Indy loses bid for 2018 Super Bowl (Indianapolis: winter, village, conditions)

[Cleveland_Collector]

Originally Posted by missik999

Cincinnati's Paul Brown stadium is open-air, not a dome. It is also small, only 65,009 seats instead of the 70,000 required by the NFL. (Lucas Oil managed to land a Super Bowl with 69,000 seats)

Cincinnati metro does have the required number of hotel rooms (25,000 within one hour of the stadium) and much higher population than Indy's metro area.

Originally Posted by Dyadic

Indianapolis CSA is 2,310,360. Cincinnati CSA is 2,188,001. These are 2012 estimates.

Cleveland built a new stadium, is bigger than both cities (CSA = 3.5+ million), has enough hotel rooms, and has the seating capacity (73,200). The city tried to bid but was rebuffed in the early 00's because it is a cold weather, open-air stadium. Only when NYC built an open-air stadium did the NFL change their minds about playing it in the cold (in the 'modern' era, anyway).

[qwertyasdf]

Originally Posted by Dyadic

Indianapolis CSA is 2,310,360. Cincinnati CSA is 2,188,001. These are 2012 estimates.

That's a stretch. Doesn't part of the 2.3 million include Greensburg, New Castle, Columbus, Anderson, and Muncie as part of Indianapolis? Please. If that's the case then Cincinnati should take in Dayton, Middletown and Springfield. I bet that would put Cincy near 3 million or slightly above.

[ischyros]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Cleveland built a new stadium, is bigger than both cities (CSA = 3.5+ million), has enough hotel rooms, and has the seating capacity (73,200). The city tried to bid but was rebuffed in the early 00's because it is a cold weather, open-air stadium. Only when NYC built an open-air stadium did the NFL change their minds about playing it in the cold (in the 'modern' era, anyway).

But did it? I don't know that we can really say for sure until the NFL puts the Super Bowl in another outdoor, cold-weather stadium. New York may have been a special circumstance because it was a new stadium and it was New York. There really is no other city in the US that can compete with New York. If another outdoor, cold-weather stadium gets the Super Bowl soon, then I will agree that the NFL has changed their minds. Until that happens, though, I think New York got it just because it's New York.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by qwertyasdf

That's a stretch. Doesn't part of the 2.3 million include Greensburg, New Castle, Columbus, Anderson, and Muncie as part of Indianapolis? Please. If that's the case then Cincinnati should take in Dayton, Middletown and Springfield. I bet that would put Cincy near 3 million or slightly above.

Cincy can add all of Ohio to it's CSA.....still won't make it a metric that matters in this context.

[grmasterb]

Originally Posted by Cleveland_Collector

Cleveland built a new stadium, is bigger than both cities (CSA = 3.5+ million), has enough hotel rooms, and has the seating capacity (73,200). The city tried to bid but was rebuffed in the early 00's because it is a cold weather, open-air stadium. Only when NYC built an open-air stadium did the NFL change their minds about playing it in the cold (in the 'modern' era, anyway).

Then it should try again.

[timothyaw]

I said it right here, that Indy would NOT get the SuperBowl. It was a ONE and DONE deal. You only got it cause you built a stadium on the back of taxpayers. You're not going to be in a regular rotation either. It's called Naptown for a reason.

[Toxic Toast]

Originally Posted by Toxic Toast

I was expecting our friend Timmy to come back and tell us about how he told us Indy was going to lose. I wonder if he drank himself silly in celebration, and got himself sick. Wondering if we should send a search party.

Originally Posted by timothyaw

I said it right here, that Indy would NOT get the SuperBowl. It was a ONE and DONE deal. You only got it cause you built a stadium on the back of taxpayers. You're not going to be in a regular rotation either. It's called Naptown for a reason.

You finally made it. We were worried.

[jammwill]

Originally Posted by timothyaw

I said it right here, that Indy would NOT get the SuperBowl. It was a ONE and DONE deal. You only got it cause you built a stadium on the back of taxpayers. You're not going to be in a regular rotation either. It's called Naptown for a reason.

Yeah, it doesn't matter that it was an extremely successful Super Bowl, the fact the city pulled it off with ease, or the fact that visitors to the city enjoyed themselves as much or more than other recent Super Bowls. The trolling around here has reached critical mass.

[domergurl]

The biggest success of the Indianapolis Superbowl was the fact that Mother Nature blessed the city with very mild weather.

[wh15395]

Originally Posted by domergurl

The biggest success of the Indianapolis Superbowl was the fact that Mother Nature blessed the city with very mild weather.

Or maybe it was the fact that the village set up was so successful that every other city wanting the game is now required to copy it. I'm not saying that the weather wasn't a blessing, but it was hardly the biggest success.