2011 Superbowl Logo (partial)

[seattlefan68]

They couldn't have it in Seattle. It might rain. Wouldn't want that in a Super Bowl.

But I understand why it can't happen here. We don't need the extra traffic anyway.

[jhans203]

What about Charlotte and Nashville? I think that if the NFL went with neutral spots....Hawaii, Orlando, Pasadena, San Antonio, and Toronto would be cool.

[seattlefan68]

What about Charlotte and Nashville? I think that if the NFL went with neutral spots....Hawaii, Orlando, Pasadena, San Antonio, and Toronto would be cool.

All but maybe Hawaii and Pasadena either don't hold enough or aren't new enough for the Super Bowl. I mean, they've stopped playing it in Qualcomm.

[habsfan1]

Minneapolis and Detroit have both hosted, i dont see why Indianapolis can't.

No offense to either of those cities, I'm sure they're great and I don't want to start any wars with residents of them, but I just think a traveling circus that is the Super Bowl should be played in marquee entertainment cities when it's warm. Now I live in Boston and absolutely love it, but do I not think (if there was a domed stadium in Boston) there should ever be a Super Bowl here.

And I did forget to mention Texas, my fault.

Why though? I can understand that people don't enjoy cold weather in general but I would love to see a SB game in the fridged and hopefully snowy Lambeau Field. Brings a little character to what has usually been a pretty bland game. Grey Cup in November and more often then not it's at an outdoor stadium!

So would I. It would get me to see the game from different perspectives. Like just how much the weather would be a factor in the game. I'm for the idea. A great game to enjoy from the confort of my warm and cozy couch.

Also, the logo is really ugly.

[Roger Clemente]

Could Green Bay even host an event where it's entire population doubles for a week? (Never mind that Lambeau Field, while very historic and charming, honestly doesn't look like it's in the best shape to host the biggest of football games and especially in JFebruary.)

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

[Sec19Row53]

Could Green Bay even host an event where it's entire population doubles for a week? (Never mind that Lambeau Field, while very historic and charming, honestly doesn't look like it's in the best shape to host the biggest of football games and especially in JFebruary.)

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

No. For "just" a Packer game, you can't get a hotel room within 30 miles of the city. Considering many of the people attending those games already live in the area, you can see the impossibility of housing people for an entire week.

I don't know why you'd think that Lambeau isn't in the best shape (other than the fact that there's no playing surface right now). It's a pretty nice stadium. However, it will never happen due to temperatures and other amenities that the area lacks.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

as much as having the game in GB, cleveland, Chicago, New York would be nice to add to the lure of the game, the truth is the NFL could give a rats ass about tradition and the lure of the game. Thats just fictional fodder for the little people mull with each other, what they really care about is the $ and only the $. if the $ wants a tropical paradise for the SB, then the $ gets the SB in areas where winter is only a fiction. That would basically be the ex confederate states, arizona, california and cities with domes/retrac roofs. Because $ talks, and everything else is peanuts.

see this isn't the fans game, thats the big lie put out by the league, this is a corporate game ran by the corporate execs, for the corporate execs. They just throw in the lure of GB, the bears and Johnny Unitas to keep the masses entertained.