Dome Founded: Can a Dome Team Win It All, again?

by Ryan Van Bibber on Jan 22, 2007 12:34 PM CST in Events

It seemed like it would never happen, even though you knew it was inevitable. The bleakness and the hopelessness of it all lured all those thoughts, but ultimately, the ice melted and the power came back on, after a week.

Similar statements might also describe how Colts fans felt at the half yesterday, as another Patriots playoff win was in the making. Alas, fate and probability finally intervened on behalf of the Colts. As a Rams fan, I'll admit to having little preference for either team battling it out for the AFC bid to the Super Bowl; my remaining fan enthusiasm reserved for another playoffs without the Golden Horns was dedicated to the Saints. Somewhere a guy named Chad is smiling, readying himself for another round of childish comments on other team blogs designed only to lure fans into a pissing contest they can't win. Bring it on. The small, but growing community here at the Turf Show Times stands ready to thwart such futile arguments.

But still, something our erstwhile Bears fan said got me thinking this weekend, thinking about domes and the teams that play there. Earlier in the season, Chad posted this diary demeaning the Rams only Super Bowl championship that many of us can recall by stating that after "cheating" in the NFC title game, the Rams won Super Bowl XXXIV because the game was played in the Georgia Dome against a Titans team used to playing on grass.

Lest we give Chad more credit than he deserves, the point about dome and turf playing teams is an old one. However, we saw two dome and turf teams playing for a bid to the Super Bowl this weekend. One dome and turf team (the Colts) won, at home in their dome. The other dome team (the Saints) lost, on the road, outside in the bleak Chicago winter.

This year the Super Bowl will be played outside in the sunny environs of Dolphin Stadium in Miami, FL. That means, per the logic employed by critics of the dome/turf set, that the outdoor setting puts the Colts at a clear disadvantage. And to cite a bit of historical information, the Colts are the first team since the Rams and just the second team ever that call a dome home to play in the Super Bowl.

Right now, the Colts are favored to win the big game, by seven points. But let's hold off on the overall predictions and restrict our predictions to the dome factor. The Colts put up wins this season on the road against good teams that play under nothing but the sky. These include road wins against the Broncos and the Patriots. In the playoffs, the Colts beat a top-notch Ravens team on the road in Baltimore - outdoors. In my mind, that game erases the dome and turf argument.

As Rams fans, we root for a team that plays on turf in a dome, and face constant questioning of whether or not that dome imparts some distortion on our record and ability to win. I'm throwing it out to you Rams fans, and football fans in general, will the dome factor make a difference in Super Bowl XLI?

Tweet Comment 5 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Domes

I think the Colts got there the only way they could. They had to host that game. I really don't think they'd have won on the road in New England.

Frankly, I was one of the few people I read anywhere that said the Saints had NO shot to beat the Bears on the road. Everyone ignored the dome thing when it came to the Saints. It was clear to see how the Saints got worse and worse and the Bears kept getting better as the weather became more and more of a factor.

It's just hard to argue with the stats. There's no denying that dome teams are at a severe disadvantage on the road in the playoffs. I think however, that the advantage is mostly before the superbowl.

In this actual game, I doubt it will be much of a factor. It's Miami, it's a neutral field. There's no advantage to the elements. Similarly, I'm not sure the Rams would have ended up losing to the Titans if it was outdoors in Jacksonville or Tampa either.

Bleeding Green Nation Philadelphia Eagles Blog

by JasonB on Jan 22, 2007 1:08 PM CST reply actions

I like to say it doesn't,

when people criticize the rams, but i'm also the first person calling for the demolition of houston's enron field, because it's arena baseball.

maybe it has less to do with the weather, and not being able to handle the elements, and more to do with the fact that the vikings, falcons, rams, saints, and colts (stop me if i missed any) haven't had all that many great teams among them. when they do have a great team (the '98 vikes and falcons, the '99 and '01 rams, etc), they have either ran into a better team, or won it all. the colts of 02-06 were not as good as the patriots and steelers teams that they eventually lost to.

as for the saints, i would like to think that had sean payton not gone all mad mike and forgotten run the ball, the game would have been closer. the bears--WHO WERE EXACLY WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE (my favorite press-conference moment of the season)--did exactly what lovie teaches: forced turnovers, and set up a short field for their offense. it was old-school lovie-ball at its finest, circa the 2003 rams.

now it's time to eat crow:
chad, congratulations on your team's win. there is nothing more exciting than seeing your team win a super bowl, except, perhaps, for seeing them win the world series. i'm not exactly sure why you will be talking shit to rams fans this week, but i know that you will. my only guess is that either you have an incredibly boring job, or the message boards are your only contact with the cruel, unfeeling outside world. whatever the case, enjoy the next two weeks, because every time that you turn on espn, or go to espn.com, they will be discussing your team. i suppose you would know what i am talking about if your team had ever been relevant before during the espn era. but it hasn't. enjoy!

by SJ on Jan 22, 2007 2:01 PM CST reply actions

note:

i don't mean the chris berman-george grande, two guys broadcasting from a garage espn of 1985. i mean the fully integrated, on tv, online, everywhere espn that really came into being during the mid-1990s.

by SJ on Jan 22, 2007 2:04 PM CST up reply actions

home field

one thing that facotrs into this discussion is the matter of home field. Dome or no dome, any team has an advantage playing on their home field.

As Jason said above, i think that weighed heavily on the Colts/Pats game this week. It's not that hte Colts are a bad team outside, but being fairly evenly matched against the Pats, they would have been at somewhat of a disadvantage in New England. And vice versa, as it turned out.

As for the Saints/Bears, the bottom line is that the Bears were a better team, whether the Saints played at the Meadowlands or in the Superdome.

by Ryan Van Bibber on Jan 22, 2007 4:35 PM CST reply actions

Minor clarification

I realize this doesn't really affect the argument at all, but I meant to post this back when the diary first was posted but couldn't because comments weren't working at the time.

By my count, the Colts are actually the third dome team to play in the SB. The Falcons represented the NFC in 1999, the year before the Rams won it all, and while I don't follow the Falcons at all I'm pretty sure they moved into the Georgia Dome long before '99. Again, one extra dome team doesn't exactly change the argument, but I still thought I'd throw that out there, especially since that diary was so adamant in knocking the Rams as being the only dome team lucky enough to make it to the SB.

by stlnd on Jan 24, 2007 6:17 PM CST reply actions