Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by KDPPatsfan85, May 19, 2009.
New Orleans Saints - New Orleans Awarded Super Bowl XLVII
The Pats have played in the SB there twice - Hopefully a third time in the bayou
3 times...20, 31, 36.
Third time was the charm!
I know - But I am actually referring to the 2 times the team actually showed up in the game even though 31 was a loss :banned:
I can't believe Goodell passed over worthy, football hungry cities like Bangladesh, Mumbai, Baghdad, and Belmopan. He needs to go!
........it's a disgrace that he chose to keep American footballs' championship game in the United States for another year.
Don't forget Indianapolis.
Other than the token "your city just used tax dollars to build a new stadium, so in return you can host a super bowl" gift, it seems to me that the NFL may as well set up a Super Bowl rotation of Miami, New Orleans, Tampa and SoCal. No more Super Bowls in Detroit or Indy, and definitely not in London.
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. (Then again one hasn't been held there since Katrina so I guess we'll have to see.)
Having one in L.A. probably wouldn't be a bad idea to perhaps gauge that city's interest in getting a new team (though personally I don't see why they should.) Granted the owners will probably complain because it's no longer a league city, but it still makes a helluva lot more sense than freakin' London.
LOL truth Good karma for us in NO plus I'm glad to see them get the SB revenues.
New Orleans is the best place to hold a Superbowl, bar none. Its all due to proximity. Theh Superdome is in walking distance to the French quarter, where all the partying is done. The city has plenty for visitors to do. Fine cuisine, fine music, fine partying atmosphere, all close to each other.
I'm glad to be going there to attend yet another Pats Superbowl...
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.
The other thing is that every year, several cities bid against one another to host the Super Bowl. I am sure that the host cities are making incredible concessions to the NFL that would drive some non-football government watchdog groups bonkers. With the Super Bowl being held permanently in one location, the host city would no longer feel the need to go the extra mile and give in to every request of the NFL; the current setup allows for the various cities to outbid one another in terms of what they are willing to give away and provide for free.
I also like the idea that at least some Super Bowls are held outdoors. If the game is permanently held in New Orleans, then it is also permanently giving an advantage to teams that have a roster put together to play on turf in a dome - which would be a disadvantage for cold-weather, outdoor teams like the Pats.
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.
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.
They were given Super Bowl XLVI...how nice, they open a new place and all of a sudden it's OK to play there rather than the prior 24 seasons in the old place
Geez, how did I forget Minnesota? We were thinking of going over there this weekend for a Brewers/Twins interleague game, but I decided if I was going to go to the trouble of going to a baseball game, I want to see a nice ballpark, not the ol' Metrodome that I've already been to 4 times (though only once for baseball.)
Anyway Minnesota is a good point, but I don't think even promising that state another Super Bowl will get them to give in on a new stadium. I'm surprised the Twins got one.
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.
There was certainly a lot of momentum after 9/11 for a NY-SB but that seems to have fizzled out. There are three negatives: the weather; the distance from Manhattan to the stadium (compared to New Orleans, for example); and New York City doesn't need to trip over themselves to attract visitors - in fact, they may find the idea more of a nuisance than a worthy investment.
A few years ago I would have thought it would have been possible as part of the tenth anniversary of 9/11, but that window has passed; the 2009-10 SB will be in Miami, 2010-11 SB will be in Dallas, 2011-12 will be in Indy and 2012-13 will be in New Orleans. Maybe NYC can go for the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and we'll finally once again see an outdoor cold-weather NFL championship game.
Why no foxboro?
because nfl fans and all the millionares who can afford to go to the game dont want to sit it 10 degree weather. another thing, why doesn't the nfl just keep the SB in LA? No homefield adavantage for any team.
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.
Separate names with a comma.