Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New Orleans, LA, and Miami, FL are both tied as cities hosting the Super Bowl most often, with nine each. LA is the only other city that is even close, with 7. By this time next year, Miami will have broken the tie with 10, nearly a quarter of all super bowls played.
So if you want to go by the numbers, then Miami. Additionally, Miami is ideally suited as a SB host city because it has warm winter weather, relatively easy access by air or ground, a huge population base of its own, and is an acceptable locale to any who maintain an east-coast sports bias.
How many hotel rooms and convention center space and such things like that does a city need to have to host a super bowl. That's why my question was concerning the smaller markets and why not many of them have been awarded super bowls. It weather the primary factor or size? What are the criteria?
I will never understand why fans and analyst think players have weather advantages because of the team they currently play for in the nfl?
Players in the nfl played high school and college football in other states. Therefore, it is a individual situation and every player has their own preferences
Take Brian Cushing for instance. He played high school football in Northern NJ
Then went to Southern Cal for college in LA, which is hot but not extremely hot
Then he got drafted by the Houston Texans. I would say he is use to playing in most weather conditions
Also, college and pro players travel during the season and play away games in other climates.
Maybe one player who grew up in the south, played college in the south and got drafted by a nfl team in the south will have trouble getting accustomed to the cold.
However, if you are in the NFL then most players have experience playing in different climates
You make a good point, but statistically, teams from warmer climates have more trouble in the cold.
New Orleans, LA, and Miami, FL are both tied as cities hosting the Super Bowl most often, with nine each. LA is the only other city that is even close, with 7. By this time next year, Miami will have broken the tie with 10, nearly a quarter of all super bowls played.
So if you want to go by the numbers, then Miami. Additionally, Miami is ideally suited as a SB host city because it has warm winter weather, relatively easy access by air or ground, a huge population base of its own, and is an acceptable locale to any who maintain an east-coast sports bias.
My problem with Miami was that the area around Dolphin Stadium is so-so at best, and the action is down at South Beach, which is several miles away, and parking was a major PITA. There has to be a better host city than Miami.
Yeah that's the thing about Miami. The stadium is MILES away from the city of Miami and it's the middle of an eh neighborhood. I have family that lives very close to it.
Yeah that's the thing about Miami. The stadium is MILES away from the city of Miami and it's the middle of an eh neighborhood. I have family that lives very close to it.
Apparently the NFL feels otherwise, since Miami is about to host its 10th superbowl.
But picking Miami was solely based on factors that I believe moved the NFL to delegate so many Super Bowls to that town. Personally, I think San Diego is deserving to host them - warm weather, huge stadium, ample parking, in a place that many people enjoy vacationing to, but with fewer traffic woes than LA or SF.
Also, I would like to see it come to smaller market towns that have not yet had it, just for something different. I can understand why the NFL might not prefer such locations though.
(Indianapolis, not sure about that one, must have something to do with the new stadium, perhaps new hotels).
It has everything to do with the new stadium.....
Actually, Indy is a big convention city; and hotel space is not going to be an issue. Remember, the world's biggest single day sporting event, the Indy 500, is held here every year; and the NCAA Final Four is here every five years. Indianapolis is a very experienced event host city.
Actually the game was in San Diego. But point taken.
While they should be played in cold weather and in elements. I think it would be even dumber to play it in at the stadium of the team with the best record. Home field advantage has NEVER been a huge problem mostly because the average fan really can't attend a super bowl game because the tickets are so expensive. The Cardinals didn't have any home field advantage in Tampa this past February.
Why did I say Pasadena? It was SD. Maybe I was thinking about college to much.
Really? You would HATE attending the biggest sporting event in the U.S. because of the weather?
I don't think there's a place on Earth that I could attend the Super Bowl and HATE it. It's the freaking Super Bowl. It's not like the weather affects you while you're at the game (in a dome), or in a restaurant, or at a club, or in your hotel.
Yes, it's nicer to go to an event like that in a warm weather climate, but the weather doesn't have to ruin the whole experience, for crying out loud. This forum is full of nancies.
I didnt mean it like THAT. I would definately still go, I just meant in comparison to one in a warmer climate. I wouldnt HATE the superbowl if it was in detroit or green bay, or chi, i'd still go.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
