Skip to content

Seahawks say they’re not pursuing a Super Bowl bid

San Francisco 49ers v Seattle Seahawks Getty Images

On Tuesday, 710 ESPN in Seattle reported that the Seahawks, in conjunction with the Seattle Sports Commission, made a submission to the NFL’s Super Bowl Advisory Committee, in the apparently hopes of eventually submitting a formal bid to host a Super Bowl.  Seattlepi.com wrote about it, we wrote about the item about it, and now the Seahawks are denying it.

Maybe.

“We are not presently pursuing a Super Bowl bid for the City of Seattle,” says the Seahawks at their official Twitter page.

It would be easy to say that the 49ers’ rivals in the NFC West aren’t “pursuing” but simply “evaluating” a Super Bowl bid, and it also may be accurate.  Indeed, 710 ESPN didn’t report that the Seahawks are pursuing a Super Bowl bid.  Before a bid can be pursued, the Super Bowl Advisory Committee has to invite the city to make a bid.

Seattle has not yet been invited to make a bid, so there’s nothing yet to pursue.

Until the Seahawks declare that the report that the team and the Seattle Sports Commission made a submission to the NFL’s Super Bowl Advisory Committee is false, the denial that a Super Bowl bid is being pursued does nothing to contradict the 710 ESPN report.

Permalink 15 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Seattle Seahawks
15 Responses to “Seahawks say they’re not pursuing a Super Bowl bid”
  1. tialen says: Aug 28, 2012 11:46 PM

    no bad seats in that house

  2. tialen says: Aug 28, 2012 11:47 PM

    And why are we so worried about a little rain during a football game? really??

  3. voiceofreasonsays says: Aug 28, 2012 11:47 PM

    It doesn’t matter what city is the host, the scene/ending is guaranteed to be RGIII hoisting a Super Bowl Trophy as the QB for the Washington Redskins.

  4. peytonsneck18 says: Aug 29, 2012 12:33 AM

    Lol @ Voiceofreasoning

  5. buckybadger says: Aug 29, 2012 1:15 AM

    Seattle is great city and they have a great stadium. Been to it twice. Not sure Seattle is an attractive city in February however. Not against it, I just wouldn’t hold my breath.

  6. NoHomeTeam says: Aug 29, 2012 1:37 AM

    Already on board. Might actually consider contacting a ticket broker I know if the Emerald City got the game.

  7. blacknyellablacknyella says: Aug 29, 2012 1:46 AM

    Seattle isn’t pursuing a Super Bowl? Thank God! That would be miserable!

  8. whoknowsnothing says: Aug 29, 2012 2:09 AM

    I don’t see why not? I’m not a Seahawks fan, but I hear they have a great stadium.

  9. randallflagg52 says: Aug 29, 2012 2:34 AM

    Have Baltimore host it. Very mild weather compared to northern cities in the middle of winter, yet not the pristine weather of southern or western cities like Tampa or San Diego. Not to mention Baltimore has an actual football fanbase (unlike Tampa or San Diego). Good middle ground compared to the sterile locations the NFL has had the superbowl for the last 40 some years… Personally I’m tired of seeing the weather effect the outcome of the SB, real teams play outside in any conditions. I’m tired of seeing these sissy dome stadiums get the “honors” of hosting the SB.

  10. slugbaitspace says: Aug 29, 2012 2:49 AM

    “no bad seats in that house”

    And they probably won’t add non-existent seats, either.

    I went to the inaugural game against the Cardinals, and numerous games since. Sat in various seats, various angles, never disappointed. Lots of great beers on tap, too…and they also serve Bud, just in case you don’t like beer.

    After the Super Bowl, major party in Pioneer Square…it’s just a three-minute walk away. Plenty of hotel accommadations. Decent transportation system. Bears are still in hibernation during Feb, so it’s safe to bring your kids. Cougars seldom venture west past Bellevue anymore, either. But bald eagles are making a huge comeback, so leave your purse poodles at home, ladies.

    Only real negative is that annoying train whistle…

  11. competitivecompetitioncompeter says: Aug 29, 2012 4:27 AM

    Yeah. Second that one. Pass.

    It’s not that we mind the influx of tourists and guest hookers…

    But i think Seattle is kinda done paying for jinky public/private civic projects, like the kind that you usually cough up to make a superbowl beg, er, bid.

  12. joetoronto says: Aug 29, 2012 4:59 AM

    Seattle is way too remote and way too small to host a Super Bowl.

    Having it in Jacksonville was a mistake the league won’t make again.

    It’ll never happen.

  13. gadzod says: Aug 29, 2012 6:24 AM

    I hate seeing Miami, Phoenix, New Orleans, and Tampa. I’m happy that they are finally letting us have a Super Bowl with possible snow (East Rutherford in next year’s Super Bowl).

    I think every team should be allowed to host a Super Bowl. Screw that perfect weather in the said cities weather mentioned above. Most of these teams had to get to the Super Bowl playing in the Rain, Snow and Wind. Let them play in the Super Bowl in that as well!

  14. trollhammer20 says: Aug 29, 2012 9:01 AM

    I’m shocked. You mean no one has made the obvious “Of course they aren’t, they just made a rookie QB their starter!” joke?

  15. schmitty2 says: Aug 29, 2012 9:34 AM

    trollhammer20 says:Aug 29, 2012 9:01 AM

    I’m shocked. You mean no one has made the obvious “Of course they aren’t, they just made a rookie QB their starter!” joke?

    The city hosting a Super bowl has nothing to do with who is on the team there

Leave a Reply

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