2014 NFL off-season thread

All of that seems pretty standard. I wouldn't be surprised if a cold-weather city had to make additional guarantees to get the game, but I don't know if that was the case here.

I think we're at the point now where any city that wants to host the Super Bowl, they're going to have to guarantee a lot. I think the days of the game rotating to the same 5-6 cities (New Orleans, Tampa, Miami, San Diego, Glendale...) are done, and I think that's a very good thing.

 

There's a limit to how many cities will get a Super Bowl more than once, though. Detroit and Minneapolis have now been awarded two, but that's it, I'll bet. The league has to know how it lucked out at the Meadowlands this year, with the six plus inches of snow the very next day. Not going back to Jacksonville anytime soon, and I wonder if even the new stadium will get Atlanta another one. Foxboro's out. Washington, Baltimore, Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland? No way. So really, the rotation has expanded with your Houstons, the new 49ers stadium, etc., but it's still there.

 

With domed stadiums, there's no reason Detroit, Minneapolis and Indianapolis can't be successful hosts.

I do wonder, though, how much the host cities actually benefit economically. Sure, it's tourism and restaurants and hotels and rental cars and such. But when you subtract the cost of putting on the show, I wonder what the bottom line is.

 

Sean Weatherspoon to miss entire season due to torn Achilles tendon.

 

I think Indianapolis will enter the rotation as a regular host.

I would love to see Denver, Kansas City, Chicago and Philadelphia get a shot at hosting a Super Bowl. I don't know if it will ever happen. I don't see any reason why Seattle couldn't host one either...

Since teams that put up new stadiums usually get at least one Super Bowl, I would think Atlanta might get another crack at one.

 

Indianapolis is not a bad host city at all. I'm not sure the league will press its bet on decent weather in the North in February, though. Plus, all the cities you mentioned already have stadiums. They won't get a Super Bowl by promising to build yet another one. Denver's the oldest, and it's only 15 or so years old.

 

Indianapolis is great because everything is so centralized and, for the most part, the hotels are walking distance to the stadium. I hesitate to compare Indianapolis to New Orleans, because obviously New Orleans has quite a few things Indy lacks, but the setup is similar.

 

The Super Dome is a little bit more of a hike from the hotels and Bourbon Street than some would have you believe, but it's do-able, as long is it's not the middle of summer and 10,000 degrees outside.

 

Just about every hotel has shuttles too, especially when there's an event in town. Between Sugar Bowls, Final Fours, playoff games, SEC Tournaments etc... I usually stayed at the Hyatt and that usually worked perfectly for Super Dome access and wasn't a bad walk to Bourbon Street. Granted, I was never there in the summer.

 

No reason Minneapolis can't be as good of a host as Indy once the new stadium is built.

 

Having been to Minneapolis for the World Series and Final Four, it's a fine host city. But I remember that the five days I was there for the 1998 NFC championship game, it never got above zero. A Vikings beat writer showed me how to get the frozen road salt dust off my windshield. He got a cup of coffee from the office of their practice facility, had me start the engine, threw the coffee on, and I ran the wipers. I really don't think people go on holiday to freeze their asses off unless their skiers.

 

I was there for a Super Bowl and it went great. Of course, temps were in the 40s all week and the one of the big stories was they were worried that the giant ice sculpture of the Lombardi Trophy outside the stadium was beginning to melt.