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.
I saw other cities that didn't have an nfl team posted on the first page. San Antonio has the alamo some which the saints used during Katrina. It would bring some much need rejuvenation to the stadium and area. It would be different.
I saw other cities that didn't have an nfl team posted on the first page. San Antonio has the alamo some which the saints used during Katrina. It would bring some much need rejuvenation to the stadium and area. It would be different.
You are probable referring to Santa Clara. You might have missed it because of all the press over "deflategate", but the NFL got a new team, the "Santa Clara 48ers".
Indianapolis. Had the most successful Super Bowl by many accounts and was the most popular one with the fans. Super Bowl XLVI's Real Winner? Indianapolis! - Forbes
Indy was snubbed for Minneapolis last may and if history is any guide Minneapolis might have problems like Dallas did in 2011. Indy went to bid for Super Bowl 45 back in 07 and lost it to Dallas. Won the hosting rights in 2008 and it was an outstanding game.
Finally agree with you on a post, Indy was a great city to host a Super Bowl and most everyone who went to that game said that Indy was the best site ever for a Super Bowl. Indy will host it again sometime.
I saw other cities that didn't have an nfl team posted on the first page. San Antonio has the alamo some which the saints used during Katrina. It would bring some much need rejuvenation to the stadium and area. It would be different.
i think the Alamo would be far too small and crumbly to host a Super Bowl and the 75,000 fans that would be in attendance.
and to the person who repped me, Hawaii has not hosted a Super Bowl
I think Seattle can be successful. The only problem is chance of rain. Centurylink is close to Downtown, easy for people to access. The entire urban core could be turned into a Superbowl paradise. Seattle has fared well hosting many recent events and I think they could pull in off. By the time they could host is the SoDo district should be built up and more pedestrian friendly with the presence of a new arena right down the street from the C-Link.
St. Louis has never hosted, even though they have a domed stadium. Detroit, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis are the only cold weather domed stadiums and they have all hosted in the past couple of years (or are getting ready to host).
Places I'd like to see host in no particular order are St. Louis, Nashville, Denver, Seattle, Charlotte, Oakland, and maybe Boston. None of them have ever hosted before. I predict Atlanta will get 2019 (and Miami is updating their stadium so they might get one in the future).
St. Louis has never hosted, even though they have a domed stadium. Detroit, Indianapolis, and Minneapolis are the only cold weather domed stadiums and they have all hosted in the past couple of years (or are getting ready to host).
Places I'd like to see host in no particular order are St. Louis, Nashville, Denver, Seattle, Charlotte, Oakland, and maybe Boston. None of them have ever hosted before. I predict Atlanta will get 2019 (and Miami is updating their stadium so they might get one in the future).
Those cities will never host a Superbowl until they get a new stadium.
Those cities will never host a Superbowl until they get a new stadium.
Plus both cities are in danger of losing their teams. It's a shame, really.
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.