Sports Now

Sports news from Los Angeles and beyond

« Previous Post | Sports Now Home | Next Post »

Question of the day: Is it a good idea to hold a Super Bowl in New York?

May 25, 2010 |  2:24 pm

 Question_640
Four reporters from Tribune Co. weigh in on the topic. Check back throughout the day for more responses and feel free to leave a comment of your own.

Sam Farmer, Los Angeles Times

First of all, the vast majority of NFL fans don’t give a hoot about where the Super Bowl is being played as long as it starts on time. For them, the Super Bowl takes place in their living room.

But the fact the league has even entertained the idea of staging its marquee event outdoors in a cold-weather city underscores what the Super Bowl has become. It’s no longer a week of fun in the sun, but a vital tool to help in the financing of exorbitantly expensive new stadiums.

It’s a mega-event, and now the door is open for all sorts of possibilities. It will be very interesting to see what happens this decade, because it’s entirely possible there will be Super Bowls in Los Angeles and London, whether those cities have teams or not. Washington, Chicago and the New England area can also make compelling arguments for playing host to the games.

Remember, most fans don’t care where it’s played. In fact, they’ll probably like seeing those lucky ticket holders huddled, shivering and – maybe ever so slightly – wishing they were back watching from their living rooms.

Dan Pompei, Chicago Tribune

The Super Bowl does not belong in New Jersey -- just like it did not belong in Detroit or Minneapolis. The Super Bowl belongs in a city that people want to travel to in the dead of winter.

It belongs in a city that won’t be disrupted by snowstorms, ice storms or sub-zero arctic blasts. It should be played in a climate that will not affect the most important game of the year.

Actually, the Super Bowl belonged more in Detroit and Minneapolis than it does in New Jersey because at least those cities had domed stadiums. Though people are calling it the “New York Super Bowl,” it’s really the “New Jersey Super Bowl.” 

Now how excited could anyone be about visiting New Jersey in February?

Sarah Talalay, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Sure. Once. Then the NFL will finally see the error of its ways.

No one doubts New York will put on a good show, but that’s not the point of hosting the Super Bowl. This is the NFL’s biggest party of the year -- the league’s equivalent of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue: a February respite from the long, cold winter.

Players, sponsors and fans want a getaway – a warm weather locale to play golf and/or party on the beach or Bourbon Street. On game day, they should be celebrating, not hoping they can bring Snuggies and snow boots into the stadium.

If it rains or snows when deep-pocketed attendees brave the elements at New Meadowlands in 2014, it will also prove warm weather stadiums don’t need roofs.

Bill Kline, Allentown Morning Call

It’s a good idea to hold a Super Bowl in February in metropolitan New York, if …

-- Extra ambulances are on standby to treat fans for frostbite.

-- Disney on Ice is the halftime entertainment.

-- You want a one-dimensional team having a decided – and unfair – advantage in what is only the biggest game of the year in American sports.

-- You’re doing a medical study on mass outbreaks of windburn.

-- Dozens of AAA rescue trucks are on duty to recharge frozen car batteries.

-- You like a 9-6 game.

-- Adults in tiny seats wearing four layers of clothing enjoy being wedged in tighter than Jerry Jones’ face.

If you want to see Ice Bowl II, by all means have the Super Bowl in New York. But football in the Northeast is meant to be played – and watched -- in the fall, not the winter.

Photo: New Meadowlands Stadium. Credit: Mike Stobe / Getty Images

Comments 

Advertisement










Video