Don't know why they did not do this on new stadium.

I guess the statistical odds of ice/snow day before and during the game is still low.

But, it would suck.

Nalod wrote:
Northern cities should have retractable roof's if they want that game.

Don't know why they did not do this on new stadium.

I guess the statistical odds of ice/snow day before and during the game is still low.

But, it would suck.

they didn't put a roof on because the giants use the weather to their advantage. i don't want a roof on that stadium and i'm glad there isn't one.

regardless, its good for the sport - natural weather conditions make the game more interesting.

bon jovi can always do the halftime show in a parka

djsunyc wrote:

VDesai wrote:Practically the entire playoffs is played under cold, difficult weather conditions. Why is that we remove that element from the Super Bowl? Fans will still show up in droves.

b/c it should be a neutral site game.

playoffs in each conference, you earn the right to play at home.

but nfc vs. afc should be neutral site and would be an unfair advantage if one of those teams play in cold weather territory.

Actually that makes no sense. You earned the ability to play in your stadium based on the regular season and it's breakdown. It's not about fair and unfair advantage. The NFL plays the superbowl in warm weather cities because that is how the NFL believes they could attract more dollars from people going to the game and the events in the city. If Prok told Goodell that he would give him $5 billion to play in Moscow, Nash and Simms would just have to freeze their asses off. Roger is thinking about Jets PSL money and NY $$.

TMS wrote:they spent $1.6 billion building the new stadium & IMHO it doesn't look all that impressive... the Cowboys' Stadium is a lot more impressive & they spent less to build it (& have a retractable roof)

i've been to the cowboys and it is very impressive, but that's because of the screen. other than that it was a normal stadium. once i get to the new stadium here, i'll let you know which one i like better.

sebstar wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

TMS wrote:they spent $1.6 billion building the new stadium & IMHO it doesn't look all that impressive... the Cowboys' Stadium is a lot more impressive & they spent less to build it (& have a retractable roof)

i've been to the cowboys and it is very impressive, but that's because of the screen. other than that it was a normal stadium. once i get to the new stadium here, i'll let you know which one i like better.

you got money to go to the Dallas to watch the bytchboys play, but you cant visit your boy in SD? Strangle yourself?

da ****? lol

and for the record, i went cuz my boy is a huge cowboys fan and i wanted to get it in with some texas chicks. but really, im down whenever. we gotta get a few of us out there, hit up some golf and do the damn thing.

sebstar wrote:

VDesai wrote:Practically the entire playoffs is played under cold, difficult weather conditions. Why is that we remove that element from the Super Bowl? Fans will still show up in droves.

cause they dont want the rich folks in the audience feeling uncomfortable. Thats the only reason...its gawddamn football, why shouldnt it be played in adverse conditions? the resistance just exposes the fact that the Superbowl is a corporate playground.

I think sports is a coporate playground as a whole, 65% of ticket sales are purchase by coperations. The last 2 frms I've worked for either had yankees/knicks tics or giants/knicks.
The companies(brokerage) had no more then a 100 employees, the parent company which happen to be GE, had a dozen or so corperate box seats, and at least 10 to 20 lower level seats which went to the employees.. Go figure