PatsFans.com Article
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 10,372
- Reaction score
- 7,485
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.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.
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.
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 ...
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 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.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.
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.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.
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.
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).
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.