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.
"Definitely not frigid or anything" is the only relevant part imo.
But Seattle is a larger city with more hotel rooms, and the possibility of turning the entire downtown into A superbowl paradise because not only is clink in Seattle but its right next to downtown.
It seems like a lot of people aren't too big on another cold weather city. I didn't just chose these cities randomly though. They've all been invited to bid for the game, and there's a good chance one (or more) of these cities will be bidding for it later this year.
It's NYC, though, not NJ. Northern NJ is the main suburban region of NYC.
It's like people arguing that the Redskins play in Maryland, not DC, or that the Cowboys play in Arlington, not Dallas. Technically true, but irrelevant. If DC got the Superbowl, it would be because of DC, not Maryland.
The Meadowlands only exists because of NYC. The Superbowl came to the Meadowlands only because of NYC.
… It was in New Jersey, no arguments involved. There is literally no way to argue where the Super Bowl took place yet people try anyway.
The Meadowlands serves more functions than just football games. NJ teams used to play there (both Nets and Devils before the Nets moved to the Pru Center then Brooklyn and before the Devils moved to the Pru Center only about 7 years ago. I remember going to Devils and Nets game at the old Continental Airlines Arena, now the Izod Center, and some concerts as well.) and there are concerts and other events held at the Meadowlands Complex, like horse races at the Meadowlands track, and even in Metlife. The Complex is owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority and the football teams basically rent the actual stadium (one of multiple venues there) but had a lot of say in building Metlife. Additionally, they have been trying to build a big mall/recration area at the Meadowlands for years (Xanadu) but have run into money issues. The Meadowlands would probably still exist even if it weren't for NYC. New York doesn't run New Jersey, we do have independence and things of our own. Not like the NFL or the media would want you to believe that, though.
On another note, I can't believe Chicago is winning this poll. People complained up and down about having the SB in New Jersey because of cold weather but Chicago has much worse winters than us on average. Anyone who was worried about New Jersey should be even more worried about Chicago.
It seems like a lot of people aren't too big on another cold weather city. I didn't just chose these cities randomly though. They've all been invited to bid for the game, and there's a good chance one (or more) of these cities will be bidding for it later this year.
I'm bias, so I'm all for it coming to Denver.
Denver won't get it. I couldn't see owners willing to take the chance there. I have a few problems with Denver.
1. High risk of frigid weather. Cold weather between 35-50 degrees is one thing but when you run the risk of having possibly severe cold weather. That's the same reason I doubt Chicago will get it. New York dodged a bullet but can't say if Denver will have the same luck.
2. Proximity to the city core I think in cold weather cities is important. In cities like LA and Miami, they benefit by having alot of main attractions spread through the city and region. But in a city like Denver, while its stadium is not extremely far from the core, it still serves as a problem now the people have the rely on the transportation system to gt them there. New York showed how that could be a problem. The reason a city like Seattle excels is that the stadium really is downtown. Someone could literally just walk from there hotel to the stadium, with areas like pioneer square could be converted into superbowl wonderlands. Everything is confined to one region which is what alot of American cities lack, not just denver. That's what makes a Dallas superbowl unappealing to many as that have to travel to another city to see the game. Doesn't feel like a huge event. But Denver is one of the better cities in this aspect.
3. Could Denver make the NFL money? Cities like NY, LA, SF, DC, and now even cities like Seattle and Miami can charge ALOT for the game. They can generate more money but charging mind boggling prices. I'm not sure how that could go along in Denver. Bottom line is the NFL wants to make the most money and I'm not sure if you can do that in Denver.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,813,296 times
Reputation: 14660
Out of these cities, I'd pick Denver. The climate is very hit or miss in the winter in Denver. Yeah it can have a blizzard, but Miami could have a tsunami so whatever, sometimes you gotta roll the dice. Odds are good its going to be a sunny day in Denver be it cold or warm and sunny days in the 50's and 60's are not uncommon mid-winter, but football players aren't wimps so the fans can deal with a little cold.
Mile High Stadium (or whatever corporate brand namesake it is now) is right across the freeway from the core of Denver and a couple light rail stops away from 16th St, not a bad walk to LoDo and it's a great beer drinking city for a pub crawl. Denver is a city with a passionate football history, sans last Sunday (what the hell happened?). But make no mistake about it, Bronco fans are loony in love with football and their team. That and their stadium is pretty awesome.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 02-04-2014 at 08:41 PM..
Out of these cities, I'd pick Denver. The climate is very hit or miss in the winter in Denver. Yeah it can have a blizzard, but Miami could have a tsunami so whatever, sometimes you gotta roll the dice. Odds are good its going to be a sunny day in Denver be it cold or warm and sunny days in the 50's and 60's are not uncommon mid-winter, but football players aren't wimps so the fans can deal with a little cold.
Mile High Stadium (or whatever corporate brand namesake it is now) is right across the freeway from the core of Denver and a couple light rail stops away from 16th St, not a bad walk to LoDo and it's a great beer drinking city for a pub crawl. Denver is a city with a passionate football history, sans last Sunday (what the hell happened?), but make no mistake about it, Bronco fans are loony in love with football and their team. That and their stadium is pretty awesome.
What???
When exactly was the last tsunami on the east coast (let me run that for you, oh yeah, 4000 years ago) vs snow/cold event in Denver (almost every week during February)...
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,813,296 times
Reputation: 14660
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
What???
When exactly was the last tsunami on the east coast (let me run that for you, oh yeah, 4000 years ago) vs snow/cold event in Denver (almost every week during February)...
You missed the point (and the humor ), the odds are always there that something random could always happen, such as that ice storm fiasco in Arlington, TX. Denver has better odds of having a sunny day and less odds of inclement weather than Detroit, Indy, or E. Rutherford as it's not under the path Noreaster or Great Lakes based storms. Admittedly a Sunbelt city would be more fun and ideal, but out of the choices above, I think Denver would most accommodating and well equipped for it.
Denver won't get it. I couldn't see owners willing to take the chance there. I have a few problems with Denver.
1. High risk of frigid weather. Cold weather between 35-50 degrees is one thing but when you run the risk of having possibly severe cold weather. That's the same reason I doubt Chicago will get it. New York dodged a bullet but can't say if Denver will have the same luck.
2. Proximity to the city core I think in cold weather cities is important. In cities like LA and Miami, they benefit by having alot of main attractions spread through the city and region. But in a city like Denver, while its stadium is not extremely far from the core, it still serves as a problem now the people have the rely on the transportation system to gt them there. New York showed how that could be a problem. The reason a city like Seattle excels is that the stadium really is downtown. Someone could literally just walk from there hotel to the stadium, with areas like pioneer square could be converted into superbowl wonderlands. Everything is confined to one region which is what alot of American cities lack, not just denver. That's what makes a Dallas superbowl unappealing to many as that have to travel to another city to see the game. Doesn't feel like a huge event. But Denver is one of the better cities in this aspect.
3. Could Denver make the NFL money? Cities like NY, LA, SF, DC, and now even cities like Seattle and Miami can charge ALOT for the game. They can generate more money but charging mind boggling prices. I'm not sure how that could go along in Denver. Bottom line is the NFL wants to make the most money and I'm not sure if you can do that in Denver.
A couple of things. Not saying Denver will get it, but I think the city was invited to bid because the NFL will at least consider it.
1. Yeah, there's a risk of frigid weather...but there is also a chance of great weather. For example, the AFC championship game. It was 60 degrees, sunny, and no snow. It was perfect weather. And great weather in the winter in Denver actually isn't that uncommon. Denver isn't even as cold as New York is in the winter. But I guess it does really depend on the say.
2. I think the stadium is close enough to the city. It's not right in downtown like Coors Field or the Pepsi Center, but it's not like it's out in a suburb like many cities. It's right across the freeway. Only a 3-5 minute drive and about a 15-20 minute walk.
3. Of course Denver could make the NFL money. It's not like Denver's this small town that can't support a huge event. I agree it probably won't make A LOT like NYC, but I'm confident it would be enough. Plus, if a city like Indianapolis, Jacksonville, and New Orleans can do it, I'm sure Denver can.
Of course this doesn't guarantee anything, but I think Denver could be a good host city!
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.
Not like the NFL or the media would want you to believe that, though. 
), the odds are always there that something random could always happen, such as that ice storm fiasco in Arlington, TX. Denver has better odds of having a sunny day and less odds of inclement weather than Detroit, Indy, or E. Rutherford as it's not under the path Noreaster or Great Lakes based storms. Admittedly a Sunbelt city would be more fun and ideal, but out of the choices above, I think Denver would most accommodating and well equipped for it.
