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.
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.
I don't know about that. Denver is still extremely exposed to the elements no matter how you slice it. I mean, it's two days after the Super Bowl and it's currently 0 degrees in Denver. Tomorrow's high is 14. Sure it's not typical weather but it's still a gamble, and nobody wants to spend hours outdoors in 14 degree weather.
To be honest the only cold weather cities I can see hosting the Super Bowl in the future are the ones that have in the past, because they have indoor stadiums or retractable roofs i.e Detroit, Minneapolis, Indy, etc.
I don't know about that. Denver is still extremely exposed to the elements no matter how you slice it. I mean, it's two days after the Super Bowl and it's currently 0 degrees in Denver. Tomorrow's high is 14. Sure it's not typical weather but it's still a gamble.
To be honest the only cold weather cities I can see hosting the Super Bowl in the future are the ones with indoor stadiums or with retractable roofs.
It's cold out now, but that's not usual. The average high is in the 40s for February.
It's cold out now, but that's not usual. The average high is in the 40s for February.
Right, and I pointed that out. But the problem is the NFL makes selections for host cities years in advance and it's just impossible to predict how the temps are going to be. Who's to say 2019 isn't the year the Polar Vortex returns? To be honest I'm actually quite surprised they even entertained the idea of NJ at all, and highly doubt they will consider another northern outdoor venue in the future. They lucked out big time, because it could have been much worse.
Right, and I pointed that out. But the problem is the NFL makes selections for host cities years in advance and it's just impossible to predict how the temps are going to be. Who's to say 2019 isn't the year the Polar Vortex returns? To be honest I'm actually quite surprised they even entertained the idea of NJ at all, and highly doubt they will consider another northern outdoor venue in the future. They lucked out big time, because it could have been much worse.
I heard they are considering inviting Seattle to bid and the way the city is progressing I fully expect them to bid for a superbowl. The weather is temperate and honestly could be anything. A few years ago it was sunny and 70 degrees in February other times its rainy and chilly but the weather will never be a snow storm. I think the city would totally transform for the superbowl and put in the money to make it an event. Not like Indy or Detroit, like what New York did this year.
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!
Realistically I think it's not a stretch to say that the weather in Denver would be a larger wild card than the other cities and likely has the lowest floor. Chicago has the potential for cold, and some of the east coast cities have the potential for snow. Denver has the potential for both. Is the current weather the usual temperature in February? No. Is it unusual for Denver to see temperatures that low during the winter? No. Snow may not stay on the ground all winter but when it snows, it can DUMP. Would it be unusual for it to be 60 or 70 and sunny for the game? Probably not. But 20 degrees and a foot of snow wouldn't be either.
Other than that I think everything else is probably there. Quasi-downtown stadium. Check. Downtown hotel rooms (even if not as many as the other cities mentioned). Check. Decent public transportation (there have certainly been cities with much worse to host)? Check. I just don't know if Denver can overcome having the highest potential downside for weather.
I heard they are considering inviting Seattle to bid and the way the city is progressing I fully expect them to bid for a superbowl. The weather is temperate and honestly could be anything. A few years ago it was sunny and 70 degrees in February other times its rainy and chilly but the weather will never be a snow storm. I think the city would totally transform for the superbowl and put in the money to make it an event. Not like Indy or Detroit, like what New York did this year.
Yeah I could see Seattle hosting because snowfall/freezing conditions would be exceptionally rare. It's a bit colder than the standard of 50 degree average the NFL generally requires for the Superbowl but temps in the 40s would not be uncomfortable. Might be a little gloomy but that's about it.
… 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.
Yes, if you want to be hyper technical it was physically in NJ, but it was the obviously the NY Super Bowl. As you know NJ is a state, not a city, and is part of the NY metropolitan area.
When people refer to an event, or destination, they don't usually refer to the technical physical location; they refer to the general place.
No one says "I am going to the Romulus airport" when they are going to the Detroit airport; no one says "I am flying to "Roissey-en-France" when they're going to Paris. Yes, technically, there is no airport in the city limits of Paris, so if you want to be argumentative, no one can actually fly to Paris.
If the Redskins host the Superbowl it will be the Washington Superbowl, not the Landover Superbowl, the Maryland Superbowl, or the PG County Superbowl. No, it will technically not be held within the city limits of Washington, DC, but no one cares.
Right, because the Superbowl events spanned two states.
But neither state really "hosted" the Superbowl. States aren't really metropolitan regions, and sports venues are generally located within metropolitan regions. NYC, and its attendant metropolitan area, was the host. NY State and NJ are the political entities that encompass that metropolitan region.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezter
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!
2. Of course the stadium is close enough to the city core. Agreed.
3. Agreed.
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.
), 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.
