MDesign Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Super Bowl XL, Detroit, Mich., Feb. 5, 2006 Super Bowl XL will be the second Super Bowl played in the Motor City. The first Super Bowl played here was Super Bowl XVI, where Joe Montana claimed the first Lombardi Trophy for the San Francisco 49ers. (Detroit info)- Super Bowl XVI - San Francisco 26, Cincinnati 21 Super Bowl XLI, Miami, Fla., 2007Super Bowl XLI will be the record-tying (New Orleans) ninth Super Bowl played in Miami. Super Bowl XLI will be the fourth Super Bowl played at Pro Player Stadium. The other five Miami Super Bowls were played at the Orange Bowl.- Super Bowl II - Green Bay 33, Oakland 14 - Super Bowl III - N.Y. Jets 16, Baltimore 7 - Super Bowl V - Baltimore 16, Dallas 13 - Super Bowl X - Pittsburgh 21, Dallas 17 - Super Bowl XIII - Pittsburgh 35, Dallas 31 - Super Bowl XXIII - San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16 - Super Bowl XXIX - San Francisco 49, San Diego 26 - Super Bowl XXXIII - Denver 34, Atlanta 19 Super Bowl XLII, Glendale, Ariz., 2008Super Bowl XLII will be played in a new stadium that is currently under construction in Glendale, Ariz. The site of the 2008 Super Bowl was decided at the owners' meetings in Chicago on Oct. 29-30, 2003.- Super Bowl XXX - Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17 Super Bowl XLIII, Tampa, Fla., 2009Super Bowl XLIII will be the fourth Super Bowl in Tampa, and the first one since 2001, when the Baltimore Ravens defeated the New York Giants, 34-7, in Super Bowl XXXV. The first Super Bowl in Tampa was held in 1984, when the Los Angeles Raiders beat the Washington Redskins, 38-9, in Super Bowl XVIII. - Super Bowl XVIII - L.A. Raiders 38, Washington 9 - Super Bowl XXV - N.Y. Giants 20, Buffalo 19 - Super Bowl XXXV - Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7Super Bowl XLIV, 2010 TBAAtlanta, Houston and Miami (yes AGAIN!) are all in the running for the 2010 Super Bowl. Atlanta and Houston are favorites because of Miami in 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juddley Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I'm surprised to see San Diego not on the list there. That may be the best place of all to hold the Super Bowl. I live about 10 minutes from Dolphins Stadium and really don't want to think about the traffic hell it will be come that time in two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Super Bowl XLIIII, 2010 TBA Feb. 6, 2005Atlanta, Houston and Miami (yes AGAIN!) are all in the running for the 2010 Super Bowl. Atlanta and Houston are favorites because of Miami in 2007. So... no more Super Bowl in New York? And I believe it would be XLIV, rather than XLIIII --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Super Bowl XLIIII, 2010 TBA Feb. 6, 2005Atlanta, Houston and Miami (yes AGAIN!) are all in the running for the 2010 Super Bowl. Atlanta and Houston are favorites because of Miami in 2007. So... no more Super Bowl in New York? And I believe it would be XLIV, rather than XLIIII i think for NY to get a Super Bowl, it was conditional that they would have a dome/retractible roof stadium, alas they wont have one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMOSTLfan Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 i wish the NFL would get more creative with super bowl sites, i know they have to find a place that is either warm or has a roof but why does miami need a 9th and possibly 10th super bowl. Why not have it in charlotte? or maybe in pasadena at the Rose Bowl again. i would just like to see more variety in host cities. World Champions: 1926 1931 1934 1942 1944 1946 1964 1967 1982 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDesign Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 i wish the NFL would get more creative with super bowl sites, i know they have to find a place that is either warm or has a roof but why does miami need a 9th and possibly 10th super bowl. Why not have it in charlotte? or maybe in pasadena at the Rose Bowl again. i would just like to see more variety in host cities. I would have to agree with you 110%. They could even do a rotating thing kinda like the MLB Allstar Games. Something new needs to happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamingboy Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I say they should enter a rotation:Year 1 of the rotation: Los Angeles (Yes, I know, there is practically no chance until a team is put there, since the owners would never agree to a Superbowl that would not have them getting money to themselves)Year 2: Houston (This would have been New Orleans..... but they have some far more important priorities)Year 3: MiamiYear 4: San DiegoYear 5: This one should be a "open year" that would allow other non-Rotation cities to be included. They could be added to the rotation later, or it could be a simple way of showcasing some cities. And then they would begin at year 1 again.I also believe that every city chosen should have a alternate site to be used if the "Home Team" ever made it to the Super Bowl (for example, if the Dolphins ever made the super bowl in a year where the Super Bowl is at Dolphins Stadium, they would instead play at a different stadium, like the Orange Bowl). Insert Witty Signature Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I like the rotation idea, gets rid of the horse trading.Actually I would love to see a cold weather site added to the roatation as well, or at least a year in the rotation to taske the game to a cold weather location. I think it would add a new variable into the big game. And is it any more unfair than having Superbowls in Dome locations? Think of it a 'Snowball' in Chicago or New York or Boston (ok Foxboro). There seem to be loads of cities that deserve a Superbowl through there football history and fan support. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VitaminD Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Why not have it in charlotte? or maybe in pasadena at the Rose Bowl again. i would just like to see more variety in host cities. I hate to say this, because it is a beautiful city with wonderfully nice people, but Charlotte rolls up its sidewalks around 7 in the evening. What is there to do? And I know, I've got many friends and family there and go a few times a year for the past decade.The NFL uses the Super Bowl as a chance to schmooze and indulge the people who make the league the industry beast that it is. The NFL wants their supporters and their clients to have fun. So they look for things like good weather, hot clubs and expensive hotels that throw obscenely lavish parties, plenty of hotels, and a chance to have a good time. Charlotte's weather is not good in January (does anyone remember it was barely 65 degrees in Jacksonville last year at kickoff?), there are no casinos (unlike New Orleans, or Vegas when the league eventually makes the move and goes there), no world-class clubs populated by actors, other athletes and supermodels, no beaches, and probably not enough hotels, taxis or other accommodations to really pull off a killer SB week.The league tried to diversify with Jacksonville and Detroit. I don't see it happening again after the debacle last winter. Leave the Super Bowls to the cities that do it well - San Diego, Miami, New Orleans (when they're ready), Atlanta, Phoenix, LA. Throw Orlando and Vegas into the mix, and you're set.Yes, it takes the variable of bad weather out of the mix, especially considering the some of the best teams of late come from bad weather cities. But the league has given itself a license to print money, built on the backs of the people who support the league and market the hell out of it. They want to party like rock stars. Charlotte's not that kind of city. "Start spreading the news... They're leavin' today... Won't get to be a part of it... In old New York..."In order for the Mets' run of 12 losses in 17 games to mean something, the Phillies still had to win 13 of 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Leave the Super Bowls to the cities that do it well - San Diego, Miami, New Orleans (when they're ready), Atlanta, Phoenix, LA. Throw Orlando and Vegas into the mix, and you're set. why use Orlando with the decrepit Citrus Bowl and its uncomfortable seats when you could goo an hour west and use Tampa, with Raymond James Stadium. Tampa has the benefit of being close to the beach and in close proximity to Orlando. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Sandiego isn't in the running because of the stadium. The NFL wants a new stadium there and so SD won't get a Super Bowl untill the Chargers get a new place. I think the same thing is true about New Orleans even before Katrina. Charlotte may be too north. As is when the game is in Atlanta they have ice problems. Charlotte unlike Atlanta has an oudoor stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsLuvver Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I can't understand why Dallas, San Francisco (though they did have one at Stanford once) or Oakland have never hosted Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBGKon Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I can't understand why Dallas, San Francisco (though they did have one at Stanford once) or Oakland have never hosted Super Bowls. Dallas might work, the SF Bay Area might be too cold, but who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BondsBacker25 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I'm surprised to see San Diego not on the list there. That may be the best place of all to hold the Super Bowl. I live about 10 minutes from Dolphins Stadium and really don't want to think about the traffic hell it will be come that time in two years. From what ive heard, the NFL was not happy with the way the last Super Bowl went Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMac12 Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I can't understand why Dallas, San Francisco (though they did have one at Stanford once) or Oakland have never hosted Super Bowls. All three stadiums don't meet the minimum 70,000 seating requirements for hosting the Superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I can't understand why Dallas, San Francisco (though they did have one at Stanford once) or Oakland have never hosted Super Bowls. Dallas will host in 2011 I believe when they get their new stadium in Arlington. San Fran. was supposed to get a a past Super Bowl (XXXVI, or XXXVII) I believe hwever they never got a new stadium so they lost the Super Bowl. Untill the bay area gets a new stadium the Super Bowl won't go there. It's all about the Stadiums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Clemente Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I like the rotation idea, gets rid of the horse trading.Actually I would love to see a cold weather site added to the roatation as well, or at least a year in the rotation to taske the game to a cold weather location. I think it would add a new variable into the big game. I can only imagine what the Janet Jackson incident would have been like in cold weather.--Roger "Time?" Clemente. Follow me on Twitter if you care: @Animal_Clans.My opinion may or may not be the same as yours. The choice is up to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I can't understand why Dallas, San Francisco (though they did have one at Stanford once) or Oakland have never hosted Super Bowls. Dallas doesn't have a 75,000+ capacity stadium.San Francisco has no stadium worthy of a Super BowlOakland has no stadium worth a Super Bowl Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamingboy Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I remember hearing rumors that the NFL might be thinking of building a Uber-stadium in Las Vegas (100,000+ seats) that would host the Superbowl every other year. Insert Witty Signature Here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted October 5, 2005 Share Posted October 5, 2005 I remember hearing rumors that the NFL might be thinking of building a Uber-stadium in Las Vegas (100,000+ seats) that would host the Superbowl every other year. I have never heard that. And considering the way the NFL tries to distance itself from Las Vegas I can't imagine that being true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.