hands.
In reality, the only people/team who may have a problem with this is the one(s) who lose that year’s Super Bowl, after the Super Bowl is played. I can’t wait to hear critics rabble back and forth about ridiculous things tomorrow. The media is ridiculous. They will surely ruin this thing for football fans, at least for now.
by PurpleNorangeNbeer on May 25, 2010 10:45 PM EDT reply actions
dont see a problem with Jerry Jones getting his superbowl money
he built a sick stadium and helped orchestrate the most successful NBA All-Star weekend ever. No problem with his site becoming a Super Bowl regular.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
I didn’t know “Jim Jones” was an NFL owner. I thought he was just a DEAD nutjob who killed a bunch of people with purple kool aid.
Animadvertistine, ubicumque stes, fumum recta in faciem ferri?
I think it was oraange kool-aid
Up here in Baltimore, we gladly drink the purple stuff.
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 27, 2010 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree, the stadium is awesome, but the benefit of having a Super Bowl played in a certain stadium is the tourism money gained by the host city. Why should all the indoor, southern stadiums get all the money and tourism? Jerry Jones can eat my shit.
by PurpleNorangeNbeer on May 26, 2010 3:53 PM EDT up reply actions
the benefit of having a Super Bowl played in a certain stadium is the tourism money gained by the host city.
So how is Arlington TX and the Dallas area any different?
Why should all the indoor, southern stadiums get all the money and tourism? Jerry Jones can eat my shit.
I dunno, because they’re warm nice places to go on vacation in early February? Just a guess. You should probably retype your comment to say this:
I have no logical reason for being opposed to a SuperBowl in Jerry Jones’ stadium except that I have a personal bias against him.
That would be fair, and nobody would argue.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
C’mon, don’t you want the Super Bowl to some day be played in Baltimore?
by PurpleNorangeNbeer on May 26, 2010 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Couldn't care less
unless the Ravens are playing in it!
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 27, 2010 7:04 PM EDT up reply actions
For the record,
I dislike Jerry Jones because he treats his team like a reality TV show. He only wants publicity, no matter the flavor. His team, “America’s Team,” is now on this attention pedestal, where somewhere, everywhere in the country there is a Cowboys fan. I feel lucky to be a Ravens fan because of him. Noone in the Cowboy’s system has any freedom, and all live in constant fear.
Plus, he looks like he could commit murder to earn any amount of money. He reminds me of the kind of sleazy wealth that ruins sports. Guys like Adam Jones and Terrell Owens just gravitate toward him. He’s probably a closet sadist, too.
That has nothing to do with the fact that his stadium is in the rotation of the few who actually get a Super Bowl. What about the rest of us? Roger Goodell agrees, because New York is getting it in 2014. It’s New York, but it’s a start.
by PurpleNorangeNbeer on May 26, 2010 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions
its about bringing in the most money
Jerry-land can bring in a TON of money. So can New York. Baltimore? Not like them.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
everyone agrees then?
just rec me, while i throw water on myself
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
No winner in the winter....
I believe its a bad idea simply because it could change the game,if it is 15 degrees,windy and sleeting or snow or just freaking cold,it’d be low scoring and boring,most fans enjoy a game not determined by the elements or which end of the field you have….Bring one to Baltimore anyway we can get it!
Average temperature week of Feb 7, 2010 in NY was 34.7 °F
… with lows in the teens and winds at 28 mph from the WNW. Better bring your running game.
"What we've got here is failure to communicate."
Dome Teams Beware
Since we routinely play in this weather and some teams don’t, I think this could possibly be an advantage for us and so I am all for it.
by 60minuteassassin on May 26, 2010 8:06 AM EDT reply actions
I prefer Arizona as the host city
or Miami. It can rotate between the two. Or better yet, here’s one for you:
Build a complex somewhere in Florida or Arizona that has four different stadiums, for football, baseball, hoops and hockey. Host the finals in all four sports there ALL the time. Build office buildings for the league offices as well as “dorms” for the players, along with a new city with hotels, restaurants, etc. Have EVERY final series there, so people will always know where the championships would be. Name for the city: Championship Village. Hmmm,…any investors out there?
aka 'Rexx'
get Disney in on it...
anything they build can never be boring.
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
totally agree with the bolded. never thought i’d see a local super bowl, especially after the giants and jets decided to forego a retractable roof on their new stadium. it just seemed like the league was more concerned with catering to the wealthy casual fans/non-fans/celebrities/“beautiful people” who go to the super bowl for the entertainment experience and the “cool” factor rather than the hardcore fan who’s all about the game (such as us).
football is meant to be played in the elements, so it’s nice to see the league finally award a super bowl to a cold weather, open-air site, even if it’s a one-year exception. some of the most famous nfl championship games have been played outdoors in freezing/inclement weather, including several in the nyc area – e.g. the 1934 nfl championship game at the polo grounds (“the sneakers game”); the 1956 nfl championship game at yankee stadium (“sneakers game II”); the 1958 nfl championship game at yankee stadium (“the greatest game ever played”). or how about the 1986 nfc championship game between the giants and redskins at giants stadium, in which the winds were literally swirling debris (and the redskins) all over the place? or the previous week, when the giants stomped on the 49ers, 49-3, in absolutely frigid conditions at the meadowlands? those are two of my fondest memories as a giants fan, and i have to say that the inclement conditions combined with the magnitude of the games added to the experience.
getting back to your post, i really hope your first sentence turns out to be correct, because it would be great for the region if this scenario pans out as you’ve described. not to go too far off-topic, but i wonder if this news will help jumpstart investment in the long-stalled xanadu project and other meadowlands-area developments.
the more i think about it, the more i feel that it was a mistake not to reroute rt. 120 to the east of the izod center to create one large continuous, uninterrupted space around the stadium and arena that could be developed into a mini sports/entertainment/dining/nightlife/hotel district. that would’ve been a perfect spot to host some of the super bowl week festivities and in general keep some of the fan/tourist dollars in the garden state. north jersey does have a lot of these things, of course, but the problem is that many of the attractions are not concentrated in a single compact, walkable district close to the stadium the way they are in other core business/entertainment districts in other parts of the country.
instead we have…xanadu (assuming if it’s ever completed). and a highway bisecting the sports complex that some fans inexplicably try to cross to get back to their cars.
i don’t want to get too negative, though, since i feel this is great news overall. let’s hope the local and state leaders can encourage development around the stadium that will help the sports complex maximize its potential and become a special destination rather than merely a sports venue.
It could be epic if...
A rematch of the last championship played in New York occured. The greatest game ever played in 1958, NY Giants vs Baltimore Colts, which Bmore prevailed. Ravens vs Giants in 2014. History is on our side.
by DT711 on May 27, 2010 11:42 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Yeah, beating the Jets in the stadium opener
and then beating the Giants in the Super Bowl there four years later would be sweet. It might be our 4th title in a row by then!
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 27, 2010 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions
The Steelers like it just fine!
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.
~Thomas Jefferson
I could care less where the SB is. I’m gonna watch it on TV like every other game. Doesn’t affect me in the least. Play it in North Korea for all I care.
that would be amazing. Kim Jong Il in the owners box! haha
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
so vewy vewy ronrey!!!!
"Cam, we're not going to have any issues because we're going to be winning."
--Joe Flacco
"Just win baby. Yeah, I stole that."
--Jon Gruden
Have it in Brazil
Can you imagine the halftime celebration, Rio-style?
aka 'Rexx'
by Bruce Raffel on May 29, 2010 9:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
