Super Bowl At Gillette? No Thanks

[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]

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.

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.

 

[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?)

 

[Ring 6]

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]

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.

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.

 

[upstater1]

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 ...

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?

 

[Triumph]

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 ...

I agree.

Sitting in snow and freezing temps sounds like a great idea until game day. These people may show up, but I doubt they stick it out in miserable conditions when they could really care less who wins.

 

[mitsudriver]

I think the superbowl should be treated as another post season game. Have it at the stadium of the team with the best record thats playing in the game. Gives the team thats earned it homefield and you'd have a much more enthusiastic fan base. Even if they can't actually afford a ticket to get in.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think the superbowl should be treated as another post season game. Have it at the stadium of the team with the best record thats playing in the game. Gives the team thats earned it homefield and you'd have a much more enthusiastic fan base. Even if they can't actually afford a ticket to get in.

nah, that makes way too much sense....

 

[jmt57]

I think the superbowl should be treated as another post season game. Have it at the stadium of the team with the best record thats playing in the game. Gives the team thats earned it homefield and you'd have a much more enthusiastic fan base. Even if they can't actually afford a ticket to get in.

There's a simple business decision why that's not going to happen. Cities pony up millions to the NFL in order to host the event, hoping to make it back with a positive economic impact and the equivalent of an infomercial about their city broadcast worldwide. The NFL is not going to walk away from cities tripping over themselves in an attempt to throw money at them.

 

[Rob0729]

My personal opinion is that they have the Super Bowl in New Orleans every year. It is the only town that does the Super Bowl right. It is a perfect destination city where there is always something to do. Every other city has had it's problems (Jacksonville is too small, Houston is too spread out, Miami is really Ft. Lauderdale and not really near the action, Tampa doesn't have anything going on for an event like this).

 

[jmt57]

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.

It's actually not similar at all. The Meadowlands is about 10 or 12 miles from Manhattan; it's about a 25 mile drive from Boston to Foxboro. In addition all traffic from Boston has to navigate through that horrendous stretch of Route 1 to get to the stadium, and only a couple of choices of roads to take prior to that. In NY/NJ there are multiple highways you can take, and nothing like Route 1 that you have to deal with. The travel times from Boston to Foxboro and Manhattan to the Meadowlands on game days are not remotely close.


Here's another thing to consider: many if not most fans attending a Super Bowl get in their rental cars once the game ends, drive to the airport, and fly home. Knowing what traffic is like in the parking lots and on Route One after a typical Pats game in Foxboro, I can't begin to imagine how many people would miss their flights.

 

[Rob0729]

I know for me, a big part of the Super Bowl experience was the days before the game with all the NFL events around the city (I saw the Pats play in N'Orleans). Either NY or Boston would be a horrible place for that.

If I am going to watch the Pats in the Super Bowl, I'd rather have it somewhere else where I can enjoy it. It would be cheaper for us if it was here, but how many Super Bowls are you going to go to in your life?

If you don't have tickets to the game and it is in your area, the Super Bowl is nothing but a nightmare. More traffic, restaurants are packed, more people, etc. What if the Super Bowl was in Foxboro and the Jets were the AFC representatives? Do we really want a bunch of drunken, entitled Jets fans roaming the Commonwealth?

 

[lamafist]

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.

Actually, at less than 8 miles from midtown Manhattan, Giants stadium is not only much closer to NYC than Foxborough is to Boston (~27 miles), but it's actually closer to Manhattan than many traditional Super Bowl locations' stadiums are to their city's metro-center.

Not only is it fairly close, but it would also be relatively easy to close down the Lincoln tunnel and a 5 mile stretch of Rt 3 in New Jersey on gameday, and shuttle people back and forth in 15 minute trips.

Furthermore, NYC is maybe the one city in the country whose infrastructure and resources won't be particularly strained by the Super Bowl crowds. It has more hotels and restaurants than any other city in the nation. It has three major airports (LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark) less than an hour away.

And most importantly of all, it has the biggest and best public transportation It has a subway system in the country. People don't drive in NYC. None of the Super Bowl visitors will need to worry about renting a car. The subway alone transports 7.5 million passengers every single weekday. That's almost 6 times the entire population of San Diego. There are over 50,000 taxis and service cars, and that's just counting the licensed ones.

NYC would probably be the easiest and most convenient Super Bowl location to get around in.

 

[Tunescribe]

My personal opinion is that they have the Super Bowl in New Orleans every year. It is the only town that does the Super Bowl right. It is a perfect destination city where there is always something to do. Every other city has had it's problems (Jacksonville is too small, Houston is too spread out, Miami is really Ft. Lauderdale and not really near the action, Tampa doesn't have anything going on for an event like this).

The only problem is God has that city in his cross-hairs. Hurricane, oil spill ... a plague of locusts could be next.

I think the Super Bowl should rotate between Houston, New Orleans, Dallas, Miami, Tampa and Phoenix. You need to have it in a warm-weather locale.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Actually, at less than 8 miles from midtown Manhattan, Giants stadium is not only much closer to NYC than Foxborough is to Boston (~27 miles), but it's actually closer to Manhattan than many traditional Super Bowl locations' stadiums are to their city's metro-center.

Not only is it fairly close, but it would also be relatively easy to close down the Lincoln tunnel and a 5 mile stretch of Rt 3 in New Jersey on gameday, and shuttle people back and forth in 15 minute trips.

Furthermore, NYC is maybe the one city in the country whose infrastructure and resources won't be particularly strained by the Super Bowl crowds. It has more hotels and restaurants than any other city in the nation. It has three major airports (LaGuardia, JFK, and Newark) less than an hour away.

And most importantly of all, it has the biggest and best public transportation It has a subway system in the country. People don't drive in NYC. None of the Super Bowl visitors will need to worry about renting a car. The subway alone transports 7.5 million passengers every single weekday. That's almost 6 times the entire population of San Diego. There are over 50,000 taxis and service cars, and that's just counting the licensed ones.

NYC would probably be the easiest and most convenient Super Bowl location to get around in.

Maquest gave me 10.5 miles, but that certainly doesn't include the massive loop around the stadium that one must follow if you're not a season ticket holder. I've driven from Manhattan to see a game in Giants stadium in the 2008 playoffs, and it was nothing short of a nightmare. Once there, they lead you to a mazoe of office parking lots where you can't tailgate, and they bus you to a spot where you have to walk about a mile and a half to the stadium. It's a nasty trip, making the trek down route 1 seem like a short, peaceful stroll. If you think it really takes 15 minutes on gameday, your sadly mistaken. If not, you're blowing smoke.

New York's infrastructure is already taxed. Have you ever experienced Manhattan's subway system? It smells, it's super hot, and so overcrowded at many stops that you literally have to push and shove your way onto the trains. I'll never use that subway system again, opting to walk, drive or get a taxi instead. I'm not saying NYC is a bad venue for the Superbowl, but it's not in NYC, it's in Rutherford NJ. If the author compared Foxborro to Rutherford, or Boston to NYC, then the article would have been valid.