Irony rained down on Super Bowl XLI like the, well, rain that rained down on Super Bowl XLI.
Let me get this straight. The NFL is reluctant to award Super Bowls to northern cities, presumably because of the weather perils. Yet the game itself is played in a dome whenever it's north, and where the temperature is perfect, and there are no wind factors. So it was that last year's tilt, here in Detroit, was played in perfect conditions, climate-controlly speaking.
But the league is in love with Miami, which hosted its ninth Big Game yesterday. And where the weather is always warm and sunny.
Right!
XLI resembled, at times, rugby, or Australian rules football. Five fumbles, I believe, in the first quarter. A steady downpour.
It's sad that, after two months of training camp, four preseason games, sixteen regular season games and three weekends of playoffs, that the championship of professional football should have been decided in a rainstorm, when it's clearly avoidable.
Huh?
That's right. Of course nobody could have predicted such rain as that which soaked Miami yesterday, but that's my point exactly: you can't predict it. True, South Beach has had friendly weather, for the most part, during their Super games. And I can see where a warm weather city like Miami would get Super Bowl consideration, over and over again. But, as we saw while the Bears and Colts sloshed around, playing for Vince Lombardi's Trophy, it can, and does, rain in south Florida from time to time, in February. On Super Bowl Sunday. Mother Nature was never much of a sports fan, I don't think.
So why not place the rotation into the hands of cities that have weather-proof facilities?
First, let me say, I'd be espousing this, even if we didn't have a dome in Detroit. It just makes sense. The folks who paid umpteen dollars for their game tickets were mostly miserable last night, either watching the action from TVs in the concourse, or otherwise getting soaked. So why not ensure that the game, at least, will be treated to lovely weather conditions?
The NFL is afraid of this, because such a plan would take some cities out of the rotation -- specifically the ones that would appear to be tourist attractions. But isn't the game the attraction? Last I checked, a bar is a bar -- no matter whether it's in Detroit, or Miami, or Pasadena. A party is a party. And we put on one helluva shindig last year, if you want to know.
I know football prides itself on being an outdoor game, with the elements an accepted part of the equation. NFL Films has endeared itself to the sport's fans with their ethereal, dramatic homage to games like the 1967 championship, played in Green Bay in minus 15 degree weather. Frankly, I don't think the legends of Dick Butkus and Jim Brown play out well in sterile domes, but I'd be willing to forsake that in order to see a representative product of the game in its biggest moment.
There wasn't anything, truthfully, dramatic or captivating in watching the Bears and Colts drop passes, fumble snaps, or slipping and sliding around the turf. It didn't evoke memories of Butkus or Brown after all. It was just ... rotten football, played in horrible conditions.
The NFL's biggest game deserves better than what Mom Nature can unpredictably deliver.
3 comments:
As Kid Rock says, "There ain't no party like a Detroit party." Bring back the Super Bowl. We'll do better next time ... and that's saying a lot. We don't even care that we don't have a professional team in Detroit, anyway.
There is something to be said for the player and/or team that can rise above the condition of the field and on to victory. Overcoming the weather conditions has always been part of the equation of the game of football and I see no sense in making the Super Bowl immune to such influences...
Well said, Alan. That's definitely a valid point. I know football wasn't meant to be played in ideal conditions all the time. I just want a decent representation of the game, that's all.
Post a Comment