OT: Super Bowl XLVIII outdoors in New York

[InsideOut]

How would you feel if you and I jaywalked together and the officer gave you a $100 ticket but just told me to have a nice day. It's a matter of opinion if it's a good rule or not but I can't understand anyone thinking it is okay to pick and chose which rules they'll follow and for which teams. This is one of the reasons the NBA gets compared to pro wrestling.

Guys like Bron and Kobe will always get the calls because the league doesn't want them in foul trouble sitting on the bench. I think we all call them the star calls. Do you feel it's fair to give these star calls even if it leads to more TV time for Kobe and the large market Lakers going farther in the playoffs. That type of stuff leads to profit maximization so does that justify the NBA like the NFL in picking and choosing what teams/players have to follow the rules? Is it okay in the NBA fixes the lottery to get Ewing to the Knicks? After all, that would lead to profit maximization because you have a sure superstar going to a rotten team in a huge market. I guess I’m asking where do you draw the line when it comes to breaking the rules for profit maximization? That is one slippery slope I don’t want to go down.

I get what you are saying but I think you'd better give serious thought to the consequences of breaking rules for some teams/cities but not all. I stand by my example of comparing this to what the big banks were doing. There were rules in place for loan qualifications but they picked and choose who had to follow those rules. I mean so what if their credit score was only 5 points short of qualifying. And so what if their income comes up only $1,000 short. Giving them the loan anyway when they are that close in their minds would be equal to jaywalking. And why did the banks do it…profit maximization. If it's a rule then follow it. If it's a bad rule then get rid of it. What you don't do is say some of you have to follow the rules and some of you don't.

[Siefer]

There is a regular bowl game in Boise every year as well as one in Washington, D.C. Not the major bowls but college football hasn't been completely avoiding them either.

That is a good point.

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2010/05/t ... chill.html

An interesting article about the whole climate debate as it relates to College Football as well. The more I think about this, the I hope it succeeds. I still have some misgivings, but it's nice that the NFL is willing to at least give it a try.

[Kerb Hohl]

There is a regular bowl game in Boise every year as well as one in Washington, D.C. Not the major bowls but college football hasn't been completely avoiding them either.

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2008/12/15/humanitarian-bowl-ticket-sales-in-the-dozens/

I realize NYC isn't Boise but you get the idea of how terrible sales can be...

[chuckleslove]

There is a regular bowl game in Boise every year as well as one in Washington, D.C. Not the major bowls but college football hasn't been completely avoiding them either.

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2008/12/15/humanitarian-bowl-ticket-sales-in-the-dozens/

I realize NYC isn't Boise but you get the idea of how terrible sales can be...

Attendance for that game: 26,781

Now if Maryland had gone to say the Eagle Bank bowl in DC instead of Idaho I would imagine they also would have sold a lot more tickets.

Just like UCLA fans had very little interest in travelling to DC last year for that same mentioned bowl

[chuckleslove]

There is a regular bowl game in Boise every year as well as one in Washington, D.C. Not the major bowls but college football hasn't been completely avoiding them either.

That is a good point.

http://www.elevenwarriors.com/2010/05/t ... chill.html

An interesting article about the whole climate debate as it relates to College Football as well. The more I think about this, the I hope it succeeds. I still have some misgivings, but it's nice that the NFL is willing to at least give it a try.

Nice find. I'd love to have some northern bowl games that had a chance to host some Big Ten/Big East or other northern schools. I've never had the chance to go to a college bowl game yet because they are all in southern destinations where I can't afford to be taking a trip all that often and typically my travels revolve around family events and such, I'm not selfish enough to put those things off in order to go to a bowl game

I'd love a bowl game of Big Ten vs Big East at Soldier Field and would definitely make a trip down to that.

[chuckleslove]

Just for the sake of discussion I'm going to look up some other smaller bowl game attendance numbers.

St. Petersburg Bowl 2009 Rutgers vs UCF(nearby team): 29,673.
New Mexico Bowl 2009 Fresno St. vs Wyoming: 24,898
New Orleans Bowl 2009 Southern Miss vs Middle Tennessee: 30,228

Now for the Boise/DC bowls
Humanitarian Bowl 2009 Idaho vs Bowling Green: 26,726
Eagle Bank Bowl 2009 UCLA vs Temple: 23,072

All of those numbers are in the same ballpark to me and the main reason I see the lower attendance numbers is mostly due to proximity and level of play more than the weather at the game.

[InsideOut]

If I had Rose Bowl tickets the year they decided to play it in Chicago, Philly or NY I'd be pissed. If I'm going to spend thousands of dollars to travel to the big game I sure as heck want to be traveling some place warm. Let's see...party on South Beach with girls in bikinis or standing around in boots and snow gear while trying to stay close to the heater. It's the same reason kids on spring break aren't booking flights to Chicago, Philly or NY. I mean who wants to party all week or weekend where you need to worry about frostbite?

My guess is if you polled everyone that will be at the Super Bowl and its festivities (fans, workers, media, party planners, corporate VPs...) that over 90% would rather be in Miami, Tampa, LA, NO... than freezing their butts off in NJ. The vast majority of the ones fired up about the NJ Super Bowl seem to be the people that will be on their warm couches praying for the next snow or ice bowl.

[InsideOut]

Just for the sake of discussion I'm going to look up some other smaller bowl game attendance numbers.

St. Petersburg Bowl 2009 Rutgers vs UCF(nearby team): 29,673.
New Mexico Bowl 2009 Fresno St. vs Wyoming: 24,898
New Orleans Bowl 2009 Southern Miss vs Middle Tennessee: 30,228

Now for the Boise/DC bowls
Humanitarian Bowl 2009 Idaho vs Bowling Green: 26,726
Eagle Bank Bowl 2009 UCLA vs Temple: 23,072

All of those numbers are in the same ballpark to me and the main reason I see the lower attendance numbers is mostly due to proximity and level of play more than the weather at the game.

I don't think you can count a game where Idaho is playing in Boise. I also think you need to look at the size of the schools. I mean how many kids go to Rutgers and Wyoming vs. a UCLA? It would interesting to find how many Badger fans traveled to an Orlando or Tampa bowl vs. El Paso or some other colder place. I think we all know way more fans are willing to make a trip to Tampa than say Memphis.

[chuckleslove]

If I had Rose Bowl tickets the year they decided to play it in Chicago, Philly or NY I'd be pissed. If I'm going to spend thousands of dollars to travel to the big game I sure as heck want to be traveling some place warm. Let's see...party on South Beach with girls in bikinis or standing around in boots and snow gear while trying to stay close to the heater. It's the same reason kids on spring break aren't booking flights to Chicago, Philly or NY. I mean who wants to party all week or weekend where you need to worry about frostbite?

My guess is if you polled everyone that will be at the Super Bowl and its festivities (fans, workers, media, party planners, corporate VPs...) that over 90% would rather be in Miami, Tampa, LA, NO... than freezing their butts off in NJ. The vast majority of the ones fired up about the NJ Super Bowl seem to be the people that will be on their warm couches praying for the next snow or ice bowl.

College bowl games don't move sites, they are in the same site every single year. There is a big difference between adding a big time bowl in Chicago or NY than moving the Rose Bowl.

EDIT: same goes for the Super Bowl, you know 4 years in advance where the site is going to be, if you don't want to go to a cold Super Bowl in NYC or Chicago or wherever then don't buy a ticket, watch the game from the comfort of your home. I have no doubt that there are 60k or 70k or however many people this stadium will seat worth of people willing to buy tickets and sit in whatever weather to go to the Super Bowl

[chuckleslove]

Just for the sake of discussion I'm going to look up some other smaller bowl game attendance numbers.

St. Petersburg Bowl 2009 Rutgers vs UCF(nearby team): 29,673.
New Mexico Bowl 2009 Fresno St. vs Wyoming: 24,898
New Orleans Bowl 2009 Southern Miss vs Middle Tennessee: 30,228

Now for the Boise/DC bowls
Humanitarian Bowl 2009 Idaho vs Bowling Green: 26,726
Eagle Bank Bowl 2009 UCLA vs Temple: 23,072

All of those numbers are in the same ballpark to me and the main reason I see the lower attendance numbers is mostly due to proximity and level of play more than the weather at the game.

I don't think you can count a game where Idaho is playing in Boise. I also think you need to look at the size of the schools. I mean how many kids go to Rutgers and Wyoming vs. a UCLA? It would interesting to find how many Badger fans traveled to an Orlando or Tampa bowl vs. El Paso or some other colder place. I think we all know way more fans are willing to make a trip to Tampa than say Memphis.

The attendance for the year before that was the same when it was Maryland vs Nevada, the only reason I counted that particular game is because I went through 2009 numbers to keep it within a year. The attendance of Maryland vs Nevada the previous year was within 100 of that year and I previously quoted it.

Now for the sake of seeing how well Wisconsin people travel to various destinations here are there attendance figures for bowl games in the last decade(I didn't look at the Rose Bowl because I know it will be huge)

2009 Champs Sports: 56,747
2008 Champs Sports: 52,692
2007 Outback: 60,121
2005 Capital One: 57,221
2003 Music City Bowl: 55,109

I couldn't find box scores with attendance for the others but you specifically called out Memphis which I would say is comparable to Nashville which is where the Music City Bowl was played. It would seem to indicate your point about Memphis is incorrect.

I do agree bigger schools will have more fans that travel, playing closer to home will also do that. You want to tell me that if you had say #2 Big Ten vs #2 Big East playing in a major bowl game at Soldier Field it wouldn't be a sell out? If you assume it is the best team from each conference that isn't going to a BCS bowl last year you would have had Penn St. vs Pittsburgh. If I had to guess both teams would have had no problem playing in the cold and it would have had 55-60k fans(Solider Field seats 61.5k).

[InsideOut]

I do agree bigger schools will have more fans that travel, playing closer to home will also do that. You want to tell me that if you had say #2 Big Ten vs #2 Big East playing in a major bowl game at Soldier Field it wouldn't be a sell out? If you assume it is the best team from each conference that isn't going to a BCS bowl last year you would have had Penn St. vs Pittsburgh. If I had to guess both teams would have had no problem playing in the cold and it would have had 55-60k fans(Solider Field seats 61.5k).

It would be a sell out. It's just that all those people would be wishing they were sitting in Tampa or Orlando. I've been to Badger bowl games in California and Florida. I have not nor will I ever travel far to some cold location bowl game. My guess is most feel that way. It's the same reason kids head south for spring break.

Are those attendance figures you're giving tickets sold or butts in the seat. I know I've been to Bucks games in bad weather and they announced an attendance figure that was double the number of butts in the seat.

This cold vs. warm debate seems to be common sense to me. After all, we all know it's not coincidence that they play almost all these game indoors or in warm places. People would rather be warm thn cold.

[bucks59]

How would you feel if you and I jaywalked together and the officer gave you a $100 ticket but just told me to have a nice day. It's a matter of opinion if it's a good rule or not but I can't understand anyone thinking it is okay to pick and chose which rules they'll follow and for which teams. This is one of the reasons the NBA gets compared to pro wrestling.

I'd prefer less people are fined for jay walking then more; if its inevitable that I'm getting a ticket, why would I want you to get one? I don't personally get a benefit from you getting a fine so why would I care? If less people are fined, the less likely the law is to be applied and I'm less likely to be fined in the future. What about the flip side. Do you ever jay walk or speed or violate laws? You obviously do because some rules and laws are dumb. Obviously its bad to kill a person or in football to commit pass interference; but who cares if they made a NY superbowl exemption. Any time you make laws or rules you have to decide what is a good rule or bad; its same with the enforcement of the rule or law.

Guys like Bron and Kobe will always get the calls because the league doesn't want them in foul trouble sitting on the bench. I think we all call them the star calls. Do you feel it's fair to give these star calls even if it leads to more TV time for Kobe and the large market Lakers going farther in the playoffs. That type of stuff leads to profit maximization so does that justify the NBA like the NFL in picking and choosing what teams/players have to follow the rules?

Why is that the NBA would want the team from CLE to go deep in the playoffs? Oh thats right, they have the most popular player in the game. The majority of NBA fans want to watch Lebron. Yeah, it kind of sucks for Bucks fans, but the majority of NBA fans enjoy watching Lebron play so why is that bad? If you enjoy watching the Bucks, then you must also enjoy watching the NBA and can still enjoy watching Lebron play basketball. On a side, I'm also okay with him getting "superstar" calls because I just think the NBA should call less fouls.

Also, the NFL has also proven that the best way to maximize profits is not to have the bigger markets win but to have more parity, which is why the NFL is so popular. Its also the case that the NBA is the sport that relies the least on luck and random chance given that are so many points and they have the longest series, yet you seem to like the sport the least. Football is definitely the most "rigged" just because you only play 16 games, the playoffs are single elimination, and conditions arent equalized as different teams play in different elements in the post and regular seasons.

Is it okay in the NBA fixes the lottery to get Ewing to the Knicks? After all, that would lead to profit maximization because you have a sure superstar going to a rotten team in a huge market. I guess I’m asking where do you draw the line when it comes to breaking the rules for profit maximization? That is one slippery slope I don’t want to go down.

I still think its best for the NBA to have parity, similar to the NFL, because it keeps all fans interested, not just the ones in the major markets. You can't prop up one market at the expense of all the others; unless the majority of NBA fans don't care, in which case your argument doesn't really have an impact (the Cavs for example, a small market team that has the most popular person in the game).

As an aside, I don't think the NBA is rigged. In the last decade, the Spurs (a relatively small metro area, though large individual city) have won three titles. The CBA is also structured to make it immensely easier for teams to keep their current players to equalize the playing field. The reefing is poor, but its inevitable when you have a game played at that speed and that physicality. James also went to a very small market team in the Cavs. The Thunder might win several titles in the next decade and they play in Oklahoma City.

I get what you are saying but I think you'd better give serious thought to the consequences of breaking rules for some teams/cities but not all. I stand by my example of comparing this to what the big banks were doing. There were rules in place for loan qualifications but they picked and choose who had to follow those rules. I mean so what if their credit score was only 5 points short of qualifying. And so what if their income comes up only $1,000 short. Giving them the loan anyway when they are that close in their minds would be equal to jaywalking. And why did the banks do it…profit maximization. If it's a rule then follow it. If it's a bad rule then get rid of it. What you don't do is say some of you have to follow the rules and some of you don't.

I would distinguish your bank example because I dont think that is a stupid rule; you need regulations in place that are followed to prevent the banks from cheating individuals, otherwise you could have a massive economic meltdown. Allowing the biggest market in the US to have a superbowl is not the same analogy. You're right that there is a slippery slope, but you're solution to just rescind that rule doesn't solve anything; all that does is allow for other markets that can't support a superbowl to have one.

This is also different from the banks because this is an action that is being talked about and disclosed 4 years in advance; and I'm sure some extensive market research occurred. The housing crises occurred at a very quick pace and no one had any idea what was going on. Your argument is also diminished because there are cold weather games now and they are highly successful; its not like cold weather games are not selling out.

Allowing NY to have a superbowl is still more like going 70 in a 55; sure you could get pulled over and pay a fine but there is upside in that you might get to your destination faster. A superbowl in NY could bomb out and a cold superbowl might not occur again; or it could go over well. The risk is small and carefully planned out.

I do agree they should just get rid of the rule, but seriously, who cares? Its a dumb rule that should be violated if this NY test case works. If there was a rule on the books that says that every citizen must chop off their leg, should they enforce that? No, of course not, because its dumb. Just like this rule.

[an_also]

I'm all for it. I dont understand the talk of elements affecting the play. Football is ment to be played outside in any condition except lightning storms. Why does the super bowl have to be subject to be played in a dome in perfect situations all the time. Every other game is a crap shoot in terms of weather in the season and playoffs.

[chuckleslove]

Goodell has now stated that depending on the success of the 2014 Super Bowl that other cold weather destinations could be a possibility. I like it!

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/more ... s-possible

[Kerb Hohl]

I know exactly how it will play out.

It will go well for 1 or 2 Super Bowls, then there will be a game in a blizzard and they react by either dumping the idea or some contingency plan.

I'll never change your mind. Personally, I don't think they'll have a problem getting people to go there...though the events could be lessened by weather. The thing that bothers me is I don't want to see Peyton Manning and Drew Brees go a combined 8-30 in a blizzard in a 7-6 win. Or Manning struggle while some dominant running/cold weather team wins 28-3.

The difference between a playoff game and Super Bowl is that let's say Green Bay builds a dominant running team. They've played themselves into an advantage by getting a home playoff game. As far as a warm Super Bowl goes, you know that risk coming in. Also, you have to be good enough in good weather to make it to the Super Bowl anyways.

The best "cold weather" team needs to win and play probably 13 or 14 games in warm weather AT LEAST. They may not even see a cold weather game all year. That is why a neutral site should be a warm one. There is a very high likelihood that a snowstorm would give one team much more of an advantage than the other or the game could end up being a crapfest decided by who fumbles less.