I know the the harsh reality of the NFL is that the money will go somewhere warm in January than somewhere cold, but I can’t help think that some of the classic, vaunted, old time stadiums of the great white north, which have recently been renovated, deserve the big game just as much as, or even more, as Houston. As hard as it is to get the tickets to the big game, I don’t think that they would have a problem selling out. The only fear would be weather, but I think that would make the game more interesting. They had the big game at the Metrodome a decade or so ago, and at Michigan before that, and I felt it was wrong. The big one shouldn’t be played inside. Will this ever happen? Can it happen at Giants stadium if they fear a -40 F day at Lambeau will kill the cameramen? Is it possible?
There will be a Super Bowl in LA before they get one in Lambeau.
I, too, think it would be interesting. Not just Lambeau, but any stadium should be able to be a candidate. Playing in the mud or ice or whathaveyou is just part of the game! The problem is not getting fans in the stadium nor would it be ratings, but nonetheless it seems the NFL will never let it happen.
Perhaps part of the reason is the players probably wouldn’t want it – if you had a choice, would you play in Green Bay in January, or Miami?
Or maybe it’s the networks. I mean, the technical crews probably HATE doing those playoff games in Lambeau and the like; but on the other hand, when has a network EVER done anything just because it is easier on the techs?
You know, as I look at it, there really doesn’t seem to be ANY good reason to limit the venues for the Superbowl other than “we’ve just always done it that way” …
Haven’t there been noises in recent months/years about scheduling a Super Bowl at Giants Stadium? Or am I dreaming…?
You don’t have to convince ME of the attraction of another Ice Bowl. Mrs. Kunilou was born and raised in Cleveland and she thinks football should only be played on a muddy field in a snow storm with a 30 mph wind.
However, the NFL has made it quite clear that they only want the Super Bowl played in a) a domed stadium or b) a warm-weather city. Ideally, I’m sure they’d prefer a dome in a warm-weather city.
Most of the answer has to do with television, but there are other factors.
Unnecessary advantage to “cold weather” teams like the Packers or Patriots.
The big corporate sponsors don’t want to spend 3-5 days trying to party and entertain in Green Bay, then sit around for five hours in a -20 snowstorm.
Those gawdawful pre-game and half-time productions wouldn’t work in a snowstorm, diminishing the “entertainment” value of the day.
The Super Bowl is a major logistical production, and controlling the weather as much as possible removes a potential headache.
kunilou got most of them, but also no one (at the NFL) wants a sloppy, no offense, 6-3 game because of weather either.
I would bet the main reason though is that sponsors have indicated they don’t want a cold weather SB.
The super bowl will be in Detroit in a few years.
Hotel space is a BIG issue. Jacksonville is bringing in cruise ships to serve as hotels when they host in 2005.
I’m about 70 minutes from Lambeau. Folks, it’s deadly dull around here for hundreds of miles in the middle of January, unless you like snowmobiling, xc-skiing, or ice fishing. Or certain other indoor sports/entertainment.
What to do in the time before the big game? Tour the paper mills of the Fox Valley? Visit the Peshtigo Fire museum? The Gibbsville Cheese factory (where I get my 6 year old cheddar)? Or just hang out at the hotel’s hot tub (holds 6) at the local AmericInn? Hell, even the cows spend as little time outside during that time of year.