Has anyone noticed ? (SuperBowl related)

[Darkiller]

The SuperBowl used to be the last sunday of January...now it will be on the 1st week of February...have a look at the next dates:

SuperBowl XXXVIII, Houston, TX, Feb. 1, 2004
	Super Bowl XXXIX, Jacksonville, FL, Feb. 6, 2005
	Super Bowl XL, Detroit, MI, Feb. 5, 2006
	Super Bowl XLI, Miami, FL, Feb. 4, 2007*
	Super Bowl XLII, Glendale, AZ, Feb. 2008*

[Darkiller]

dola :
So I can already mark that down: Steve Young' Hall of Fame induction should occur on Saturday Feb 5th 2005.

;-)

[cthomer5000]

Not sure what the reasoning is behind this at all. I know they have some sort of rule in place for when the season starts... sometimes that would result in 1 week between the conference title games and super bowl, and sometimes 2.

My guess is that the NFL is now making it 2 weeks before the Super Bowl no matter what. It probably produces more revenue for the Super Bowl city.

[henry296]

The season now starts a week later. You used to have games Labor Day weekend, not anymore.

[rkmsuf]

Houston, Jacksonville, Detroit. Trifecta of terrible Superbowl locations.

Should be New Orleans, San Diego and Miami only...

[Balldog]

If it was not going to be -10 and absolutely no parking at Detroit, Detroit would not be a bad spot.

[albionmoonlight]

By putting the Superbowl in Northern locations, the NFL is just asking to have their two week media extravaganza set against the backdrop of "one of the worst blizzards in the last twenty years."

It does not seem that hard to me. You have a large company. There is a very, very important two week long winter meeting that you need to plan years in advance, and that will require an insane amount of logistics and people and media and equipment moving in and out and around. You can have the meeting up North and risk a blizzard, or you can have it down South. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Just like if the Superbowl was in late August, you would be a fool to have it on the Gulf or Atlantic coasts. Why subject yourself to weather if you do not have to?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by henry296

The season now starts a week later. You used to have games Labor Day weekend, not anymore.

They moved from Labor Day weekend a couple of years ago, though. It must be a combination of that, plus the 2 weeks between conference championship and SB. Aside from the 9/11-induced February SB, I don't recall one being this late.

Oh well, this just helps to make the wait between football and baseball seasons even shorter. February is usually the worst sports month of the year, so every little thing will help.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

By putting the Superbowl in Northern locations, the NFL is just asking to have their two week media extravaganza set against the backdrop of "one of the worst blizzards in the last twenty years."

It does not seem that hard to me. You have a large company. There is a very, very important two week long winter meeting that you need to plan years in advance, and that will require an insane amount of logistics and people and media and equipment moving in and out and around. You can have the meeting up North and risk a blizzard, or you can have it down South. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Just like if the Superbowl was in late August, you would be a fool to have it on the Gulf or Atlantic coasts. Why subject yourself to weather if you do not have to?

i completely agree. As much as a i might like a chance to go to a Super Bowl in the Meadowlands... the whole idea is pretty ridiculous. You also have to keep in mind the NFL doesn't just care about the weather for the game itself, they care about making as much money for themselves and the host cities for two weeks.

I say L.A, San Diego, New Orleans, and Miami should pretty much be in a 4-city rotation.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Houston, Jacksonville, Detroit. Trifecta of terrible Superbowl locations.

Should be New Orleans, San Diego and Miami only...

Houston isn't to bad the women there a fine and sexy .... Jacksonville last one out please flush I cant stand that Gator infested crap town. Well ok not the town but the Gator fans I cant stand them. Detroit, I've never been there so no comment.

New Orleans and San Diego in my opinion have had nice super bowls always interesting to watch. Miami in all fairness needs a new stadium because Pro Player need to go to the local highschools. Miami seems to be the fall back if another city can get the Super Bowl prepared in time.



noop

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

Houston, Jacksonville, Detroit. Trifecta of terrible Superbowl locations.

Should be New Orleans, San Diego and Miami only...

Ok, I understand Detroit- the aforementioned two weeks with a blizzard outside problem. But what's wrong with Houston or Jacksonville? Or maybe Phoenix.

SI

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Ok, I understand Detroit- the aforementioned two weeks with a blizzard outside problem. But what's wrong with Houston or Jacksonville? Or maybe Phoenix.

SI

They don't stack up in terms of a vacation type location. Way more people make the trip to New Orleans for example...

[GrantDawg]

Jacksonville is a great town. I would love to attend that Superbowl. A interesting note, Jacksonville doesn't have the number of hotel rooms needed to put up the number of people that are coming. So they are having cruise ships dock along the river to act as "floating hotels." I'm not sure if the "all-inclusiveness" of a cruise will be included, but if it is that would be a great place to stay. There is nothing like heading down to the cafe at three in the morning for a free pizza.

[Balldog]

If I remember correctly Super Bowls have to be in a warm climate or indoor stadium, so the odds of it every being in the Meadowlands are pretty slim unless they build a roof on the stadium or something.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Balldog

If I remember correctly Super Bowls have to be in a warm climate or indoor stadium, so the odds of it every being in the Meadowlands are pretty slim unless they build a roof on the stadium or something.

They don't have to be anywhere. It's where the NFL attracts the greatest audience...

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Balldog

If I remember correctly Super Bowls have to be in a warm climate or indoor stadium, so the odds of it every being in the Meadowlands are pretty slim unless they build a roof on the stadium or something.

There are no rules at all. The Meadowlands were in the running for 2006 before they pulled themselves out of it. I think they're making a bid for 2008 now.

[RendeR]

The NFL is in fact considering the northern cities, the commisioner and his people desperately want to get one in NY and or washington DC in the near future. The reasoning that the supoer bowl should avoid weather has been tossed. The biggest concern is hitting those markets that have been ignored for so long.

I hope they start a rotation of every NFL City, that way your town is guarenteed 1 supoer bowl every 32 years, the travel and tourism people in places like seattle and green Bay have a chance to develope their regions to accomodate everything and the NFL makes boookooo bucks every season.

its a win win win *32 situation. The fans will always go to the super bowl, no matter the weather or the location. They braved ice storms for the 1982 super bowl in Pontiac, MI. snow, rain, bah, PLAY the game as its meant to be played, regardless of the weather.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by RendeR

The NFL is in fact considering the northern cities, the commisioner and his people desperately want to get one in NY and or washington DC in the near future. The reasoning that the supoer bowl should avoid weather has been tossed. The biggest concern is hitting those markets that have been ignored for so long.

I hope they start a rotation of every NFL City, that way your town is guarenteed 1 supoer bowl every 32 years, the travel and tourism people in places like seattle and green Bay have a chance to develope their regions to accomodate everything and the NFL makes boookooo bucks every season.

its a win win win *32 situation. The fans will always go to the super bowl, no matter the weather or the location. They braved ice storms for the 1982 super bowl in Pontiac, MI. snow, rain, bah, PLAY the game as its meant to be played, regardless of the weather.

who the hell is going to pay thousands to go see teams they have no rooting interest in and sit in 20 degree weather. Not to mention precipitation. Maybe it fills but would no where near generate the same revenue in say Buffalo than in New Orleans...

one of the reasons the Superbowl has achieved such an entertainment level is because of the choice of venues...

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by rkmsuf

who the hell is going to pay thousands to go see teams they have no rooting interest in and sit in 20 degree weather. Not to mention precipitation. Maybe it fills but would no where near generate the same revenue in say Buffalo than in New Orleans...

one of the reasons the Superbowl has achieved such an entertainment level is because of the choice of venues...

Agreed on all levels. They would have no problem filling the stadium anywhere in the world. The host cities make way more money from the preceding week or two than they do from the game itself. It's all about the tourism it attracts, not just the game.