|
The league’s efforts to keep the 12-team playoff format are encouraging. To me, it
would be a big mistake to cut the number of postseason participants from 12 to eight. If
that happened, I am convinced the quality of regular-season football games would suffer
— especially beginning by early November, when more teams than usual would already
have been eliminated from playoff contention.
Do whatever it takes to keep the status quo.
That said, I understand the great barriers that must be overcome to accomplish that
goal. Options include condensing the postseason schedule, meaning more games would be
played in a shorter period of time. That could require teams to play just a few days after
their last playoff win. Personally, I’m not a fan of this plan. In the postseason,
fans deserve to see the players at their best — not beat up and worn out because they
are playing too many games in too short a timeframe.
The NFL also is considering moving the Super Bowl back a week, from Jan. 27 to Feb. 3.
However, there is a major conflict with that, as New Orleans is hosting a convention of
auto dealers the week after the Super Bowl is originally scheduled to be played. The NFL
currently is negotiating with the National Automobile Dealers Association and may be able
to work something out. It may mean the NFL has to pay the expenses the NADA would incur
for changing the dates of their convention. The league seems inclined to do so if it would
mean keeping the 12-team playoff format and the Super Bowl in New Orleans.
I would approve of this if the NFL can get it done.
And then there is the very interesting option of playing an AFC-NFC championship
doubleheader in the SuperDome on Jan. 27, and then holding the Super Bowl a week later at
an alternate site. While the city of New Orleans certainly deserves to host the NFL
championship this season, it simply may not be feasible. The unique alternative of holding
the conference championship games at a neutral site in one day is one that I like a lot.
That begs the question: What city should host Super Bowl XXXVI?
Miami, Tampa and Pasadena have been contacted by the league. They aren’t right for
this year’s game, I say.
I believe the NFL should award this season’s Super Bowl to the New York-Jersey
area. I say play Super Bowl XXXVI in Giants Stadium.
New York recently has endured some of the darkest days this country has ever seen.
Bringing the Super Bowl to New York would serve as a way to lift the city’s spirits
— economically and emotionally.
Now, there may be people out there snickering at this suggestion. Yes, it may be a bit
extreme, but please hear me out.
Critics of this plan may suggest that New York has much bigger issues to deal with now
than planning to host the Super Bowl on short notice. Point taken. But we’ve seen
that New York is a can-do city. I bet civic leaders would rally together in an effort to
inject a much-needed economic boost to Manhattan. Mayor Rudy Giuliani himself has implored
his citizens to carry on as usual and spend money to keep area businesses healthy.
Furthermore, because the game itself would actually be played in New Jersey, public and
private leaders of that state could be involved in planning the event.
Emotionally, it might be good for the region as well. By late January, we will not have
forgotten those who perished in the terrorist attacks. Nor will we have forgotten the
heroic efforts of so many rescue workers. But those memories won’t be at the
forefront of our minds anymore. The nation’s public will have begun to move on in an
effort to heal. But holding the game at Giants Stadium would again throw a spotlight on
those heroes and give us another chance to honor the victims and those who helped. Think
of the number of media members who cover Super Bowl week. There would be hundreds and
hundreds of stories updating the world on what has happened in New York since Sept. 11.
Yes, there is the weather issue. I am one of those idiots who complained that Atlanta
shouldn’t have been hosting a Super Bowl as I slipped around the streets of that city
after a freak ice storm hit just days before Super Bowl XXXIV.
New York in January might be very cold and wet. There is a good chance ice and snow
will be present. So what.
Football is a game that’s meant to be played outdoors, in whatever conditions God
has called for that day. It wouldn’t be the first time the NFL has played its
championship game in a northern city experiencing bad weather. The first-ever official NFL
championship was played Dec. 17, 1933 in Chicago. I’m from Chicago. I know that Windy
City weather is generally less than pleasant in December. Yet, the league played the game.
And one year later, New York hosted the title game Dec. 9, a game that drew 35,059 fans,
despite freezing rain the night before and a low temperature of nine degrees.
New York last hosted an NFL championship Dec. 30, 1962. Nearly 65,000 people poured
into Yankee Stadium to watch that one. And what about the Ice Bowl, the NFL championship
game that preceded Super Bowl II. On Dec. 31, 1967, the Packers beat the Cowboys in Green
Bay — a game that was played despite the outdoor temperature being 13 degrees below
zero at kickoff.
I don’t want to hear from the privileged few who are lucky enough to attend Super
Bowls that New York is too cold. It seems like a trivial complaint considering what that
city has had to endure in the last couple of weeks, don’t you think?
This is an unconventional idea to be sure. But I also believe it deserves some real
consideration. The NFL isn’t going to make a snap judgement when deciding how to
handle this year’s playoffs. They will take some time to look at all the
alternatives. I hope they at least think about how much good New York could get out of
hosting Super Bowl XXXVI. |
