Skip to content

Denver mayor wants a Mile High Super Bowl

AFC Championship - New England Patriots v Denver Broncos Getty Images

In Colorado, you can now legally smoke a super bowl.  Eventually, you may be able to attend one, too.

Via Mike Klis of the Denver Post, Mayor Michael Hancock is making the rounds in Manhattan, cheering on the Broncos and stumping for the opportunity to host the game.

“I’m here to root for the Denver Broncos to win the Super Bowl,” Hancock said Friday.  “We also want to bring the Super Bowl to Denver.”

It’s inevitable that more and more cold-weather cities with open-air stadiums will attempt to secure the game, now that the New York/New Jersey Super Bowl appears to be poised to unfold without weather being an issue.

“We have the infrastructure to host this event in the future,” Hancock said.  “We have the hotel rooms, the transportation and the stadiums that would make it work.  We’ve hosted events of this scale in the past and have been successful.”

Still, giving the game to Denver would constitute another game of Russian roulette with the premier American sporting event.  It’s a game the NFL is willing to play, because having cold-weather cities at the table will increase the quality and value of each and every Super Bowl bid.

Permalink 41 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Denver Broncos, Home, Rumor Mill
41 Responses to “Denver mayor wants a Mile High Super Bowl”
  1. nfloracle says: Feb 1, 2014 9:59 AM

    “In Denver, you can now officially smoke a super bowl.”

    Pretty good line to start Saturday morning, Florio. Thanks for the chuckle.

  2. bucrightoff says: Feb 1, 2014 10:18 AM

    There has to be a strain in Colorado called “Mile High” right?

  3. whynotusecommonsense says: Feb 1, 2014 10:23 AM

    Weather is too much of an unknown in cold weather cities. Got lucky this year. Meanwhile it has snowed 8 inches in the last 36 hours in parts of Denver.

    Keep the Superbowl in warm cities.

  4. nicofthenorthstar says: Feb 1, 2014 10:27 AM

    “In Colorado, you can now legally smoke a super bowl.”
    I don’t think this will ever get old, always puts a smile on my face and a song in my heart. Well done, sir!

  5. jjsooner says: Feb 1, 2014 10:51 AM

    This is some funny crap. So how engaged would a crowd of stoned fans be? Lmao. I’d like to see one in Denver. What a hoot.

  6. 49erdynasty says: Feb 1, 2014 10:51 AM

    This is a miserable idea. All these cities need to stop thinking they are NYC. The reason this NYC Super Bowl will end up being great for the fans is logistics and attractions. NYC is one of the best cities in the world, has a million hotels and has at least 3 major airports.

    Went to the SB in NO last year and despite booking over one month before, we still had to fly through Jackson, MS and then drive 3 hours to go stay in some nasty AirBnB apartment. Spending less money and booking much later this year would have gotten us direct flights into JFK, and had us in a 4 star hotel near midtown.

    If the fans matter, SBs should only be hosted by cities than can handle them: NYC, Dallas, LA area, and SF Bay Area.

  7. kane337 says: Feb 1, 2014 11:56 AM

    No

  8. elliottcovert says: Feb 1, 2014 12:17 PM

    If the mayor of Denver wants to get high during the Superbowl, that’s his business, but there’s no need to advertise it to the whole world by saying so!

  9. humpty20 says: Feb 1, 2014 12:25 PM

    Denver has hosted the final 4, the mlb all star, the nba all star and world series games. i am sure they are equipped for the superbowl but the weather will once again be a factor as is has snowed off and on for the last 48 hours. it would be another gamble that even though i live in colorado would rather they not make.

  10. lolcowboys says: Feb 1, 2014 12:29 PM

    Where the eff do you live 49erdynasty?

    Assuming Bay Area, there are direct flights from SFO to MSY.

    Time of booking has nothing to do with flight routes. Airlines will also increase the number of direct flights to satisfy demand.

    Sure, MSY is no JFK, but it is also no Jacksonville.

  11. 8oneanddones says: Feb 1, 2014 12:32 PM

    I like it. Denver has the stadium and infrastructure in place, and the super bowl is also during the middle of ski season in the mountains. The media and corporate visitors would have a blast during super bowl week here. The airport can easily handle everybody, and there are plenty of hotels.

    Who cares if the weather isn’t perfect? It’s football. They can leave a pancho and fuzzy blanket on each seat and call it a day.

  12. catfish252 says: Feb 1, 2014 12:46 PM

    I still believe the Super Bowl should be played in every NFL city. Weather has always been part of the game. All cities have the possibilities of inclement weather, earthquakes, floods etc. How about a big 7.5 earthquake in LA a day or two before the Super Bowl at the Rose Bowl, or those really nasty lightning storms that Miami plays host to? It can be a crap shoot no matter what city hosts the game indoors or outside.

  13. edpeters101 says: Feb 1, 2014 1:01 PM

    I live here, and looking out my window I see over a foot of snow, and it’s 18 with a chance of more snow! The Super Bowl should be played in warm weather, no ski weather!!

  14. laserw says: Feb 1, 2014 1:07 PM

    Since Pandora’s box has been opened and a cold weather stadium has been allowed to host, this is what you get.

    Now there should be a rotating stadium hosting at every NFL city where there is an NFL franchise.

  15. ratsfoiledagain says: Feb 1, 2014 1:10 PM

    49erdynasty says:
    Feb 1, 2014 10:51 AM
    This is a miserable idea. All these cities need to stop thinking they are NYC. The reason this NYC Super Bowl will end up being great for the fans is logistics and attractions. NYC is one of the best cities in the world, has a million hotels and has at least 3 major airports.

    Went to the SB in NO last year and despite booking over one month before, we still had to fly through Jackson, MS and then drive 3 hours to go stay in some nasty AirBnB apartment. Spending less money and booking much later this year would have gotten us direct flights into JFK, and had us in a 4 star hotel near midtown.

    If the fans matter, SBs should only be hosted by cities than can handle them: NYC, Dallas, LA area, and SF Bay Area.
    ************
    A 9er guys saying the San Fran area should host, but not other cities. Funny.

    Places like Den and Seattle are more the capable of hosting. There’s plenty of hotel space in, and round, the surrounding areas.

    For Denver, people can fly into Aspen, or Steam Boat, go skiing for a few days, then take their jet, or a turbo prop and spend 40 mins in the air.

    There are plenty of regional airports in the Denver metro area that would support the flow.

  16. kd75 says: Feb 1, 2014 1:17 PM

    Denver forecast for Sunday: Sunny with a high of 34.

  17. taintedsaints2009 says: Feb 1, 2014 1:19 PM

    The pot jokes stopped being funny about a year ago.

  18. surfinbird1 says: Feb 1, 2014 1:31 PM

    The Reefer Bowl. Were nobody really cares who wins.

  19. wheels579 says: Feb 1, 2014 1:33 PM

    What mayor wouldn’t want to host a Super Bowl? This is a non-story.

  20. twosco2 says: Feb 1, 2014 2:09 PM

    Great story. I grew up in Denver area (FoCo) and played golf Christmas Day, also been snowed in on Christmas Day. It’s a craps shoot on the weather conditions for any certain day. Football is an all weather sport. I agree, if you have a pro team, then you should get to host a SB.
    Now the cannabis haters, that’s a different story. They are highly predictable. Most seem to get there religion mixed up with individual rights, and the replies appear to coincide with the national public view, most favorable. If you want to get high, consume some THC, won’t hurt you, might even help. If you want to get healthy, consume some CBD. Everything is available in one plant.

  21. iknowurider72 says: Feb 1, 2014 2:18 PM

    The NFL should move the SB around to every city that has an NFL team. Each city has made a big investment in supporting those teams and in many cases taxes have paid for the stadiums. The NFL should be pushing the SB revenue to each of those communities. The weather and location variance will only add excitement.

  22. chinahand11 says: Feb 1, 2014 2:24 PM

    It may be a crap shoot weather-wise, but you aren’t going to get an ice storm in Miami or San Diego.

  23. frostymugobeer says: Feb 1, 2014 2:36 PM

    It should be in Denver….and it should be next year so Manning can win his 3rd ring at home then retire !

  24. frostymugobeer says: Feb 1, 2014 2:40 PM

    and Denver is better equipped to host than SF by a long shot.
    the traffic alone for a SB would lock up the entire bay area….it’s already gridlocked 4-5 hrs a day on avg.
    Ive lived in both areas for many years and I would MUCH rather go to a game in Denver.
    And people would be shocked to see how many beautiful sunny days there are in Dever in the winter.

  25. rodvmunchiii says: Feb 1, 2014 2:50 PM

    Tampa was the runner-up to host tomorrow’s Super Bowl – weather forecast:

    Sunday, 6pm ET: 76 and clear.

  26. lafan85 says: Feb 1, 2014 3:06 PM

    And so does every other mayor

  27. dkinphx says: Feb 1, 2014 3:24 PM

    So what we’ve learned from today’s posts is that SOME warm-weather fans can’t handle weather that the softest, delicate women of cold-weather cities handle for several months every year.

    “It might be cold”

    “It might snow”

    “I might slip on some ice and knock some sense into my brain”

    Honestly, what a bunch of www’s(warm weather wussies).

    By the way chinahand, I’m not sure what you’re point is. Yes there might be ice in Feb in Denver but the NFL seldom stops football games because of temp, snow, or ice.

    You know what they DO stop it for every time it happens? Lighting. The kind that comes with rain. You know, like the rain that can happen in both Miami and San Diego in the winter months?

    Look, I know alot of people like their trips to the ocean cities. They have beaches and warm weather. Their are also 364 other days each year that you can go to these places and get that.

  28. coloneldukelacross says: Feb 1, 2014 3:24 PM

    Why can’t the winner of the Super Bowl be the host city the following year?

  29. thegreatgabbert says: Feb 1, 2014 3:42 PM

    First Super Bowl in history that lasted eight and a half hours. Without overtime.

  30. stoytashaan says: Feb 1, 2014 3:51 PM

    What are the accommodations like in Buffalo?

  31. thegreatgabbert says: Feb 1, 2014 3:51 PM

    Players suffered from shortness of breath and coughing fits in Denver because of the attitude.

  32. buckybadger says: Feb 1, 2014 3:52 PM

    Denver would make a great city to host. I have lived here for 10 years and this is actually the first year where our weather isn’t better than the current host city (which is a bit funny as it is in a cold weather city). Denver is far more likely to be 55 and sunny at this time of year than snowy. Sure it is a chance but it is not Russian Roulette by any means. I went was golfing and biking just 3 days ago.

    We also have another great benefit that has been in the news.

  33. derekgorgonstar says: Feb 1, 2014 3:58 PM

    So you can have bad weather in the regular season and playoffs, but not in the Super Bowl because……why?

    Football should be played outdoors, in the elements.

  34. humpty20 says: Feb 1, 2014 4:08 PM

    AT dkinphx:
    Spoken like someone who has never attended it.

    Nobody is saying it cant be done, but the events that surround the superbowl are far more enjoyable in better weather, not to mention the game. I live in Colorado and I am telling you September and October games in shorts are a whole lot more fun then December games, and if it werent the playoffs January games too.

    Go through the past Superbowls and see which games are considered the best, here’s a clue, it isnt the cold weather games.

    But hey, i would go, but like I said, I am here already.

  35. tigerlilac says: Feb 1, 2014 4:53 PM

    As someone who prefers to watch the game in high definition from the comfort of my home I don’t really care what city it is played in unless one of the teams has the equivalent of a home game (sooner or later that will happen).

  36. dkinphx says: Feb 1, 2014 5:08 PM

    AT humpty20:

    You got me there. I have never attended. Since, you have,presumably, I can guess that you have the money to go to warm weather whenever you choose.

    You should enjoy yourself in whatever place you find yourself. The fact that you apparently couldn’t enjoy a SB in a cold weather city doesn’t mean others can’t, though. It’s not just a SB for you, it’s for everybody.

    “Go through the past Superbowls and see which games are considered the best, here’s a clue, it isnt the cold weather games. ”

    Yes, there were a few cold-weather games in the early years but none in what…30 years or more? I’m not talking played in a cold-weather DOMED stadium. I’m talking played in the elements. Something to remember about that comment….in the early NFL years there wasn’t as much effort put into all the “extras” for the fans. It was strictly about the game. Of course fans like all the amenities and “perfect” weather. They’re soft.

    The game, however, demands no such amenities. THE GAME IS GREAT no matter when, or under what conditions, it’s played. Football fans understand that the game is meant to be played in whatever elements present themselves at the time.
    Trying to manipulate the game so that it can ONLY occur under ideal conditions cheapens the value of the outcome in comparison to early games where teams won IN SPITE OF conditions.

    Like QB’s and receivers, who must now always be protected from everything, so must fans I guess.

    No, it’s not your daddy’s football anymore.

  37. indrathegod says: Feb 1, 2014 6:15 PM

    I live in Denver and I think it’s plausible. The DNC was held here for the election (and exceeded expectations) and Denver is the top 3 expected to host the RNC. I like it.

  38. izzyb08 says: Feb 1, 2014 8:29 PM

    300+ days of sunshine!, The 3rd largest airport in the country, plenty of hotel space, one of the largest stadiums in the league, a great public transportation system, world class convention center, a great night life scene in LoDo, just a short drive to some world class skiing, and the backdrop of the mighty Rocky Mountains. Yeah, Denver will be hosting the SB in the next 10 yrs. It’s all but a guaranteed.

  39. proceednet says: Feb 2, 2014 1:43 PM

    Having the Super Bowl , here in Denver, would make for a relaxing weekend. That’s for sure. However, over the years I have attended a quantity of “snow bowls” at Mile High. It isn’t as important, for the most part, if a regular season game is played in adverse conditions. But, the occasional playoff game HAS been determined by the weather. Just like the gamble, today in New Jersey, the Super Bowl is too important to allow mother nature to call the shots!

  40. champs794 says: Feb 2, 2014 4:34 PM

    From August preseason games in Miami to an NFC Championship in Green Bay, it has forever been perfectly OK to take the “risk” of weather in any NFL city on any other week in the NFL calendar.

    Super Bowl week is no different.

  41. humpty20 says: Feb 15, 2014 1:14 PM

    AT dkinphx says:

    So, a superbowl for me=my opinion. But apparently a superbowl for you=everyone should follow. I dont think so.

    It is just my opinion, and I am sure whoever calls the shots, cares about mine as much as yours.

    I will attend any weather game, it just makes sense to me to not leave the fate of my team up to the mother nature factor if we have a choice.

    Just sit at home, watch it on TV, and be cozy, and talk about how everyone else is so soft. Old schooler.

Leave a Reply

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