Super Bowl XLVI

[ZapRowsdower8]

The NFL owners today announced that Indianapolis will play host to Super Bowl XLVI. I have lived in Indianapolis for just about a year now and have actually enjoyed it more than I thought I would, granted I live in one of the cool little areas of the city. Anyway, not to take anything away from the city, which is fine, but the NFL needs to stop with the cold weather dome cities and keep the game in Miami, San Diego, New Orleans, and possibly Las Vegas. The Super Bowl should be a huge hedonistic week long party, in my opinion. Thats hard to do while bundled up and stomping through slush filled streets. Good for Indianapolis though!

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...ORTS03/80520035

[njmeadowlanders]

Good for them. Other cities SHOULD get the right to host if they can meet the requirements. Who cares about the weather for parties and whatnot? I know that's how it is nowadays, and that those warm weather cities have people come just to party and leave and whatever, but screw 'em. I like that other cities get to put their front foot forward.

If Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, et al can come up with a sufficient bid, they should be just as worthy of a game as Miami, New Orleans, and San Diego...

[rams80]

The NFL owners today announced that Indianapolis will play host to Super Bowl XLVI. I have lived in Indianapolis for just about a year now and have actually enjoyed it more than I thought I would, granted I live in one of the cool little areas of the city. Anyway, not to take anything away from the city, which is fine, but the NFL needs to stop with the cold weather dome cities and keep the game in Miami, San Diego, New Orleans, and possibly Las Vegas. The Super Bowl should be a huge hedonistic week long party, in my opinion. Thats hard to do while bundled up and stomping through slush filled streets. Good for Indianapolis though!

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti...ORTS03/80520035

Detroit in 1982 and 2006, Minneapolis in 1992, and now Indianapolis in 2012.

This is simply the token bid thrown to the North roughly every decade. I feel that's fair, especially as a Super Bowl was used as one of the reasons to get Lucas Oil Stadium built.

[Drew22]

This is lame. The reason they won't give Atlanta the bid was because they had an ice storm that year, yet they go and put it in Indy? C'mon.

[fkaKrock5cent]

I think Indy is the wrong place. Not because it is not warm but because its not big enough. I dont think Indy will have enough 5-star hotels for A-listers/big shots. Not what I like, just my $.02

However, the game will sell out and still be the typical cash cow it always is.

Best of luck to Indy

[ZapRowsdower8]

I guess my thoughts on this subject are that if they are going to put it in a cold weather city anyway then they should just rotate it through all of the NFL cities. It would be great to have the Super Bowl outside in Green Bay, New York, Cleveland, Pittsburgh... All of nothing, thats my take.

As for Indy's bid, they did a heck of a job. The inflatable tube walkway and fire pits all over downtown will be interesting to see. Too bad I still won't be living here by then, could make some easy money renting out my house for the week.

[pcgd]

As an indianapolis resident I'm pleased that the Super Bowl will be in my backyard.

However, just like when I was living in Chicago, and thought the Olympics could be coming, I may plan on scheduling a nice vacation during that time.

And btw...there are plenty of Hotels in the greater downtown area, and there are some fine ones. Believe it or not, the City of Indianapolis has hosted more big events over the last 25 years than any other city. Plus, every year they host the Indianapolis 500 and Brickyard 400. Thats alot of people to take care of. They'll do fine.

[TFoA]

This is lame. The reason they won't give Atlanta the bid was because they had an ice storm that year, yet they go and put it in Indy? C'mon.

That's what I'm saying. That ice storm was a freak occurrence. It snows every damn year in February, and they get the Super Bowl? I understand it's because of the new stadium, but wow, way to stay consistent, NFL.

And yeah, I can already hear the media complaining about how cold it's gonna be and how "this year's Super Bowl will be a failure because it's under 70 degrees outside."

[HedleyLamarr]

This is lame. The reason they won't give Atlanta the bid was because they had an ice storm that year, yet they go and put it in Indy? C'mon.

That's what I'm saying. That ice storm was a freak occurrence. It snows every damn year in February, and they get the Super Bowl? I understand it's because of the new stadium, but wow, way to stay consistent, NFL.

And yeah, I can already hear the media complaining about how cold it's gonna be and how "this year's Super Bowl will be a failure because it's under 70 degrees outside."

Should I point out that the last Super Bowl in Miami was played in a pouring rain for most of the game?

[Viper]

I think Indy is the wrong place. Not because it is not warm but because its not big enough. I dont think Indy will have enough 5-star hotels for A-listers/big shots. Not what I like, just my $.02

However, the game will sell out and still be the typical cash cow it always is.

Best of luck to Indy

Actually, Indy has lots and lots of hotel space. They need it every year for the Indy 500 and Brickyard 400, not to mention the Final Fours they get every few years.

[dfwabel]

I think Indy is the wrong place. Not because it is not warm but because its not big enough. I dont think Indy will have enough 5-star hotels for A-listers/big shots. Not what I like, just my $.02

However, the game will sell out and still be the typical cash cow it always is.

Best of luck to Indy

"Indianapolis meets the requirements of the NFL, which specifies that the city must have rooms equal to 35 percent of the stadium capacity within an hour's drive. For Indianapolis, that means about 25,500 rooms.

A proposed Marriott Hotel next to the Indiana Convention Center would become the NFL headquarters, providing convenience and 100 more rooms than the required 900. And with more than 10,000 people staying in Downtown hotels and with an airport 15 minutes away, last year's bid noted that proximity would reduce the league's transportation costs."

FYI in terms of full service, the CBD has a Westin, a Sheraton, a Hyatt, Hilton (along with sister properties of Embassy Suites and Conrad, their luxury brand), an Omni, full service Marriott (3 total in the loop, 4 if you count Renisannce brand), a Crowne Plaza, and other ICG hotels.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

Good for them. Other cities SHOULD get the right to host if they can meet the requirements. Who cares about the weather for parties and whatnot? I know that's how it is nowadays, and that those warm weather cities have people come just to party and leave and whatever, but screw 'em. I like that other cities get to put their front foot forward.

If Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, et al can come up with a sufficient bid, they should be just as worthy of a game as Miami, New Orleans, and San Diego...

no kidding i personally would like to see a super bowl where i'm at some time that i am alive. i'm tired of the sun belt monopoly on the super bowl.

hopefully global warming will make a super bowl in New York a reality someday.

[fkaKrock5cent]

I think Indy is the wrong place. Not because it is not warm but because its not big enough. I dont think Indy will have enough 5-star hotels for A-listers/big shots. Not what I like, just my $.02

However, the game will sell out and still be the typical cash cow it always is.

Best of luck to Indy

"Indianapolis meets the requirements of the NFL, which specifies that the city must have rooms equal to 35 percent of the stadium capacity within an hour's drive. For Indianapolis, that means about 25,500 rooms.

A proposed Marriott Hotel next to the Indiana Convention Center would become the NFL headquarters, providing convenience and 100 more rooms than the required 900. And with more than 10,000 people staying in Downtown hotels and with an airport 15 minutes away, last year's bid noted that proximity would reduce the league's transportation costs."

FYI in terms of full service, the CBD has a Westin, a Sheraton, a Hyatt, Hilton (along with sister properties of Embassy Suites and Conrad, their luxury brand), an Omni, full service Marriott (3 total in the loop, 4 if you count Renisannce brand), a Crowne Plaza, and other ICG hotels.

Ok, I was arong. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Island_Style]

They gave Jacksonville one so I am cool with whatever city gets it. Good for them, whoever they are.

[ferrousoxide66]

The damn thing should be more evenly rotated amongst viable stadia anyway, regardless of cold weather location.

Like the NFL needs another Glendale fiesta so soon after the first one? Houston again?

[rams80]

Gene Woj. needs to be transferred to the Billings, Montana bureau. Effective immediately.

"Oh how horrible! It will be cold! They should think of me!"

[TFoA]

Gene Woj. needs to be transferred to the Billings, Montana bureau. Effective immediately.

"Oh how horrible! It will be cold! They should think of me!"

And yeah, I can already hear the media complaining about how cold it's gonna be and how "this year's Super Bowl will be a failure because it's under 70 degrees outside." tongue.gif

lol

[MadmanLA]

Miami comes back into the Super Bowl rotation real quick...they're hosting the 2010 game, and like last year's game, this one will also be televised by CBS. According to an USA Today article I'm looking at, they actually beat out Atlanta for the 2010 game. However, if I remember correctly, one of recent Miami Super Bowls was suppose to go to San Francisco contingent on them getting a new stadium built, and I remember San Diego even being in the mix, but the NFL wants a new stadium there before they bring another Super Bowl back to America's Finest City.

As for Indianapolis...it's good for them. It's nice not seeing some of the usual suspects (New Orleans, San Diego, Miami) getting a chance to host the big game.

[BBTV]

I kind of agree with him though. I don't think the SB should be in my city either.

I can't believe that it isn't obvious that this is a "reward" for getting the new stadium done. It's pretty much an unwritten rule (or maybe even sometimes explicitly promised) that if you build a new stadium that is domed or in nice climate, the NFL will give you a 'Bowl. It's kind of a way of selling the taxpayers on an ROI that may or may not be there.

Of course, if any of "our" teams were to win the game, we wouldn't care if it was in Indy, Jacksonville, Akron, Buffalo, Rochester, etc. etc. etc.

[njmeadowlanders]

Miami comes back into the Super Bowl rotation real quick...they're hosting the 2010 game, and like last year's game, this one will also be televised by CBS. According to an USA Today article I'm looking at article, they actually beat out Atlanta for the 2010 game. However, if I remember correctly, one of recent Miami Super Bowls was suppose to go to San Francisco contingent on them getting a new stadium built, and I remember San Diego even being in the mix, but the NFL wants a new stadium there before they bring another Super Bowl back to America's Finest City.

As for Indianapolis...it's good for them. It's nice not seeing some of the usual suspects (New Orleans, San Diego, Miami) getting a chance to host the big game.

New York City was awarded the 2010 game, contingent on the Jets building their stadium (retractable dome) on the West Side of Manhattan. We all know what happened there...