Should the Super Bowl be held in outdoor stadiums?
- Thread starter STDiva
- Start date
I just don't want bad weather to be a factor in a superbowl. I also don't like them in domes.
So I guess that leaves just one possibility - Southern California. Pasadena would be my choice to host it every year.
All those classic and iconic superbowls they show on NFL network - Marino vs. Montana, Elway and the Broncos getting ambushed by the Skins and probably my favorite superbowl that I've watched Packers vs. Broncos were all under sunny California skies.
:2 cents:
So I guess that leaves just one possibility - Southern California. Pasadena would be my choice to host it every year.
All those classic and iconic superbowls they show on NFL network - Marino vs. Montana, Elway and the Broncos getting ambushed by the Skins and probably my favorite superbowl that I've watched Packers vs. Broncos were all under sunny California skies.
:2 cents:
Shouldn't it be split evenly? I don't think it's a big deal to have it at a really cold place every now and then. It's a bit soft from everyone to always want it a a dome. I'm surprised it's been so long since San Diego has hosted one, and that Houston haven't had another since sb38.
I'm of two minds. While I agree that it should cycle through all the teams, I don't really think it should be outdoors. It's a risky time of year, and I don't think a major sporting event of this magnitude should have that unpredictable element. While that might be fun for us fans, it's hell for the players, coaches, and support staff at the venue.
Either football is meant to be played in the elements or it isn't. There should be no half-assing it or making compromises. If it isn't then we should stop pretending and realize that football isn't even football anymore. If it is supposed to be, which I believe, then of course weather should be a factor like it can for any other game. Every teams should always be aware of the possibility of having to play in rain or snow and plan for it. It has no more legitimacy to me than somebody claiming the World Series shouldn't be played at night because there is a greater chance the ball can be lost in the lights.
I also feel bad for places like Chicago, Green Bay, Buffalo, and Kansas City among others. If I was them I would be pissed that the league has deemed them fit to NEVER (baring having a new dome be built for them) get a Superbowl and demand a share of the non-sharing profits from each Superbowl that they and the city they are in will never get to cash in on.
I also feel bad for places like Chicago, Green Bay, Buffalo, and Kansas City among others. If I was them I would be pissed that the league has deemed them fit to NEVER (baring having a new dome be built for them) get a Superbowl and demand a share of the non-sharing profits from each Superbowl that they and the city they are in will never get to cash in on.
What do you think about teams from the south having to perform in snow for the big game? You really think that's fair?
bahodeme
Closed Account
It wouldn't work because there are certain places where the stadiums are too small and the infrastructure (highways, hotels, transportation, etc.) would not be able to accomodate the influx of people. It would be good for the TRUE football fans, not the corporations that buy the sky boxes, in that they could get a ticket at a "reasonable price" for a ticket. I don't think the demand for a SB ticket in Buffalo will be the same as one in Miami.
bobjustbob
Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
I think the rotation idea is the best. Every ticket to a Superbowl sells and people will pay any price to go. The cities and teams can plan well in advance to prepare for the event. A team with a Superbowl 10-15 years down the road can use this as leverage for freshening up the stadium or getting a new one. As said before, they play in bad weather during the season. Only domed stadiums in the north to host because of weather doesn't matter since the stadiums can deal with their own snow problems. I remember a few years back the Giants had a huge storm before a playoff game and brought hundreds of people in and paid them $10 hr to clear the seats and walkways. The game went on. With a packed house.
We(Chicago) would love to host the Super Bowl but the main reason why that won't happen is because Soldier Field is one of the smallest stadiums capacity wise with only about 61,000 seats. Over the years there's been alot of talk about putting a retractable roof onto the stadium but that's just a pipe dream
Why not? I don't see it as any different than a dome teaming having to play outdoors, a grass team having to play on turf, or a south team having the play in the north and vice versa just like any other game where that can happen. Most teams get players from all over the country now. Any benefits from a team playing in certain climate is pretty marginal in the modern NFL, and if it does help somebody it's more do to luck than teams planning for it.
bahodeme
Closed Account
These were Giant's fans. I believe this also happened in Green Bay, Philadelphia and a few other playoff city teams as well.
New Tork, Baltimore, Washington, Chicago, all have tourism on a regular basis throughout the year. So if the Super Bowl were to be held, these cities are prepared. There are other cities like Cleveland, KC, Green Bay, where tourism is limited. So if 80,000 people, not including media show up, even with 2 years notice, they would be prepared.
Don't misunderstand. I would love to see the game played in Denver, KC, or Foxboro. I just don't see it happening.
Well the Superbowl should be held in a city that is close to said host city, because a huge majority of news crews, sports writers, and others need a place to stay. For example when they have the game in Dallas you have to drive 2 hours away to get to the stadium.
