02Rover Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Pasadena was a classic Super Bowl location with a long history of hosting. But I noticed that when the NFL teams left LA, they stopped having the Super Bowls there. It used to be part of the regular rotation of cities and stadiums that routinely got the Big Game. Miami, New Orleans, Pasadena, San Diego and then random places like Houston, Jax, Phoenix and others. But those first 4 were the major venues.Why no more?? It cant be simply because the league is no longer in LA, right?? Taking the Super Bowl out would be a way to keep a presense in town, I would think.Anyone have any other info on this??Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgbry44 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 That's probably exactly why they took the Super Bowl away. In their thinking it's probably somewhere along the lines of...."Why should we play the biggest game of our season in a city that doesn't feel like supporting one of our teams?" I honestly don't blame them at all. If a city doesn't want to support a team, then why should the league give them the millions of dollars that would come by having the Super Bowl played there? Even through the darkest days....this fire burns...always Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernd Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 That's probably exactly why they took the Super Bowl away. In their thinking it's probably somewhere along the lines of...."Why should we play the biggest game of our season in a city that doesn't feel like supporting one of our teams?" I honestly don't blame them at all. If a city doesn't want to support a team, then why should the league give them the millions of dollars that would come by having the Super Bowl played there?L.A. happily supports the NFL. They just don't support spending a billion dollars on a new stadium.But to answer the original question, yes, the reason the Super Bowl is no longer in L.A. is because the NFL only supports cities with teams and modern stadiums. You mentioned San Diego; you won't see any more Super Bowls there unless the city agrees to fork over $500m for a new stadium. Man, that's mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRice16 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 NFL ruled in the late 90's that only current NFL stadiums could hold Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlugelHorn Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 So.....what was the last non-NFL stadium to host a SuperBowl game?Was it Stanford Stadium at PaloAlto, where 49ers beat Marino's Dolphins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iowahoo Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 THe last non-NFL stadium was indeed the Rose Bowl in 1993. Cowboys over Bills 52-17. The Rose Bowl has hosted the game five times.The other non-NFL stadiums to host the Super Bowl: Stanford Stadium (once), Tulane Stadium (three times), Rice Stadium (once) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrdevil Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The NFL has a rule that the Super Bowl can only be held in NFL cities. LA doesn't have a team thus no Super Bowl.Off topic a bit does anyone know why Super Bowl VIII was held at Rice Stadium instead of the Astrodome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. no funny nickname Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Actually I've heard Tagliabu talk about wanting to have another Super Bowl at the Rose Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackerBadger Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The other non-NFL stadiums to host the Super Bowl: Stanford Stadium (once), Tulane Stadium (three times), Rice Stadium (once) Tulane Stadium used to be an NFL stadium. That's where Tom Dempsey launched his NFL-record 63-yard field goal while a Saint. But once the Superdome was built, the Saints and Tulane both moved there.Pasadena was a classic Super Bowl location with a long history of hosting. But I noticed that when the NFL teams left LA, they stopped having the Super Bowls there. And at the L.A. Coliseum (which hosted SBs I and VII) as well. Ironic that thanks to this policy two of the biggest stadiums in the U.S. (92,516 for the Coliseum, 92,542 for the Rose Bowl) are no longer available for the biggest football game on the planet.Off topic a bit does anyone know why Super Bowl VIII was held at Rice Stadium instead of the Astrodome?I'm sure it was due to size. I think Rice Stadium (and why didn't they call it the Rice Bowl?) seated 70,000 or so, which was 20,000 more than the Astrodome did.But to answer the original question, yes, the reason the Super Bowl is no longer in L.A. is because the NFL only supports cities with teams and modern stadiums. You mentioned San Diego; you won't see any more Super Bowls there unless the city agrees to fork over $500m for a new stadium. Ditto Minneapolis, I'm sure. (And the Metrodome is rather small to have a Super Bowl anyway, at 62,000.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njmeadowlanders Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The other non-NFL stadiums to host the Super Bowl: Stanford Stadium (once), Tulane Stadium (three times), Rice Stadium (once)The Saints played at Tulane Stadium until 1974. The last Super Bowl held there was in January of 1975, or the 1974 season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRice16 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Actually I've heard Tagliabu talk about wanting to have another Super Bowl at the Rose Bowl.Well, since he doesn't work for the NFL anymore, I doubt what he wants really matters anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJTank Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 The other non-NFL stadiums to host the Super Bowl: Stanford Stadium (once), Tulane Stadium (three times), Rice Stadium (once)The Saints played at Tulane Stadium until 1974. The last Super Bowl held there was in January of 1975, or the 1974 season.It was originally supposed to be held at the SuperDome but the SuperDome was not finished. www.sportsecyclopedia.com For the best in sports history go to the Sports E-Cyclopedia at http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainmaker17 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 L.A. happily supports the NFL. You have got to be out of your freaking mind. Seriously. The NFL bent over backwards to woo LA back into the fold and.....shocker....LA didn't care. LA supports the NFL my ass!And before you bash me, I dated a girl who lived in Pasadena for around four years. Sat in the Rose Bowl parking lot with the locals. They cared more about seeing Sean Penn on the strip the night before than football. Utterlly pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Helix- Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 They got the Rose Bowl and occasional National Championships. Who needs the Superbowl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBM Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 They got the Rose Bowl and occasional National Championships. Who needs the Superbowl?I think the point is that the Rose Bowl is an excellent venue and has always been in the rotation of Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 They got the Rose Bowl and occasional National Championships. Who needs the Superbowl?I think the point is that the Rose Bowl is an excellent venue and has always been in the rotation of Super Bowls.It is a nice stadium and looks great when full, but here are some realities:1-if you have never been, it is very difficuly to get in and out. It's situated in residential neighborhood. Searching cars in the golf course parking lot, where general, cash parking is located will take forever. 2-There are not many suites and no club seats. In fact, 95% of the seats don't have backs. Do you really expect people to shell out $400-500/seat and not have a seatback? The aisles are very narrow and the portals to go in and out get clogged quickly. Restrooms are sparse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
02Rover Posted January 3, 2007 Author Share Posted January 3, 2007 Ditto Minneapolis, I'm sure. (And the Metrodome is rather small to have a Super Bowl anyway, at 62,000.)I thought the rule was a stadium had to have at least 70,000 to be considered for Super Bowl contention. This was a rule dating back to the late 70's, if not earlier. The Metrodome must have at least 70,000 to have gotten the one game they did have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.