Super Bowl XLVIII: Seattle Seahawks vs. Denver Broncos

would be hilarious if they had to move the date of the super bowl. Would be an absolute nightmare and I'd be laughing my ass off. Hope it happens.

 

You'll see an issue if they do end up rescheduling this for another day. I personally don't care as long as it's rescheduled for Saturday. I can't imagine a Super Bowl being played on a weekday.

 

That's certainly true. But if this same storm happened in an NFC Title game in Green Bay, would people then argue that NFC Title Games shouldn't be held in places like Green Bay?

Moving the game would be a fairly unique "storm of the century" type of thing. While bad weather and snow is predictable, something like that really isn't. It's no different than hosting the game in Houston and having 3 feet of rain and mass flooding on the day of the game.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/201...ffs-super-bowl-ticket-prices-continue-plummet

Prices plummet for SB tickets


...

Julia Vander Ploeg, general manager of Ticketmaster's resale business, which runs the NFL Ticket Exchange, said the number of tickets on the market has increased by 10 percent in the past 48 hours. And that's before the NFL has even given the physical tickets to the majority of people the league is taking care of.

"What we have now is like a panicked stock market," said James Kimmel, owner of Epic Seats, a ticket brokerage in Seattle. "The buyers have frozen, and the sellers are panicking."

On Friday, Kimmel said he got an offer to buy a man's tickets for face value, something he said he never expected to hear.

 

Well, this isn't the NFC title game or any other game. This is the Super Bowl. It's never really been too much of an issue in the past. You also get to choose the venue for the Super Bowl so you know what kind of weather to expect during this time of year.

Even if it's not the case of them moving it, it's still likely to negatively effect the game in some way than not. From a viewers perspective, you want to see the best game possible from both sides. Like I said earlier, you can't compare it to a title game or any other game because you don't get to choose where the location is for that -- it's all based on previous results.

We'll see what happens, and how people react to anything if weather does play a part in anything. I've heard mixed things from just listening to sports shows and reading around the internet from fans about weather being a concern or not. The link you posted above has an example of such - '"The cold weather is certainly an issue," Kimmel said. "For the prices people are paying, they want to be comfortable in their seats. Even if it's not a blizzard, sitting outside in very cold weather is a deterrent."'

 

The difference is, only fans of GB and whichever team they're playing, go to that particular title game.

SB patrons are going to be composed of SEA and DEN fans, sure, but most of the people are there because it's the superbowl - I'm sure a lot of them don't even care who wins; they just want to see good football.

Also, the fact that simply more people are going to show up for the superbowl vs. a particular conference title game heaps on more gas on the fire that is "should the superbowl be moved?"

 

San Francisco 49ers wide receiver Michael Crabtree watched the team’s season get tipped away, when Seattle Seahawks cornerback Richard Sherman came up with a huge play at the end of the NFC Championship game.

Sherman and Crabtree got into it after the play and now a Seattle restaurant is poking fun at Crabtree with a new item on their menu.

A sandwich, which includes ham, cheese, caramelized onions and sweet onion mustard, has been given the name “Crabtree’s Tears.”

The Seattle Biscuit Co., who makes the sandwich, tweeted out a photo of the restaurants sign, which you can see below:



Seattle Biscuit Co @SeattleBisCo
Follow
Also you know you want to taste Crabtree's Tears. #GoHawks
2:51 PM - 25 Jan 2014

http://fansided.com/2014/01/25/seattle-restaurant-selling-crabtrees-tears-sandwich/#!tj3OR

 

Does the trophy look like a bong?

 

I guess I just don't see why playing in adverse conditions makes for a not-"best game possible". I think adjusting to the elements is a core part of football. I don't think there's any reason teams should expect to be able to play on a fast track with perfect conditions.

I'm also OK with this. Anything that gets corporate people that are just there for the experience out of the stands and allows people who simply love football to go to the game is a good thing in my opinion (this is by lowered ticket prices as the corporate people don't attend). I agree that many people would be miserable and not want to go - but that just opens the door for people who normally can't go to actually attend. The game will be sold out and the stands will be filled regardless. It's just different people that will be there. I think that's a good thing - the Superbowl shouldn't cater exclusively to one crowd.

 

Except for the fact that the SB has always been played at a neutral site, in the best conditions possible. Sure, they "could" always choose to play it in bad weather... but back when they first organized this thing, it was determined that the one neutral site game they have all year to determine the champion between two leagues should be played in ideal conditions.

Hell, why not just make it a home game for one of the teams?

If its going to be at a neutral site, that is selected by the league, might as well make the playing conditions as ideal as possible.

Even if the SB tickets themselves are cheaper, the game itself is a fraction of the total cost of attending. The privileged are still the ones who will be attending.

 

"That's how it's always been done" isn't a good reason for doing anything.

Not necessarily. For people living in NY, the actual ticket would be the primary cost. There are 20 million people in the state. I'm sure many are Denver and/or Seahawks fans. Plenty of others are hardcore football fans. If the game was always in California or Florida or Texas, then yes, tickets would only be a portion of the cost. But now, these people have the opportunity to go for substantially less. Instead of spending $4-$5,000 per person for tickets/flight/hotel, they can go for $1500. And they are used to experiencing games with snow and cold. The whole country has NFL fans - I don't have any problem with the league putting Superbowls everywhere so they can all have the opportunity to go.

 

Yeah and the logos have red eyes....

 

Next few Super bowls are in Phoenix , SF , Houston.

 

Anybody else thinking this will be the highest (TV) rated Superbowl ever?

 

No... but in this case, it goes back to the original reason for playing this game at a neutral site (vs. giving it to the team with home field advantage, which is how NFL championships were determined before the SB).

It was in order to make it an "event"... one that's basically bigger than the actual game itself. They've done just that... the Super Bowl is the single biggest annual event in this country, and possibly in the World. They should not mess with it by putting it in adverse conditions that effects either attendance or the game itself.

IMO, putting it in just any stadium, with exposure to any and all weather conditions takes away from it. No team nowadays routinely plays great in cold weather. They all practice indoors when the weather is not ideal... and the game has evolved to minimize the brutality of the sport (which inherently makes these guys softer, and even less likely to succeed in adverse weather). This game is MORE than a random regular season game or conference championship.

Netural site games deserve ideal conditions... I highly doubt the NFL goes back to an outdoor stadium cold weather site (with the possible exception of NY, for reasons as to why the game is even there in the first place).

 

The Super Bowl isn't about local fans. It is about people traveling from all over to take in the festivities and drop a ton of money into the economy of the host city. When you have it in a place that is having winter weather, it is a deterrent to people taking part in those festivities and spending that money. That is why the game is rarely held in places that typically have such weather.

 

That's what it has been. But there's no reason it has to be that way. As a fan, I don't particularly about people traveling and dumping money into a particular city. So if the NFL is OK with a Super Bowl in NY and the city involved is OK knowing that they will make less-than-ideal money due to their weather, I don't see why I would have a problem with it.

 

They shoulda 'shopped a smoky haze over the entire picture.

 

It doesn't have to be that way, but that's exactly the way the league and the host city want it to be. Both want it to be a huge event, where folks come from all over and spend a ton of $$. Why should it be any other way, for the league or the host city?