It’s Super Bowl selection day

Reuters

The selection of the 2015 Super Bowl isn’t getting quite the attention that the selection of the 2014 game received last year.

In fact, we forgot the NFL owners were meeting today in Houston until we did our work for this morning’s one-liners.

Here’s what you need to know: The game should be awarded sometime this afternoon.  It will be played in warm weather, and there are only two candidates up for the gig: Tampa and Arizona.

Both cities have hosted Super Bowls recently.  Both cities are confident they will win.  Tampa Bay’s host committee paid for billboards touting Tampa’s mild February weather for owners to see on their way in from the Houston airport.

I’d roll with Tampa for completely selfish reasons: It’s set up better for the media. Arizona is very spread out.

Really, I’ll just be happy if I’m still employed covering football in 2015.

44 responses to “It’s Super Bowl selection day

  1. I think they should have in Anchorage, Alaska. Now that would supply some really MANLY football conditions!!!!

    Yeah, ice, snow, yeah, real football, yeah! Blah, blah, blah, durp de durp de durp.

  2. To hell with making the Media, politicians, movie/rock stars comfy I say the SB should rotate through ALL NFL cities. Can you imagine a Super bowl on the frozen tundra of Lambeau? Or how about one at Soldier Field? I don’t care about the logistics it would be great for the fans. Oh wait who cares about them?

  3. Goes to show you how lacking most or all of the west coast stadiums are.. nice weather during that time, no Super Bowl considerations.

  4. Nothing is gonna top the sb here in the meadowlands. The game will be played in the cold. No pu**y domes or retractable roofs or nice warm weather. Outside the way the game should be played in the elements. If your a rich snob who cant handle the cold then dont go. Maybe the cold will attract some real fans to go instead of all these posers who go who probably dont even know what a td is. I hope it snows that day!

  5. savannahrose44 says:
    Oct 11, 2011 10:06 AM

    Yuck and yuck. Can’t they pick some place interesting?

    ————————————————

    Like where? It’s not like Dallas did such a great job when they had hosted the last Super Bowl. And you can forget having a place like Denver host it, given the thin air and winter weather out there. DC could be a cold weather option, but FedEx Field is too far outside the city to work.

  6. I agree with SJ39. The superbowl should rotate thru all the stadiums in the league. Football is often played in the snow, rain, cold, etc…..the superbowl should be no different.

    Can a team gain an advantage from playing in the cold, probably, but its about the same as a team like the 2000 Rams, or Colts get from playing in a dome.

  7. I’m still wondering why Houston hasn’t been awarded another one; but then I’m basing that on how the game looked on tv, not the logistics side of it.

    I still think Green Bay should get one, as should Denver and Baltimore. I also think a Nashville game would be interesting.

  8. Was trying to think of the worst possible place of the current NFL cities to host a Super Bowl. I think it’s Kansas City.

  9. I don’t know why they always pick these warm weather venues, it’s boring to see the Superbowl in the same place every three years. I hope it snows a lot during the New York Superbowl so all the fake-fan A-listers get turned off and then real fans can start going again.

  10. OCCUPY PHOENIX. We don’t have any aging hippies or dim-witted college students that are interested in protesting capitalism, so there’s plenty of room at the stadium.

  11. The NFL has become sissy like. Football is played in freezing cold weather with snow and sleet during the Regular season and the Playoffs…
    Why not the Superbowl?

    I would love to see the Bowl played in Green bay, Chicago, Cleveland or Buffalo. Anybody else agree?

  12. It’s going to be in Tampa!! They have already made the arrangements for all the upgrades at Raymond James stadium. Aloe, wouldn’t it be great to consider some college towns for the superbowl or at least Instead of a second London game. Imagine a regular season game on a college campus in gainsville, Alabama, Penn state, auburn, Texas, tennesee. Would be a great atmosphere!!

  13. Never knew a Super Bowl was determined to be boring or not by the location it’s held at. I like to watch, ya know, the game… Guess that’s just me though.

    Anyway, you won’t have a problem Rosenthal. MDS on the other hand, I’m not sure why you guys keep him around.

  14. southpaw2k says:
    Oct 11, 2011 10:22 AM

    Like where? It’s not like Dallas did such a great job when they had hosted the last Super Bowl. And you can forget having a place like Denver host it, given the thin air and winter weather out there. DC could be a cold weather option, but FedEx Field is too far outside the city to work.

    I was thinking anywhere? Who says the SB has to be played in a warm weather venue? Football is a game of all seasons why should the SB be any different?

  15. EJ says:
    Oct 11, 2011 10:47 AM
    The NFL has become sissy like. Football is played in freezing cold weather with snow and sleet during the Regular season and the Playoffs…
    Why not the Superbowl?

    I would love to see the Bowl played in Green bay, Chicago, Cleveland or Buffalo. Anybody else agree?

    ————————————————–

    One major flaw with the whole cold weather idea for the game: Sure, the game itself would be entertaining to watch, but the city has to be touristy enough to warrant fans visiting there for several days prior to and after the game. Chicago has enough stuff going on to bring 75,000 out of town fans to check out the city for a few days, but none of those other cities are as likely vacation spots. Really, what could a person unfamiliar with Cleveland or Buffalo do for three days?

    Bottom line – it’s not just about the game, it’s about the cities selling the league that they can support the influx of tourists for nearly a week. Cities like San Diego, Tampa, Miami, Phoenix, and New York can all do that (and Chicago, if the league were to consider that city as a host location). Most cold weather cities can’t do that.

  16. Will the Super Bowl ever come back to Pasadena at he Rose Bowl? I know a team doesn’t play in that building or even in LA but it’s just a picturesque place for the big game.

    The last Super Bowl played there was in January 1993 Buffalo vs. Dallas.

  17. I’d vote for the Rose Bowl out of pure sentimentality, if they allowed it to be played in college stadiums. I’ve seen too many NFL Films specials on the old Super Bowls played there, with trees peeking over the rim of the stadium, bright, sunny weather, etc.

  18. Tampa.

    NEVER London… we need to keep all that CASH infusion right here in the states. Lord knows the hardworking folks in ANY economy here could use it.

  19. For those commenting about potential poor weather cities.. I don’t think they do it for the teams, it is more for the fans. They want festivities, travel, etc to go smoothly

  20. Thankfully, considering the time difference between the U.S. and London, the Super Bowl will never be played there. The NFL will always want the game to appear in prime time on the east coast, so in order to have a 6:30 PM start time, the game wouldn’t be able to kick off in London till about 12:30 AM.

  21. realitypolice says:
    Oct 11, 2011 10:13 AM
    I think they should have in Anchorage, Alaska. Now that would supply some really MANLY football conditions!!!!

    Yeah, ice, snow, yeah, real football, yeah! Blah, blah, blah, durp de durp de durp.

    *~*~*~*~*~*

    RP, you’re back! Where you been, buddy?

  22. I firmly agree with sj39.

    Each city which sponsors a NFL team should have the opportunity to host the Superbowl in their stadium. Not only is this the most fair method for NFL fans, but it is economically just.

    Furthermore, I think that Green Bay deserves to host the Superbowl more than anyone else. When your stadium is consistently ranked in the top 3 of stadium experiences and your fans prove that they live for football, how can one justify deniying the city this oppertunity?

    Finally, the Superbowl trophy is named after Green Bay’s legendary coach. Is it not odd that green bay is not allowed to host a game?

  23. dig this Rosenthal…later in the day when they pick Glendale, Arizona do yourself a favor…since it’s “so spread out” ( poor baby ) keep your sorry arse home

  24. Oct 11, 2011 11:30 AM
    I firmly agree with sj39.

    Furthermore, I think that Green Bay deserves to host the Superbowl more than anyone else. When your stadium is consistently ranked in the top 3 of stadium experiences and your fans prove that they live for football, how can one justify deniying the city this oppertunity?

    Finally, the Superbowl trophy is named after Green Bay’s legendary coach. Is it not odd that green bay is not allowed to host a game?
    ==========================

    I don’t blame people for focusing on the game itself when comparing Super Bowl cities.

    But you have to realize that there is so much more to hosting a super bowl than having a great stadium experience.

    The NFL requires cities to have at least 20,000 hotel rooms within reasonable driving distance to the game.

    For God’s sake, the Packers team hotel is 28 miles away in Appleton! I know, I stay at the hotel when I am in GB for business. There is absolutely no chance that they could provide the infra-structure necessary to host the game.

    What are they going to do, put 20,000 trailers in the Kmart parking lot?

  25. mightymightylafootball says:

    RP, you’re back! Where you been, buddy?
    ================

    Been busy, get here when I can. Thanks for the shout out.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!