Among the various narratives emerging during the initial days of the college football season, one of the most surprising involved, of all things, the weather.
This unusual situation unfolded when the USC Trojans played against San Jose State in Week 0 at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. The attendance was noticeably sparse, likely due to the extreme heat and humidity plaguing the LA area, a result of a lingering tropical storm offshore. Added to this was the unrelenting noon kickoff, which left fans without any reprieve from the sweltering temperatures, pushing the heat index up to around 105 degrees. In reality, many opted to stay away—who could blame them—for a game that wrapped up just minutes after it began.
This disruptive weather trend continued into Week 1. Teams like South Carolina and the Texas Longhorns found themselves hosting afternoon games under a glaring sun and sweltering heat. Although more fans purchased tickets, many wisely left the stadium as quickly as possible or sought refuge under the concourse for a moment of shade. Unfortunately, some required medical assistance due to heat-related issues such as exhaustion or dehydration.
This situation has ignited discussions about the prudence of scheduling games in the scorching afternoon heat during late summer in states like Texas or South Carolina. And, honestly, who’s surprised?
However, it also spawned one of the more absurd arguments, revealing an irritating aspect of sports journalism and the stance of the Los Angeles Times: attributing it all to climate change. After a post showcased Longhorns fans attempting to beat the heat, assistant managing editor Iliana Limon Romero suggested that schools should adjust their scheduling practices “to adapt to climate change.”
Her comment raised eyebrows.
She elaborated that eventually, schools and television networks need to recognize the local climate conditions and stop expecting fans to endure extreme heat as a “badge of honor” for supporting their teams.
Surely, several points can coexist here. It’s a legitimate concern that networks may disregard the realities of the local environment in favor of their preferred broadcast schedules, particularly at noon or in the afternoon during late summer. Such games, for instance in Austin during early September, would be better suited for nighttime. Yet, the notion that fans earn some symbolic merit from enduring grueling conditions just to catch a glimpse of a lackluster match feels increasingly misguided—especially given the potential health risks involved.
Yet, to assign blame for typical summer warmth in Austin to climate change seems, well, pretty far-fetched. Romero quickly blocked anyone who challenged her perspective, but the average September high there ranges from 95 to 97 degrees. Yes, it might have been slightly hotter than average, but nothing out of the ordinary for Texas. Let’s face it: blaming summer heat in Texas on climate change is just not a reasonable position, and it’s indicative of broader trends among modern sports editors and the LA Times.
The much-discussed narrative around climate change has often proven to be somewhat exaggerated. To Romero, however, it appears to form part of an ideological set of beliefs tied closely to contemporary liberalism. Thus, without room for dissenting views on “The Science,” a hot day in Austin becomes yet another example of climate change, as if there is no other explanation.
Interestingly, weather can be seen as just weather—until it’s convenient to frame it otherwise.
Once again, hosting a home game in Texas at two o’clock in the afternoon during the first week of September seems unwise, but blaming normal weather patterns on climate change is simply incorrect, regardless of the number of dissenting voices she chooses to block.
