Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Top 4 Cities that should host the Super Bowl!
Atlanta 18 19.15%
New Orleans 58 61.70%
Houston 33 35.11%
San Diego 49 52.13%
San Francisco 18 19.15%
Miami 65 69.15%
Tampa 15 15.96%
Seattle 8 8.51%
Chicago 17 18.09%
New York City 24 25.53%
Washington DC 10 10.64%
Indianapolis 11 11.70%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-29-2013, 02:37 PM
 
909 posts, read 1,407,714 times
Reputation: 764

Advertisements

I agree that every NFL city should have a turn, but if it would have to be restricted to four, it should be Denver, Chicago, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-29-2013, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,760,188 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by po-boy View Post
I disagree. I've never been to a Superbowl, but I have been to several big college football bowl games in a variety of cities (NOLA, Phoenix, Atlanta, Tampa). Whenever I go to those I usually go with a group of people. We go a few days beforehand and stay a few days afterward. We check out the city. Pretty much everyone I have ever met at a bowl game does the same thing. They make a several day trip out of it. Everyone prefers a fun city. For different people that means different things during those days...some folks just drink the whole time, but many others like nature, some like history, some like museums. The more different types of attractions a city has to offer the more people will want to go there.

I think the majority of Superbowl visitors would do the same thing. Sure not the media folks, but your average fan who paid a ton of money to see his/her favorite team. The focus will be on the game itself, but they will also want to do stuff before and afterwards.
Thats what you do. Besides, a superbowl is chucked full with far more activities than college football games.
You cant put the two side by side.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
1,580 posts, read 2,876,802 times
Reputation: 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Thats what you do. Besides, a superbowl is chucked full with far more activities than college football games.
You cant put the two side by side.
Comparing a BCS game to a super bowl is quite valid. They are pretty much the same thing, except the super bowl is admittedly bigger.

And it isn't just what I do. It is what the thousands of people I have seen and hundreds of people I have talked to all do when they go to a big game. I've got a few friends who have gone to super bowls and they told me about their trips and they do the same thing. Not sure why you are being stubborn about the fact that people who go to large events like to do so in cities that offer lots of variety of other things to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 05:04 PM
 
3,755 posts, read 4,772,257 times
Reputation: 2856
Aside from the press, the teams involved and the front office people they bring, most people that go to the Super Bowl are only going for 2-3 days. That doesn't leave a lot of time to go about the city and see a lot of things. Especially when you consider you have the game itself, and all the pregame activities taking up an entire day.

That's why the city itself doesn't really matter, so long as there's enough hotel rooms and at least a decent number of bars and venues to host the festivities. Indianapolis is a prime example. It's a decent city, but not one that offers a lot to someone that isn't in town for a sporting event. It falls far short of cities like Los Angeles, New Orleans and Miami. But the fact that a person is not going for more than a few days and will be tied up with SB related events means it can compete with other cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 05:08 PM
 
Location: Northlake
580 posts, read 1,415,181 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by fltonc12 View Post
Why would you want the Super Bowl to be in the same four cities every time?
Because of the wonderful weather, local atmosphere, wonderful "downtown" activies (don't have to worry about driving).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Northlake
580 posts, read 1,415,181 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZLiam View Post
Not sure why Phoenix metro isn't in this poll. It will host its third Superbowl in 2015.
I've been to Phoenix before..... a pretty boring place. It should not be hosting any Super Bowl..JMO!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Northlake
580 posts, read 1,415,181 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilehiDenver View Post
Good thing the NFL is FINALLY realizing that a SB in a cold weather city can still work! Depending on the NY SB, Denver has put its chips in for the 2018-2019 SB run! 30 Million invested into our Stadium, and a much better SB city choice than Indy or
no, or tampa or phoenix!
2018 - 2019 Super Bowl will be awarded to Atlanta. The city approved a new stadium being built and should be completed by 2017. I can assure you the city will place a bid, and will probably get it because of this new high tech a** stadium they will be building.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Northlake
580 posts, read 1,415,181 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilehiDenver View Post
Indy barely made it! They had to build hotels just to meet the bare minimum to pull it off!
And it still was a hot mess there....they did not have enough local hotel accommodations for the number of people coming into the city. I knew people who had to stay far out as Louisville KY just to lay their head. The city should have been more prepared.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Northlake
580 posts, read 1,415,181 times
Reputation: 297
Quote:
Originally Posted by fltonc12 View Post
It's going to shift to the new "hot cities eventually. (Austin, Charlotte)

I personally don't care as long as Beyonce gets to headline the halftime show every time.
Austin and Charlotte will NEVER host the Super Bowl in this lifetime lol... j/p but serious!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2013, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,760,188 times
Reputation: 7752
Sorry but it is not pretty much the same thing.
Its like saying Carnival in Brazil is the same as carnival in Tampa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by po-boy View Post
Comparing a BCS game to a super bowl is quite valid. They are pretty much the same thing, except the super bowl is admittedly bigger.

And it isn't just what I do. It is what the thousands of people I have seen and hundreds of people I have talked to all do when they go to a big game. I've got a few friends who have gone to super bowls and they told me about their trips and they do the same thing. Not sure why you are being stubborn about the fact that people who go to large events like to do so in cities that offer lots of variety of other things to do.
The following poster says it all:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAM88 View Post
Aside from the press, the teams involved and the front office people they bring, most people that go to the Super Bowl are only going for 2-3 days. That doesn't leave a lot of time to go about the city and see a lot of things. Especially when you consider you have the game itself, and all the pregame activities taking up an entire day.

That's why the city itself doesn't really matter, so long as there's enough hotel rooms and at least a decent number of bars and venues to host the festivities. Indianapolis is a prime example. It's a decent city, but not one that offers a lot to someone that isn't in town for a sporting event. It falls far short of cities like Los Angeles, New Orleans and Miami. But the fact that a person is not going for more than a few days and will be tied up with SB related events means it can compete with other cities.

I do enjoy museums, but if i had to come up with a list of 25 things a host city should have, museums would not be on there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top