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.
Of all the cities I listed, only Green Bay is a small town. And it is a small town with a culture of football, unlike Jacksonville. I think it would work.
My point is Jacksonville is a podunk town compared to other Football venues and they tried it (ie Patriots vs Eagles) and it failed...what part of that do you not understand? lol
IMO, don't mess w/the SuperBowl....its the NFL's week to shine.
The only reason Metlife is hosting is because of the NYC/NJ/CT metro has a ton to offer during the week..its the largest metro in the country.....but there definitely are some logistical nightmares...
DC is another stadium that better upgrade their playing surface but at least there are enough hotels/airline connections to handle the volume of crowds.
DC is another stadium that better upgrade their playing surface but at least there are enough hotels/airline connections to handle the volume of crowds.
DC is a HUGE market w/lots of attractions to see, however it all comes down to the weather....its a cold weather stadium w/no dome. I don't know however how the fan experience would be because I'm not sure if the stadium is in walking distance to all the sights (which would be a big negative....)
If 2014 goes well, it will be a huge boost to DC's chances...
I would like the Super Bowl to be played in the home stadium of one of the teams (either alternate it AFC/NFC every year or give it to the team with the overall best record). This would at least give the average fan of that team a better chance of attending the game, although I admit that this is obviously a very low priority for the powers that be. The game would be a sellout anyway, no matter how uncomfortable the weather.
There's no way they could not plan ahead for where the game was going to be played. The massive amount of visitors that descend on a city would cause serious problems. Aside from the players, coaches and staff that normally travel with the team, they will be bringing their families and other front office staff from the team. Then you have all of the media that comes and the support personnel for them. And then of course all the fans that come.
Hotels and other venues would need months of prep to get ready for the thousands of people coming in and out during the week.
I personally think that 65% of tickets should go to the 2 teams with a rule that 75% needs to be allocated to season ticket holders. But that's just me.
MetLife Stadium will be the guinea pig for any cold weather Superbowls....
Don't forget that Minnesota hosted the Superbowl in the early 1990s. If that wasn't a guinea pig for cold-weather Superbowls, I don't know what would be. (BTW: I was living just a few blocks away from the Metrodome that year. I couldn't afford to go to the game, but I walked over to the dome and wandered around looking at the ice sculptures, the mini-city of news trucks, and the general mayhem of the gathering crowds.) Hopefully the new stadium will be big enough to justify another one sometime.
I'm interested to see what happens next year. I love New York city and think it is one of the best cities in the entire country to visit. That being said, I'm not sure how I would feel about dropping the kind of dollars necessary to get a ticket to the Super Bowl and then sitting in potentially sub-freezing temps. By all accounts Indy did a good job, but that is a dome in the city. MetLife is an open air stadium in the middle of nowhere. Issues are already being reported.
As for some of the smaller places you listed, there is no way the NFL should even consider those. The Super Bowl needs a city with the infrastructure to host hundreds of thousands of people plus all of the media gear. Jacksonville didn't really shine, there is no way an even smaller city would be given a chance. Plus people are taking several days off to attend and they have to have activities the week beforehand. I think there are only about twenty markets that make sense. There are only 32 NFL teams so venues are probably capped at those cities.
New Orleans, Miami, San Diego, Phoenix and Tampa make the most sense. LA when they get a team. Those are warm places that have the capacity to host the big events and people want to spend several days there in the winter.
Large cities that usually have decent weather but are less attractive tourist destinations such as Houston, Dallas, Atlanta are decent choices. Charlotte is a notch below those in that it is further north and smaller.
SF would be okay and I think Seattle could be an interesting choice.
Indy did a good job. Places like NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston, and DC are all fun cities with a ton to do and the infrastructure in place, but I really wonder about the outside venue in that kind of weather. They would be great with domes. We will see what happens with test case NYC next year.
Smaller cities that are also cold might work, but it would be riskier: Detroit, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Denver. Those are not exactly places a ton of people are clamoring to visit in winter. Nashville would be fun, but it would strain the city's resources, IMO.
Don't forget that Minnesota hosted the Superbowl in the early 1990s. If that wasn't a guinea pig for cold-weather Superbowls, I don't know what would be. (BTW: I was living just a few blocks away from the Metrodome that year. I couldn't afford to go to the game, but I walked over to the dome and wandered around looking at the ice sculptures, the mini-city of news trucks, and the general mayhem of the gathering crowds.) Hopefully the new stadium will be big enough to justify another one sometime.
Right, but that was in a dome. I think a modern Super Bowl in an outside cold weather location is a whole different story. Gonna be fun to watch it unfold next year.
There's no way they could not plan ahead for where the game was going to be played. The massive amount of visitors that descend on a city would cause serious problems. Aside from the players, coaches and staff that normally travel with the team, they will be bringing their families and other front office staff from the team. Then you have all of the media that comes and the support personnel for them. And then of course all the fans that come.
Hotels and other venues would need months of prep to get ready for the thousands of people coming in and out during the week.
I personally think that 65% of tickets should go to the 2 teams with a rule that 75% needs to be allocated to season ticket holders. But that's just me.
Not only that but I remember last year when the Super Bowl was here in Indy, the NFL blocked off every hotel downtown for the Super Bowl. The only way you could get a room was through them. They wouldn't be able to do that with just 2 weeks, actually only 1 week, to prepare for eveyone would invade for Super Bowl week. The Super Bowl has just gotten way too out of hand for the site to not be chosen well in advance.
Plus they have their NFL Experience traveling theme park to set up. The NFL now requires each host city to have a Super Bowl village/boulevard which would take more than a week to prepare and coordinate. And thousands of volunteers to train.
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.
