2014 superbowl goes to NJ!!!!

[Sheep]

My father-in-law said that he likes this decision, because it opens the possibility of having a Super Bowl at Lambeau Field.

When he told me that, I wanted to kick him in the dick. Chicago would work, Detroit would probably work, Minneapolis could possibly work (though it's iffy), but Green Bay?

Psst...there have already been Superbowls in Detroit and Minnesota.

While it would make sense for historical reasons, the NFL would never select Green Bay due to its size (quick Google search says just over 100,000 people live there).

 

[Pegaritaville]

My father-in-law said that he likes this decision, because it opens the possibility of having a Super Bowl at Lambeau Field.

When he told me that, I wanted to kick him in the dick. Chicago would work, Detroit would probably work, Minneapolis could possibly work (though it's iffy), but Green Bay?

Green Bay would never work- not enough hotel rooms (or other ammenities) to handle all the people. Even for regular season games, it's hard to get a room. The last time we went to a game at Lambeau, the closest hotel we could find was 50 miles away.

I don't see Minneapolis winning a bid any time soon. They need to get a new stadium first. The only time Minneapolis hosted the Superbowl (in the early 90's) they didn't exactly get rave reviews. It'll probably be some time before they consider them again.

Of the NFC north teams, Chicago would be my pick to host a Superbowl. Green Bay can't handle it and Minnesota and Detroit have already hosted games (in domes).

 

[Timby]

Yeah, that's my whole point -- the two-week circus that is the Super Bowl, along with the hundred thousand-plus people, descending upon Green Bay would be a logistical nightmare of hilarious proportions. It'd be like doing a Super Bowl in Dubuque, Iowa, or Dayton, Ohio.

Although I just checked, and under current regulations, Chicago wouldn't be allowed to host a Super Bowl -- the NFL requires a minimum capacity of 75,000, and Soldier Field seats somewhere in the low 60,000 range (62k?).

 

[Jetfire]

I hope DC/Maryland gets a Superbowl in the future...hopefully with the Redskins playing in it.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Although I just checked, and under current regulations, Chicago wouldn't be allowed to host a Super Bowl -- the NFL requires a minimum capacity of 75,000, and Soldier Field seats somewhere in the low 60,000 range (62k?).

I don't understand why the stadiums in the NFL are so small (relative to the public interest) anyway, wouldn't the more popular teams at least - Cowboys, Patriots, 49ers, etc. - be able to sell out 150K arenas too?

 

[Timby]

You think the nosebleed seats in a 70,000-seat stadium are bad? Think about how far away you'd be with 150,000 people.

 

[Roger Wilco]

If the tickets are priced appropriately?
Anyway, 150K is a bit extreme, but there are several stadia in the US with close to or above 100K seats (so it seems to work in college football at least), but none in the NFL.

 

[Jetfire]

FedEx Field is close to 100k at 91,704.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Ok, but most of the stadiums are around 70K, right?

 

[Jetfire]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_stadiums_by_capacity

Is a list...but yeah most are 70k or less.

 

[SmoothieX]

Although I just checked, and under current regulations, Chicago wouldn't be allowed to host a Super Bowl -- the NFL requires a minimum capacity of 75,000, and Soldier Field seats somewhere in the low 60,000 range (62k?).

I don't understand why the stadiums in the NFL are so small (relative to the public interest) anyway, wouldn't the more popular teams at least - Cowboys, Patriots, 49ers, etc. - be able to sell out 150K arenas too?

That's a good point. And I don't have an answer for you there.

Gillette Stadium (where the Patriots play) has a capacity of about 68,000 I think, and tickets are tough to come by. They could sell out wayyy more seats.

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

 

[clint g]

Although I just checked, and under current regulations, Chicago wouldn't be allowed to host a Super Bowl -- the NFL requires a minimum capacity of 75,000, and Soldier Field seats somewhere in the low 60,000 range (62k?).

I don't understand why the stadiums in the NFL are so small (relative to the public interest) anyway, wouldn't the more popular teams at least - Cowboys, Patriots, 49ers, etc. - be able to sell out 150K arenas too?

That's a good point. And I don't have an answer for you there.

Gillette Stadium (where the Patriots play) has a capacity of about 68,000 I think, and tickets are tough to come by. They could sell out wayyy more seats.

I think they do it so they can charge a premium and hype up the game. If tickets were easy to get they start to lose their value

 

[SmoothieX]

But if you had 100,000 seats for a popular team, they'd still sell out every week. Even in lean years, certain teams still pack the house. The Jets traditionally suck but always sell out.

 

[Pegaritaville]

I don't understand why the stadiums in the NFL are so small (relative to the public interest) anyway, wouldn't the more popular teams at least - Cowboys, Patriots, 49ers, etc. - be able to sell out 150K arenas too?

That's a good point. And I don't have an answer for you there.

Gillette Stadium (where the Patriots play) has a capacity of about 68,000 I think, and tickets are tough to come by. They could sell out wayyy more seats.

I think they do it so they can charge a premium and hype up the game. If tickets were easy to get they start to lose their value

Yeah, if they played in a huge stadium, they'd almost have to charge less (at least for some seats). By keeping a sort of artificial shortage going, they can justify charging the big bucks.

And even some of the most successful teams go through periods where they have a hard time selling out. Avoiding a blackout with a 100,000+ stadium might be difficult.

 

[drychlick]

VERY bad idea the superbowl is specal and need to be play in weam weather! love dr

 

[Scout101]

Why is it special, though? More specifically, why should it be played in artificial conditions (dome, or warm weather only) when most of the games are played outdoors, in cold conditions? The championship game should at least moderately resemble the conditions of the rest of the season, no?

Baseball is always screwy like this, too, although just because of the calendar, not artifically selecting warm places to play. You play 6 months of baseball in warm conditions, and then play the championship games in 30 degree weather!

 

[clint g]

Yeah, I always felt like they should start the baseball season a month earlier. At least this way, the world series would have a bit warmer weather

 

[Caligula]

I'd like to hear what people think the odds are of either the Giants or the Jets actually playing in that Super Bowl since no city, in the year that it hosts, has ever gotten its team into the Super Bowl.

Which, if we stay true to form through the 2010 season, means that Dallas will be shit out of luck.... and that's just fine by me.

 

[Scout101]

Yeah, I always felt like they should start the baseball season a month earlier. At least this way, the world series would have a bit warmer weather

Problem with that is that games are already at risk of snow-outs in early April, putting them in March would guarantee it. Never made sense that they don't intentionally rig the schedule so that all of the early April games are played in the southern states, or out west, or at least in domes. Let the northern teams play on the road the first 2 weeks of the season...