Cleveland Super Bowl logo

[DGivens87]

I don't know if the city of Cleveland could handle a Super Bowl, but I know that when I went there for the Browns-Ravens game on New Year's, I had a blast. I stayed at a hotel in the heart of the city, and was able to walk to the Stadium, the mall, the lakefront, etc. The city, the stadium, the atmosphere were very festive - it's like city comes alive when the Brownies play. I'd like to see a SB in Cleveland, personally.

[DGivens87]

argh double post!

[Krona]

if i had my druthers, the super bowl would be played in cleveland every year. cleveland in january is football. i'd also accept a rotation of cleveland, chicago, pittsburgh, green bay, foxboro, and minneapolis if they get an outdoor stadium.

[pooter]

Also, when the Super Bowl was played at Stanford, did the 49ers or Raiders play there at that time?  Just curious.

No.

Post No. 755 -- call me Hammerin' Hank.

Yes, fron nfl.com...

1989

The site of the New England Patriots at San Francisco 49ers game scheduled for Candlestick Park on October 22 was switched to Stanford Stadium in the aftermath of the Bay Area Earthquake of October 17. The change was announced on October 19.

Just one game, but yes, they did play there.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Also, when the Super Bowl was played at Stanford, did the 49ers or Raiders play there at that time?  Just curious.

No.

Post No. 755 -- call me Hammerin' Hank.

Yes, fron nfl.com...

1989

The site of the New England Patriots at San Francisco 49ers game scheduled for Candlestick Park on October 22 was switched to Stanford Stadium in the aftermath of the Bay Area Earthquake of October 17. The change was announced on October 19.

Just one game, but yes, they did play there.

Well yeah. I was just asking if the 49ers or Raiders used Stanford as a home stadium. I wasn't sure if the Super Bowl host stadium actually had to house an NFL team or not. It seems like it does.

[jkrdevil]

Also, when the Super Bowl was played at Stanford, did the 49ers or Raiders play there at that time?  Just curious.

No.

Post No. 755 -- call me Hammerin' Hank.

Yes, fron nfl.com...

1989

The site of the New England Patriots at San Francisco 49ers game scheduled for Candlestick Park on October 22 was switched to Stanford Stadium in the aftermath of the Bay Area Earthquake of October 17. The change was announced on October 19.

Just one game, but yes, they did play there.

Yea but that was 6 years after Stanford hosted the Super Bowl. The stadium itself does not have to have an NFL team but the area does. The Rose Bowl never had a team but hosted a few Super Bowls back when LA had a team or 2.

[IceCap]

They're just jealous because they're the only team in the league that hasn't been in OR hosted a Super Bowl.

Nice retard! Check your facts before running your piehole i believe 6 teams have yet to make the sb. And when your beloved squelers win three more championships they'll have as many as he browns. So shut up and be graceful winner jackazz.

eM

Very nice. Great representation of Browns fans

Cleveland Browns

NFL championships: 4; 1950, 1954, 1955, 1964, NO Super Bowl appearances, let alone wins.

Pittsburgh Steelers

NFL Championships: 5, all Super Bowl wins, 6 appearances in all; IX (1974), X (1975), XIII (1978), XIV (1979), XL (2006).

*Thanks to the Sports E-cyclopedia

So the Browns have 4 NFL titles, none of them Super Bowls. The Steelers have 5 NFL titles, all of them Super Bowls. I guess we all know who the "jack " is...

[Mac the Knife]

Very nice. Great representation of Browns fans

Cleveland Browns

AAFC/NFL championships: 8; 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1954, 1955, 1964, NO Super Bowl appearances, let alone wins.

Pittsburgh Steelers

NFL Championships: 5, all Super Bowl wins, 6 appearances in all; IX (1974), X (1975), XIII (1978), XIV (1979), XL (2006).

*Thanks to the Sports E-cyclopedia

So the Browns have 8 League titles, none of them Super Bowls. The Steelers have 5 League titles, all of them Super Bowls.

Here... corrected that for you.

[IceCap]

Very nice. Great representation of Browns fans

Cleveland Browns

AAFC/NFL championships: 8; 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1954, 1955, 1964, NO Super Bowl appearances, let alone wins.

Pittsburgh Steelers

NFL Championships: 5, all Super Bowl wins, 6 appearances in all; IX (1974), X (1975), XIII (1978), XIV (1979), XL (2006).

*Thanks to the Sports E-cyclopedia

So the Browns have 8 League titles, none of them Super Bowls. The Steelers have 5 League titles, all of them Super Bowls.

Here... corrected that for you.

The AAFC? Please. The Browns were the only real team in that leauge. My high school football team could have won the AAFC title. If you honestlty want to put an AAFC title on the same level as an NFL title, then you're grasping at straws to try and embelsih the Browns history. Hey look, 4 NFL titles. That's pretty good, a lot for the Browns to hang their hats on. You don't need to bring up 4 titles from an inferior leauge.

Comparing an AAFC to an NFL title is like comparing the AHL Calder Cup to the Stanley Cup. Just not at the same level.

[pooter]

Also, when the Super Bowl was played at Stanford, did the 49ers or Raiders play there at that time?  Just curious.

No.

Post No. 755 -- call me Hammerin' Hank.

Yes, fron nfl.com...

1989

The site of the New England Patriots at San Francisco 49ers game scheduled for Candlestick Park on October 22 was switched to Stanford Stadium in the aftermath of the Bay Area Earthquake of October 17. The change was announced on October 19.

Just one game, but yes, they did play there.

Well yeah. I was just asking if the 49ers or Raiders used Stanford as a home stadium. I wasn't sure if the Super Bowl host stadium actually had to house an NFL team or not. It seems like it does.

Actually, I think it just happens that way.

It would lead me to believe that the major stadiums around the country that don't house NFL teams might find it that the would rather host a college bowl game than a Super Bowl.

In Super Bowl XIII, it was played at Rice Stadium in Houston, Texas on 1/13/74 and the Oilers had been playing in the Astrodome since 1968.

[pooter]

Also, when the Super Bowl was played at Stanford, did the 49ers or Raiders play there at that time?  Just curious.

No.

Post No. 755 -- call me Hammerin' Hank.

Yes, fron nfl.com...

1989

The site of the New England Patriots at San Francisco 49ers game scheduled for Candlestick Park on October 22 was switched to Stanford Stadium in the aftermath of the Bay Area Earthquake of October 17. The change was announced on October 19.

Just one game, but yes, they did play there.

Yea but that was 6 years after Stanford hosted the Super Bowl. The stadium itself does not have to have an NFL team but the area does. The Rose Bowl never had a team but hosted a few Super Bowls back when LA had a team or 2.

Super Bowl XIX was played at Stanford Stadium on 1/20/85.

The displaced 49ers-Pats game was played on 10/22/1989.

[leopard88]

Also, when the Super Bowl was played at Stanford, did the 49ers or Raiders play there at that time?  Just curious.

No.

Post No. 755 -- call me Hammerin' Hank.

Yes, fron nfl.com...

1989

The site of the New England Patriots at San Francisco 49ers game scheduled for Candlestick Park on October 22 was switched to Stanford Stadium in the aftermath of the Bay Area Earthquake of October 17. The change was announced on October 19.

Just one game, but yes, they did play there.

Yea but that was 6 years after Stanford hosted the Super Bowl. The stadium itself does not have to have an NFL team but the area does. The Rose Bowl never had a team but hosted a few Super Bowls back when LA had a team or 2.

Super Bowl XIX was played at Stanford Stadium on 1/20/85.

The displaced 49ers-Pats game was played on 10/22/1989.

So, in other words, I was right. Neither team was using the stadium as its home stadium when the Super Bowl was played (in fact, the Raiders were in LA then), and when the 49ers did use it, it was only as an emergency replacement for Candlestick. I am vindicated.

[leopard88]

They're just jealous because they're the only team in the league that hasn't been in OR hosted a Super Bowl.

Nice retard! Check your facts before running your piehole i believe 6 teams have yet to make the sb. And when your beloved squelers win three more championships they'll have as many as he browns. So shut up and be graceful winner jackazz.

eM

Very nice. Great representation of Browns fans

Cleveland Browns

NFL championships: 4; 1950, 1954, 1955, 1964, NO Super Bowl appearances, let alone wins.

Pittsburgh Steelers

NFL Championships: 5, all Super Bowl wins, 6 appearances in all; IX (1974), X (1975), XIII (1978), XIV (1979), XL (2006).

*Thanks to the Sports E-cyclopedia

So the Browns have 4 NFL titles, none of them Super Bowls. The Steelers have 5 NFL titles, all of them Super Bowls. I guess we all know who the "jack " is...

Simple question (I think) -- I know the NFL perpetuates this, but why do people act as if a championship has to be in the Super Bowl era to be of any value (as if prior league championships (let's leave out the AAFC for now, however) don't mean anything? Yes, it is true that the Browns have never won a SUPER BOWL title, but their overall track record is still impressive. Why should we all care that they have never played in or won an NFL Championship Game since it took on the name "Super Bowl" (excluding their 1968 and 1969 losses to the Colts and Vikings that preceded SB III and SB IV, because I don't know to treat those or the other games in that four year window)? I don't downplay the Colts' wins in 1958-59 simply because they predated the Super Bowl, nor should anyone look less kindly on anyone else's pre-Super Bowl titles (for example, the Lions' wins in 1952, 1953 and 1957) simply because they didn't come in a game with a Roman numeral attached.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

So, in other words, I was right. Neither team was using the stadium as its home stadium when the Super Bowl was played (in fact, the Raiders were in LA then), and when the 49ers did use it, it was only as an emergency replacement for Candlestick. I am vindicated.

And I think I'm actually more confused than I was before.

To clarify, no, the Super Bowl does NOT need to be held in a stadium that also houses an NFL team. This is evidenced by displaced games played in Stanford and Super Bowl XIII played in Rice Stadium. These statements are correct, right?

So...what is keeping the NFL from playing in non-NFL stadiums now? (Cardinals games played in Mexico nonwithstanding)

[rockchalk]

So, in other words, I was right.    Neither team was using the stadium as its home stadium when the Super Bowl was played (in fact, the Raiders were in LA then), and when the 49ers did use it, it was only as an emergency replacement for Candlestick.  I am vindicated. 

And I think I'm actually more confused than I was before.

To clarify, no, the Super Bowl does NOT need to be held in a stadium that also houses an NFL team. This is evidenced by displaced games played in Stanford and Super Bowl XIII played in Rice Stadium. These statements are correct, right?

So...what is keeping the NFL from playing in non-NFL stadiums now? (Cardinals games played in Mexico nonwithstanding)

The only non-NFL stadiums that are big enough are on college campuses, and the Super Bowl is usually held 2-3 weeks after the spring semester begins. There just isn't much to do in most college towns (Austin being the only real exception I can think of). Besides, now most (major) NCAA stadiums are within a couple hours drive of at least one NFL stadium, which are more readily capable of handling the games (security, parking, etc.) Go ahead, hold a Super Bowl in Death Valley at Baton Rouge, then tell all the LSU kids they can't afford to go to the game. That'd be fun, huh?

[pooter]

So, in other words, I was right.      Neither team was using the stadium as its home stadium when the Super Bowl was played (in fact, the Raiders were in LA then), and when the 49ers did use it, it was only as an emergency replacement for Candlestick.  I am vindicated.  

And I think I'm actually more confused than I was before.

To clarify, no, the Super Bowl does NOT need to be held in a stadium that also houses an NFL team. This is evidenced by displaced games played in Stanford and Super Bowl XIII played in Rice Stadium. These statements are correct, right?

So...what is keeping the NFL from playing in non-NFL stadiums now? (Cardinals games played in Mexico nonwithstanding)

Yes, Leopard, you are right. I was trying to point out that they don't have to play a Super Bowl in a stadium where an NFL team is..it just that the NFL doesn't choose to play Super Bowls in non-NFL stadiums.

The info about when and where the Super Bowl is played is widely available, but mostly I go my info from nfl.com.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

The only non-NFL stadiums that are big enough are on college campuses, and the Super Bowl is usually held 2-3 weeks after the spring semester begins. There just isn't much to do in most college towns (Austin being the only real exception I can think of). Besides, now most (major) NCAA stadiums are within a couple hours drive of at least one NFL stadium, which are more readily capable of handling the games (security, parking, etc.) Go ahead, hold a Super Bowl in Death Valley at Baton Rouge, then tell all the LSU kids they can't afford to go to the game. That'd be fun, huh?

You're absolutely right. I hadn't considered that part of it...Certainly, a Super Bowl in State College, PA or Ann Arbor wouldn't be very much fun for big business and unaffordable for the common man.

On a tangent, perhaps San Antonio deserves a Super Bowl in the Alamodome for hosting the Saints? That seems fair to me.

[Mac the Knife]

The AAFC? Please. The Browns were the only real team in that leauge. My high school football team could have won the AAFC title. If you honestlty want to put an AAFC title on the same level as an NFL title, then you're grasping at straws to try and embelsih the Browns history. Hey look, 4 NFL titles. That's pretty good, a lot for the Browns to hang their hats on. You don't need to bring up 4 titles from an inferior leauge.

Comparing an AAFC to an NFL title is like comparing the AHL Calder Cup to the Stanley Cup. Just not at the same level.

You need a history lesson there, junior. After WWII, the NFL and AAFC were pretty much on an equal footing, with many if not most considering the AAFC the better league by 1948-49.

The Football HOF recognizes only two NFL competitors with special areas dedicated to the league's histories. The first is the AFL of the 1960's. The other? The AAFC. If they consider the AAFC good enough to merit its own section in the HOF, I think it should be considered the equal of the NFL same as the AFL is.

[leopard88]

The AAFC? Please. The Browns were the only real team in that leauge. My high school football team could have won the AAFC title. If you honestlty want to put an AAFC title on the same level as an NFL title, then you're grasping at straws to try and embelsih the Browns history. Hey look, 4 NFL titles. That's pretty good, a lot for the Browns to hang their hats on. You don't need to bring up 4 titles from an inferior leauge.

Comparing an AAFC to an NFL title is like comparing the AHL Calder Cup to the Stanley Cup. Just not at the same level.

You need a history lesson there, junior. After WWII, the NFL and AAFC were pretty much on an equal footing, with many if not most considering the AAFC the better league by 1948-49.

The Football HOF recognizes only two NFL competitors with special areas dedicated to the league's histories. The first is the AFL of the 1960's. The other? The AAFC. If they consider the AAFC good enough to merit its own section in the HOF, I think it should be considered the equal of the NFL same as the AFL is.

The other point worth mentioning is that the Browns routed the defending NFL Champion Eagles 35-10 in their first ever NFL game, then went on to win the NFL Championship Game in their first season in the league. That doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of the AAFC was equal to the rest of the NFL, but it certainly suggests that the Browns were a quality team that did more than just beat up on inferior competition.

And, by the way, I am not old enough to have witnessed either of the aforementioned games.

[rams80]

Very nice. Great representation of Browns fans

Cleveland Brownsno championships

Baltimore Ravens

AAFC/NFL championships: 8; 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1954, 1955, 1964, Super Bowl XXXV

Pittsburgh Steelers

NFL Championships: 5, all Super Bowl wins, 6 appearances in all; IX (1974), X (1975), XIII (1978), XIV (1979), XL (2006).

*Thanks to the Sports E-cyclopedia

So the Ravens franchise has 9 League titles, one of them a Super Bowl.  The Steelers have 5 League titles, all of them Super Bowls.

Here... corrected that for you.

corrected it for you (I don't care what the fluffing NFL says, Cleveland Browns v2.0 is an expansion team that pilfered the history of the Baltimore franchise.)

As for some reasoned debate-I seem to notice that the fans from the cold weather outdoor NFL cities are the ones that want cold weather Super Bowls (because that would, of course, benefit their teams.) I personally am happy with the Super Bowl being restricted to warm weather/indoor locales. It levels the playing field for the teams playing. I know I would be quite unhappy if I was say, a San Diego fan and saw them play in the Super Bowl in New York say.

(Note, if you are a fan of a warm weather/indoor team and feel that we should see a cold weather Super Bowl, feel free to correct me).

Leopard-I believe I read somewhere that that particular Browns team was more along the lines of an AAFC all-star team in the terms of its makeup. (I could be wrong, though.) In terms of which league was better-the fact that the Browns were so incredibly dominant through the AAFC's existence hurts the league-a better league would probably have been more competitive.