muck Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 The topic apparently came out of a comment that someone at league offices made about being open to the possibility that a cold weather city gets to host Super Bowl #50. Speculation that it's NYC, but I could also see a few other cities. I think the probability is very low that the game would be played at Arrowhead. So, here's a list (for those of you who don't know it off the top of your head) for outdoor 'cold weather' stadiums. Which ones should get to host a SB? And, if the NFL decides to have more than one, who should get to go 2nd, 3rd, etc? List of 'cold weather' outdoor stadiums, ranked by size: FedEx Field -- Washington Redskins -- seats 91,704 Meadowlands -- NY Giants / NY Jets -- seats 82,566 Arrowhead -- KC Chiefs -- seats 77,000 INVESCO -- Denver Broncos -- seats 76,125 Ralph Wilson Stadium -- Buffalo Bills -- seats 73,967 Cleveland Browns Stadium -- Cleveland Browns -- seats 73,200 Lambeau Field -- Green Bay Packers -- seats 72,928 M&T Bank Stadium -- Baltimore Ravens -- seats 71,008 LP Field -- Tennessee Titans -- seats 69,143 Gillette Stadium -- New England Patriots -- seats 68,756 Lincoln Financial Field -- Philadelphia Eagles -- seats 68,532 Qwest Field -- Seattle Seahawks -- seats 67,000 Paul Brown Stadium -- Cincinnati Bengals -- seats 65,790 Heinz Field -- Pittsburgh Steelers -- seats 65,050 Soldier Field -- Chicago Bears -- seats 61,500 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Washington, a no-brainer because of the capacity. NFL would make bank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinity Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Washington, a no-brainer because of the capacity. NFL would make bank. They would make so much more in the city that never sleeps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Washington, a no-brainer because of the capacity. NFL would make bank. +1 They would make so much more in the city that never sleeps. +2 And, I don't consider Nashville to be a "cold weather" city, necessarily, as the weather there is more mild than any of the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Probably about half those stadiums would have to add seats for the league to ever consider it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 (edited) arent they voting on 2014 later this week or month or something and NYC is in the running? edit: voting on tues May 25th to see if NY area will get the 2014 SB http://views.washingtonpost.com/theleague/...for-may-25.html (Between Mia, Tampa & Meadowlands with Meadowlands supposedly the favorite) Edited May 23, 2010 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Probably about half those stadiums would have to add seats for the league to ever consider it. And hotel rooms. Jacksonville had to add rooms on the ships on the docks to meet the minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 NY would make some serious coin. People want to vacation in NYC anyways. Don't need a rental car either. Cabbies would make bank on the trip to Meadowlands. Can't see Washington DC even though they can seat the crowd. While it's nice to spend a day or weekend there, the traffic is a huge issue for a full week. You could shutdown business pretty easily by bringing in the Super Bowl sized crowd. Ditto for Baltimore. Seattle will get it. People like to vacation there and the stadium is near everything. Not really cold and rarely snows. It is in the rainy season though. Green Bay will never have one. Nothing to do vacation wise for anyone. The Super Bowl isn't just about a single game, it's about people taking their yearly vacation to do stuff. That's why it's usually in a warm weather and populated area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopher Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 (edited) NY would make some serious coin. People want to vacation in NYC anyways. Don't need a rental car either. Cabbies would make bank on the trip to Meadowlands. Can't see Washington DC even though they can seat the crowd. While it's nice to spend a day or weekend there, the traffic is a huge issue for a full week. You could shutdown business pretty easily by bringing in the Super Bowl sized crowd. Ditto for Baltimore. Seattle will get it. People like to vacation there and the stadium is near everything. Not really cold and rarely snows. It is in the rainy season though. Green Bay will never have one. Nothing to do vacation wise for anyone. The Super Bowl isn't just about a single game, it's about people taking their yearly vacation to do stuff. That's why it's usually in a warm weather and populated area. With that in mind, I would think Denver wouldn't be a horrible option... Seating capacity is decent, and people could turn it into a ski/winter vacation. Maybe a longshot, but certainly a better option than other cold weather cities that have really nothing to offer, in terms of vacation attractions. Edit: Of course, the unpredictable nature of winter weather in the Denver area might make it a no-go, but still an intriguing thought. Edited May 23, 2010 by Gopher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 The security detail in DC would be off the charts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 FWIW, KC was making a push to try to get a SB before Lamar Hunt passed away. Scuttlebutt was that it would possibly happen, but couldn't be considered until some renovations could be done. IIRC, those improvements have been completed now. KC has a shot (some day), but I think it's remote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinity Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Being from NY I'm a little bias. However, you can't find a better "cold weather" city for the super bowl then NY. Everything here is basically all in place. New Stadium, Restaurants, Studios, Fan Base, Population, Market, Hotels etc. Honestly, it would probably make a better location then most "warm weather places" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 You want to really make bank in an outdoor stadium? Put the SB in a Big Ten Stadium. Ann Arbor is a great place for 105,000 fans to gather and watch a game - and this is from a Badger. You aren't going to match that kind of seating in the NFL. You want it to be the best party the NFL has ever seen - hold it in Madison and you'll still be able to sell 87,000 tickets in a primo footbal venue - hell, they'll even throw in the 4th quarter tuba serenade and the 5th quarter for free. The best part - the people going to the game there would be football fans instead of posers who have to watch football in shameful feminine comforts like 80 degree weather and no precipitation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 (edited) FWIW, KC was making a push to try to get a SB before Lamar Hunt passed away. Scuttlebutt was that it would possibly happen, but couldn't be considered until some renovations could be done. IIRC, those improvements have been completed now. KC has a shot (some day), but I think it's remote. Yea, why not KC? Centrally located, the tailgate party could be huge. AND, they could have the Super Bowl of tail-gating...The smell and the party from parking lot alone would be worth the trip. Edited May 24, 2010 by Scooby's Hubby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 NY would make some serious coin. People want to vacation in NYC anyways. Don't need a rental car either. Cabbies would make bank on the trip to Meadowlands. Just think of the hotel room rates if in NYC...they will quadruple for that weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 NY would make some serious coin. People want to vacation in NYC anyways. Don't need a rental car either. Cabbies would make bank on the trip to Meadowlands. Just think of the hotel room rates if in NYC...they will quadruple for that weekend. only celebrities will be able to afford the trip.....they need to take it a step back.... financially....Philadelphia would be ideal as the happy medium and the city needs the money right now on top of it... ....but Philly just simply takes a back seat in terms of popularity compared to some of these other cities....plus we would probably drop the ball on top of it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 With that in mind, I would think Denver wouldn't be a horrible option... Seating capacity is decent, and people could turn it into a ski/winter vacation. Maybe a longshot, but certainly a better option than other cold weather cities that have really nothing to offer, in terms of vacation attractions. Edit: Of course, the unpredictable nature of winter weather in the Denver area might make it a no-go, but still an intriguing thought. I have a dog in this fight and bias none the less so my opinion is tainted for sure. That being said, I like Denver for other reasons as well. First, the reason they opted out of cold weather cities was because of games like the Ice Bowl of 1967. Even Superbowl XL, in Detriot where they received about 10" of snow the day of the game, which did impact the attendance of the game, even being a dome. Denver, even with it's occassional bad weather, generally has pretty mild winters and would stand a better chance of having sun and some warmth for the game versus any East coast facility. NY, NJ or even Washington DC are just common storm hotspots in February. Denver would at least provide some pontential for decent weather for the game. Now Green Bay, if anything, has a mistique and major football history behind it. Having the Super bowl there would at least provide some historical reflection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 Just think of the hotel room rates if in NYC...they will quadruple for that weekend. only celebrities will be able to afford the trip.....they need to take it a step back.... I'd be able to get there and back by car in a day...as would almost 40% of our nation's population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 Scratch Denver. Traffic is bad enough, and we don't want a bunch of idiots supporting the flavor of the day. We already have our fill, thanks. We did our duty when we put on the DNC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 First, the reason they opted out of cold weather cities was because of games like the Ice Bowl of 1967. And at least partly because of the conditions, that game was epic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 Cold weather citiies? Hell we here in San Diego are still waiting for another one.....wonder if Goodell feels the same way arse munch did about us. Of course it would help if we had a deal for a new stadium in place. Out of the cold weather cities, I think Green Bay would be an AWESOME site. The history, mystique alone would make it a very enjoyable game from a viewers perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 zero Detroit was an effing disaster - if I HAD to choose 1- NY is the only one where it would work otherwise continue with warm weather cities only IMO no one wants to watch or even play football in Feb in chit weather....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 And at least partly because of the conditions, that game was epic. Considered one of the best games EVER, mind you. But when it comes to revenue dollars, that game didn't bring the big bucks. However, over 50,000 people made it to the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BearBroncos Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 zero Detroit was an effing disaster - if I HAD to choose 1- NY is the only one where it would work otherwise continue with warm weather cities only IMO no one wants to watch or even play football in Feb in chit weather....... Bah! It's the weather that makes this game as good as it is. They say that adverse weather prompts an advantage to one team over another, but I call BS. The old mud and snow bowls were some of the best games to watch ever. If you can't handle the cold or wet as a fan or, put on a freaking diaper and maybe you should consider tennis as a gig! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 Considered one of the best games EVER, mind you. But when it comes to revenue dollars, that game didn't bring the big bucks. However, over 50,000 people made it to the game. and over 200,000 that since claimed to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.