Comments on: L.A. SUPER BOWL IN 2016?

By: SoCalCMH

SoCalCMH — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:56:13 +0000

anyone who thinks la won’t support an nfl team (just one, not two) should check out a fall saturday when usc is playing. they will and they do. until we get an nfl team however a have a modest little proposal. hold the super bowl here every year until we have a team to call our own. consider;
it’s truly a neutral site,
we have great weather,
the game will start in the afternoon and end in the evening. all those tv shots of the setting sun over the pacific
close access to entertainment industry for pre-game and half time shows
home to many celebrities to show on cue in between tv timeouts
great location for week long nfl and corporate events
great location for saturday night before super bowl shenanigans
it’s not just game, it’s a really big party

By: wydok

wydok — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:28:19 +0000

LA has no NFL team, yet they could get the Super Bowl? Philly has an NFL team, but they haven’t had a Super Bowl player at the Linc yet…

By: DROLDSCHOOL

DROLDSCHOOL — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:41:16 +0000

Here’s an idea:
- There seems not to be a groundswell for a regular team in LA, but…
- The media and league love LA
- There’s lots of money in LA
- There are already sites that have hosted Super Bowls in LA
- It’s very easy to travel to LA from anywhere
Why not just play the game in LA every year?

By: LiveNBreath Football

LiveNBreath Football — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:40:12 +0000

The people of LA do not WANT a football team. They don’t want to pay for a stadium, they don’t want to lose out on watching games on Sunday because of a blackout, etc. Some rich guys who think a team will make them look real men want a team. Real folks in LA cannot be bothered.
As for playing the Super Bowl in cities with teams, that is not a rule. The Super Bowl has been played at Stanford. The game is usually played in a city with a team because the facilities are then in place. The Super Bowl was at Stanford because it actually held more people than Candlestick at the time.

By: Haunchie

Haunchie — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:33:07 +0000

Why did the NFL stop going to the Rose Bowl? That had the best scenes ever for the Super Bowl at dusk.

By: inmymind

inmymind — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:31:31 +0000

Maybe LA ought to be concerned with gangs, economy and falling into the ocean before worrying about bringing a Superbowl to town.

By: filbertkiwi71

filbertkiwi71 — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:49:40 +0000

They need to have the Super Bowl in a colder climate, such as: Green Bay, Buffalo or New England. That way I can listen to the overpaid analysts wimp and whine about the weather conditions. They are worse than the athletes.
Please do not move any teams to LA. They may be the 2nd largest market, but if they really wanted an NFL team then they should have supported the Rams and Raiders more when they were there.
I don’t believe in the build it and they will come concept in terms of making the NFL popular in LA by building a brand spanking new stadium. That makes no sens to me at all.

By: Dobre Shunka

Dobre Shunka — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:47:49 +0000

Isn’t there a rule that the Super Bowl has to be played in a city that has an NFL team? That’s why there hasn’t been a Super Bowl played in LA since 1993 (a year before the Rams left). They need to get America’s biggest game back to one of the few sites worthy of it, the Rose Bowl, regardless of whether LA has a team. How the NFL can continue to hold the game in places like Detroit, Jacksonville, and (gulp) Indy, is beyond me.

By: GeauxSaints12

GeauxSaints12 — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:27:53 +0000

Forget moving a team in LA. They had two and could not support them and i don’t want to see any of the 32 teams move to LA.