Not me, the ability to play football in sub zero temps proves nothing at all. The game was intended as a fall sport and because of additional games added at the pro level over the years found itself moving into colder temps. The super bowl should bring the best possible game and playing at 10 below is just not going to do that. I know I Know there are other weather conditions like rain and wind during the fall that play havoc with games too, but the cold seems to be at least to be the most limiting. There there is the whole fan thing, the super bowl is supposed to be a fun time, frezing your butt off is not much fun to me. (Though I did sit through opening day of our local Class A minor league baseball team this year when it was 37 degrees and flakes of snow in the air. All in in all very unbaseball like) But if I am going to drop a couple of grand for a trip to the Super Bowl, give someplace warm! Hey at least then you don't have to put the cheerleaders in a parka!

Thanks for not having it in a climate controlled, multipurpose entertainment facility, e.g., Lucas Oil, Texa$ $tadium.

Eh, that's Cowboys Stadium and the 2011 Super Bowl will be played there.
Still, I think football should always be outdoors. Let 'em all face the elements - anything short of a lightning storm, tornado or hurricane.
I'd also prefer it if they played on real grass, but that may be too much to ask for.
I'm indifferent about whether the Super Bowl should be in warm weather or not. Since I'm not one who's going to spend upwards of $2,000 to attend, I could care less about other people sitting in the cold. They do it for Green Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh, etc. If they're real fans and not corporate types, they won't care.
However, I do find the idea that the NFL chose New York/New Jersey because Wellington Mara introduced revenue sharing to be quite ridiculous. Do it because you want the game to be near NFL headquarters and the nation's largest city. Silly politics shouldn't matter.

Why is ESPN trying to make Emmitt Smith out to be a GOAT? Crazy O.J. was better! I hope he fumbles.

Now Jerry Rice is the GOAT as far as receivers?

I missed it. What did ESPN say?

Barry Sanders was better then both of them. But the GOAT has to be Jim Brown.

Curious who other then Rice would you choose?

I would easily say that IMHO Jerry Rice is still the greatest receiver to ever play. Many had great "streaks" (T.O., Andre Rison and a host of others) but no one had the work ethic and hands like Rice. His yards after the catch were insane.

I thought Emmitt Smith was over-rated.

I agree about Rice. I don't know about overrated, but Emmitt did have one of the great O-lines of all time ahead of him, to say nothing of Aikman, Irvin, Novacek and expert play calling by Turner and later Zampezi. Take away just one of those factors, and his numbers drop. Still, I think two events in the 1993-94 season defined his legacy. He held out at the start of the season, and the Cowboys went 0-2. With him in the lineup, they went 12-2 the rest of the way. The other of course is that season finale in New York when he played on, despite a separated shoulder, to help his team clinch the division. So even if his skills weren't what you might expect from an all-time great, his importance to the team that season says a lot about the heart and soul of this one football player.

Don't forget about Daryl Johnston!

Ah, yes. Moose!