I think so. To me some of the best games are those that are played in stadiums that are outdoors. I just love watching games that are played in mud, snow, and rain. They just seem to be a symbol of the history of football. Watching some of those old Bears vs Packers games in Soldier Field or Lambeau Field always seems more like FOOTBALL to me, instead of games that are in the climate controlled domes.
I don't like it because it has the ability to give one team a huge advantage based solely on where the game is played. I like to see the Super Bowl played on even terms and won based on play on the field not field conditions.
but..... shouldn't the best team in the NFL be able to win in any conditions? I am pretty confident the outcome would have been the same if the last super bowl were played in the snow. Don't forget the Saints had the 3rd best rushing team in the league.
True, but which teams have tons of snow experience. Maybe some teams traditionally, but not on a year to year basis. Green Bay? They are a passing team, it would actually hurt them. Minnesota? They play in a dome. Giants? they may have an advantage, Jets? they would have an advantage because they are a power running team, but you could load the box because Dirty Sanchez sucks in the cold. Buffalo? If Buffalo makes the super bowl and it snows, they deserve it.
You know the only reason this is a conversation in the NFL is because of New York and their new stadium. If i were Denver, or Philly, i would be pissed.
The only thing I don't like is it's going to be in new york. i have no ambitions to go there EVER. Can you imagine how expensive everything would be if the super bowl was played there? it's already too expensive.
