mikepr

What Do You Think About The Super Bowl In Colder Weather?

Recommended Posts

While I do like seeing it in warmer climates as it's nice to see that during the winter it's only fair not to see it limited to those places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The corporate sponsors who get the lions share of the tickets will never go for that as they don't want to sit in the cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they don't want to risk having a huge snow storm postpone the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually like watching cold weather games. We get 2 of them to watch next Sunday. I think they should schedule more super bowls in outdoor cold weather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its too big of a game to risk it being watered down by really bad weather. Too big of a dice roll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Packers fan, I would love to have a Super Bowl in Green Bay.  But I understand it isn't what is best for the NFL.  Us Midwesterners might be accustomed to watching games in the cold but most people in the country don't want to sit in freezing weather to watch a game.  And a lot of people want to make a mini-vacation out of going to the game.  I'm not sure what this year's attendees are going to do in Minneapolis in February.  I guess they can go to the Mall of America.  Or ice fichin on Lake Winnibigoshish don't cha know.

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didn't they already play it in the NYJ/NYG stadium? Isn't that not a dome?

why not in other open northern venues?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't say most people wouldn't wanna sit in freezing weather to watch football. People have been do

ing it for years.

Edited by mikepr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2018 at 7:48 AM, michaelredd9 said:

As a Packers fan, I would love to have a Super Bowl in Green Bay.  But I understand it isn't what is best for the NFL.  Us Midwesterners might be accustomed to watching games in the cold but most people in the country don't want to sit in freezing weather to watch a game.  And a lot of people want to make a mini-vacation out of going to the game.  I'm not sure what this year's attendees are going to do in Minneapolis in February.  I guess they can go to the Mall of America.  Or ice fichin on Lake Winnibigoshish don't cha know.

 

There's always the davenport ...you could drag that giant 24" tv outside and and view the game in between  portions of cheese curds and brats...  I know...f' u ...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, boltnlava said:

 

There's always the davenport ...you could drag that giant 24" tv outside and and view the game in between  portions of cheese curds and brats...  I know...f' u ...lol

 

 

Don't threaten me with a good time!  And I have watched football in a garage.  On a 27" tv.  Sadly, garage football watching might include a propane space heater but I've never been lucky enough to have cheese curds or brats in that setting.  But maybe one day.  

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I got for Xmas this year is a ticket to the Super Bowl Experience. The Super Bowl will probably not be here in Minnesota again for a very long time if ever. Minnesota did a great job of planning the last time they had the event. There are many things going on for Super Bowl week besides the actual game of course. 

 

I do think that most people that travel to the game would prefer a warmer climate for all of those activities though.

Edited by MikesVikes
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Sunday, January 14, 2018 at 9:24 PM, Big John said:

The corporate sponsors who get the lions share of the tickets will never go for that as they don't want to sit in the cold.

 

Except for NY/NJ, where the NFL is HQ and the giant media market. Not sure we'll ever see another outdoor SB in cold weather city.

 

First you have the issue that the local team needs to present a bid, and have a group within the city backing that. To make that bid you need certain things like hotel rooms (lots of good ones, not fleabags out by the airport next to the strip clubs), places to hold all the related events, etc. Some places fall far short of that first requirement, like GB, even Foxboro (Boston etc. is too far away to count rooms), I recall for the SB in Jacksonville they parked a couple cruise ships there to provide the needed rooms.

 

Then there's the crazy demands by the NFL, read an article about it a couple years ago, its like highway robbery what cities have to provide as far as security and other things which all cost $$$.

 

Of all the cold weather NFL cities with outdoor stadiums I'd say the most likely to bid and get one would be Chicago. But until we see another one outdoor cold weather (outside NY) I'll believe that NY only got it because they are NY.

 

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 8:47 AM, whomper said:

I think its too big of a game to risk it being watered down by really bad weather. Too big of a dice roll

 

Then they should not allow any game in an open air stadium, bad weather isn't just snow, it could be high winds and rain, which can happen in MIA, TB, LA, etc.  Remember that horrible weather in Dallas when they hosted, had that not been a dome the field could have been bad too (forget if weather fully cleared before the game).

 

I personally think they should go back to the championship game played in the stadium of the team with better record, or some rotation, not a neutral site. But much like the extra week off before SB that ship saled long ago, $$$ rule those decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fn NFL.  They want a bunch of free shyt, and all the revenue from ticket sales.  No thanks.  Id tell them to pound Fng Sand!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one the new stadium is finished in LA you'll see them bidding for and hosting SB pretty regularly. Eventually it will be a rotation, DAL, HOU, LA, AZ, ATL, NO, TB, MIA.  All have newer stadiums, domed or warm weather.

 

The next 5 are set (MIN, ATL, MIA, TB, LA), the last 10 before that (2016 first) were HOU, SF, AZ, NY, NO, IND, DAL, MIA, TB, HOU. Already we see the 2 each for HOU/MIA/TB, ones for AZ, NO, DAL will probably repeat in the future, mayb SF too. Doubt they return to NY, or IND.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funny part is that the league tells a city that they have a great chance to get a Super Bowl if they build a stadium.

 

They build a stadium.

 

Then the NFL provides a list of demands to the city if they want a Super Bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, MikesVikes said:

The funny part is that the league tells a city that they have a great chance to get a Super Bowl if they build a stadium.

 

They build a stadium.

 

Then the NFL provides a list of demands to the city if they want a Super Bowl.

 

The list of demands are well known, any team/city would know what they are (at least at the current time) when deciding to do this. But more ot the point nobody is building a new stadium just to get a Super Bowl. And everybody knows if you have an outdoor stadium in winter climate and are not named NYC you have very little chance of hosting one. And so far I believe that every new stadium built who has bid for a SB got one (LA, MIA, ATL, MIN, SF, AZ, HOU, DAL, IND, DET).

 

Keep in mind, only NFL home stadium are eligible these days, you cannot build a new stadium in SD and bid on a SB. Same goes for OAK after the Raiders leave or any other city that doesn't have an NFL team (including London). (Yes I know many stadiums are not in the city the team is named after, but they are home to an NFL team.)

 

I agree the demands are outragegous, but you're making it sound like some city build a new stadium hoping to get a SB and didn't know any of this and are somehow screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2018 at 2:55 PM, stevegrab said:

 

The list of demands are well known, any team/city would know what they are (at least at the current time) when deciding to do this. But more ot the point nobody is building a new stadium just to get a Super Bowl. And everybody knows if you have an outdoor stadium in winter climate and are not named NYC you have very little chance of hosting one. And so far I believe that every new stadium built who has bid for a SB got one (LA, MIA, ATL, MIN, SF, AZ, HOU, DAL, IND, DET).

 

Keep in mind, only NFL home stadium are eligible these days, you cannot build a new stadium in SD and bid on a SB. Same goes for OAK after the Raiders leave or any other city that doesn't have an NFL team (including London). (Yes I know many stadiums are not in the city the team is named after, but they are home to an NFL team.)

 

I agree the demands are outragegous, but you're making it sound like some city build a new stadium hoping to get a SB and didn't know any of this and are somehow screwed.

Well we obviously just went through the process of building a stadium. I can't count how many times I have heard about possibly having a Super Bowl after the stadium was built. You can't deny that that happened. It actually did. No owner is going to decide to build a stadium in order to host a Super Bowl. The new stadium will dramatically increase the value of their franchise whether they have a Super Bowl or not. But that new owner wants/needs help paying for the stadium. State representatives and taxpayers need to be told of the benefits of building the stadium. That is where the Super Bowl comes in.

Edited by MikesVikes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MikesVikes said:

Well we obviously just went through the process of building a stadium. I can't count how many times I have heard about possibly having a Super Bowl after the stadium was built. You can't deny that that happened. It actually did. No owner is going to decide to build a stadium in order to host a Super Bowl. The new stadium will dramatically increase the value of their franchise whether they have a Super Bowl or not. But that new owner wants/needs help paying for the stadium. State representatives and taxpayers need to be told of the benefits of building the stadium. That is where the Super Bowl comes in.

BS...It's pay to be special and that is all. 

Although I lost my team to this well known axiom, I support the city of San Diego in their decision. Billionaires do not need help in making more Billions...they just don't. I defy anyone to show me they do. This city can make more money just being what it is... Sunny, well situated and among one of the best places to visit/live (just bring your wallet).  We are not cheap in what we do. We just choose to spend elsewhere. Not Billionaires with their hands out. I have done an 180 on this and now am at peace. They made the right decision. It's unfortunate for me but it is a truism. I cannot deny that anymore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Diego’s 2003 Super Bowl wasn’t a clear winner on this front.

In a May 2003 memo, the city detailed $5.1 million in expenses and reported it’d received $2.8 million in new hotel taxes associated with the game.

Sales taxes, which weren’t reported at the time of the memo, had been estimated to come in at about $1 million. A city spokesman couldn’t immediately say whether the that projection was met — if it was, that would mean the city saw a $1.3 million loss.

 

If San Diego gets another Super Bowl, it may not face the same conundrum Glendale did. The suburb west of Phoenix didn’t have enough hotels to house all the out-of-town visitors or the infrastructure necessary to host the NFL Experience so Phoenix and other nearby cities stepped up. This meant Glendale didn’t reap all the new tax money it might’ve otherwise gotten from the Super Bowl.

In the past, the NFL held the Super Bowl in the same handful of cities. Not anymore, as even Chargers stadium point man Mark Fabiani acknowledged earlier this year: “Washington D.C. wants a Super Bowl, Chicago wants one. San Francisco is getting one. Atlanta will get one with its new stadium. Same for Minnesota,” he said. And his kicker: “The idea of a rotation is a myth,” he said.

Indeed, the NFL’s more recently been rewarding cities that build stadiums with Super Bowls. Newer stadiums in Indianapolis, Arlington, Texas, and Glendale have hosted recent Super Bowls. The new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara and a yet-to-be-completed venue in Minneapolis will get the big game in the next few years.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has said the demand for the big game means few cities will get multiple Super Bowls.

“I believe we need to get to as many communities as possible and give them the opportunity to share in not only the emotional benefits but also the economic benefits,” Goodell said beforelast year’s Super Bowl. “It helps the NFL, it helps our fans and it helps grow our game.”

Bottom line: A new stadium could put San Diego in a good position to get a Super Bowl, but not many Super Bowls.

 

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/economy/3-myths-about-the-super-bowl/

 

 

So if you host one or two..in a 10 year span..is that enough? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think we'll see the SB occur regularly (more than once even) in cold weather cities even those that have a dome.

 

The southern cities with newer stadiums will continue to be the primary sites, hosting 7-8 out of every 10, with the occassional "hey you built a new stadium or finally put together a good bid" awards to places like Chicago or Denver.

 

The most recent 10 SB sites (thru 2022) - NO, NJ/NY, AZ, HOU, SF, MIN, ATL, MIA, TB, LA   I'd be very surprised if 5-6 of those 10 don't repeat in the next 10, plus DAL, not sure who else fills in the holes. How many teams/cities even put in bids, I bet close to half the NFL teams have never made a bid (doubtful=CLE, PIT, CIN, BAL, GB, BUF, NE, OAK, KC, TEN, ...maybe = SEA, DEN, CHI, CAR, PHI, WAS).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicago will never host a SuperBowl until they blow up that absolute manure show of a stadium they call Soldier Field.  I know its a historic landmark and all, but it is easily one of the worst stadiums in the league.  Whoever remodeled it not only destroyed its historic look (its a (the really bad word)ing flying saucer!) but also has no concept of flow as quite often simply getting to your seat or a bathroom is like running through a giant mosh pit due to the amount of bottlenecks walkways.  Simply awful. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.