A stormy Superbowl in 2014: Would a cold-weather game favor the NFC?

I remember seeing past editions of the Farmer's Almanac lying around my house a lot as a teenager. My parents used it to time the planting of flowers and the occasional vegetable, which from what I hear is one of its main uses. Long-range weather predictions would seem to be an exercise in futility, as we in Western Washington are used to having even the current day's forecast fall short of one's hope for accuracy. The Almanac seems to think they have it all figured out, listing here all the times they've been on the money.

Some basic googling intense research lead me to believe they're right something just under 80% of the time, so I'll move forward accepting that number as "close enough". The 2014 Almanac doesn't hit newsstands until Monday, but they have graciously provided everyone with a basic look at the coming winter.

In the preview it's specifically stated that the Superbowl will likely be played in "stormy weather" that would include "copious wind, rain, and snow." Saying that even if they're off by a few days that "the winter season will be particularly volatile and especially turbulent."

I'm going to conveniently ignore the part of my intuition that tells me this might just be a great ploy to get people talking about the Farmers Almanac for the first time in the history of the internet, and look at what it might mean if true.

Cold, windy, rainy or snowy weather typically can hider passing attacks. If the Super Bowl is going to be played in this type of weather, logic would dictate that strong running teams may have an advantage. Last season, four  of the top five (and seven of the top 10) rushing attacks could be found in the NFC, with Seattle, San Francisco and Washington being arguably the three most successful teams on the ground. Dig a little deeper and look at moves like the bruising Stephen Jackson (unless you think he's got nothing left in the tank) heading to an Atlanta Falcons offense that seemed last year to be missing only a running back capable of forward movement, or the two promising rookies currently fighting for a starting spot in a Packers backfield - a backfield that hasn't seen a workhorse in three years now - and you'll find even more opportunity for success on the ground for playoff teams in the NFC.

Am I reaching? Does it seem like I'm JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS? Well I'll admit that I am, to an extent. We're talking about a weather report for February. Of course I'm going to.

If you will though, for a moment, take a look at the AFC's top squads. New England or Denver are two of the potential teams to reap the benefits of a cold-weather stormy Super Bowl (though you may worry about Peyton's arm in freezing temperatures and high winds). Baltimore, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati are strong(ish) running teams built around toughness and they all play in cold weather at home.

That said - with teams like the Bears, Giants, Vikings, and now perhaps even the Eagles sprinkled in to the 'cold-weather and/or (potentially) strong-running, tough' NFC group that already holds the Seahawks, Niners, Redskins & Packers - it seems as though NFC teams are better built for what may be to come - a snowy Super Bowl.

Disagree? You're welcome to call me a dummy in the comments, just make sure you forget all about this come February.