Panelists answered the following: Should the NFL be scheduling the Super Bowl for a cold-weather venue like
this year’s game in New Jersey?
Mary Zanger: “Yes because cold weather has little to do with the scheduling, which is actually done several years in advance. The Super Bowl seems to be as much a cultural event as a sporting event. Cities not teams are the applicants. The NFL considers major applicants as those cities with adequate stadiums, facilities, transportation and hotel/restaurant venues.”
Richard Herrera: “It’s OK with me. I know fans would like to see the game in a different stadium but I prefer to see football games in the cold or in the snow.”
Jim West: “Yes. When the Super Bowl plays in places like New Orleans I eat my heart out because I can’t afford to go. But New Jersey in January – I’m glad I’m not in the stands. Besides Christie’s going to block the access roads to MetLife Stadium.”
Bill Mifsud: “No. The biggest game of the year should not have weather as a factor. I can’t remember reports about past Super Bowl’s beginning with a weather report. Another factor is the patrons paying upwards of $1,000 a ticket. They should not be forced to sit in frigid conditions to watch their respected teams in their biggest game of the year.”
Richard Place: “No. This is football not wimpball.”
Ruth Erickson: “No! It’s ridiculous to expect the spectators to sit and freeze, for traffic to the venue to fight the snow and for the players to dress in warmer uniforms and play in aortic conditions.”
Marty Richman: “What? Football outside in the cold and the snow – how could that happen? I’ll bet those people who invented football never saw that coming. What will the NFL do if the next multi-billion-dollar publically funded stadium ends up in a northern outdoor venue like Green Bay? You think they will not fold for billions of bucks? I know, just have the Super Bowl in August and that solves everything. OBTW, what’s the weather like in February in London? We can all it the Mud Bowl and show me the money.”
