PatsFans.com Article

Go visit San Diego, New Orleans, Miami or Los Angeles and see why this is a bad idea.

More...

upstater1

I have been to all those Super Bowl cities.

I'm actually not quite sure why the comparison is of those cities to New York, and yet New York suffers?? I really don't get it.

Even in the cold, New York is great.

We actually do a lot in New York in the cold, especially around Central Park, skating at the Rock, etc.

Seems to me that NY offers a lot more than some of the cities listed.

NEGoldenAge

If Giants stadium was actually in New York City, this article might have some merit. However, since Giants stadium is a similar distance from NYC to Foxborro's distance from Boston, the entire article is invalid.

MoLewisrocks

That about sums it up.

I think Boston is a tourist/destination city as is NY. We can't see that since we have to live through it's winters. Detroit, Indianapolis, even Dallas...not high on most tourist lists. Part of the reason SB's make money is the experience and drawing in those who desire it for upwards of a week. You draw way more flies with honey. But that said, the broadcast of the game is the big ticket and a cancellation would be devastating. The slim possibility exists of that happening in any venue, but in winter in cold weather venues it goes up exponentially.

Zeus

Anyone who has been to a Super Bowl knows that something like three-quarters of the tickets are doled out to the league's corporate sponsors. These are not the hearty fans who routinely brave the elements in cold weather locations throughout the league. Rather, we're talking fat cat hangers-on, many of whom don't care at all about the game but are there mainly for the big social event.

If the weather is bad, there will be a buyer's market for tickets and a lot of empty seats (except in the end zones where the fans of the participating teams get stuck). Not the image the NFL wants to portray on television ...

PatsFanSince74

Aside from the fact that Mr. George could use an editor (1,500+ words to say: "cold weather=bad, cities with good visuals, domes and/or warm weather=good"), his logic is flawed.

I have often traveled to and spent time in "New Orleans, Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, San Diego and Pasadena, Calif." (I even lived in Miami).

Tampa and Atlanta are basically sleepy cities that "clean up good" for special events. Tampa has trouble drawing 20,000 fans for the team with the best record in MLB and Atlanta was home to the embarrassment known as the "Atlanta Olympics." San Diego is another small market, but is saved by its natural beauty, which, IMO, is unsurpassed even in California. Still, like Tampa and Atlanta, it is not a hot spot.

That leaves Pasadena (Los Angeles County), NOL and Miami. LA is LA and needs neither promotion nor defense; it's a global city. New Orleans is New Orleans, with a special, unique and vibrant culture that gives it a place in America's identity from people to food to music to religion. The Miami that George describes is SoBe; despite his paen to the multi-filtered shots from the flyovers for CSI Miami, there is no "there there" in downtown Miami, except for bodegas, churrascarias, store fronts that serve great "cubanos" or medianoches, office buildings that clear out by 7PM and, yes, a bustling Waterfront scene. But, SoBe and the allure of stars and TV-generated buzz, dating back to Miami Vice, put Miami in the same category as the City of Angels.

I'll agree, then, that SoBe, NOL and LA are hot, so they can get it together to compete with the Apple. But, how any of Tampa, Atlanta and San Diego compare meaningfully with New York (or Boston for crying out loud!!!) is beyond me.

As for the weather, the logic is lost on me that, if the AFC Championship could be played in a blizzard in Foxboro or Pittsburgh and the NFC Championship could be played in a blizzard in Chicago or Green Bay, how there is something supremely "wrong" with playing the game between the winners of those two teams in another blizzard. There is something way off in the logic that says that the games that determine the participants in the SB can be heavily influenced by weather conditions but the SB itself cannot. Using that logic, the consistent thing to do would be to have all Playoff games played in cozy venues.

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.

chicowalker

Another problem w/the article are his alleged issues w/stadium quality (SF) and not actually being in a major city (Foxboro), yet he touts Pasadena. I don't think the Rose Bowl is a Super Bowl quality facility any more, and Pasadena is not LA.

(He also didn't address the Phoenix area, which surprised me given it was a recent warm-weather host -- does that mean he classifies it w/jax and Houston?)

AndyJohnson

Is it me or does Bob try hard to get a reference to the Tuck Rule being illegitmate in a lot of his articles?

ABNFF

Exactly. Cold weather NFC team versus cold weather AFC team in a cold weather stadium would be an awesome SB!

Maybe all the big rollers who don't care to actually watch the game, would stay away for one year allowing the 'true fans' the ability to get a ticket.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Website:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Alt Site:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Twitter:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

upstater1

So, you're saying the game should be held in cold weather every year...

Empty seats? How so?

You're saying the corporate types will just throw their tix in the garbage?