Future Super Bowl Sites

[mudloggerone]

The 2015 game will be held at the University of Phoenix Stadium. The site last hosted the game in 2008.

The 2016 game will be decided between the Miami area and the new 49er stadium. This will be the 50th Super Bowl played.

The 2017 game will be decided between the city that loses out on the 2016 game and Houston.

 

[Miller]

Need more cold weather sites.

 

[mudloggerone]

Frisco could oblige with all this global warming and stuff.

 

[cctekguy]

Need more cold weather sites.

I'm torn on this one.

I'm a purist at heart and believe the elements are part of the game, but I'm not sure I agree that the championship game, which can scheduled ANYWHERE, should be deliberately placed where weather could be a HUGE factor.

It's not just about the game but all the other facets of staging "The Greatest Show On Turf".

 

[Miller]

I can appreciate that, but for discussion sake, let me pose you a question.....

Should they deliberately place the Super Bowl in places where weather can not be a factor? Doesn't that take part of the element of the game away and possibly place some teams at a great advantage?

My from the heart feeling is that EVERY NFL CITY should get a shot to host the sports greatest game. It should not be limited to big, warm weather (or domed) sites. The league is 32 cities wide and the Super Bowl should be as well.

 

[Bubba]

Should alternate between Green Bay and Buffalo. Now, thats some football weather.

 

[mudloggerone]

Personally I think it's insane to ever play the game where there's a likelihood of snow or high temperatures below freezing but then again I think that folks that choose to live in those conditions ain't all there anyway so there.;P

 

[cctekguy]

... but then again I think that folks that choose to live in those conditions ain't all there anyway so there.;P

Shhhh! What are you trying to do, Mud? You want all those hosers moving down here? I closed the door behind me when I moved down.

I can appreciate that, but for discussion sake, let me pose you a question.....

Should they deliberately place the Super Bowl in places where weather can not be a factor? Doesn't that take part of the element of the game away and possibly place some teams at a great advantage?

My from the heart feeling is that EVERY NFL CITY should get a shot to host the sports greatest game. It should not be limited to big, warm weather (or domed) sites. The league is 32 cities wide and the Super Bowl should be as well.

Well, there is fairness and then there is common sense. Like I said, torn on this. As a fan, I want to see the 4.3 guys actually run at 4.3 speed. I want to see razor cuts without falling down. I want to see a goal line stand where players can "dig in". I don't want to watch Manning "Shot Put" the ball because he can't get a grip or Gostkowski left on the bench because 45yds is just too long for these conditions.
As a fan...I want the best possible conditions for the players to excel.

But....

Some of the greatest moments in NFL history are a result of inclement weather. Beside the obvious "Ice Bowl", there was the championship game in 1934 between the undefeated Chicago Bears and the gross underdog N.Y. Giants (8-5). Playing on a sheet of ice, the teams went to half time with the Bears leading 10-3. During the break, Giants coach Steve Owen sent his equipment manager to a near by university to collect as many pairs of Basketball sneakers as he could. The Giants changed shoes and proceeded to thump the undefeated Bears 30-13.

The 1948 championship game between the Eagles was played in a blizzard. The officials were told to "do the best they could" to estimate yardage and first downs. Eagles won 7-0


Who could forget this?:

Super Bowl XLI in South Florida between the Colts and Bears. Rain fell throughout the entirety of the game but at the end of the day, it was the Dome Spoiled Colts and Peyton "can't win in bad weather" Manning defeating the Bad Weather Bears 29-17

Home field advantage is also an element of the game. Should we award the game to the city of the top seed? In a way, I wouldn't mind that. It would give every city an equal shot at getting the bowl...eventually..., and if half of the tickets were made available to the visiting team, then you could soften some the advantage for the home team. Yeah...I like this.

Football is the only sport where fans are forced to travel to see their hometown heroes. Why should Pasadena get to watch the Super Bowl when Cleveland and Minnesota are playing in it? (obviously hypothetical).

Yeah...this is my vote. Screw the neutral location and give the super bowl to the best team. We'll take the weather as it comes.

 

[mudloggerone]

"Shhhh! What are you trying to do, Mud? You want all those hosers moving down here? I closed the door behind me when I moved down."

You didn't shut it tight enough Tekie at least not enough to slow down the flow. Look at the Northerners that move south to escape that gawd awful weather just as soon as they retire. Go by a campground, any campground in the south during the dead of winter. You'll find them packed with snow birds that have the means and enough sense to escape that climate. To purposely play the super bowl in weather that the many of the common sense blessed people do their utmost to escape borders on insanity. Ticket prices are through the roof. You wanna pay a thousand bucks to freeze your ass off? Let's not forget the fiasco of a super bowl in Detroit where those fans that shelled out big bucks had a hell of a time just getting to the stadium. Many didn't make it.

 

[Phicinfan]

I for one am not for cold weather sites for the Superbowl.
Reasons:
1) I don't want weather to control the game
2) I don't want to miss the game cause the damn weather keeps me away
3) I think the superbowl should be played in dome stadiums only(more of those now)
4) I think the NFL should have a neutral site - no local teams that has a dome they could use every year - San Antonio is one, but close to dallas and Hou.

Just my thoughts

 

[mudloggerone]

Love the dome and neutral site ideas.

 

[cctekguy]

Ok, guys...

Wembley stadium is covered, seats 90,000, has natural grass and is neutral.

Let's just move the Super Bowl to London so NO F'ing Body can go.

 

[mudloggerone]

You may be on to something ole chap.

 

[Phicinfan]

Like it or not, at some point in the not too distant future, NFL will be global. England, Mexico, Canada(maybe), too much money, and too many markets to exploit.

But no, Superbowl has to be played in US, until it is a global league.

 

[mudloggerone]

No title game across the pond sir?

 

[efactor]

I for one am not for cold weather sites for the Superbowl.
Reasons:
1) I don't want weather to control the game
2) I don't want to miss the game cause the damn weather keeps me away
3) I think the superbowl should be played in dome stadiums only(more of those now)
4) I think the NFL should have a neutral site - no local teams that has a dome they could use every year - San Antonio is one, but close to dallas and Hou.

Just my thoughts

I agree with the first two points completely. However, there are enough warm weather options to play outside and not have a threat of a blizzard ruining the game or domes if you want the game played in a cold weather venue.

This NY thing is a horrible idea. The home field advantage in the playoffs gives plenty of opportunity for inclement weather to be a factor in deciding who gets to the super bowl, and you don't need that crap in the biggest game and event of the year.

I want to see the ultimate game played in conditions that allow for both teams to bring the game that got them through the regular season and playoffs. This is supposed to be a neutral site and that doesn't include weather that can potentially completely stop the strength of one of the teams involved.