Grey "Domed" Cup?

With the weather situation this week in Edmonton, I thought it might be timely to raise the issue of weather in the Grey Cup classic. I know this will be controversial to some of you, but I'd like to get your feedback.

Those of us who are old enough to remember can harken back to the infamous 1961 "Fog Bowl" in Toronto when visibility was virtually zero. Even the cameras could barely focus on the action. There was also the 1977 "Ice Bowl" in, of all places, the Big Owe (with an uncovered stadium). Tony "the Staplegun" Proudfoot came up with the brilliant idea of tacking staples to the Als' cleats. How many "Freeze Bowls" did we have out West?

So, that begs the question, should the elite game of the season, where patrons pay premium prices, be subjected to such conditions? These conditions necessarily have an effect on the play - throwing into a gale-force wind, slipping and sliding, sloppy play in muddy conditions, increased chances of injury to elite players....etc. etc. etc.

Now I know some of you will hit the ceiling claiming that this is Canada, such are the weather conditions in the late Fall...etc. However, we now have 3 domed stadia, i.e. Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal. I therefore suggest some alternatives:

Suggestion 1: Start the season in mid-June, which would mean ending the season in late October or very early November, increasing the chances of better weather.

Suggestion 2: Shortening the season - 16 games.

Suggestion 3: Varying the venue of the Grey Cup to cities with covered stadia only.

The reason for the suggestions is to allow the elite players on the elite teams (i.e. those which survived the season and earned their way to the Grey Cup) to perform under optimal conditions.

What say you?

Je ne crois pas que ce soit une bonne idée parce que cela suppose de faire la promotion de la saison et le camp d'entraînement pendant les séries de la Coupe Stanley.

Suggestion 2: Shortening the season - 16 games.
Je crois que les équipes et la ligue ont bien besoin de ces deux parties.
Suggestion 3: Varying the venue of the Grey Cup to cities with covered stadia only.
Ce serait injuste pour les autres équipes qui ont autant le droit que les autres de présenter l'événement. Ça risquerait même de diminuer l'intérêt pour la LCF dans ces villes.
The reason for the suggestions is to allow the elite players on the elite teams (i.e. those which survived the season and earned their way to the Grey Cup) to perform under optimal conditions.
Les conditions du climat font partie de la magie de la Coupe Grey. Il n'est pas mauvais de voir l'élite à l'oeuvre dans les moins bonnes conditions. On voit alors une autre dimension des joueurs d'élite. Regardez comment Getzlaf s'est illustré à Calgary la semaine dernière. Pendant que les receveurs de Calgary se les gelaient (sauf Bryant, peut-être), Getzlaf faisait fi des conditions météo et empilait beau jeu sur beau jeu. Alors qui était l'élite, cette journée-là?

I'm fine with how things are. Weather conditions can add memorable elements to big games. However, since you asked:

I wouldn't mind this. It would move the season up by a couple of weeks. Exhibition games would be played when hockey playoffs are still going, but that's not a major problem.

No way. Can't get enough football, and the loss of revenue would damage the league and result in losing some players who would not be willing to take an 11% pay cut.

No. There isn't enough football mania in the three big cities to warrant having the GC every three years. The most enjoyable GC weeks are invariably when the game is played on the Prairies.