Anyone going to the Superbowl?
Jan 24th, 2006, 08:17 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone going to the Superbowl?
Just wondering if anyone was making the trip. I live here and we can't decide if we should go downtown or not. Anyone know of any good bar parties? Sadly, we don't have tickets to the big game.
Jan 24th, 2006, 09:01 PM
#2
I know how you feel. Big game in your city and it's almost impossible to get tickets. All you can do is enjoy the great weather and watch the game on tv..blue skies and warm temps. At least that's how it was in San Diego.
Jan 25th, 2006, 08:57 AM
#4
Not that I'm criticizing the NFL for holding the Super Bowl in cold climates rather than in beautiful San Diego where, we have been assured, it will never be held again until we build a new stadium for the Spanos family's hobby. (And I'm a Charger fan!)
Jan 25th, 2006, 09:05 AM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,711
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SuperBowl Sunday is a huge event in my circle of friends.It is the ONLY time of the year that some of them actually prepare a food item for our contest/exhibition....So fare it's been held at my place cuz I have the most room...Everybody brings something and we hand out trophies/prizes.And of course the spread is great and we eat all day long.
Jan 25th, 2006, 09:25 AM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know there are business reasons for choosing certain sites for SuperBowl - but last 2 cities have left me wondering about who is making decision.
Son and husband went to last year's in Jacksonville (trip of a lifetime, paid an outrageous amount for bad seats; but son is in college in Savannah and is nuts for Patriots so they did it as day trip - no regrets)
But Jacksonville was way too small a city to host something this big. And Detroit is way too cold, not to mention it's other problems as were detailed in Sunday NY Times.
A real case could be made, as is being discussed on Boston sports radio, for a permanent location in some city such as Las Vegas where people could make it a week-long destination, and even have fun without actually attending game - sort of like baseball does with All-Star game although in rotation cities.
Lots of merit in this idea - and certainly Las Vegas is used to hosting huge crowds and entertaining them.
Son and husband went to last year's in Jacksonville (trip of a lifetime, paid an outrageous amount for bad seats; but son is in college in Savannah and is nuts for Patriots so they did it as day trip - no regrets)
But Jacksonville was way too small a city to host something this big. And Detroit is way too cold, not to mention it's other problems as were detailed in Sunday NY Times.
A real case could be made, as is being discussed on Boston sports radio, for a permanent location in some city such as Las Vegas where people could make it a week-long destination, and even have fun without actually attending game - sort of like baseball does with All-Star game although in rotation cities.
Lots of merit in this idea - and certainly Las Vegas is used to hosting huge crowds and entertaining them.
Jan 25th, 2006, 03:55 PM
#10
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have gone to many of Super Bowls and are going again this year and are looking forward to the trip. We enjoy going even when held in a cold weather city. Last time it was in Detroit (actually Pontaic then) and the time it was in Mpls. we had a great time despite cold weather. Also have had a good time in warm weather cities. It's the atmosphere and the people you are with that make it fun anywhere.
Jan 25th, 2006, 04:31 PM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a Buffalo Bills fan who went to 4 Super Bowls in the early 90's. The one in the cold weather city (Minneapolis) was the best (not the game, but the city). The worst one was Pasadena, where they didn't seem to know that a Super Bowl was going on. In Minneapolis they rolled out the red carpet and did a great job of hosting a great weekend.
Jan 25th, 2006, 08:18 PM
#14
Original Poster
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A permanant game site is an iteresting idea. It would make things like hotels and parties easier go much smoother.
But I like the idea of spreading the wealth. This Superbowl is going to bring in tons of money for Detroit (probably most of it going to the mayor's relatives (insert eyerolling smiley here)). And it has really made the city clean up and open new businesses.
The reason we have it at all is because of the new stadium. The NFL promised a Superbowl if the Lions would build a new stadium. Plus the Ford family's advertising dollars don't always fall on deaf ears (hence us keeping the Thanksgiving game even though the product has been subpar).
So welcome to all the people that are coming. Detroit most definitly does have its problems. Probably half of the city is filled with darkened abandoned buildings. At night it looks like a black out. Hopefully they are screwing in a few light bulbs and turning the power back on before the media gets here.
But back to my original question, anyone know of any good public tailgates going on?
And Intrepid, I wish I had your kind of time on my hands!
But I like the idea of spreading the wealth. This Superbowl is going to bring in tons of money for Detroit (probably most of it going to the mayor's relatives (insert eyerolling smiley here)). And it has really made the city clean up and open new businesses.
The reason we have it at all is because of the new stadium. The NFL promised a Superbowl if the Lions would build a new stadium. Plus the Ford family's advertising dollars don't always fall on deaf ears (hence us keeping the Thanksgiving game even though the product has been subpar).
So welcome to all the people that are coming. Detroit most definitly does have its problems. Probably half of the city is filled with darkened abandoned buildings. At night it looks like a black out. Hopefully they are screwing in a few light bulbs and turning the power back on before the media gets here.
But back to my original question, anyone know of any good public tailgates going on?
And Intrepid, I wish I had your kind of time on my hands!
Jan 25th, 2006, 10:22 PM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KathyK, I agree with you. We have found some of the smaller cities have done a great job of welcoming Super Bowl fans and we also loved it when in Mpls. I live in S. CA so didn't really get the same feeling for the Super Bowl as when we go out of town so didn't notice it as much in Pasadena but friends of ours who came out for the games there also said the same thing - it was just another game to Pasadena and LA Area. I am sure Detroit will do a good job as they are eager to show the good things about their area to the crowd coming in for the game. Will let you know after its over.
Jan 26th, 2006, 03:27 AM
#16
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Story in NYTimes spoke of downtown sprucing up in honor of SuperBowl and residents hope that it was not temporary - everything from boarding being removed from windows and being replaced by glass to some shops opening.
When I spoke of Jacksonville, which is a lovely city, it had to do with infrastructure insufficiencies, transportation issues, lack of restaurants, hotels, etc. Son and husband waited 3 hours in irate, drunken and increasingly scary crowd for shuttle bus back to remote and required parking area.
If hosting SuperBowl in rotating cities actually brings good things to that city that last past the week of the event and do not cost the city more than they bring, than I rescind my suggestion for permanent site.
Am wondering, in similar vein, how residents of Olympic host cities feel 5-10 years after event - wonder if those in Lake Placid feel Olympics was a net positive or negative (have never been there, so I certainly won't vote!)
When I spoke of Jacksonville, which is a lovely city, it had to do with infrastructure insufficiencies, transportation issues, lack of restaurants, hotels, etc. Son and husband waited 3 hours in irate, drunken and increasingly scary crowd for shuttle bus back to remote and required parking area.
If hosting SuperBowl in rotating cities actually brings good things to that city that last past the week of the event and do not cost the city more than they bring, than I rescind my suggestion for permanent site.
Am wondering, in similar vein, how residents of Olympic host cities feel 5-10 years after event - wonder if those in Lake Placid feel Olympics was a net positive or negative (have never been there, so I certainly won't vote!)
Jan 26th, 2006, 05:06 AM
#18
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 5th, although it's not a dumb question at all. Sometimes there's only a week between the conference championship games and the Superbowl, and sometimes there's two weeks. I wonder if the auto show influenced their decision this year?
Jan 26th, 2006, 07:54 AM
#20
Cali, if you live in S. California, you must have noticed that when the Super Bowl has been in San Diego, everyone had a GREAT time, the city went out of its way to accomodate the NFL's wants and it was not "just another game". Many observers suggested that it should always be here. I do not believe there's a great financial benefit to a city exists, I think it costs cities a lot and pretty much all the city gets is a lot of "free" televison exposure'
When you consider a "permanent" home for the Super Bowl, you also have to consider who will pay for the stadium, because the NFL certainly won't. Cities which already have NFL teams are becoming less and less willing to spend many millions of taxpayer dollars building stadiums for multi-millionaire team owners.
So what city is going to build a stadium that would be used once a year? And you will argue that it can be used for concerts, etc the other eleven and a half months of the year. Good luck. That still won't come close to paying for it and it will be out of date before you know it. Then the NFL will demand millions of dollars worth of improvements.
Bottom line is, a "permanent" place just isn't financially feasible.
When you consider a "permanent" home for the Super Bowl, you also have to consider who will pay for the stadium, because the NFL certainly won't. Cities which already have NFL teams are becoming less and less willing to spend many millions of taxpayer dollars building stadiums for multi-millionaire team owners.
So what city is going to build a stadium that would be used once a year? And you will argue that it can be used for concerts, etc the other eleven and a half months of the year. Good luck. That still won't come close to paying for it and it will be out of date before you know it. Then the NFL will demand millions of dollars worth of improvements.
Bottom line is, a "permanent" place just isn't financially feasible.
