|
05-14-2009, 11:10 PM
|
|
|
|
229 posts, read 499,033 times
Reputation: 174
|
|
|
Do you think that medium-sized cities like Charlotte, Nashville, Kansas City, etc, could ever hold a super bowl. I know Jacksonville did but will it happen again.
Last edited by Kingsley; 05-14-2009 at 11:23 PM..
|
|
05-14-2009, 11:17 PM
|
|
|
|
3,970 posts, read 13,157,495 times
Reputation: 1576
|
|
|
I believe the NFL has certain minimum seating and hotel requirements for Super Bowls, thus eliminating many cities. Not sure what the exact figure is, but I think it is close to 80,000 seats. And Charlotte, Nashville, and Kansas City I'm pretty certain do not have enough hotel rooms to meet the NFL requirement. The Super Bowl also tends to be attracted to new stadiums. I'm sure the new stadium in Dallas (Arlington) will be a frequent host for decades to come. Oh, and with a few exceptions, they like warm weather.
|
|
05-14-2009, 11:19 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: New England & The Maritimes
2,116 posts, read 4,705,546 times
Reputation: 1114
|
|
|
I think it is absolutely awful that the super bowl is only held in warm weather cities. It should be held at the home field of the team with the better record. With the way it is set up now a team like the Bucs or Cards could get home field without deserving it. Plus, bad weather is part of football.
|
|
05-14-2009, 11:24 PM
|
|
|
|
3,970 posts, read 13,157,495 times
Reputation: 1576
|
|
|
Yep, the only cold cities that have hosted a Super Bowl are Minneapolis and Detroit, and guess what, both indoors! However, it is about attracting fans, and who wouldn't rather go to Florida or Southern California in February than Minneapolis or Detroit?
|
|
05-15-2009, 03:15 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Lawrence, IN
50 posts, read 143,431 times
Reputation: 34
|
|
Indianapolis.....its the same size Nashville, and Charlotte pretty much, for the record Jacksonville got bashed by the media after the Superbowl was held there.
Indy wins 2012 Super*Bowl - Stampede Blue |
|
05-15-2009, 06:08 AM
|
|
|
|
14,260 posts, read 25,756,460 times
Reputation: 4518
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pw72
Yep, the only cold cities that have hosted a Super Bowl are Minneapolis and Detroit, and guess what, both indoors! However, it is about attracting fans, and who wouldn't rather go to Florida or Southern California in February than Minneapolis or Detroit?
|
I agree. I would HATE to one of those freezing tundra super bowls up there. Thats why MOST superbowls are held in the sunbelt. |
|
05-15-2009, 06:11 AM
|
|
|
|
14,260 posts, read 25,756,460 times
Reputation: 4518
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWereRabbit
I think it is absolutely awful that the super bowl is only held in warm weather cities. It should be held at the home field of the team with the better record. With the way it is set up now a team like the Bucs or Cards could get home field without deserving it. Plus, bad weather is part of football.
|
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. |
|
05-15-2009, 06:21 AM
|
|
|
|
1,750 posts, read 3,246,570 times
Reputation: 786
|
|
|
Actually, no team has ever played in the superbowl at their own stadium.
|
|
05-15-2009, 07:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: ITP
2,138 posts, read 6,104,516 times
Reputation: 1380
|
|
|
The size of the city doesn't matter, but rather the size of the stadium, the number of luxury boxes in the stadium, and the number of hotel rooms in the host city. It's of no surprise that most of the cities that have hosted Super Bowls are also cities that are accustomed to hosting a number of large conventions every year.
|
|
05-15-2009, 08:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
20,245 posts, read 31,714,641 times
Reputation: 11731
|
|
Quote:
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.
|
Actually the game was in San Diego. But point taken.
Quote:
|
I think it is absolutely awful that the super bowl is only held in warm weather cities. It should be held at the home field of the team with the better record. With the way it is set up now a team like the Bucs or Cards could get home field without deserving it. Plus, bad weather is part of football.
|
While they should be played in cold weather and in elements. I think it would be even dumber to play it in at the stadium of the team with the best record. Home field advantage has NEVER been a huge problem mostly because the average fan really can't attend a super bowl game because the tickets are so expensive. The Cardinals didn't have any home field advantage in Tampa this past February. |
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.
