Super Bowl Cities

[polo89]

Originally Posted by garmin239

All superbowls should be played in places like Chicago, Green Bay , New England or Buffalo. That way real fans would go and we could weed out all the dandies.

LOL. REAL FANS. It's true you guys DO take your pro football seriously. But most of your players that play for your REAL fans are from the warmer climates. Your fans are the craziest.

[polo89]

Originally Posted by grmasterb

My problem with Miami was that the area around Dolphin Stadium is so-so at best, and the action is down at South Beach, which is several miles away, and parking was a major PITA. There has to be a better host city than Miami.

Well the thing is, there are not that many better host cities of Miami metros SIZE. Like someone else said LAmetro is bigger then MIAmetro but with all the traffic woes of LA it would be highly difficult. And with Miami, it is such a long metro from north to south, so there is literally thousands of hotels to choose from, from West Palm to 65 miles south down I-95 to Mia. And if I95 is too crowded, then they can easily take Fla's turnpike, and the fact that FLA is already a tourist state, I think all those factors makes Miami the best host city. I agree dolphins stadium is in Miami Gardens which is a good 25 minutes from the City of Miami. But

[garmin239]

Originally Posted by polo89

LOL. REAL FANS. It's true you guys DO take your pro football seriously. But most of your players that play for your REAL fans are from the warmer climates. Your fans are the craziest.

Yea, lots of people from Texas. If they can't handle a little cold, they can take up some other sport.

[mike0421]

Originally Posted by polo89

Thats VERY rare that a team will have home field at one there host city superbowls. The closest I remeber was the Raiders against the bucs in 03, when it was at the rose bowl in Pasadena, about 6hrs south of there home field. That was the closest that I remeber.

Super Bowl XIV (14) was played in Pasadena California. The Rams were in Los Angeles then, so the distance was under 50 miles. The closest was 5 years later, Super Bowl XIX (19) was played in Palo Alto California, which is a stone's throw from San Francisco. The 49ers beat the Dolphins in that game.

[xlabel]

Originally Posted by NYC1DAY

I will never understand why fans and analyst think players have weather advantages because of the team they currently play for in the nfl?

Players in the nfl played high school and college football in other states. Therefore, it is a individual situation and every player has their own preferences

Take Brian Cushing for instance. He played high school football in Northern NJ

Then went to Southern Cal for college in LA, which is hot but not extremely hot

Then he got drafted by the Houston Texans. I would say he is use to playing in most weather conditions

Also, college and pro players travel during the season and play away games in other climates.

Maybe one player who grew up in the south, played college in the south and got drafted by a nfl team in the south will have trouble getting accustomed to the cold.

However, if you are in the NFL then most players have experience playing in different climates

One would think it shouldn't matter, but the Buccaneers were on a streak of 0-20 in games that the kickoff temp was 40 degrees or colder. Also when they are the home team they will wear thier white jerseys when it is really hot out, which traditionally the home team wears it's colored unis. White is supposed to be the coolest color and they seem to think it's an advantage to make the visitors wear the colors.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by garmin239

Yea, lots of people from Texas. If they can't handle a little cold, they can take up some other sport.

Just Texans? Please. This isn't about Texans. Texans attend games in the rain, the ice, a wind event, whatever. We don't care what elements are going on. What you fail to realize is that it's not about Texans, Californians, or Southerners in general. It's about big money people. They are the one that attends these games. That's why the crowds at superbowls look meh at best. It's hard for the average Joe to attend Super Bowls.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by treedonkey

Apparently the NFL feels otherwise, since Miami is about to host its 10th superbowl.

But picking Miami was solely based on factors that I believe moved the NFL to delegate so many Super Bowls to that town. Personally, I think San Diego is deserving to host them - warm weather, huge stadium, ample parking, in a place that many people enjoy vacationing to, but with fewer traffic woes than LA or SF.

Also, I would like to see it come to smaller market towns that have not yet had it, just for something different. I can understand why the NFL might not prefer such locations though.

Well they would go back to SD in a heartbeat. They just aren't going to that stadium. It plays a big role. But Miami is an obvious choice. But Miami's stadium is in a terrible location and is miles away from any great events. It's practically in the middle of nowhere. But honestly, since this is the NFL. That's where NFL stadiums should be since so much goes on during gamedays.

[pw72]

I think we are going to see the new Cowboys Stadium host many times in the next decade or two. In fact, I think the stadium was built with this in mind. Now, whether the 'boys play any games in this spectacle, that remains to be seen. Always a soap opera with the Cowboys. But the NFL loves it!

[domino]

It was just announced that New Orleans snagged Super Bowl XLVII in 2013, beating out Miami and Phoenix. New Orleans is a great place for the Super Bowl, all the hotels and attractions within walking distance of the Superdome.