North Texas Can't Handle a Super Bowl? That Idea Needs to Be Put Back on Ice

I've watched the local TV news more during the past week than I have since Christmas, when I'm at my parents' and they watch it every day. So I've had to put up with all the smack that a lot of the national sports reporters' smack talk about how this area supposedly can't handle a Super Bowl just because the weather this week is colder than either of the home cities of the teams in the game. I know that Jim Rome (whom I've largely ignored over the years) said, "6 inches of snow? Really, Dallas? Good luck getting another Super Bowl." And Sports Illustrated's Peter King, whom I used to respect, tweeted, "I'm telling you: I-30 between Dallas + Fort Worth is a plow-less, snow-windswept moonscape. This is officially a debacle." And there are more at the link above.

My reaction? Eh, put a(n athletic) sock in it, guys. It's not like this sort of thing happens every week here; it's just an unfortunate convergence of events. (Though even I'll admit that I'm amused by those who are saying that this is obviously proof that God hates Jerry Jones. Heh.)

But the thing that really got my dander up was a column by a Fox Sports writer whom I'd never heard of before--and now have no interest in reading again--named Alex Marvez, who came up with this clunker of a statement:

Let it snow.

Let there also be sleet, freezing rain and an avalanche.

Anything that will convince the NFL that plopping Super Bowls in cold-weather locales is a brr-brr-brr-brutally bad idea.

Umm, dude...Dallas/Ft. Worth isn't exactly a "cold-weather locale." Neither is Atlanta, which had a similar thing happen when it hosted Super Bowl XXXIV back in 2000. It's just a freak of nature over which nobody has any control. Bad timing? Yes. But a reason to exclude all but a few cities from Super Bowl consideration for the future? Not at all.

OK, I agree with the guy that it might get, umm, interesting in a few years when Super Bowl XLVIII is played in the New Jersey Meadowlands--outdoors. And even though he notes that "such a cold-weather site is better equipped to deal with the elements than an area like Dallas-Fort Worth," at least the game here will be played with the roof closed.

It appears that, if this Marvez character had his way, the Big Game would only be played in two places: Southern California and South Florida. It hardly seems right to let those two areas hog all the attention (not to mention the economic impact from the big week), especially when other areas have new stadiums that they want to show off on the big stage (and especially when L.A. doesn't even field a team at the moment).

Look, I'm sure everyone wishes that the weather was a little more typical of the area this week. If it had been a week ago, the high today would be 75 (and how much do you want to bet that a few Northern reporters would be griping about the heat?). Yes, the bad weather couldn't have come at a worse time, but it's not like anybody could help it, and--apart from a few debacles like the rolling power blackouts and DART dropping the ball on having its trains ready to run on Tuesday)--everyone handled things as best they could.

Here's hoping for nicer weather for the next two days and a game that goes off without a hitch tomorrow; if the big day itself leaves a good taste in everyone's mouth, maybe those same mouths will finally stop slamming us.