Cold Weather Football - Soon Exclusive to CFB?

There is something nostalgic or a certain charm about watching sports in an outdoor stadium. I don’t know what it is, but I prefer it, even when the weather is horrible.  I just feel like I’m part of the experience when I get wet/cold/sweaty/hot/etc 

I had a GF many years ago whose family had season tickets to the Bears. But they hated going to games with bad weather. Because of that, I had free tickets to Bears games anytime after Thanksgiving. 

While I would prefer a dome because I don’t want to have to worry about the weather, I enjoy reading mgoweather and want her to continue to do what she does during football season 

One the many things I loved about sports as a kid was literally being outside - in the sun or rain, smelling the grass. And as others note I think this is overstated. But - it's not just about FB and the SB. If youre building a stadium on Chicago's lake shore, its a significant cost. 8 FB games/yr plus a SB can prolly recover it - but you want a profit. So you build a stadium that can also host Beyonce in January, the Final Four, and cirq du soleil on tour. A domed stadium makes a lot of sense

But while it doesnt make sense, shivering for Braylonfest until the crowd suddenly got energy and we all warmed up - or seeing the swirling storm as Michigan FINALLY vanquished Ohio. you cant measure it in dollars or sense. You just gotta FEEL it

College football players - particularly quarterbacks - benefit from playing in cold weather if they want to make it big in the NFL. Look at the list of all-time great NFL quarterbacks, and only one (Jim Kelly) played in a truly warm college climate. I don't even count Peyton and Tennessee, because it ain't exactly balmy there in November. Most of the NFL legends - Tom Brady, Joe Montana, Drew Brees, Dan Marino, even Aaron Rodgers - played college football in cold weather.

One recruiting pitch that northern schools give: you want to show the NFL teams that you can handle playing in cold weather, which you can't do if you only play in the south or in California.

I love watching games with snow and rain. I’ve also turned down free NFL tickets several times when offered at below 10 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Outdoor football isn’t going away but I understand the urge to keep that away from the postseason. 

Well, flyovers are more fun. Navy Seals won’t bounce off parachuting in so that’s a plus.

Ice/snow by halftime Illinois game we lost with many Wheatley fumbles and driving ice rain Northwestern game in November years ago where we stayed past halftime despite it being a foregone conclusion in our favor come to mind on the negative.

Dome is for crowd experience only otherwise might as well be home with big screen and close restrooms which is becoming a big threat.

I have accumulated enough peripheral circulation damage that I can no longer attend cold weather events. There is zero nostalgia associated with playing or watching in extreme conditions.   I have bitter memories of being forced to participate in my own permanent impairment by adults with Neanderthal sensibilities.    

Seasons and weather are part of the game… so, I’m a fan of being outdoors - playing a sport or as a spectator.

We already are becoming sedentary as a society / world - watch tv, play games, social media, etc….    I think we’d be better off doing more things outdoors.   And, football is an “outside” game…

Those 4 little quote marks are doing some heavy lifting

Vastly prefer outdoor football viewing. IMNSHO preference for indoor football borders on contemptible. The reason goodell might be hinting at no more outdoor Super Bowls is likely because that event caters less and less to football fans and more to status seekers trying to be seen at the big event. Disgusting!

The problem is using the stadiums for non-sports related purposes at other times during the year. The United Center (or whatever it's called) is tough to use for say, a concert or monster truck rally, during basically October through April/May/June because of the Bulls' and Blackhawks' schedules. Solider field isn't really an option since, well, no one wants to do that during most of the year. Even during nice months, you're still risking bad weather (rain, etc.). Couple that with owners wanting significant tax breaks and incentives from cities with the promise of urban revitalization that never seems to materialize and cities saying, "Well, if you want this, you need to make it usable year-round," and voila. As much as a I dislike Jerry Jones, he did not seek public financing because he wanted to do Jerry World his way. I personally don't mind it, but I also have blood circulation issues so I don't attend cold weather games or other events. 

I can deal with the dome if the weather really sucks.  Otherwise the dome is a sterile environment.  

Grew up in North Carolina and I’ve always felt that I would rather play the college football season in Michigan vs NC or even worse, further south.   I think the heat and humidity of late August through even early October are way worse than one or two colder games in November if you are playing.

Been to two postseason Michigan games 2018 Peach Bowl and the Rose Bowl. Obviously stakes and matchup make a big difference but the MB Arena was a pretty sterile environment.   Give me outdoor stadiums almost all the time.  But I’m an OG too.

Dome football is sterile and lame.

I care more about the rake angle, bathroom accessibility and concessions. If these are even, outdoor is safer, more fun, and creates memories more readily. 

The 2022 Illinois game was cold, there were many field goals,  a season ending injury, and Illinois played single high most of the game. That is what I recall in order.

I thought the NFL always had a rule (or understanding) against cold weather Super Bowls, and the only exception was NYC since it is the largest market in the US and home to two franchises.  

Patroits, Giants/Jets. Broncos, Baltimore, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philly, DC to a certain extent...probably others I am not thinking about.  Not sure I buy your premise.

A dome can be used for other events year-round. That's where the money to build something like this is going to come from (at $5 billion, more than half will need to come from the taxpayers). It's the difference between just a new stadium and an event center. Newer designs are moving away from the retractable roof concept, which is difficult enough in no-snow areas (Lucas Oil in Indianapolis is the only northern retractable roof, and the new complexes in Los Angeles and Las Vegas have fixed roofs).

Turf is a concern. NFL teams have been replacing slit-film turf in recent years (thicker and holds rubber pellets better) because it seems to generate more injuries, but the players say that's not enough and the studies seem to back that up. The question is whether more frequent replacement of turf also solves the problem. It's hard to maintain grass in the north - it wears down quickly in the winter. Indoor stadiums can use grass, but you need a system like the one in Las Vegas, where they keep it on a tray outdoors and slide it in for events. It seems unlikely there would be space for that in Chicago. Green Bay uses a hybrid grass/turf system.

It's a difficult argument. If they want a new money-making complex next to Soldier Field, it gets built because it's an all-year event center. But you have to deal with turf and if Caleb Williams goes down with a knee in the home opener in 2029, everyone's going to be angry. From a fan perspective, I don't think being outside in cold weather has as much charm for younger people as it did. If built, this will be a nice-looking center overlooking Lake Michigan. They'll undoubtedly use a lot of glass and take advantage of sight lines. And they'll have additional cell towers, for the young people who can't handle looking away from their smart phones for more than a few seconds at a time. Modern domes do not resemble the Silverdome. The new one in Minneapolis is quite nice looking.

The plan for Arlington is obviously dying. Seemed like a good one, but the Bears failed to get community leaders on board and fights about tax valuations apparently killed it. So they have 300 acres of prime land near highways and nothing to do there. That was going to be a domed stadium with lots of off-season event support as well.

There's still a long way to go before this new proposal can move forward - likely the same tax arguments, plus the increased cost of working in so small a space right off the lake. The fact they announced this the day before the Caleb Williams pick - obviously intentional, since there's a lot of excitement about that. But Bears fans have turned quarterback-hating into an art. Jim McMahon is the only past quarterback they accepted. The minute Williams becomes human, he'll be as hated as Jay Cutler ever was.

Recruiting for the Big Ten? I don't think it could hurt. The Big Ten would probably want to hold the championship game there, maybe permanently. They'll get Final Fours, probably a Super Bowl the year after it opens (if Chicago's leadership is smart, they'll insist on it right from the start). I don't think it will move the recruiting needle, but any time a $5 billion project is built, it brings positive attention to the area. If they can pull this off, it will immediately become the most important sports venue in the entire region.