The NFL broke away from decades of precedent in deciding to hold the 2014 Super Bowl in New York, away from the balmy temperatures of the south or the climate-controlled comfort of a dome. Barring some funky February weather, this will be a cold-weather Super Bowl.
I personally feel this is a great move, simply because it could add an element of excitement to a game that is often lacking in energy. I've always said the most exciting games in football are the divisional playoff and championship games, because there's a greater sense of desperation, greater enthusiasm by the crowd and, in many cases, weather that has an impact on the game. Who can forget Adam Vinatieri's kick against the Raiders in the snow?
But the New York Super Bowl is unlikely to lead to a flurry of northern cities hosting the big game in future years. The Big Apple is probably the only cool-weather city where hosting the Super Bowl would make sense from a business perspective. You could maybe-maybe-make an argument for Washington, D.C., but even that's a stretch.
The Super Bowl is not just a game. It's a multi-day festival of football, complete with heavy sponsorship activation, corporate entertaining, parties, fan fests and media blitzes. The NFL loves holding the game in places like Miami, Tampa and San Diego because the warm weather allows for these types of activities to happen more easily. People want to come to Florida and Southern California in the middle of February. Convincing them to go north is a harder sell.
Detroit did a decent job of hosting the Super Bowl in 2006 inside the domed Ford Field. City officials tried to go with the theme of a "winter festival" and it was not a complete flop. But compared to a week-long celebration on South Beach? No chance it would stack up.
New York, of course, has some things going for it, aside from a brand-new stadium. It's big, it's alive, there's plenty to do and plenty of places to hold events and keep sponsors, fans and media folks happy. There are restaurants, there's nightlife. There would be a definite buzz about it. One wonders how much activity would take place at the Meadowlands and how much would shift to Manhattan or other places in the city. But New York could work.
Weather-wise, New York would work better than, say, Boston or Buffalo because the threat of a big snowstorm would be relatively small. It also wouldn't be as cold as Cleveland or Green Bay.
What about Washington? That's Dan Snyder's dream. Certainly, he could make a philosophical argument that the nation's most popular game should be played in the capital city. And FedEx Field would hold the 90,000+ fans that the NFL likes to see. But it's not a new facility. If the NFL were thinking of coming to Washington, it probably would have done it back when Jack Kent Cooke built the thing.
Of course, there are always those pesky rumors that the District of Columbia wants the Redskins to move into a shiny new facility to replace RFK Stadium. But those talks have never gotten past the "wow, wouldn't it be cool if..." stage.
Other possible cold-weather candidates:
New England - Bob Kraft is a very influential owner, and Gillette Stadium is nice. But the facility is too far away from Boston and there's still only one good road in and out. Plus, New England can have some nasty weather.
Buffalo - Only if the Bills get a new stadium and can somehow prevent a blizzard.
Green Bay - Would be a nice story, but it's too dang cold.
Philadelphia - Great football town, but Lincoln Financial Field is not really big enough, and Philly may be perceived as too rough around the edges.
Comments