Jen sent this to us with a note about being annoyed by the talking heads on the radio

     I’m not a statistics-spoutin’ sports fan like some folks, so maybe that’s why I just don’t get why there was some whining that the Super-bowl was held in a cold weather city this year.   The radio show I listen to on the way to work was broadcasting from Detroit last week and one after another their sports expert guests were saying that this should be the last time the game is held somewhere other than places like Florida and Arizona.   Why?

     As I grew up I remember all that footage of great games played in the snow.  I remember football fans giving baseball players crap because they cover up the field and wait when it rains – real athletes can play in any condition. Football players are tough gladiators, gridiron warriors.   But, could we please have the crowning achievement of the season be comfy?

     It’s for the fans you say?  You think guys that paint themselves blue and sit shirtless in Chicago in January won’t come to the championship game if it’s cold outside the dome?  Even at $300 a ticket I’m guessing they’ll be there.   Wait – it’s because fans want to make a family vacation out of the trip – Dad gets to see the game if the kids get to go to see Mickey after.  By that logic I guess Detroit was acceptable because at least mom and dad could pop over the Canadian border to Windsor and do a bit of gambling at the casino and get their prescriptions refilled while they were there. 

     It needs to be a neutral site you say?  There are no neutral sites that dip below 60 in January?   And, oh yeah, ask a Seahawks fan how “neutral” Detroit felt. 

            Pittsburgh to Detroit – 290 miles

            Seattle to Detroit – 2,400 miles

     Face it – there is no way to ensure a neutral site when the venue is picked so far in advance.

     So why?  I just don’t get it.  Help us regular people understand.

Jen is a Berkeley Grad and still upset that Tony Gonzalez hasn’t had his shot at a Super Bowl ring.