It sucks for the Super Bowl quality of play. You don't want a championship determined by the vagaries of weather that may favor one team built to take advantage of extreme home conditions (winter weather in the south is about the most neutral weather available). Mainly it is the watchability point. To the many outsiders who watch the game a game in awful weather would be boring and sloppy.

If the Jets get Asomugha i'll shit bricks, how the hell are you supposed to complete a pass against that team?

I get all that, but a lot of times really good games are played in bad conditions, and I like the strategy coaches have to employ in bad weather (and honestly I'd rather watch a 10-6 game than a 35-32 game). I get that the Super Bowl is supposed like a national holiday that everyone can watch, but as someone who cares 52 weeks out of the year I don't want the NFL to cater to people who only watch one game. And its not like dome or warm weather teams can't win in cold conditions, I thought that myth was debunked a while ago. We've had a lot of really good conference championship games played in bad weather, if the two teams are good it shouldn't be any different.

the eagles getting him isn't that much better.... they will eat tony romo alive.

One of the most famous games in NFL playoff history was played in blizzard conditions.

Pass to the tight end. Or go 3-wide.

not even just the quality of play for the game. think about the 70,0000-80,0000 people that are gonna have to get to the game and get back. it would be quite difficult if it was snowing 3 inches an hour.

As Dallas demonstrated this past year bad weather does make things quite a challenge (although most northern cities are better prepared a true blizzard would shut them down too).