Skip to content

On cold-weather Super Bowls, Pandora's icebox is wide open

Before as few as 17 and as many as 23 owners voted on Tuesday to award Super Bowl XLVIII to New York/New Jersey, it was widely believed that the staging of an NFL title game in a cold-weather, open-air city would be a one-shot deal.

That hasn’t stopped folks with ties to Northern towns from making their pitches for an in-the-elements Super Bowl of their own.  At last count, the Redskins, Ravens, and Packers have thrown their Nutria rat hats into the ring.  (Another coach from a cold-weather city has expressed an interest in hosting the game, too.  More on that later tonight.)

So what gives?  Isn’t an open-air, cold-weather Super Bowl a one-time-only arrangement? 

Maybe not.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell didn’t rule out the possibility of the game being played in other cold-weather cities having stadiums without lids.

“I think each game will be decided on an individual basis,” Goodell told reporters on Tuesday.  “I do believe
that New York is a unique market.  I think the membership recognizes
that.  It is the number-one market in our country and in many cases
around the world.  From that standpoint it will be a great experience for
our fans and for the NFL.  I am confident that the bid they put together
will turn out to be a great event.”

So what gives?  A cynic may wonder whether the league has realized that encouraging bids from other cold-weather cities will serve only to enhance all of the bids that are submitted.  When South Florida host committee chairman Rodney Barreto complained that the extra $1 million that Miami thrown into the offer on the eve of the vote wasn’t enough to pry the game from New York, the implicit message to other warm-weather locales could be this:  “Try harder.”

Those efforts won’t necessarily come in the form of cash money, but also via stadium enhancements aimed at making the local venue more attractive.  And the possibility of future cold-weather Super Bowls could result in teams in cooler climates trying to get state-of-the-art facilities, too.

Basically, the New York/New Jersey decision opens a new frontier of leverage when it comes to bidding for the Super Bowl, both as to the financial packages presented to the league and the ongoing keeping-up-with-the-Jerry-Joneses pursuit of newer and better stadiums.  In the end, the NFL will continue to win, and win big.

The only surprise in this regard is that it took the league 48 Super Bowls to figure this out.

Permalink 62 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Baltimore Ravens, Green Bay Packers, Miami Dolphins, New York Giants, New York Jets, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
62 Responses to “On cold-weather Super Bowls, Pandora's icebox is wide open”
  1. HAILSKINS says: May 26, 2010 7:45 PM

    It should be played in cold weather cities. Its freaking football. So its ok for weather to be a factor in deciding the Conference champions but not the Super Bowl champions? that makes no sense.

  2. PurpleJesus says: May 26, 2010 7:49 PM

    How many articles can you write on a game that is 4 years away?

  3. hairyfupa says: May 26, 2010 7:50 PM

    Hey Nancy, I mean Florio, cold weather open stadiums are great for the game of football. You need to man up, take off your skirt and put on a pair of long johns. A recent Niners Nation article puts it best, you’re a Nancy Boy.

  4. Patssuckmyleftnut says: May 26, 2010 7:50 PM

    GOODELL is such a F#$KING PUPPET!!!! He tells the South Florida Super Bowl committee to build a retractable roof on Sun Life Stadium to prevent another “RAINY” Super Bowl to be considered a future venue. Then they award it to New York in the coldest time of the year??????? That really makes sense!!! SUPER BOWLS MUST BE IN WARM WEATHER OUTDOOR STADIUMS PERIOD!!!!! GOODELL, How much money did Robert Kraft give you this time??? YOU SCUMBAG!!!!

  5. BigDawg24 says: May 26, 2010 7:51 PM

    Super Bowl 49 in Kansas City……. NOT!
    The Chiefs will be in the Super Bowl before KC will host one, and that isn’t anytime soon.

  6. phillyburdzfan says: May 26, 2010 7:52 PM

    There won’t elect another cold city at least until the 2014 postseason, when they realize the world didn’t end after having it in the meadowlands.

  7. birdmancometh says: May 26, 2010 7:52 PM

    Every NFL city that built a stadium with tax payer money deserves to host a super bowl. The people payed for the stadium, so they deserve to enjoy the economic boost the super bowl gives. Not just the teams in the south.

  8. GoBrowns19 says: May 26, 2010 7:56 PM

    It should be on a 32 team rotating basis. Everyone gets the chance once. If you move your team you move to the back of the line. That will get these owners to stop holding cities hostage.
    But keeping it as it, why would the Ravens think they have a shot? They’re not a real team.

  9. Chapnasty2 says: May 26, 2010 7:59 PM

    It should be played anywhere. Overtime was fine the way it was. And squirley lawyers who have atheltic children are not football experts. Florio is clear proof that it isn’t what you know, but who you know.

  10. heisty says: May 26, 2010 8:03 PM

    Well since they’ve started going outdoors for Super Bowls it would be nice if they gave a shot to Seattle. Qwest Field definitely deserves to host a Super Bowl

  11. funi says: May 26, 2010 8:03 PM

    Must win 6 Super bowls to host the game! Give it to the burgh!!!

  12. Fidelito says: May 26, 2010 8:07 PM

    Something no one is mentioning is: if the logic goes we shouldn’t have cold-weather SB’s because of weather issues, shouldn’t we only hold the game in stadiums with roofs? Rain usually effects football much more than snow, and it can rain in Miami just as easily as New York. Most Super Bowl’s should be in warm weather, but every new stadium should be awarded at least one. If you can’t deal with the cold, don’t go. The cold effects both teams, and many fans prefer defensive games to pass heavy ones. Turnovers are exciting, and if outdoor games would give certain teams an advantage, big deal. Indoor teams have advantages in domed games. So there really is no argument for having the game in the same 4 or 5 places over and over again that holds up to scrutiny.

  13. downwithdansnyder says: May 26, 2010 8:14 PM

    How is this a surprise? This is like telling one of your children they can have a waiver and have a bowl of ice cream without eating their dinner. If you don’t think all your other children are going to demand the same…you are an idiot. It doesn’t matter if you tell them in advance that they can’t have it.

  14. irishsamurai says: May 26, 2010 8:20 PM

    GoBrowns19 says:
    May 26, 2010 7:56 PM
    It should be on a 32 team rotating basis. Everyone gets the chance once. If you move your team you move to the back of the line. That will get these owners to stop holding cities hostage.
    But keeping it as it, why would the Ravens think they have a shot? They’re not a real team.
    ——————-
    that means alot from a browns fan,one step away from a buff fan or detroit fan opinion,guess that was a fake team in 2001 holding up the lombardi trophy,oh wait you dont understand,,,thats what the winner of a superbowl gets,not that you will ever get to experience that

  15. KingJoe! says: May 26, 2010 8:21 PM

    What gives? Maybe the writers who are running around like chicken little, are just pissed off because they lose a free trip to a warm city. Instead many will simply drive in from their NY studios. This is such none issue. The only possible concern is terrorism. WHile the Superbowl is always a potential target, a superbowl in NY is the cream of the crop.

  16. WingT says: May 26, 2010 8:30 PM

    If the game in New Jersey is tied with 3 seconds left on the clock and it’s snowing like hell, and Oakland has the ball on New England’s 20 yeard line , will the grounds crew rush out and clear footing for the field goal kicker?

  17. yoyoMA45 says: May 26, 2010 8:31 PM

    Sorry Florio, all the other cold weather “cities” in the United States don’t compare to New York City. New York will be the only cold weather destination to get a Super Bowl because well, it’s New York, the greatest city on earth.

  18. Warlocke says: May 26, 2010 8:40 PM

    The way the economy is, you would think that Goodell and the other Brains of the league would let each team host a Super Bowl so that team and City would get a boost in their economy. Of course when you think about 32 teams…..every 32 years your team hosts a Super Bowl….. I’d be dead before the Raiders Hosted one….. Sigh! I will try for the New York one as I live in VT and it’s a solid 3 hour drive to East Rutherford for me. I’d like to experience a Super Bowl at least once in my life!!!
    Well, the thought was good….
    Peace Out!!

  19. The Wishbone says: May 26, 2010 8:41 PM

    @ Florio,
    “the NFL will continue to win, and win big”
    What has winning big got to do with Pandora?
    Are you not even trying anymore?

  20. This Guy says: May 26, 2010 8:53 PM

    Hey bitch, stop writing a million articles about it. No one gives two shits that you don’t like it, and it’s not going to change venue. Get over it, and take Junior to see Shrek (And I don’t mean Big Ben).

  21. ncsteeler says: May 26, 2010 8:54 PM

    I can’t imagine it would take a year to get ready for SB – put it in the stadium of last year’s winner. This would tend to put it in solid football towns. Of course, there are a number of towns that wouldn’t be seeing it in the foreseeable future. As it is, the selection is too much of a political process.

  22. ampats says: May 26, 2010 8:55 PM

    WingT,
    another poster who is a very knowledgible NFL fan,
    Snowing during SB in 2014 Oakland has the ball on New England”s 20 yard line ??????????????
    Realignment as a result of the CBA ?

  23. Patssuckmyleftnut says: May 26, 2010 9:04 PM

    GOODELL and KRAFT will have a Super Bowl in New England next!!

  24. Djaehne says: May 26, 2010 9:05 PM

    No problem, if the game is delayed due to weather, Nobama can get his flunkies to throw
    40 billion or so to bail out the NFL and New York.
    Greatest city in the world…. hahaha… most in-debt city in the US.

  25. I MURDER HOES/187403 says: May 26, 2010 9:08 PM

    I’m an Oakland fan but I want a rainy Seattle Superbowl now. Dont tell me watching football in the rain isnt fun.

  26. damnitall says: May 26, 2010 9:10 PM

    @# birdmancometh says: May 26, 2010 7:52 PM
    Every NFL city that built a stadium with tax payer money deserves to host a super bowl. The people payed for the stadium, so they deserve to enjoy the economic boost the super bowl gives. Not just the teams in the south.
    One of very few posts I’ve read on this subject that actually makes sense. The public does pay a lot towards building these stadiums. Hosting a SB within a few years of opening would go a long way towards paying off some of the bonds sold to finance them.

  27. dedhed says: May 26, 2010 9:16 PM

    Goodell is a phony… he told the people of south florida that they wouldnt get another super bowl unless they approved an addition to the current dolphin stadium at a cost of over 250 million to include a roof because RAIN ruined the colts bears super bowl experience. wait til there is 15 degree weather and snow in feb in north jersey

  28. Audient says: May 26, 2010 9:25 PM

    irishsamurai says:
    May 26, 2010 8:20 PM
    GoBrowns19 says:
    May 26, 2010 7:56 PM
    But keeping it as it, why would the Ravens think they have a shot? They’re not a real team.
    ——————-
    that means alot from a browns fan,one step away from a buff fan or detroit fan opinion,guess that was a fake team in 2001 holding up the lombardi trophy,oh wait you dont understand,,,thats what the winner of a superbowl gets,not that you will ever get to experience that
    ——————-
    The Cleveland Browns, such as they are, still have a chance at winning a Super Bowl. The Baltimore Colts have no chance. The team you stole will never be the team you lost, Baltimoron.

  29. GBfanForever says: May 26, 2010 9:26 PM

    “Every NFL city that built a stadium with tax payer money deserves to host a super bowl. The people payed for the stadium, so they deserve to enjoy the economic boost the super bowl gives. Not just the teams in the south.”
    That’s a good argument. The problem is that joe schmo sales tax payer can’t afford the $350 tickets to the game anyway.

  30. dach1969 says: May 26, 2010 9:29 PM

    I think who ever wins the superbowl should be the host city for the following year. The loser of the game should host the pro bowl.

  31. SeriousRadio says: May 26, 2010 9:31 PM

    “The only surprise in this regard is that it took the league 48 Super Bowls to figure this out.”
    And it only took Florio two days to figure out the NFL’s strategy after he came out strongly against their plan.

  32. Krow says: May 26, 2010 9:32 PM

    Build a new stadium… get a Superbowl. Simple as that. Don’t build one… don’t get one.

  33. dafreak says: May 26, 2010 9:34 PM

    “Must win 6 Super bowls to host the game! Give it to the burgh!!!”
    Why even make that statement? You just won’t take “no” as an answer anyways. ;)

  34. Occam says: May 26, 2010 9:38 PM

    “PurpleJesus says:
    How many articles can you write on a game that is 4 years away?”
    Just wait until the results of the PFT-backed studies on the effects of cold and snow on the probability of a coin flip are published. Should be ground breaking.

  35. Dryheave says: May 26, 2010 9:43 PM

    Right now most of the media I’ve seen or heard has been favorable but mark my words, this will happen……… Say one team is HEAVILIY favored over the other. The Game is played in a BLIZZARD…There are 10 fumbles. The UNDERDOG team wins….I GUARANTEE the next day the MEDIA will be screaming about how it was a FLUKY,TAINTED victory and how the favored team would have won under “normal conditions”….I can see this coming a mile away………Like I said I think football should be played outdoors. If your team is in a cold weather city then that’s all part of homefield advantage and a bonus if you get the #1 seed……..but the SUPER BOWL should be played in a warm weather city or a dome……I also think this was a STUPID IDEA to have it in New York.
    To the guy who said, “so it’s O.K for weather to be a factor in conference championship games but not the Super Bowl?”…….the answer is YES!!…..It’s called HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE…..but the ULTIMATE game should be played under EQUAL conditions……who wants to see a Super Bowl in a freeking BLIZZARD?…….not me, it would be ridiculous

  36. east96street. says: May 26, 2010 9:53 PM

    “In the end, the NFL will continue to win, and win big. The only surprise in this regard is that it took the league 48 Super Bowls to figure this out.”
    Now, it’s a brilliant strategic move. A few hours ago it was “Russian roulette”. You’re an insufferable ass.

  37. Bigbluefan says: May 26, 2010 9:56 PM

    What is wrong with this ahole why is he so againest this game
    Anti Giants or anti NY ?
    Whats your issue Nancy
    Your in WV why your even allowed to write about the NFL I will never know
    NYC is the business capital of the US and the entertainment capital and the city that every other want to be

  38. HC says: May 26, 2010 10:08 PM

    Mike Florio says:
    When South Florida host committee chairman Rodney Barreto complained that the extra $1 million that Miami thrown into the offer on the eve of the vote wasn’t enough to pry the game from New York, the implicit message to other warm-weather locales could be this: “Try harder.”
    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
    Looks like the cat is out of the bag. A million here, ten million there; before you know it we’re talking real money here. My guess is Miami loses on on the next SB bid as well for that little slip of the tongue.
    Apparently in the current thesaurus another phrase for “try harder” is “pay more”, or perhaps “that bribe is not quite big enough.”

  39. birdmancometh says: May 26, 2010 10:16 PM

    I hear you GBfan, but joe tax payer benifits from the extra revenue gained by the local businesses during super bowl week.

  40. 90ragtop says: May 26, 2010 10:56 PM

    Jesus, Florio, give it a rest. We get the piece about you not liking Northern towns in winter. But the owners aren’t going to change their vote on your account.

  41. DVJ says: May 26, 2010 10:57 PM

    This game won’t even happen…2012!!! lol

  42. shogate says: May 26, 2010 11:05 PM

    An official snow bowl would be awesome to watch for a change. 1 vote for Cleveland

  43. hubeee says: May 26, 2010 11:26 PM

    Why should warm weather team location collect all th Super Bowl $$$$? Especially when two cold weather teams are playing.
    Superbowl should be home field advantage foe team with best overall record. Anything else is BS

  44. TheVerve says: May 26, 2010 11:39 PM

    This is just another reason that the Green Bay front office (and all Packer fans) are complete idiots!
    Drafting Tony Mandarich, letting Brett Favre go, and now this.
    Seriously. Idiots.
    Plus, Green Bay isn’t even a city. It’s a village. It’s a village without a Village Idiot…Because they’re all idiots.

  45. east96street. says: May 27, 2010 12:06 AM

    Dryheave says: “I GUARANTEE the next day the MEDIA will be screaming about how it was a FLUKY,TAINTED victory and how the favored team would have won under “normal conditions”
    1) Who cares?
    2) Super Bowl XLII – Favored team lost under “normal conditions”.

  46. HC says: May 27, 2010 12:18 AM

    birdmancometh says:
    I hear you GBfan, but joe tax payer benifits from the extra revenue gained by the local businesses during super bowl week.
    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
    Please explain the math in which $5 million of expenses is worth an additional $100k of tax revenues and $1 million of net profits to a handful of businesses, most of which are not owned locally.

  47. The_Emperor says: May 27, 2010 12:20 AM

    This isn’t a news story. This is just you pissing and moaning. In the words of Arnold Schwarzenegger…
    “STOP WHINING!”

  48. Topher says: May 27, 2010 1:07 AM

    It can’t be a one time only affair because Detroit just hosted a few years ago (complete with ice sculptures) and now New York. That makes it relatively common.
    You know… as common as Super Bowls outside of Florida anyway.

  49. ButchD says: May 27, 2010 1:08 AM

    Floryhole youre missing the best part of a cold weather SB, the weather could be so bad theres no half time show!!! how awesome would that be!!!

  50. PincheGato says: May 27, 2010 1:13 AM

    Surprised no one has mentioned the benefits to the Giants and Jets front offices and season ticket holders in regards to purchasing these SB Tickets.
    Both of these teams have a high amount of PSL season tickets left. The benefit of being in the hunt for SB tickets would be a major magnet to sell these remaining PSLs. The financial benefits to the teams are huge with regards to selling out their PSLs. The NFL also avoids any embarassing non sell-outs in NY (cough…cough Jets….).

  51. The Black Cat says: May 27, 2010 2:46 AM

    1. I’m pretty sure that one game in a non-warm climate will not be the end of the NFL. The playoffs have ALWAYS been in inclimate weather and the NFL manages quite fine, thank-you very much.
    2. The only people who will actually b*tch about it will be reporters like you, and fat cats with free corporate tickets who could care less about the football game anyway.
    3. I doubt many people will actually travel to the game, since so many huge corporations are headquartered in New York. 3/4ths of the people will probably drive from their house.
    4. Why the heck must we pretend this is a New York Superbowl,and that it’ll help New York, when its played in New Jersey?? How is this helping New York in any way?

  52. wxwax says: May 27, 2010 3:13 AM

    You seem to be obsessed with how many owners voted for NY.
    Tell me, how many owners voted for Goodell as commissioner on the first and second ballots?
    Now tell me why it matters.

  53. Munze Konza says: May 27, 2010 6:17 AM

    Ye sit’s a man’s game and conference championships are played in cold weather. But those teams earned the right to host a game in their cold weather stadium. A team does not earn the right to host a Superbowl like they do a championship. The elements have the potential to affect one team much more drastically than another.

  54. steelerfan9598 says: May 27, 2010 7:06 AM

    The last 5 years, the average temperature in East Rutherford on February 2nd has been 47 degrees.
    If the rain or snow affects the game – guess what? BOTH teams are playing in it.
    Tuck the skirts in bitches!

  55. FalconsFan says: May 27, 2010 7:08 AM

    The only people complaining about the Super Bowl being played in a cold climate are the whinny sports writers who use Super Bowl week as a paid vacation.

  56. wvugrad00 says: May 27, 2010 7:11 AM

    the SB should be in a rotation between all stadiums. If the NFL wants to always have the SB in warm weather place, they should build a stadium in LA, and play the SB game there every year. To justify the cost of the stadium, when the NFL adds games to the schedule there should be a thursday or more likley a saturday game played in the new stadium, make it a MNF type event. The NFL could also play the pro bowl there as well. If they were to do that they could get 8 -10 games a year in LA

  57. FalconsFan says: May 27, 2010 7:11 AM

    PincheGato
    PSL’s are no good when it comes to events like the Super Bowl. NFL Season Ticket Holders are thrown into a drawing if their team makes the Super Bowl to buy X number of tickets, but Jets/Giants season ticket holders won’t have the first right of refusal on these seats. It’s a nice conspiracy theory but it’s simply not a valid one.

  58. Tcostant says: May 27, 2010 8:34 AM

    Bottom line no cold weather Super Bowl will be award until after this one in 2014 is played. If it goes well, then the Skins and Ravens and the like can put their bids together.

  59. robsterNY says: May 27, 2010 9:44 AM

    ALL RIGHT!!!!… Its been decided already. Lets see what happens ..most of ya will be comfy in your living rooms anyway. …This IS about football …not half time shows..half naked hoes….Play ball !!!

  60. hufcane says: May 27, 2010 10:15 AM

    the whole conspiracy theory that this was done to sell psl’s is pretty dumb. someones goin to fork over psl costs just to be in a pool for super bowl tix. by the way the giants and jets are probably goin to get under 1000 tix each. so unless u think u have the mojo the psl theory doesnt work. it def should help with the naming rights.

  61. HC says: May 27, 2010 11:00 AM

    What’s being lost by most in this ‘play the game outdoors in the cold’ argument is that the Super Bowl is a huge revenue event for a very profitable business, the NFL. Cities have to put up millions of dollars to host the event, prove they have the infrastructure to support a week’s worth of events, and reasonably expect to get a return on their investment.
    It’s not as simple as saying, ‘it’s the Super Bowl, people will love it, it will be great.’ Seriously, who is going to want to spend a week or more in Green Bay in February? If the game is played there (or Cleveland, Baltimore, Buffalo, Cincinnati, etc.) then people are only going to show up the day of the game or the day before – and the city will have lost millions of dollars. In addition many of these places (e.g., Green Bay, Foxboro) are too far away from enough hotel and meeting space to make it happen.
    New York is unique because it is a destination, a place people would like to visit – even in February. That’s a large part of the appeal of warm weather cities hosting the Super Bowl. Think of college bowl games; games held in Florida draw a lot more fans than games held in places where there is snow on the ground.
    People seem to be solely focused on the elements possibly affecting the outcome; that’s a moot point. It’s all about the city and region drawing enough people, for a long enough period of time, so those people spend enough money for that city to make a return on their investment of what they had to pay to win the rights to host the Super Bowl.
    With that in mind I’ll be curious to see how many people go to Indianapolis more than a day before the game when they host the Super Bowl.

  62. RandallC says: May 27, 2010 1:59 PM

    Why would someone in Green Bay be wearing a nutria hat? That critter does not exist in Wisconsin. But we’d sure be glad to ship them a few million from down here.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!