Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    2,315

    Superbowl Weather

    So the NFl chooses to play the SB in cities that are known for good weather, or have domes.

    Hmmmmm seems to me that there was a bit of rain falling on those who shelled out the dough for the tix's.

    So my point is why bother where it's played? Every team deserves a shot a hosting the SB. They can't use good weather for an excuse after this SB....

    So it may have been a bit chilly, but our weather was better today than in Miami........just a thought.



    PEACE!!!
    JEEP
    O||||O
    []-----[]




    PEACE!!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    2,315
    <cough, cough>


    Bump - weather - bump - was - bump - bad - bump - and - bump - they - bump - should - bump - rethink - bump - thier - bump - stance - bump - on - bump - where - bump - they -bump - play.




    PEACE!!!
    JEEP
    O||||O
    []-----[]




    PEACE!!!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,726
    Totally agree, i think the team with the best record should have homefield, because you've earned it, snow, mud, rain, its apart of football.... stupid nfl, trying to be pretty and crap...disgusting..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    6,012
    if they want good safe pretty weather they should of played the game in baghdad

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    9,738
    Quote Originally Posted by AlWilsonizKING
    So the NFl chooses to play the SB in cities that are known for good weather, or have domes.

    Hmmmmm seems to me that there was a bit of rain falling on those who shelled out the dough for the tix's.

    So my point is why bother where it's played? Every team deserves a shot a hosting the SB. They can't use good weather for an excuse after this SB....

    So it may have been a bit chilly, but our weather was better today than in Miami........just a thought.



    PEACE!!!

    Totally agree! Bring the SB to Denver......

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    2,315
    No other thoughts on this?



    BUMP!!!



    PEACE!!!
    JEEP
    O||||O
    []-----[]




    PEACE!!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Posts
    3,116
    Football is made to be played in the elements. And ESPN has a poll asking if all SB's should be played in domes, the answer is NO! IMO, I think SB should be played in snow, rain, heat, or whatever stadium is chosen for that year, from GB to Denver to SD to NO. Every city should have a chance to host the SB. Look at baseball for example, it's made to be played in warm weather but some years it's cold for the World Series)! I found the game to be entertaining last night to see which team overcame the elements which I thought the Bears had the edge. But the wussification (no such word) of America is upon us and it's trickling down to the NFL. All SB's should be played in a dome !

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    9,048
    The weather, while one factor, is not the most important.

    The more important factor is hotel accomodations, mass transit options, and attractions for the visitors.

    CIiies that are a hot bed of tourism and conventions, such as New Orleans, Phoenix, Miami, LA, Atlanta, etc, already have those things in place.

    Are there other places that could do that? I think Charlotte has grown enough, and is bigger and nicer than people think. Still kinda chilly in the winter, but way milder than Detroit.

    I think if the Bay Area had a better stadium, they would get one, although weather WOULD be a factor in February.

    New York and Washington D.C. should have already had at least one, as both have great mass transit, numerous hotels, and many items of interest, regardless of season.

    The only non - NFL city that makes sense is Las Vegas, but the NFL simply does not want to do business there.

    Seatlle has always oddly intruiged me, as it is relatively mild (compared to say, DETROIT!) in the winter, and is bigger than people think. The city is only about 575,000. But the metro is about 4 million. It also has the highest percentage of college graduates of any major U.S. city. Which is the crowd the NFL seems to be moving toward catering to. And lots of transportation options. And a newer, beautiful NFL stadium. I dunno. I think they could pull it off, if they really wanted to.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Aurora, Co
    Posts
    2,315
    So what does Detroit have to offer....twice? Not the most "friendly" city IMO.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jared
    The weather, while one factor, is not the most important.
    But that's what the NFL would have you think is the most important reason. That's what they say all the time.




    PEACE!!!
    JEEP
    O||||O
    []-----[]




    PEACE!!!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Posts
    3,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared
    The weather, while one factor, is not the most important.

    The more important factor is hotel accomodations, mass transit options, and attractions for the visitors.

    CIiies that are a hot bed of tourism and conventions, such as New Orleans, Phoenix, Miami, LA, Atlanta, etc, already have those things in place.

    Are there other places that could do that? I think Charlotte has grown enough, and is bigger and nicer than people think. Still kinda chilly in the winter, but way milder than Detroit.

    I think if the Bay Area had a better stadium, they would get one, although weather WOULD be a factor in February.

    New York and Washington D.C. should have already had at least one, as both have great mass transit, numerous hotels, and many items of interest, regardless of season.

    The only non - NFL city that makes sense is Las Vegas, but the NFL simply does not want to do business there.

    Seatlle has always oddly intruiged me, as it is relatively mild (compared to say, DETROIT!) in the winter, and is bigger than people think. The city is only about 575,000. But the metro is about 4 million. It also has the highest percentage of college graduates of any major U.S. city. Which is the crowd the NFL seems to be moving toward catering to. And lots of transportation options. And a newer, beautiful NFL stadium. I dunno. I think they could pull it off, if they really wanted to.

    Seattle is a great place. I lived near there a total of 7 years but more than likely you'd play the game in rain.

    If the NFL could get away with it, yes they'd have the SB in Vegas every year, but then they would give it away that they could care less about the game and it's all about their revenue!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Cleveland,Ohio
    Posts
    3,091
    Quote Originally Posted by Jared
    The weather, while one factor, is not the most important.

    The more important factor is hotel accomodations, mass transit options, and attractions for the visitors.

    CIiies that are a hot bed of tourism and conventions, such as New Orleans, Phoenix, Miami, LA, Atlanta, etc, already have those things in place.

    Are there other places that could do that? I think Charlotte has grown enough, and is bigger and nicer than people think. Still kinda chilly in the winter, but way milder than Detroit.

    I think if the Bay Area had a better stadium, they would get one, although weather WOULD be a factor in February.

    New York and Washington D.C. should have already had at least one, as both have great mass transit, numerous hotels, and many items of interest, regardless of season.

    The only non - NFL city that makes sense is Las Vegas, but the NFL simply does not want to do business there.

    Seatlle has always oddly intruiged me, as it is relatively mild (compared to say, DETROIT!) in the winter, and is bigger than people think. The city is only about 575,000. But the metro is about 4 million. It also has the highest percentage of college graduates of any major U.S. city. Which is the crowd the NFL seems to be moving toward catering to. And lots of transportation options. And a newer, beautiful NFL stadium. I dunno. I think they could pull it off, if they really wanted to.

    if you going by tourism cleveland gets alot of tourism around and we still havent host a superbowl yet.......i know we dont get much like miami or sum of the warm cities but there still alot of stuff to do up here in cleveland........oh wait i forgot we have snow and have wind chills around -23 my bad.........
    I support Kaepernick 100%

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Cedar City, Utah
    Posts
    25,520
    Quote Originally Posted by DawgFanatic
    Totally agree, i think the team with the best record should have homefield, because you've earned it, snow, mud, rain, its apart of football.... stupid nfl, trying to be pretty and crap...disgusting..
    I disagree. What if both teams have equal records? I believe the Super Bowl should be played on a neutral site. However, there is always the possibility that the pre selected hosting city could be in the big game.

    I do believe that the game should be played in any given city regardless of their weather. These teams that play in domes and warm areas should get a taste of nasty weather like other teams deal with and prove it in any condition.

    Let's see the Colts, Dolphins, Bucs, Chargers etc... play in Green Bay for a Super Bowl.
    *** God Bless Our Military Men And Women***


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    9,048
    Quote Originally Posted by assassin216
    if you going by tourism cleveland gets alot of tourism around and we still havent host a superbowl yet.......i know we dont get much like miami or sum of the warm cities but there still alot of stuff to do up here in cleveland........oh wait i forgot we have snow and have wind chills around -23 my bad.........

    Annual est annual tourism dollars spent in Miami: $13billion

    Cleveland: $124 million.


    Now, I have been to Cleveland, and always enjoyed my visits there. But it is in no way considered a vacattion destinantion for most people around the U.S.

    I also don't think Cleveland has an effcient enough transport system, or enough hotel rooms close to the stadium to pull it off. Just my opinion.

    I also said weather wasn't the only factor. I never said it wasn't a factor at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •