The arrival of swear-at-the-sky cold temperatures this week juxtaposed with the scheduling of the Super Bowl has led countless Minnesotans to gaze wistfully into the distance and say (or tweet) to no one in particular, "Wow, it's a good thing the Super Bowl isn't in Minnesota this year."
There's nothing better than talking about the weather, unless it's talking about the weather and comparing it to weather that's already happened.
Granted, air temperatures flirting with minus-30 – not the "feels-like" temperature, we remind everyone, the actual thermometer reading – are a certifiable weather event. As much as I tell newcomers to the state that "it's not usually like this" during cold snaps, it most certainly isn't usually like this.
But on this point of being fortunate that the Super Bowl was last year and not this year? Well, it seems like there's some revisionist history at work.
To some degree, I'll agree — but only from a perception standpoint. See, the media starts to descend on a Super Bowl destination a full week before the game. There were plenty of media members already here last year on Monday for Opening Night at Xcel Energy Center (hey St. Paul, you mattered and contributed, too).
If national writers had been here for 30 below, they would have made sure nobody outside the region visited in the winter ever again. They still shivered and complained a year ago, but it was quaint.
For the actual fans, though — and there are some of them who manage to get tickets to the Super Bowl — it would have been way better this year. Yeah, the locals still would have had to deal with the pesky Patriots. But they would have been without the fresh NFC title game heartbreak and obnoxious righteousness of Eagles fans.
And the weather? Well, unlike those whose jobs require them to be at the Super Bowl site several days in advance, fans generally have other jobs and don't arrive until Thursday night or even Friday for a Super Bowl weekend.
