Two Super Bowl history questions

[flodnak]

Questions brought up by all-but-12-year-old flodjunior, while watching a taped broadcast of the AFC Championship game last night....

1) Last year some people talked about the possibility of an "All-Pennsylvania Super Bowl", if the Pittsburgh Steelers would win the AFC title and the Philadelphia Eagles the NFC. Obviously that didn't happen. In fact it appears there never was an all-one-state SB, although it could have happened with teams from California (Oakland or San Diego v. San Francisco or Los Angeles when they still had the Rams), Texas (Houston v. Dallas), or New York (Buffalo or NY Giants v. NY Jets). Has a Single State SB ever come that close to happening before, with two teams from a single state in the NFC and AFC Conference championship games?

2) No team has ever had any sort of home field advantage in the Super Bowl, since the host city has never been home to either of the teams. Has it ever been a realistic possibility - that is to say, has the team from a SB host city ever made it to the playoffs?

Thanks in advance to the resident NFL trivia buffs, from me and my son....

[TwoTrouts]

1) Super Bowl XXIX featured the San Francisco 49ers and the San Diego Chargers for an all California Superbowl.

2) Super Bowl XIX featured the San Francisco 49ers playing the Miami Dolphins in the Stanford stadium, which is just 20 minutes drive away from Candlestick Park, still classified as being in the SF bay region. I would count this as a home field advantaqge situation.

[Eureka]

Super Bowl XXV featured the New York Giants and the Buffalo Bills. (Giants won, of course.)

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Eureka

Super Bowl XXV featured the New York Giants and the Buffalo Bills. (Giants won, of course.)

Yes but to be picky, the Giants actually play in New Jersey.

[R. P. McMurphy]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Yes but to be picky, the Giants actually play in New Jersey.

Yes, now there's a good one to start an argument.

When the Giants first won the Super Bowl they wanted a ticker tape parade on lower Broadway ("The Canyon of Heros"). The mayor of NYC told them to have their stupid parade in New Jersey.

[bordelond]

Super Bowl XIV was played in Pasadena, CA (a suburb of Los Angeles) between the Los Angeles Rams and Pittsburgh Steelers. That and the SB XIX example given above by TwoTrouts are the closest a team has ever had to a home-field advantage.

The Houston Oilers met the Pittsburgh Steelers in the 1978 and 1979 AFC championship games. Had the Oilers won the '78 AFC title game, they would have played in an All-Texas Super Bowl XVIII against the Dallas Cowboys.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by TwoTrouts

2) Super Bowl XIX featured the San Francisco 49ers playing the Miami Dolphins in the Stanford stadium, which is just 20 minutes drive away from Candlestick Park, still classified as being in the SF bay region. I would count this as a home field advantaqge situation.

Originally Posted by bordelond

Super Bowl XIV was played in Pasadena, CA (a suburb of Los Angeles) between the Los Angeles Rams and Pittsburgh Steelers.

Why were the Superbowls played in those stadiums? And when did the league shift to using exclusively NFL stadiums?

Or did it? Is it still possible that the NFL could decide to hold a Superbowl in a college stadium or some other non-NFL venue?

[bordelond]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Why were the Superbowls played in those stadiums? And when did the league shift to using exclusively NFL stadiums?

Or did it? Is it still possible that the NFL could decide to hold a Superbowl in a college stadium or some other non-NFL venue?

One thing going in Stanford Stadium's favor was its size. It sat around 84,000 or so, whereas the local pro stadium (SF's Candlestick Park) sat around 60-65,000.

The Rose Bowl (UCLA's home stadium) got out of the loop once Los Angeles lost its two frachises in 1995. It last hosted a Super Bowl in 1993.

[fiddlesticks]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Why were the Superbowls played in those stadiums? And when did the league shift to using exclusively NFL stadiums?

Or did it? Is it still possible that the NFL could decide to hold a Superbowl in a college stadium or some other non-NFL venue?

They were played there because Stanford Stadium & the Rose Bowl were big stadiums in warm weather locations in late January. Stanford will never again hold the Super Bowl because they're currently tearing the place down and rebuilding it on a more intimate scale. The Rose Bowl probably won't host the game again (without major upgrades to the stadium) because it doesn't have enough luxury boxes for all the corporate folks that the NFL brings in. It last hosted Super Bowl XXVII. Basically NFL now expects amenities beyond what any strictly "college" stadium has nowadays.

If LA ever gets a team again, they'll get a new stadium with plenty of luxury boxes and likely be put into the regular Super Bowl site rotation. San Francisco was promised a Super Bowl back when the 49ers made their initial push to get a new stadium, but with the internal turmoil within the franchise, the new stadium is practically a forgotten issue.

Not sure if Detroit will be in the Super Bowl rotation now with their new stadium, but I'm quite certain that the main reason the game is being played there is that the NFL promised at least one Super Bowl in exchange for govenment help/approval in getting the stadium built.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by fiddlesticks

They were played there because Stanford Stadium & the Rose Bowl were big stadiums in warm weather locations in late January.

Thanks for the info about the stadiums, etc.

In my six short football seasons here in the US, the need for a warm weather Superbowl is one thing i have come to hate about the NFL.

Personally, i think a Superbowl played in driving New England snow or frigid Green Bay temperatures would be cool (heh heh) to watch. It's not like people would refuse to attend, and it's not like folks would switch off their TV sets. Hell, there's something sort of comforting about sitting in a warm loungeroom and watching a bunch of guys play football in the snow. That AFC Championship game between the Patriots and the Raiders a few seasons ago was fantastic.

I think it's a silly policy.

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Thanks for the info about the stadiums, etc.

In my six short football seasons here in the US, the need for a warm weather Superbowl is one thing i have come to hate about the NFL.

Personally, i think a Superbowl played in driving New England snow or frigid Green Bay temperatures would be cool (heh heh) to watch. It's not like people would refuse to attend, and it's not like folks would switch off their TV sets. Hell, there's something sort of comforting about sitting in a warm loungeroom and watching a bunch of guys play football in the snow. That AFC Championship game between the Patriots and the Raiders a few seasons ago was fantastic.

I think it's a silly policy.

For the most part the people who attend the Super Bowl aren't the nutty fans who would gladly sit in the freezing cold to see their team play in the game, but are instead rich big wigs who expect and demand not to be exposed to the risk rain, let alone of frostbite, while watching the game. Therefore the game will not be played outside in wintery weather for the foreseeable future.

[Gangster Octopus]

A city the size of Green Bay really could not adequately accomodate an event like the Super Bowl.

[aahala]

If, if, if. If the Kansas City Chiefs had remained as the Dallas Texans, Dallas would have never met Dallas in the Super Bowl. But the year KC won and several of the years the Cowboys won, the other team had made the playoffs. So for the week between the regular season and the first playoff game, there would have been a number of years where a Dallas-Dallas Super Bowl would have been possible.

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

For the most part the people who attend the Super Bowl aren't the nutty fans who would gladly sit in the freezing cold to see their team play in the game, but are instead rich big wigs who expect and demand not to be exposed to the risk rain, let alone of frostbite, while watching the game. Therefore the game will not be played outside in wintery weather for the foreseeable future.

On the other hand, if it had been out in the cold, Janet Jackson might not have decided to bear her boob.

[Loopus]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

On the other hand, if it had been out in the cold, Janet Jackson might not have decided to bear her boob.

I'm pretty sure she bears it everywhere she goes. She probably doesn't always bare it, though.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

For the most part the people who attend the Super Bowl aren't the nutty fans who would gladly sit in the freezing cold to see their team play in the game, but are instead rich big wigs who expect and demand not to be exposed to the risk rain, let alone of frostbite, while watching the game. Therefore the game will not be played outside in wintery weather for the foreseeable future.

I'm well aware of the selfish reasoning behind the NFL's policy; it doesn't mean that i have to like it.

Personally, i think the Superbowl would also be more interesting if more of the people in the crowd were, in fact, "the nutty fans who would gladly sit in the freezing cold to see their team play in the game."

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Loopus

I'm pretty sure she bears it everywhere she goes. She probably doesn't always bare it, though.

Yes, I realized my error when I hit the submit button. The cold may have made it unbareable, but not unbearable.

[jsc1953]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Personally, i think the Superbowl would also be more interesting if more of the people in the crowd were, in fact, "the nutty fans who would gladly sit in the freezing cold to see their team play in the game."

Definitely.

This makes the question about home-field advantage somewhat irrelevant. It doesn't matter much if the team if 20 minutes from home if their fans aren't in the seats -- they're being occupied by the top selling salesman for Consolidated Widgets' Upper Northwest Division.

[Crandolph]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

A city the size of Green Bay really could not adequately accomodate an event like the Super Bowl.

Is this really true? Green Bay has hosted NFC championship games, and Jacksonville (over 700,000 people but rather spread out) had the Super Bowl last year. The metro area is about 195,000 people.

I should think that once you scare away the people who don't want to watch a football game in cold weather accomodating real fans & necessary media shouldn't be so tough. I think it's more a case that the NFL doesn't want to see things go in this direction rather than it being physically impossible.

As a side benefit a nice 20-below day might encourage a less ludicrous halftime show and refocus things on... oh, I dunno... football.

[rockle]

Originally Posted by mhendo

In my six short football seasons here in the US, the need for a warm weather Superbowl is one thing i have come to hate about the NFL.

Personally, i think a Superbowl played in driving New England snow or frigid Green Bay temperatures would be cool (heh heh) to watch. ...

I think it's a silly policy.

I think the owners are to blame for that policy, because they decide where the Superbowls are going to be. Example from SuperBowl.com: "The site of the 2008 Super Bowl [Glendale, AZ] was decided at the owners' meetings in Chicago on Oct. 29-30, 2003." I also found these bits in another (albeit "old" and unofficial) article: "... the current NFL policy, which excludes open-air venues in northern cities from hosting the annual title game. In the past, the game was hosted by either a warm-weather city or a northern city with a domed stadium, such as Minnesota and Detroit. ... [A potential host city must receive] 24 of 32 (three-fourths) votes from the owners."

As much as I want to say that I agree with you on the pansy-ass-ness of only playing Superbowls in warm and/or controllable climates (especially since the Pro Bowl, just one week later, is always in Hawaii), I also have to say that I kind of agree with the owners here, at least a little bit. If it were, say Buffalo and Philadelphia in the Superbowl, that would be one thing - they're at least used to playing in temperatures under 30°F occasionally. But other teams just don't have to do it very often - like Arizona and San Diego. It's kind of cruel to watch the unaccustomed (*koff*DrewBledsoe*koff*) flounder around and try to keep their wits about them while they're slowing freezing their fingers off.

In Drew Bledsoe's case, though, it's kind of fun, just the same.

[jsc1953]

It's a stupid policy, but whaddya gonna do? You can't have the game at a home field; unlike the World Series, it's one game, no back & forth.

So you have to have it at a neutral site. So as long as you're picking neutral sites, you might as well play it in nice weather.

I think the ticket distribution policy adds another layer of unreality to the game, though. College Bowl games are played in neutral sites, and the stands tend to be full of regular fans, who actually care who wins the game. A much smaller proportion of Super Bowl tickets are given to the teams (no cite -- whaddya think this is, Great Debates?) so you get a stadium full of corporate honchos and friends of friends of people with connections.

[Petey]

Since no one answered this question.

Originally Posted by flodnak

has the team from a SB host city ever made it to the playoffs?

The Miami Dolphins' home stadium (first the Orange Bowl, then Pro Player Stadium) has hosted 8 Super Bowls. (9th next year)
The Dolphins were in the playoffs 4 of those 8 years, but didn't make it to the Super Bowl. But they have been to 5 Super Bowls.

New Orleans has hosted 9 Super Bowls, but the Saints didn't make the playoffs in any of those years.

Tampa and San Diego have each hosted 3 Super Bowls, but the teams didn't make the playoffs.

Atlanta hosted 2 Super Bowls, the Falcons weren't in the playoffs those years, but they missed their home stadium by one year.
In the Super Bowl- 1998 season. Hosted the Super Bowl- 1999 season.

[flodnak]

I swear we looked at the list of Super Bowl match-ups, and I don't know how we missed the All-CA and All-NY bowls

Thanks for all the replies and assorted trivia! I've got to teach my kids to be Real Americans; what better way than to fill their impressionable young minds with meaningless sports tidbits?

[Quercus]

Originally Posted by rockle

It's kind of cruel to watch the unaccustomed (*koff*DrewBledsoe*koff*) flounder around and try to keep their wits about them while they're slowing freezing their fingers off.

Especially when they really should be accustomed to the cold
(*koff*played in Buffalo and New England*koff*)

[rockle]

Originally Posted by Quercus

Especially when they really should be accustomed to the cold
(*koff*played in Buffalo and New England*koff*)

I know. That's why it's so funny to watch him suffer. He really has no excuse.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by jsc1953

It's a stupid policy, but whaddya gonna do? You can't have the game at a home field; unlike the World Series, it's one game, no back & forth.

So you have to have it at a neutral site. So as long as you're picking neutral sites, you might as well play it in nice weather.

What do you mean "you have to have it at a neutral site"? That's not true at all.

The Superbowl this year is in Detroit. If the Lions had made it (yeah, funny, i know) would they have moved the game? There's always a possibility that the home team will compete in the SuperBowl, and that wouldn't change if it were held in a northern, open-air field.

Originally Posted by rockle

As much as I want to say that I agree with you on the pansy-ass-ness of only playing Superbowls in warm and/or controllable climates (especially since the Pro Bowl, just one week later, is always in Hawaii), I also have to say that I kind of agree with the owners here, at least a little bit. If it were, say Buffalo and Philadelphia in the Superbowl, that would be one thing - they're at least used to playing in temperatures under 30°F occasionally. But other teams just don't have to do it very often - like Arizona and San Diego. It's kind of cruel to watch the unaccustomed (*koff*DrewBledsoe*koff*) flounder around and try to keep their wits about them while they're slowing freezing their fingers off.

In Drew Bledsoe's case, though, it's kind of fun, just the same.

Sorry, i can't agree.

Sure, it's possible that if they played a SuperBowl in, say, Green Bay, that it would end up being the Patriots against the Carolina Panthers, and that this might give the New England team the edge in cold weather.

But so what? One could argue that forcing a team from a cold-weather state to play in a hot weather stadium is also unfair. Part of the attraction of a sport like football, for me, is that teams need to learn to adapt to various conditions. Some teams play nearly all of their games on natural grass, but you don't hear any cries of "unfair" if they are then forced to play a SuperBowl on Astroturf. And anyone who has run and played sport on these two surfaces knows that the differences can be quite significant.

Furthermore, if you're going to make this argument, wouldn't it be fairer to have all playoff games at neutral, warm-weather stadiums? After all, divisional playoff and conference championship games are important too—they decide who gets to play in the SuperBowl—and no-one has a problem with home-field advantage or cold-weather stadiums in those games.

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by Crandolph

Is this really true? Green Bay has hosted NFC championship games, and Jacksonville (over 700,000 people but rather spread out) had the Super Bowl last year. The metro area is about 195,000 people.

The Super Bowl is like a Championship game turned up to 11, far more media, far more "dignitaries", far more people period. There were complaints last year about the lack of hotel rooms in Jacksonville.

[jsc1953]

Originally Posted by mhendo

What do you mean "you have to have it at a neutral site"? That's not true at all.

I meant, you can't have it at one team's home field every year. If it happened that Detroit got in, lucky break for them.

Furthermore, if you're going to make this argument, wouldn't it be fairer to have all playoff games at neutral, warm-weather stadiums? After all, divisional playoff and conference championship games are important too—they decide who gets to play in the SuperBowl—and no-one has a problem with home-field advantage or cold-weather stadiums in those games.

Hmmm.....I can think of no counter-argument to this.

Wait...just thought of one. The NFL hype machine needs more than two weeks advance notice of where the game's going to be played (I didn't say it was a good argument.)

[rockle]

Originally Posted by mhendo

But so what? One could argue that forcing a team from a cold-weather state to play in a hot weather stadium is also unfair.

Perhaps. But most people involved with the game (including players I have seen interviewed) don't make that argument. I don't know why. (Maybe because the beginning of the season is hot almost everywhere? I really don't know.) But generally speaking, the weather conditions seem far more intimidating when a visiting team has to go to "the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field" or to Mile High Stadium, where the altitude can figure in. It's hard to get psyched out when you have to go to Miami. (I personally think all NFL stadiums should get into the rotation to host Superbowls, because all that $$ coming into an area is very good for the local economy, but I might be abnormal in that respect.) All I know is, historically, the Packers have not has as much trouble playing in temperatures over 75°F as the Bucs have had playing in temperatures below 30°F.

Part of the attraction of a sport like football, for me, is that teams need to learn to adapt to various conditions. Some teams play nearly all of their games on natural grass, but you don't hear any cries of "unfair" if they are then forced to play a SuperBowl on Astroturf. And anyone who has run and played sport on these two surfaces knows that the differences can be quite significant.

No argument from me here - I think artificial turf should be outlawed everywhere in the known Universe. If we can land a man on the moon we should be able to figure out how to get grass to grow in a dome. But, I have heard players complain that the artificial turf did affect their play in big games, particularly when their team lost. It's a sad excuse, but people do use it.

Furthermore, if you're going to make this argument, wouldn't it be fairer to have all playoff games at neutral, warm-weather stadiums? After all, divisional playoff and conference championship games are important too—they decide who gets to play in the SuperBowl—and no-one has a problem with home-field advantage or cold-weather stadiums in those games.

Probably, but then that wouldn't be fair financially to those northern cities with football teams. Philadelphia could definitely use the money, as could Detroit, and Buffalo, and Chicago, etc. They playoffs don't generate as much money as the Big Show, but it's not a walk in the park, either. (Can't find a cite, sorry.) I think the system is highly imperfect, believe me, but until I win the lottery and can buy a team of my own (you'll know I have when you start hearing about a team called "The Mighty Meerkats") I don't have a say in the process. Unfortunately.

[Airblairxxx]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Furthermore, if you're going to make this argument, wouldn't it be fairer to have all playoff games at neutral, warm-weather stadiums? After all, divisional playoff and conference championship games are important too—they decide who gets to play in the SuperBowl—and no-one has a problem with home-field advantage or cold-weather stadiums in those games.

Originally Posted by jsc1953

Hmmm.....I can think of no counter-argument to this.

Wait...just thought of one. The NFL hype machine needs more than two weeks advance notice of where the game's going to be played (I didn't say it was a good argument.)

There's a better counter-argument, besides the impracticality: The Super Bowl is ostensibly between the best teams in each of the two conferences, the AFC and NFC. The deal is this: you win your conference, you're the champ. You deserve a simple mano a mano battle against the other champ to determine who is the best team. A neutral field means that the battle will most likely come down to factors such as talent and coaching skill, as it rightly should.

The conference playoffs, on the other hand, are a Malthusian meat-grinder of pigskin prowess. One must remember that the playoffs are the "second season" and come after the regular season. In fact, the entire regular season is played not with an eye towards getting into the Super Bowl, but rather towards best positioning one's team to succeed in the playoffs--hence the home-field advantage going to the team with the best record. A neutral field for the playoffs would render the regular season as meaningless as a missed extra point.

[jimmmy]

In 1992, Super Bowl XXVI, the Redskins beat the Bills in the Metrodome in front of 63,130 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Cold weather indoor site in January. The NFL went with a whole lot of indoor exhibitions and events -- as well as mucho “Winter Carnival” style events outside.

IIRC Mucho b^tching from the press corps about the weather -- but I heard non from the Players or fans.
On that score it was fine.

OTOH it had the lowest attendance since Superbowl I (in LA) and was the only Superbowl since I to have less than 70,000 spectators

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by Airblairxxx

There's a better counter-argument, besides the impracticality: The Super Bowl is ostensibly between the best teams in each of the two conferences, the AFC and NFC. The deal is this: you win your conference, you're the champ. You deserve a simple mano a mano battle against the other champ to determine who is the best team. A neutral field means that the battle will most likely come down to factors such as talent and coaching skill, as it rightly should.

The conference playoffs, on the other hand, are a Malthusian meat-grinder of pigskin prowess. One must remember that the playoffs are the "second season" and come after the regular season. In fact, the entire regular season is played not with an eye towards getting into the Super Bowl, but rather towards best positioning one's team to succeed in the playoffs--hence the home-field advantage going to the team with the best record. A neutral field for the playoffs would render the regular season as meaningless as a missed extra point.

I think your distinctions, for all their philosophical rhetoric, are spurious.

So what if the SuperBowl is a battle between conference champs. This doesn't change the nature of the game itself. And while "Malthusian meat-grinder" might sound poetic, i'm not sure that Malthus would look favorably upon your allusion.

Also, you say that the SuperBowl should "come down to factors such as talent and coaching skill." I completely agree. But you offer no compelling rationale for why the conference playoffs should be any different. Surely, if one team makes it to the playoffs with a record of 15-1, while another team has a record of 11-5, the difference in quality between those teams should be evident in the score, whether the 15-1 team has home field advantage or plays on a neutral field.

Anyhow, my main argument in this thread is not in opposition to a neutral ground for the SuperBowl (the current system makes it statistically unlikely that the host city will make it to the big game), but to the NFL's refusal to play the big game in cold weather. That's my main gripe.

[BobT]

The Rose Bowl was chosen for a few Super Bowls instead of the L.A. Memorial Coliseum (site of two Super Bowls) pretty much because it seated more people than the Coliseum and had better sight lines. The Rose Bowl at the time seated close to 100,000 (it's around 90,000 now), although it only had benches and had few luxury boxes. But during that same time, the Coliseum had a dismal reputation and even the 1984 Olympics didn't restore it.

Both facilities are historic and have been the scenes of some great football games. The Powers That Be in Southern California have decided that the Coliseum (greatly modified) would be the home to any L.A. NFL team. If that happened, there would be a Super Bowl there eventually.

[rockle]

Originally Posted by mhendo

Anyhow, my main argument in this thread is not in opposition to a neutral ground for the SuperBowl (the current system makes it statistically unlikely that the host city will make it to the big game), but to the NFL's refusal to play the big game in cold weather. That's my main gripe.

Most of the NFL -- and here by NFL I mean "the players" -- couldn't give a toot where the game is played. San Diego, Green Bay, Antarctica, on the Moon -- wherever they need to go and whatever they need to do to get there, they'll do. It's the frickin' Superbowl, for Pete's sake! I don't care where they play it, either: there's something immensely satisfying to me about the thought of Drew Brees losing his mind in a Buffalo whiteout (if Schottenheimer could stop choking). The problem here is the owners. They ultimately vote on the sites. But I don't want to fight with Al Davis over this, because he can (and would) kick my tuchus.

[BobT]

Philadelphia has campaigned to host the Super Bowl.

Outdoors.

I really don't know who would like that except for people in Philadelphia.

[postcards]

Originally Posted by jsc1953

...whaddya think this is, Great Debates?...

Seems that way by now.

[rockle]

Originally Posted by BobT

Philadelphia has campaigned to host the Super Bowl.

Outdoors.

I really don't know who would like that except for people in Philadelphia.

Well, the stadium is nice. And, as I mentioned before, we could use the money. But you're pretty much right. Then again, Boathouse Row makes for some pretty stunning visuals. When it's not turned off. Just in time for the NFC Championship game.

[AWB]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Yes but to be picky, the Giants actually play in New Jersey.

So I guess since the Washington Redskins' home field is actually in Landover, MD, we might someday (yeah, right) have an all-Maryland Superbowl.

Weird to think about. Truly.

[Mr. Goob]

Both the Giants and the Jets play in New Jersey. I can't stress that enough as a Bills season ticket holder. The only New York team.

On the radio this morning I heard that the face value on some of this years SB tickets is $700. For that much money I can't see people wanting to sit in the cold and watch a game. Damn Pansies I tell you.

Today in Buffalo it's in the 40°'s and no snow in sight. Bring on the Superbowl!

[Crandolph]

Originally Posted by rockle

Well, the stadium is nice. And, as I mentioned before, we could use the money. But you're pretty much right. Then again, Boathouse Row makes for some pretty stunning visuals. When it's not turned off. Just in time for the NFC Championship game.

I believe they were changing the lighting system; apparently it looked too charming and needed to be cheapened up a bit...

Yes, people here would enjoy hosting a Super Bowl. And we could easily absorb it. Beyond that, I've been to a number of January playoff games here in nasty weather the past few years and, guess what, I lived! We all lived. It's football.

I'm still not convinced that Green Bay is actually incapable of hosting a Super Bowl. Some hotshots might not get the royal treatment, but so what. Let them stay home. I actually think it'd be a very healthy move for the league to allow a cold weather outdoor game. Who wouldn't tune in to watch a February game in Green Bay or Buffalo?!

Green Bay won the first couple of SBs, the fans always sell out Lambeau and Arizona can't even fill the stadium for home games. Something seems profoundly unfair that the former is de facto ouf of the running and the latter is automatically in the running of a very small field of candidates.

[HelloKitty]

Sorry to give my opinion in GQ, but y'all do realize that where the SuperBowl is hosted has nothing to do with the actual game, fairness for the teams or players and everything to do with money, right??

The SuperBowl is in Detroit this year to please all of Paul Tagliabue's Motor City cronies. They go to New Orleans and Miami so often so that all the corporate types and lobbyists have a nice place to take clients, play golf and enjoy the nightlife away from their wives. If the NFL was worried whether Joe Fan could afford to go to the game ticket prices would not start out at $700.

They will throw a bone to places like Jacksonville every once in awhile, but who knows what kind of payoffs took place to get the NFL to have it there. They will never go back there, mark my words.

Here in Kansas City (Note to the OP: An all-Missouri SuperBowl could involve the Kansas City (MO) Chiefs vs the St. Louis Rams) Lamar Hunt has been begging to have a SuperBowl in KC since Arrowhead was built. This year the NFL "committed" to host a SuperBowl here if the team builds a roof over the stadium!!!

Hey, I know!! Let's just get the taxpayers to pay for it! Then we'll charge them $700 if they want to come to the game!

It will be on the ballot in April...

(Disclaimer: I am a huge Chiefs and NFL fan in general, I'm just tired of teams asking for local taxpayers to pay for their stadiums and improvements)

[Clothahump]

Moot point.

The best way to watch the Super Bowl is in the comfort of your own home, relaxed on the couch, with lots of munchies.

And the TV tuned to any channel other than the Super Bowl one.

[gazpacho]

So Kitty will the measure pass

[kidchameleon]

Originally Posted by AWB

So I guess since the Washington Redskins' home field is actually in Landover, MD, we might someday (yeah, right) have an all-Maryland Superbowl.

Weird to think about. Truly.

What, not Raljohn or whatever that was?

[zamboniracer]

Originally Posted by HelloKitty

The SuperBowl is in Detroit this year to please all of Paul Tagliabue's Motor City cronies. They go to New Orleans and Miami so often so that all the corporate types and lobbyists have a nice place to take clients, play golf and enjoy the nightlife away from their wives. If the NFL was worried whether Joe Fan could afford to go to the game ticket prices would not start out at $700.

Detroit is also the home to the US auto industry, based in Detroit (for the time being at least) and which has been and continues to be a huge sponsor of the NFL. I wouldn't be surprised if St. Louis' domed stadium got a Super Bowl some day, based solely on how much money the NFL has made from Anheiser-Busch's beer advertising money.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by BobT

The Powers That Be in Southern California have decided that the Coliseum (greatly modified) would be the home to any L.A. NFL team.

That's the government PTB's, right? Any private entrepreneur could build one, too, I assume. Anyway it isn't "If they come, we will build it", but the other way around.

[dalej42]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

Detroit is also the home to the US auto industry, based in Detroit (for the time being at least) and which has been and continues to be a huge sponsor of the NFL. I wouldn't be surprised if St. Louis' domed stadium got a Super Bowl some day, based solely on how much money the NFL has made from Anheiser-Busch's beer advertising money.

Coors Light is the official beer of the NFL.

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by zamboniracer

Detroit is also the home to the US auto industry, based in Detroit (for the time being at least) and which has been and continues to be a huge sponsor of the NFL.

As The Daily Show pointed out last night, at least the 30,000 workers about to be laid off by Ford have the consolation of having the SuperBowl in their city this year.

[HelloKitty]

Originally Posted by gazpacho

So Kitty will the measure pass?

gaspacho are you also in the KC area?

They have had similar measures on the ballots for several years now and so far all of them have failed. We are a "metro-plex" or whatever you want to call it that includes 2 states and many counties. Last time it was a bi-state issue and was voted down--not enough of the counties that voted passed it.

This time the measure is on the ballot in Jackson County, MO, which is where the stadiums (also KC Royals baseball--I use the term loosely in the case of the Royals--play next door to Arrowhead) are located. Jackson County was the only county on the MO side to vote in favor of the stadium issue last time. So they are trying everything they can to get it pushed through. They change the terms every time...this time they want to add handling fees to baseball tickets and make people outside of Jackson county pay more to park!!! at Royals/Chiefs games (currently $20 Chiefs, $8 Royals), in addition to a sales tax increase.

I seriously doubt the measure will pass, but there will be a ton of hype starting up here in a few weeks. The dreaded "pass it or teams will go bye-bye" will be trotted out, as well as the "Pass it and we can get a Super Bowl!!!" pie-in-the-sky tidbit.

[BobT]

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves

That's the government PTB's, right? Any private entrepreneur could build one, too, I assume. Anyway it isn't "If they come, we will build it", but the other way around.

It is indeed the government, in particular the Coliseum Commission, which consists of members of State, County, and City of L.A. government officials, so it's a tough nut to crack.

Two owners of the Dodgers: Peter O'Malley and Frank McCourt have floated trial balloons about building a football stadium in the area of Dodger Stadium and they got shot down.

There was also an attempt to build a stadium in Carson, but that plan never got anywhere and instead they have a soccer stadium and tennis facility.

It's not easy to raise the capital to build a sports stadium on one's own. Not only is it expensive, but the zoning and permits aren't easy to come by.