KDPPatsfan85
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,654
- Reaction score
- 10,627
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.The Pats have played in the SB there twice - Hopefully a third time in the bayou
3 times...20, 31, 36.
3 times...20, 31, 36.
I'm pissed!!!!!
I can't believe Goodell passed over worthy, football hungry cities like Bangladesh, Mumbai, Baghdad, and Belmopan.
I'm pissed!!!!!
I can't believe Goodell passed over worthy, football hungry cities like Bangladesh, Mumbai, Baghdad, and Belmopan
I've seen that idea as well, and although it may not be a bad idea in terms of a destination, I doubt it will ever happen for business reasons. Every year the NFL likes to let it be known how large the positive economic impact is for the city hosting a Super Bowl. Though I've seen other reports that the impact is actually insignificant, this is one tool that the NFL and team owners use when attempting to obtain local dollars to assist in building a new stadium; i.e., "if you give us tax dollars to build this stadium, we'll host a Super Bowl which will bring in millions to our local economy." If the Super Bowl was always in New Orleans, this leverage in negotiations with local governments for stadium funds would be lost.I've heard a lot of people say the league should just keep it in New Orleans permanently, because that's supposed to be the best host city, even since Katrina.
Maybe Jacksonville? Isn't Minnesota trying to get a new stadium too? I know the Chargers have been talking about a new stadium for a while too. And if LA gets its new stadium, that would be an obvious choice - with or without a team.Oh yeah, I don't see it getting kept in one city permanently either. The rest of the owners (well, at least the ones in other cities that can host the game) would never go for it. I've just heard people say that.
Come to think of it... how many cities are left that don't have new stadiums where the league can use that gimmick? San Diego is the only one I can think of.
Don't forget Indianapolis.
Maybe Jacksonville? Isn't Minnesota trying to get a new stadium too? I know the Chargers have been talking about a new stadium for a while too. And if LA gets its new stadium, that would be an obvious choice - with or without a team.
I'm sure Dallas will get to host a Super Bowl in their new stadium soon. I saw talk at one time about playing in the Giants/Jets new stadium. That would be interesting because it would be outdoors in cold weather and New York obviously offers a lot to do, but it's not exactly a vacation destination in February. Still, it would be interesting to see a true cold weather championship for the first time in most fans' lifetimes.
I also saw that there was a proposal for a new stadium for the 49ers in Santa Clara, but if people didn't like the cold weather in Jacksonville a couple years ago, they're not going to be that happy with the weather in Santa Clara in February either.
And yeah, the San Francisco thing, I was thinking that too. The Niners want a new stadium but I don't see an SB there unless they get a dome/retractable roof. Cold weather can be a real deal-breaker. I met a guy from this area who has gone to a number of Super Bowls, including the one in Minneapolis (26?). He said he was in a hotel lobby when a woman who was obviously from the south ran in, teeth chattering, and yelped, "How can people LIVE in weather like this??!!"
The weather has got to be what's keeping them from doing an SB in New York, which you'd think would be the ideal place what with being the media capitol of the world and plenty of lodging. If they didn't get one after 9/11 I don't think the league will ever do it.
Why no foxboro?
Because the NFL likes to stage events all week long near the stadium, and fans like to stay in hotels that are a very short distance from the stadium.Why no foxboro?