Random Thoughts (052710 Edition)

by mistamic on May 27, 2010 2:21 PM CDT

Time for some more random thoughts.

*A lot of people are upset about New York hosting the 2014 Super Bowl. To tell you the truth, I don't see why people are so upset about it. There are three things that I want to say about this:

#1: I don't want to hear people complaining about the cold weather. Guess what? If your team can't handle cold weather games in December, then they aren't going to last in the playoffs very long.

#2: I don't want to hear anything about snow (ie "What if it snows during the Super Bowl?"). There have been plenty of late January games in freezing cold weather. And besides, does anybody actually know for a fact that it's going to snow? Heck, it could be 45 degrees outside with the sun shining and no wind. No one knows yet so pitching these doom-and-gloom scenarios is pointless.

#3: I don't want to hear people complain about New York hosting it and not some other city up North. If it turns out to be a success, then places like KANSAS CITY will have a better chance of getting to host the Super Bowl later on in the future.

----------------------------------------------------------

*There's only thing I want to change about future Super Bowl sites: add more variety. Back in 2006, Detroit hosted the Super Bowl and I thought it was pretty cool. The stadium is really nice and Detroit isn't going to be in the postseason anytime soon - might as well give Detroit fans something to cheer about. St. Louis is another place that the NFL should consider hosting a Super Bowl.

*I'm late on this topic but I'm going to state my opinion on it anyways: D-Bowe's comments about "importing" women were stupid. It doesn't make him a locker room cancer. It just makes him look like a dumbass. End of story.

*Next year's teams that will be picking in the top 5 of the NFL Draft: Buffalo, Jacksonville, Chicago, St. Louis, Cleveland.

That's all for today. Feel free to respond.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I actually like the decision for the superbowl in NY

Mainly cause it is FOOTBALL not basketball, look at all the great memorable games that have happened in the snow/rain/etc. Getting paid millions of dollars but do not want to play anywhere where it dips below 70 degrees? Grow up! The NFC championship game with Packers/Giants few years ago… that was a great game!

The 5th Dimension
#29 Eric Berry

by BAMFSpecialOps on May 27, 2010 2:30 PM CDT reply actions

agreed

get over it people, almost half of the American population LIVES in that cold weather and works everyday. Go sit on the beach and cry about, then go home and watch the game on the TV and talk about how much you miss snow and wish you could have a snowy Holiday or something.

Are we the team to beat in 2010? I sure think so! Go Chiefs.

by jrcnc on May 27, 2010 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions

How about the KC vs Seattle game where it rained and rained and RAINED

The Tuck rule game, few superbowls back it rained and a dome team(indy) still won! Just play the game!

The 5th Dimension
#29 Eric Berry

by BAMFSpecialOps on May 27, 2010 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions

In regards to the Super Bowl temperature/weather thing...

The only reason I don’t like it is because the Super Bowl is supposed to be a neutral site. The weather shouldn’t favor any team…which is why it’s played in warm weather or a dome. If Peyton and Brees fumbled 6-7 snaps and ruined the last Super Bowl, would you have called it a good game? I want to see the best teams play each other on as level of a playing field as possible.

The “Championship game” argument is moot for this point. The team hosting the game in those situations has earned the right to have home field advantage and the weather advantages that come along with it. When it gets to the Super Bowl, neither team should hold a home field/weather advantage.

Having said that, it could end up being 45 degrees and sunny in 2014 and all this discussion is for naught.

"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris

by KaloPhoenix on May 27, 2010 3:59 PM CDT reply actions

That's true

But when the SB is in a dome it is an unfair advantage to dome teams, and it can be argued that good weather is advantagious to certain teams. Either way both teams have to play in the same weather, there really isn’t much of an advantage. Just beause a player is drafted by Arizona, San Diego, or Tampa doesn’t mean they are automatically shit in cold weather.

There is also the bye weak, and I know it’s not much time, but they will have a little time to adjust.

Don't Fuccop Succop

by chicks_love_chiefs on May 27, 2010 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Oh, I completely agree.

And if there’s no precipitation, I’m 100% on board. I’m more referencing an “Ice Bowl” situation where players are unable to play to their full potential because it’s too slick. Even though both teams have to play in it, it becomes a “who screwed up the least” scenario rather than a “who’s the best”.

Again, if it’s just cold temperatures, I see no reason to complain.

"I don't know if I want to go to New York. They'll have to pay me a lot more money because I like it here in Kansas City." -- Roger Maris

by KaloPhoenix on May 27, 2010 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Playing in a neutral dome is not an advantage to dome teams.

That might be the 231st time I’ve typed that.

I realize I'm late to the party but...I'm on Twitter.
Happiness is a long walk with a putter in your hand.

by craig in calgary on May 27, 2010 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions

So if 1 dome team and let's just say the Packers are playing in a dome

that does not favor the dome team?

The 5th Dimension
#29 Eric Berry

by BAMFSpecialOps on May 27, 2010 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions

No, not at all.

How would it? That doesn’t even make sense. The dome is weather neutral.
Plus the Packers play in Detroit and Minni every year.

I realize I'm late to the party but...I'm on Twitter.
Happiness is a long walk with a putter in your hand.

by craig in calgary on May 27, 2010 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions

usually 8 away and 8 home games

Packers playing at Lambo 8(or more if playoffs are held there) then going to a dome for the superbowl

Dome team playing at least 8 in a dome(or more if playoffs are held there) then remaining in a dome

Logic seems to favor the dome team

The 5th Dimension
#29 Eric Berry

by BAMFSpecialOps on May 27, 2010 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Dome teams can be built for speed...

and often are more finesse teams. Take thoes Rams teams of the late 90’s…they were built to run and gun all over the place, and putting a team like that in a dome would give them an advantage.

It’s probably most likely a non factor…much like having a cold Super Bowl.

Don't Fuccop Succop

by chicks_love_chiefs on May 27, 2010 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions

How is playing a neutral dome any different than a 80 degree day in San Diego?

I’m sorry, I just don’t see any benefit to dome teams playing in domes. Domes are weather neutral and doesn’t benefit either team.

I realize I'm late to the party but...I'm on Twitter.
Happiness is a long walk with a putter in your hand.

by craig in calgary on May 27, 2010 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions

I think saying its neutral is discounting it too much.

Look at Super Bowl caliber teams from the past decade that played their home games in domes: The Rams from their glory years, the Vikings when Culpepper and Moss were in their prime, the Colts with Manning, and the Saints with Brees. All those teams were explosive offensive teams that relied on their speed and were not known for their defenses. On the other end of the spectrum, teams that have to play outdoor games in December and January in cold climates often build their teams in the trenches to control the line of scrimmage. They often build around the run game and their defense because when it gets late in the year its harder to throw the ball all over the field if its 10 degrees out and snowing.

My point is if you have a dome team built for speed that is used to playing the majority of its games in optimum conditions facing a team built its team to be able to play smash mouth football in the elements the dome team would prefer to play the Super Bowl in a dome, on turf, where the conditions are closest to what they are used to. The cold weather team would prefer to be outside, on grass, where the conditions are closer to what they play on most of the time. So even though the dome may not “mess up” the cold weather team like weather cold “mess up” a dome team there is still going to be a slight advantage to the team that plays the majority of its games (and therefore built its team for playing) in those conditions.

"There is no charge for awesomeness" - Kung Fu Panda

Kool Aid Rocks!!!!

by KCporkchop on May 28, 2010 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions

For every 2000 Rams, 2006 Colts and 2009 Saints teams

I’ll see you a 2003 Chiefs, 2007 Patiots and 2009 Saskatchewan Roughriders :)
Those teams lit up the scoreboard in the “elements”

And furthermore PORKY, lets delve into the Patriots Superbowl run. Superbowl XLII was held in a dome between the finese and high flying Patriots and the “Ground and pound” giants. Acording to your hypothosis, the Patiots would be unfairly benefited. I think we all remember how that game eneded (Except for my buddy Scott who ate some bad Ranch dressing and spent the entire second half of the game in the bathroom at the Toad and Turtle)

I realize I'm late to the party but...I'm on Twitter.
Happiness is a long walk with a putter in your hand.

by craig in calgary on May 28, 2010 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions

Well of course

there are exceptions to evey rule…and this is hardly a rule. I mean, they still have to play the game…The Patriots were a much better team than the Giants…if they play that game 100 times..the Pats win at least 75 of them. But they don’t play 100 times, only once…and the better team, or the team with the bigger advantage don’t always win…which is why football is such a great sport.

Don't Fuccop Succop

by chicks_love_chiefs on May 28, 2010 12:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Not the best example CRAIGY

since the Patriots play their home games outside in New England not inside a dome. I would also argue that the Giants won that game by throwing the football not “ground and pound”. Besides no one here is arguing that this is an EXTREME advantage that can’t be overcome. Look at the AFC powers right now. I think a lot of people would pick Indy and the Jets as the two front runners to go to the Super Bowl. Could Indy go to NY and beat the Jets outside? Yes. Could the Jets go to Indy and beat the Colts in the dome? Yes. Would the Colts prefer to play the Super Bowl in a dome if it was up to them? Yes. Would the Jets prefer to play the game outside in the cold? Yes. Is the advantage slight? Yes, but to pretend a team that plays most of its games inside on turf won’t be more comfortable in a dome then a team that plays most of its games outside in the elements seems silly to me.

"There is no charge for awesomeness" - Kung Fu Panda

Kool Aid Rocks!!!!

by KCporkchop on May 28, 2010 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions