An article by an ESPN columnist who is bitching about the Super Bowl being in Indianapolis in 2012 because of the cold weather...
Indianapolis? You mean, the Indianapolis in Indiana? The place where the low was 26 degrees with a trace of snow on Super Bowl Sunday this year?
I don't get it. Playing in a Super Bowl is supposed to be a reward, not a reason to visit your local North Face outlet. And attending a Super Bowl as a fan is supposed to be the experience of a lifetime, a chance to break out multiple bottles of SPF 30.
The only things you'll break out in Indy are space heaters.
Didn't the NFL learn its lesson in 1982, when the Super Bowl was played in Pontiac, Mich. -- otherwise known as "Ice Station Zebra"? Or in 1992, when the game was played in Minneapolis? Or in 2006, when the only person happy to go to Detroit for Super Bowl XL was Jerome Bettis, who was born and raised there?
I sent him this e-mail...
I just finished reading your latest article on ESPN, and I hope you were being sarcastic. Your biggest complaint about the Super Bowl being held in Indianapolis is the cold weather? Some times I have to wonder if Americans even know what real football is. Try watching a Grey Cup in November in Winnipeg.
Not to mention the game will be held in the new Lucas Oil Stadium, a stadium with a retractable roof. If you whine enough, I'm sure they'll close it for you come game time.