A 2014 Super Bowl Played in the “Elements?” Bring It

A general view outside of the Mercedes-Benz Superdome as preparations are made for Super Bowl XLVII between the Baltimore Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers. (Derick E. Hingle-USA TODAY Sports)

This time next year, the NFL world will descend upon New Jersey and New York.

Usually, the NFL’s head honchos dip out of their office on Park Avenue and pack lighter clothes for a Super Bowl either in and/or warmer climate or in a stadium that has a dome.

The 2014 “staycation” for the league itself means that the Super Bowl could be played in snow and/or ice for the first time ever.

"We’re going to embrace the weather, embrace New York and New Jersey. We are also prepared for all alternatives, and that includes the weather, and the potential for snow and ice. – Roger Goodell (New York Daily News)"

Embracing the weather is what the NFL is all about. From sauna-like training camps to 3-degree temperatures in the divisional round of the playoffs, the influence of weather is present for every team.

Many people don’t like the fact that there’s a chance that the weather could determine the outcome of the game (i.e. a botched snap during a field-goal attempt at the end of the game), or “even worse,” cause a low scoring game.

Who cares? Why change things up for the Super Bowl? If teams have had to battle the so-called “elements” throughout the regular season and playoffs, why should they get a break in the Super Bowl?

A successful 2014 Super Bowl (however the league defines it) would mean that Denver would have a better shot at hosting in 2018, 2019, or 2020. Denver filed paperwork to host in November.

My question is why did it take the NFL so long to allow bids from cold-weather cities without domes? When you open up the field for more competition, you’re going to get better bids. The NFL makes more money that way.

What’s your take on it?

Make sure to follow Predominantly Orange on Facebook and on Twitter.