Why doesn't city of Green Bay ever get to host The Super Bowl? (Milwaukee: home, live in)

[Allan Trafton]

Having the Super Bowl outside in a cold weather city is IMO crazy. The weather in Green Bay in early February can be downright dangerous. Imagine a Super Bowl in minus 18. It would be horrible. New York/New Jersey got lucky. It was a cold winter out east and it just happened to be in the upper 40's at kickoff. The week before and the week after the weather was cold and snowy. Add to this the winter weather in Green Bay is much more severe than it is in the Meadowlands. The Meadowlands are downright tropical compared to Green Bay in Winter. It rarely gets below zero there, in Green Bay probably 20 or 30 times a year, but of course it depends.

Anyone from the south or generally the west and had to experience a real cold day in Wisconsin would be in for a shock. I've lived here my entire life, for the most part, and can barely deal with it when it gets extreme cold, image someone from California or Florida. I don't know if they would make it to halftime.

Back in the day almost all the Super Bowls where in L.A., Miami and New Orleans. Now the league likes to spread it around. I understand where they are coming from. Indy did a great job a few years back, but they have a dome. I hope the Meadowlands is the end of this playing the Super Bowl in a cold weather city outside.

[augiedogie]

Midwinter in Green Bay outdoors? Never going to happen. Does this poster actually live in Wis? Have you ever actually been to Green Bay? What a silly question. Sure the locals wouldn't have any problem but to live in Wis. long term it helps to be part Eskimo. Stand that poster out in -70 windchill and see if they can answer that question.

[ranger17]

Originally Posted by Allan Trafton

Back in the day almost all the Super Bowls where in L.A., Miami and New Orleans. Now the league likes to spread it around. I understand where they are coming from. Indy did a great job a few years back, but they have a dome. I hope the Meadowlands is the end of this playing the Super Bowl in a cold weather city outside.

i think they also "assign" one to the markets that build a new stadium, wouldnt be surprised to see MN get one in the future but the twin cities can handle it hotel-wise and they'll have a dome

[cheese plate]

Everyone mentioning the weather here is wrong - it's the local infrastructure. If the region could handle a Super Bowl, it would be in the mix as perhaps the most legendary stadium in football.

Again, this has been covered like mad over the years, including in-depth interviews with officials from the team and the NFL, and it has to do with the local infrastructure, not weather.

[ranger17]

Originally Posted by cheese plate

Everyone mentioning the weather here is wrong - it's the local infrastructure. If the region could handle a Super Bowl, it would be in the mix as perhaps the most legendary stadium in football.

Again, this has been covered like mad over the years, including in-depth interviews with officials from the team and the NFL, and it has to do with the local infrastructure, not weather.

the above may be true but until this past season outdoor cold weather stadiums were basically out of the running. Now that NY/NJ tried one and got lucky on the weather for the game itself, others are trying to get in line. But thru near 50 SB's, what i'd consider also to be legendary locations such as Soldiers field have not hosted the big game. Chicago has the infrastructure (and no i'm not a Bears fan just stating a point), as does Philly, DC, etc but no SB there yet either.
So the best markets may still get preference, but somehow weather has had to play a part in it.

just my .02

[cheese plate]

Originally Posted by ranger17

the above may be true but until this past season outdoor cold weather stadiums were basically out of the running. Now that NY/NJ tried one and got lucky on the weather for the game itself, others are trying to get in line. But thru near 50 SB's, what i'd consider also to be legendary locations such as Soldiers field have not hosted the big game. Chicago has the infrastructure (and no i'm not a Bears fan just stating a point), as does Philly, DC, etc but no SB there yet either.
So the best markets may still get preference, but somehow weather has had to play a part in it.

just my .02

The reason why GB is not in the running has to do with infrastructure; there are obviously few Super Bowls held outdoors in the cold in the first place.

[ranger17]

Originally Posted by cheese plate

The reason why GB is not in the running has to do with infrastructure; there are obviously few Super Bowls held outdoors in the cold in the first place.

I agree that GB loses out due to infrastructure; but if that is the only reason keeping it out of GB, then why havent the other cold markets been granted a SB? My only point is weather must still play a part in it or at some time we could have seen a game in Chicago, Philly, etc.....

wanted to add if GB was ever to have been granted one i'm sure it would have had to been early on; but as the SB became more of an event and not just the game, it easily outgrew any chance the fox valley had to play host. Personally i think the game needs to be played on the best field conditions possible, so the championship is determined by the players and not the weather. again only an opinion.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by cheese plate

Everyone mentioning the weather here is wrong - it's the local infrastructure . . .

It's the weather too.

Chicago could easily host a Super Bowl; it's never going to happen.

[ketchuponmydog]

I think Soldier Field is too small....isn't it like 64,000? I think you need to be in the 75-90,00 seat range. LF is 80,000 or thereabouts I think. Not sure exactly.

GB is only 100,000. I am sure some NFL cities have suburbs that big or bigger. GB is very small. It thinks small. It's a 100,000 city that acts like 60,000 pop town.

Not even remotely enough hotel rooms. Poor shopping/event options. Very few venues for events. Just no place to hold all the parties and whatnot. Infrastructure and all the rest....just can't support it.

And weather is part of the deal. Go back and see the 2008 NFC Title Game to see what a SB in GB would be like. Beyond miserable. I don't think Detroit or Minnesota would get Bowls if they played outside either.

Lambeau is big enough and from a historic stand point it would be pretty neat.

[Unsettomati]

1) The lack of infrastructure - hotel rooms, and so forth. Green Bay is simply too small of a metropolitan area.

2) Cold weather - the NFL doesn't want the championship game to be played in the extreme cold/snow, for rather obvious reasons. And, no, the fact that it was in New York earlier this year doesn't change that metric. The chances of very cold/ very snowy weather (especially the former) are much higher in Green Bay than in New York.

On the other hand, people claiming that it's because the big-money attendees just won't come to a cold-weather city for the Super Bowl need to get a clue. Super Bowls have been held in Detroit (two of them) and Minneapolis (one, with another one scheduled for 2018). So while there are plenty of problems - to put it mildly - with a Green Bay Super Bowl, that isn't one of them.

If the NFL was willing to put the Super Bowl in the upper Midwest, it would put it in Chicago long before Green Bay.