The Best NCAA Football Player to Stay in School Debate – Mallet Hits Right Note In Razorback Return

January 29, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Bleacher Fan about which NFL draft eligible college football player that decided to stay in school is the best player?



Take THAT, Bradford Effect.

After Oklahoma quarterback Sam Bradford decided to come back for his red shirt junior season in 2009 – fresh off a Heisman Trophy win – the conventional thinking was that he had a good shot to win the trophy again. Several injuries and a frustrating season later, many fans and members of the media questioned Bradford’s decision to return to school, given that he was set to make millions of dollars in the NFL draft. Instead Bradford turned down the millions, returned to school, became injured and missed the majority of the season. The theory is that Bradford would have been smarter to enter the professional ranks and take the millions that come with a rookie contract.

Given the real implications demonstrated by the Bradford Effect, any draft eligible player should immediately head to the pros. Apparently Arkansas Razorback quarterback Ryan Mallet did not get that memo. His decision to return to college ball in the SEC next season flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but makes him the best draft eligible college football player to return to school next season.

Mallet has been in college for awhile – long enough to be eligible for the NFL draft. Despite the fact that he has been in school for awhile, he is stilling seeking the glory of college football that has been elusive to him throughout his career. Former Michigan head coach Lloyd Carr retired after Mallet’s freshman season, where he spent time riding the pine behind senior Chad Henne. When Rich Rodriguez took over, and brought his high octane offense and desire for an athletic quarterback with him, Mallet saw the writing on the wall and transferred to Arkansas.

Finally in his junior season in 2009 he was able to start for the first time in his career and put on display what he is capable of doing. He answered the opportunity by leading a young Arkansas team to an 8-5 record in the SEC, a victory over East Carolina in the Liberty Bowl, and was able to set a few records along the way.

Mallet threw for 3,627 yards in 2009 and 30 touchdowns against just seven interceptions. But, his nine yards per completion and completing just under 56 percent of his passes indicate that he does have room for improvement. Also, his forgettable performance against the toughest opponent this team faced – eventual national champion Alabama – creates a feeling that more is possible out of Mallet, and that he needs to show it to improve his draft status. Mallet threw for just 160 yards and completed only 12 of 35 passes with one score and on pick. Better is possible, and Mallet wants to prove that out.

Given the momentum Mallet is leaving the 2009 season with, 2010 Heisman Trophy talk is legitimate. Arkansas does not run a gimmick offense where stats come easy. Mallet engineers a pro style offense under head coach Bobby Petrino, and his stats project well for the NFL and earn respect among those who hand out hardware at the season’s end.

He is the prototypical NFL quarterback. Standing at six feet seven inches Mallet has the size to survey the entire field, the arm strength to deliver the ball deep and on time, and smarts to make the right decision. Another season of honing his craft with a challenging SEC schedule with sharpen his draft status and add to his dollar value. Instead of being a late round sleeper quarterback pick in the 2010 NFL draft, he has the chance to make himself into a top five pick in the 2011 draft. Not only is he a great player, he is making the smartest decision for right now, and his future.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Best NCAA Football Player to Stay in School Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Best NCAA Football Player to Stay in School Debate – Defensive Dominance from Cameron Heyward

January 29, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek about which NFL draft eligible college football player that decided to stay in school is the best player?



I cannot believe it – someone actually agrees with Loyal Homer!

In a previous TSD debate about whether or not college football players should enter the NFL draft early if they are ready, Loyal Homer took some ribbing from me because of comments made about “enjoying the experience of being a senior in college.”

It appears that at least one college football star agrees with Loyal Homer’s sentiment.

Cameron Heyward, who would have almost CERTAINLY been a first-round draft pick as a defensive tackle in the 2010 NFL Draft, pleasantly surprised Ohio State fans when he announced that he would be returning for his senior year at The Ohio State University. When asked why he made the decision to return to Columbus for another year of college ball, he responded, “I’ve been blessed to this point. I am just having fun being a college student.”

He went on to talk about the respect he has for previous seniors he has followed on the team, and his excitement for what the 2010 season could potentially bring, both for him and for the Buckeye tradition.

While that might be good news along the Olentangy River, it is bad news for just about EVERYONE else in the Big Ten, AND in the entire NCAA.

Heyward was THE KEY to the Buckeye’s defensive dominance in 2009. In a conference where many young quarterbacks have started to develop into big-time playmakers (such as Scott Tolzien, Ricky Stanzi, Tate Forcier, and Terrelle Pryor to name a few), it was Heyward’s impact in the Buckeye’s defensive front that allowed them to tear through the Big Ten en route to their FIFTH consecutive conference championship.

If the development of players like Stanzi and Forcier continues at the pace they moved through 2009, the Buckeyes are going to need that dominance once again on the defensive side of the ball.

At 6 feet 6 inches and pounds Heyward has the right combination of size and agility to make him a threat to be in the backfield on nearly every play. As proof of his ability to penetrate offensive lines and disrupt plays before they even begin, Heyward racked up a team-high 6.5 sacks for 43 yards, and another 10 tackles-for-loss for 53 yards. That equals an AVERAGE loss of more than five yards every time Heyward makes a play in the backfield (and he manages to do so at least once in every game he plays).

Heyward was undoubtedly the leader of one of the most dominant defenses in the country last season. The Buckeye defense allowed an average of only 12.5 points-per-game, never gave up more than 27 points in a single game, and shutout THREE opponents during the 2009 season. They were most impressive, though, in a Rose Bowl victory when they allowed only 17 points to the Oregon Ducks – one of the highest scoring teams in the nation – who was averaging 38 points-per-game. For his part, Heyward was good for his usual backfield penetration, sacking Oregon Ducks’ quarterback Jeremiah Masoli once and adding three more tackles to his total of 46 for the year.

Heyward’s play on the field will surely earn him All-Big Ten and All-American consideration for the 2010 season, and may even make him a candidate for Defensive Player of the Year honors if he continues to make his presence felt in the upcoming season. More importantly, his role as the leader and anchor for the Buckeyes’ smothering defense will surely make Ohio State the favorites to win another Big Ten Championship in 2010, and will have them among the contenders yet again for a shot at the National Championship.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

1 Comment | The Best NCAA Football Player to Stay in School Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

The Best NCAA Football Player to Stay in School Debate – Overpaying or Securing the Future?

January 29, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Sports Geek and Bleacher Fan about which NFL draft eligible college football player that decided to stay in school is the best player?



Last Wednesday, The Sports Debates has the Best Underclassmen Going Pro debate. In that debate, we discussed who we thought was going to be the best pro out of all the underclassmen that declared for the draft. Today we are taking a different perspective – who is the best underclassmen to remain in school, and therefore, delay his entry into the draft? I had to do a little research on this since Sports Geek claimed the first name that popped into my mind. But with all due credit to Ryan Mallet, I am pretty confident in saying that West Virginia running back Noel Devine is the best underclassmen returning to school.

I know some are surprised to see me not choose Washington quarterback Jake Locker due to the amount of praise I often give him in conversations with others (just a hint of sarcasm here). But it is just too difficult to pass on Noel Devine.

Devine, who seemingly has been playing for the Mountaineers forever, but still has a year of eligibility left, had a very good 2009 season. He finished with 1,465 yards rushing and 13 touchdowns. He was able to build upon a good sophomore campaign, and for his career he has amassed over 3,000 rushing yards and 23 touchdowns .

I admit that I would like to see head coach Bill Stewart use Devine more in special teams. Devine was very active in special teams his freshman year in 2007, when he had over 500 returns yards. But he had less than 200 total return yards COMBINED the past two seasons. I hate to use the old cliché, but I’m going to do it anyway – Devine is a threat to score a touchdown every time he touches the ball. That is the phrase everyone used when describing Clemson phenom C.J. Spiller this past season. At 5 feet 8 inches and 176 pounds, Devine has the elusiveness to score at any time thanks to registering a 4.15 time in the 40 yard dash. Don’t let that size fool you, though. He still has power, as evidenced by his ability to bench press 435 pounds and squat 500 pounds. That is impressive, folks!

It is also important to note that Devine became the main weapon on the Mountaineers team with the departure of current Miami Dolphins Pat White, who was another one of those players who seemingly played college football forever. Being the focal point of the offense allowed Devine a chance to shine and grow into the spotlight that had previously been held by White and Steve Slaton.

If West Virginia has any aspirations of getting back into the national spotlight after a couple of 9-4 seasons, it will rest on the shoulders of Noel Devine. If the Mountaineers are able to do that, we might see Devine pop up on some Heisman ballots.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

1 Comment | The Best NCAA Football Player to Stay in School Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Pro Bowl Relevance Debate – Still No Good Reason To Watch the Pro bowl

January 29, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless about whether or not the Pro Bowl is still relevant.



I charged our esteemed debaters with the very difficult task of convincing me to watch the Pro Bowl. I have implored both writers to construct rational arguments for a skeptical fan like me to pay attention to something as seemingly pointless as the Pro Bowl.

Originally I felt this would be an easy debate to judge because – and I freely admitted this in my intro – I had an extreme bias toward the belief that the Pro Bowl was no longer relevant. Given my inherent and admitted bias, Babe Ruthless had a significant uphill battle.

Unfortunately for the Babe, he never reached the top of the hill, and the debate remained an easy one to judge.

Loyal Homer wins the debate because of an argument that properly communicated the realities of the Pro Bowl – it is a ceremony. It is a pointless game where professionals set their pride aside and just go through the motions. Also included in Loyal Homer’s argument is the important fact that the game is not great because the talent is second tier. And sometimes it is third, or fourth tier. The games does not deliver on its promise as a collection of the best players duking it out for pride.

The skills competitions are cool for the NFL, even if the league downplays them compared with other major sports league’s all-star events. The weight lifting challenge, the quarterback challenge, the obstacle course, etc. are all entertaining. Perhaps the skills competitions could be part of draft week or something, or another offseason event, and the Pro Bowl game would not be necessary. Teasing real football fans with a fake game insults our intelligence. Keep the skills, and the ceremony, lose the game.

Babe Ruthless tried valiantly to make a sarcastic point about the relevance of the Pro Bowl by beginning the argument with the line, “Professional football is not conducive to an All-Star game.” Unfortunately for Babe Ruthless, I read that line, agreed with it, and the argument was not able to recover.

Babe Ruthless also argued that nearly every team has a player represented. But, if “almost” every team gets a player, then not every teams get a chance to showcase their most valuable player. So, not only is the Pro Bowl an irrelevant game, it is not even an “all-star game in the truest sense, where each team has a representative player.

In the end, Babe Ruthless failed to convince me that the game matters for players, coaches, and, most importantly, for fans. I agree that a player being named to the Pro Bowl is an achievement and a status, but the honor should stop there. There is no valid reason to actually play a game.

To Babe’s other point, if the Pro Bowl is providing closure for the season, it is a strategic business mistake. The game should do anything but provide closure, as the NFL’s ultimate goal is to remain relevant throughout the calendar year. One “event” should blend in to another. Providing a sense of closure is dangerous to the growth of the brand. And the NFL considers itself in a perpetual state of business growth.

The stature of “Pro Bowler” matters, and it especially matters to agents and players during contract negotiation. Therefore, keep the honor, lose the game. No one cares.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

2 Comments | The Pro Bowl Relevance Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Pro Bowl Relevance Debate – Give Me One Good Reason To Watch the Pro Bowl

January 28, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless about whether or not the Pro Bowl is still relevant.



It is nearly that special time of year, already, where the best NFL players get together on one field and do battle. It is a rare treat for all fans of the NFL, and football in general. What a great time when folks all over the country have the frustrations of Winter melt away in one afternoon to gather around the television and watch the Pro Bowl.

Er, what?

Most fans, even diehards, think the Pro Bowl is lame. The game features the supposedly best players in the league making a half-hearted effort on the field while trying to avoid a devastating injury. While it may be prestigious to be named to the team, the players appear to have little interest in actually playing the game.

The game has many problems, starting with unstable roster. Now, the best players – the ones in the Super Bowl – will not be participating at all (mostly… the Colts are rumored to be leaving at halftime) because they have that pesky game to prepare for the following week. Injured players, and “injured” players, always skip the Pro Bowl because they make it clear they have more important things to do, like tend the garden or rescue cute animals from the tough streets near their houses.

The NFL has moved the date of the game up from a week after the Super Bowl is played to the week before the Super Bowl is played. The theory is that the game will be more heavily watched in the interim week before the Super Bowl starts. But, in doing so, it has eliminated some of the better players from the game… you know, the ones that are preparing to play the Super Bowl the following week. While the Pro Bowl is played in the same city as the Super Bowl this season in hopes of creating more attention and excitement around the game, players from Super Bowl bound teams will likely be only spectators (well, at least we all know Colts players would be if allowed).

The Pro Bowl has some basic problems that prevent fan excitement from every truly taking off. For me, as a fan, I do not watch the Pro Bowl. Growing up I remember asking my dad if he wanted to watch the Pro Bowl with me. He would look at me cross and say, “I have no interest in the Pro Bowl.” Having never watched the game before, I did not understand why. After watching a quarter of the game I understood. To this day I have not watched an entire Pro Bowl ever, and have not even flipped the game on in years.

The NFL is desperately trying to make its All-Star game relevant, but has an uphill battle. Today’s question for The Sports Debates writers is: Is the Pro Bowl still relevant?

Given my skepticism, for fun, assume that my impression of the game is that of most fans (and I feel like it is). Give us skeptics a good reason to watch the game. Make a good, winning argument, and I might just watch the game.

Babe Ruthless will argue the Pro Bowl is relevant and provide a convincing argument that makes the game a must watch for me and all fans. Loyal Homer will argue that the Pro Bowl is not worth watching and should be skipped by all fans because the game is no longer relevant.

Good luck, and may the best argument give Mrs. Sports Geek a reason to complain about my watching the Pro Bowl for the first time ever!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Pro Bowl Relevance Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Sports Geek

The Pro Bowl Relevance Debate – Keep Doing Your Thing Pro Bowl

January 28, 2010

Read the debate intro and the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.



Professional football is not conducive to an All-Star game. Every football game at the professional level takes an incredible toll on a player’s body. Studies reveal professional football players run much higher risks of serious injury and shorter life expectancies, especially offensive linemen. Considering that the NFL regular season is 16 games long, it is impressive that any players stay healthy all season long. Add to that the potential of four preseason games and up to four more postseason games, and it is down right miraculous that players survive. Yet the NFL extends its schedule by one more game, and at the end of the season no less. This year’s Pro Bowl is scheduled for the week before the Super Bowl, the most inopportune time for an injury. So why in the world would a player voluntarily subject themselves to the arbitrary opportunity for injury in a game that holds no influence on the outcome of the season? Because it matters.

The Pro Bowl is not just another game, it is so much more. It is both an achievement and a status. Anyone who remotely follows the NFL is familiar with the term “Pro Bowler.” Participating in the Pro Bowl sets a player apart from the rest of the league. The words define a sportsman as one of the elite players in the game. They are selected by their coaches, peers, and fans to represent the best their team and conference has to offer. It is an honor to simply be invited to play in the Pro Bowl. Since almost every team gets to send at least one player to the Pro Bowl, and it is an opportunity for that team to showcase what they are best at doing (in Oakland it is punting). Not all great players will be enshrined in the Hall of Fame, but each season the Pro Bowl allows players to earn a chance for recognition as the best in the game.

Critics will point to the fact that it is difficult to assemble a football team from a pool of players who come from different teams with dissimilar playbooks, but this flaw also provides for one of the most alluring and unique aspects of the Pro Bowl, real life fantasy football. Only in the Pro Bowl will fans get to see an offense where Peyton Manning can throw passes to Randy Moss. It is the only place where fans can watch what happens when Tom Brady faces a defense with an unbelievable pass rush, with players like Julius Peppers and Jared Allen, and shutdown coverage, from players like Charles Woodson and Adrian Wilson. In fact the Pro Bowl boasts so much talent that we refer to the exclusion of elite players (Tony Gonzalez, London Fletcher, Cedric Benson, and Thomas Jones) as snubs. No one expects these All-Star teams to have instant chemistry or camaraderie, yet they still impress us and dazzle us with jaw dropping performances because they play with pride.

The Pro Bowl is football’s one last hoorah. The game brings a sense of finality and closure. Aside from this year’s quirky scheduling, the Pro Bowl offers Americans one last quality game before the sport hibernates, while March Madness takes over and the boys of summer do their thing. The game provides one final time to celebrate the season’s accomplishment in grand style. While it may not do so with the same pageantry as the Super Bowl, it has built a niche in the sport as an occasion for celebration nonetheless.

It is hard for me to even imagine an argument against the Pro Bowl. What would the NFL replace it with? A punt, pass, and kick contest? Or better yet, maybe we could have a rousing plaque presentation and award season superlatives. The Pro Bowl has history, for as long as the league has had an AFC and an NFC it has had a Pro Bowl. It does not make sense to stop now.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share

1 Comment | The Pro Bowl Relevance Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Pro Bowl Relevance Debate – Quite Simply, the Pro Bowl Stinks!

January 28, 2010

Read the debate intro and the argument from Babe Ruthless.



I happen to share some of the same thoughts that Sports Geek echoed in the intro. I cannot remember the last time I watched the Pro Bowl from start to finish. Maybe that is because I never have. In fact, I could not tell you who won the last five Pro Bowls. Heck I could not tell you who won last year. Could someone help me out here? Please? I am waiting for an answer???!

Oh you don’t know either. Hmmm that is not a surprise!

What is a surprise is the fact that I, a single bachelor in his 20’s who loves professional football, could not tell anyone a single thing about a football game involving many of its stars. That in itself speaks to the relevance I, and most fans, believe the game has.

Let’s look at this year’s game. The starters and reserves were announced a couple of weeks before the end of the regular season. Now look at the teams and it is obvious that there has been tremendous turnover. The guys who are selected for the game that are playing in the Super Bowl are given a free pass on the game, which is an underrated perk for making the Super Bowl. Other players come up with reasons not to be there. And the guys that are there would rather be walking around South Beach (or at the beach, as was the case when the game was in Hawaii). It has always been an exhibition. But what it has become is a second-tier exhibition. Did you know that the three quarterbacks selected for the AFC team (Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Phillip Rivers) are not playing? They are being replaced by Matt Schaub, David Garrard, and Vince Young. What? Vince Young? He did not even play half the season!

When I was a kid growing up, I played little league. At the end of the season, all stars were always selected. I thought I had a chance to make it one year, but my lack of speed was a detriment to making the team. Well, I am sitting at home one afternoon, probably playing Tecmo Bowl on Nintendo, and I get a call at home from my little league coach saying they had a spot for me on the team. Yeah they were that desperate! I was so excited! It turns out that the only reason I was invited was because one of the other kids on the team had a conflict arise. I did not care, though. I had been recognized for the season I had, even if I was not chosen during the initial round of selections.

That situation mirrors the Pro Bowl. When players like Garrard are getting invitations to the Pro Bowl, you know the game is suffering. Just like when people like Loyal Homer are getting invitations to play in All-Star games, the game is suffering. No intention to slight to Garrard, who had an okay season. But he did not have a season worthy of a Pro Bowl. He is probably tickled to death to be in Miami this week, and good for him. Even his general manager implied that it was not one of his best seasons. That conclusion speaks to the overall quality of the game. It has become a second tier game and an afterthought of the people that are supposed to be participating.

I really cannot fault the players for the lack of interest in the game. Sure, I want the players on my team there. It is cool to see them mingling with players on other teams. I remember how cool it was years ago to see Brett Favre throwing passes to guys like Jerry Rice. But what if someone seriously gets hurt? Imagine how ticked off you would be if a player on of your favorite team got hurt (I refuse to give an example here for fear of giving them the Loyal Homer jinx). I know I would be livid. That is one of the main reasons there is a lack of interest by the players.

The bottom line is that the Pro Bowl is not even an exhibition featuring the best anymore. Manning and Drew Brees had two of the best, if not the best, seasons. They are not in the game because they have their eyes on that little thing called the Lombardi Trophy! The Pro Bowl has become less of a game and more of a ceremony.

My advice to you… watch the Grammys Sunday night!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Pro Bowl Relevance Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Loyal Homer

The Super Bowl Climate Debate – Snowball fights or Summer Nights

January 28, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer about whether or not the Super Bowl should continue to be hosted only in warm weather or domed stadiums.



This year’s Super Bowl is just about ten days away, and will be held at Sun Life Stadium in tropical South Florida. If all goes right, the warm Miami night will be the perfect backdrop for an epic matchup of explosive offenses. But is this the way the Super Bowl should be? That is exactly the question that this debate explored.

Bleacher Fan made a case for a cold weather Super Bowl, debunking several popular explanations for why the NFL snubs northern cold weather venues. Specifically, the interesting points made were how a cold weather Super Bowl somehow puts warm weather teams at a disadvantage, that sloppy conditions lead to a poor quality game, and that a white out could equal a wipe out the big game. Bleacher Fan did a masterful job of providing counterpoint to these popular theories, proving them to be misconceptions. His most compelling argument was that a snowy Super Bowl would be a fan favorite, and I tend to agree. From snow ball fights to snow angel celebrations, excitement would most definitely be in the air.

Loyal Homer argued that a cold weather bowl would never fly, that the frigid, snowy weathers of the North would not be the proper venue for what is arguably sports most important championship game. Loyal Homer also pointed out that the suits and the powers that be – who can actually afford Super Bowl tickets – would be none too thrilled to endure the freezing temperatures of one of the less desirable locations, citing several examples of potentially arctic locations for the Super Bowl, like Buffalo or Wisconsin.

For me the debate was pretty easy to decide, and it seemed tailor made for Bleacher Fan. The opening sentence of his argument was direct. To paraphrase “There really aren’t any good reasons why the Super Bowl must be played in warm weather venues and domes.” The game should belong to the fans the diehards who are there rain or shine and make every game that leads up to the big night possible. The Super Bowl is about competition at its highest level so who cares if the conditions are not “ideal.” Unpredictable conditions make the game that much more exciting to watch. And for those reasons I am awarding the “W” to Bleacher Fan.

The Super Bowl should be for all fans not just those blessed with warm weather. The NFL should spread the wealth when it comes to its premier event, and show some love to the cold weather locations.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Super Bowl Climate Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Super Bowl Climate Debate – Should Climate Control Come Standard?

January 27, 2010

Read the opposing arguments from Bleacher Fan and Loyal Homer about whether or not the Super Bowl should continue to be hosted only in warm weather or domed stadiums.



The Super Bowl has become a fair weather game. All the Super Bowls of the modern millennia have been played in warm locations. Specifically, Florida, Arizona, California, Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia. The only exception came in 2006, when the Super Bowl was held at Ford Field in Detroit, an indoor stadium that does not exactly qualify as a cold weather venue. There are a lot of positive aspects to hosting the game in a warm, and sometimes tropical, location. Warm weather games are clearly more fan friendly. No body wants to shell out huge amounts of money for Super Bowl tickets only to say, “The weather was lousy. I was miserable the whole time.” Good weather is a plus for the media, who have millions of dollars invested in covering the most watched sporting event of the year, and do not wish to worry about snow and sleet impacting the halftime performance. Aren’t Mick Jagger and the other fossils they dig up for the halftime performances brittle enough without having to worry about the cold?

But cold weather venues also offer certain unique experiences which capture the ruggedness and unpredictability that make the NFL so exciting in the first place. The 1967 National Football League Championship between the Dallas Cowboys and Green Bay Packer – more popularly known as “The Ice Bowl” – is one of the most memorable games in professional football history. There is something special about two teams meeting in an epic clash, staged upon a chilly backdrop of negative 40 degree wind-chill temperatures. Whenever I see footage of a white field in Foxborough or Green Bay I always stop and think, “Man, I wish I could see a game like that!”

So, which venue is best for the game? That is the issue that today’s debate will attempt to resolve. Should the Super Bowl be played in a cold weather climate?

Bleacher Fan will argue that true fans of the game want to see the Super Bowl played in its harshest and most challenging environment – outside, during the Winter in the North. Loyal Homer will argue that the sensible and responsible thing to do is keep the game in the warmth and comfort of a Southern climate.

Should the NFL tip their caps to the purists and diehard fans that would surely be thrilled to see a blizzard bowl? Or is the smart money on keeping the game out of the frigid wastelands and maintaining a vacation atmosphere the better plan?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Super Bowl Climate Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Babe Ruthless

The Super Bowl Climate Debate – Debunking the Myth

January 27, 2010

Read the debate intro and the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.



Can someone PLEASE give me a VALID reason why the Super Bowl is only played in domes and warm weather climates? I know what people SAY the reasons are, but allow me to debunk those myths right now!

Myth #1 – Cold weather could create a disadvantage for “warm-weather” teams.

WHO CARES?! Nobody seems too concerned about an open-air team that has to play within the confines of a dome for the Super Bowl. Likewise, nobody is crying that Indianapolis and New Orleans, two dome teams, have to play this year’s Super Bowl in (gasp) an open-air stadium.

Do you really expect me to believe that trained professional athletes who play in Cleveland (okay, bad example for a Super Bowl discussion, but you get my point) are affected any less by snow and cold than people who play in Phoenix? The Clevelander may be more tolerant of the cold, but their body still reacts in exactly the same way.

Football is a sport played NATIONWIDE from the months of September through January. That means there is cold weather EVERYWHERE. If the San Diego Chargers, for example, are so one dimensional that they can only win a game if played when the temperatures are above 50 degrees, and there is no precipitation, then THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO BE IN THE SUPER BOWL!

Being a dome-team did not seem to bother Indianapolis in 2006 when they had to win a playoff game in Baltimore, and then when the team defeated the Chicago Bears during the monsoon Super Bowl that took place in Miami several weeks later.

The fact is that a championship football team will win games no matter where they are played.

Myth #2 – Bad weather equals bad games.

Super Bowl XLI proved two things. First, that even so-called warm weather cities like Miami can have horrible weather, and second, it proved that football is a game that was designed for play in any climate.

The game, which was played in a very chilly rain from start to finish, pitted the domed Indianapolis Colts against the cold weather Chicago Bears. If the myths were to hold true, then Indianapolis would have no chance of winning the game, and the final score should have been 9-3.

What ACTUALLY happened was a very entertaining game that ended with a 29-17 Colts victory. The Colts, who (according to the myth) should have been far too delicate to handle anything other than a dome’s climate-controlled perfection, amassed 430 total yards of offense, including 239 passing yards on 38 attempts.

Myth #3 – A blizzard could shut down a cold-weather Super Bowl.

I have news for you on this one: Blizzards affect THE CITY, not the stadium. So how is it that the NFL had no problem scheduling Super Bowls in Detroit and Minneapolis, but will not schedule one in Foxboro or New York? Detroit and Minneapolis get hit with blizzards all the time! Just because the stadium is under cover does not mean that the city would be operational. If a blizzard had hit Detroit on February 5th, 2006, there would NOT have been a Super Bowl XL. The fact that Ford Field is under cover would have done NOTHING to save the game, because that same cover does not protect the rest of the city.

Myth #4 – Bad weather is not fan-friendly.

Allow me to speak with authority on this particular myth.

Living in Cleveland, Ohio, I have been to football games when it was 80 degrees, and I have been to football games when it was five below zero. In all my years as a season-ticket holder, my best experience as a fan was at a game that took place on December 16th, 2007. In that game the Browns played the Buffalo Bills in a literal white-out. Winds were blowing up to 40 miles per hour, and there were times when the snow was so heavy that you could hardly make out the field. (It was so cold and snowy that my hoodie literally froze around my head. By the end of the game, the hood had frozen into a sort of hood-helmet!)

Still, the game was played in front of more than 73,000 screaming fans (check out this YouTube video for a little taste of the experience), all of whom were having the times of their lives!

Likewise, nearly 69,000 flooded the gates of Foxboro Stadium three weeks ago as the New England Patriots played host to the Baltimore Ravens for a Wildcard matchup, and another 63,000 filled the seats at Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati for their Wildcard game.

If 79,000 raucous New Yorkers are willing to pack Giants Stadium on January 3rd for a regular-season week 17 matchup between the New York Jets and the Cincinnati Bengals, I think that the Super Bowl Committee could comfortably trust that they will not have any problems selling Super Bowl tickets at the same stadium one month later.

Although there are many stated reasons why the Super Bowl is never scheduled in a cold-weather city, the facts of history continue to prove over and again that those reasons are completely invalid. It is time to reconsider the current Super Bowl model and let the fans from Chicago, Green Bay, Denver, Cleveland, and New York (for example) have their chance to stage football’s greatest game. To paraphrase a famous saying: Neither rain, nor sleet, nor heat, nor gloom of night will keep football fans from travelling en masse to the single biggest sporting event of the year!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share

Leave a Comment » | The Super Bowl Climate Debate | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Bleacher Fan

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.