Ian O’Connor spoke to Vince Lombardi’s son about the NFL’s decision to hold the 2014 Super Bowl at the Meadowlands…

“My father and mother had real soft spots in their hearts for the New York metropolitan area; it was home to them,” said Vince Lombardi Jr., a 68-year-old motivational speaker whose son, Joe, is quarterbacks coach of the defending champion New Orleans Saints.

“And my father would certainly say: ‘Hey, you play the game in all kinds of weather. You get up in the morning and play the game whether it’s 100 degrees or 13 below.'”

For a fan base that is so tied up in tradition — just check out some of the debates we’ve had here about (gasp!) changing the overtime format — the Super Bowl has never been held outdoors in a cold-weather city.

So why change now?

Weather always seems to have a big impact on the conference playoffs, and that makes sense since teams battle and claw all season for home field advantage. Teams that are built for cold weather should have that advantage. But why bring that potential advantage to the Super Bowl, where the game is supposed to be played on a neutral field?

One argument is that some of the most memorable games (i.e. The Ice Bowl) were played in horrible conditions. Sure, awful weather can make a game memorable, but do NFL fans really want to see two high powered teams like the Saints and the Colts play in a snowstorm? I don’t argue that it might be interesting, but the Super Bowl is already interesting.

Others argue that rain is a possibility for outdoor venues in warm weather cities, but rain and snow/ice are two completely different animals. Teams often play well in light to medium rain, but it’s tough to execute offensively or defensively in freezing and sub-zero conditions.

By the way, this is coming from a Packer fan whose team would no doubt have an advantage in a negative-windchill matchup with the Chargers. The advantage is the problem, no matter who gets it.