Skip to content

Chicago, Washington, New England all may make Super Bowl bids

Super Bowl XLVI Getty Images

Now that the “first cold-weather Super Bowl” has come and gone (and turned out not even to be the coldest Super Bowl), it’s time for other cold-weather communities with outdoor stadiums to start making Super Bowl bids of their own.

We’ve already noted that Denver and Philadelphia are angling to host future Super Bowls. Other places that want to get into the mix include Chicago, Washington and New England.

The Associated Press notes that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has already begun lobbying NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for a Super Bowl, while Daniel Snyder and Robert Kraft have spoken up for Washington and New England.

“We want a Super Bowl here, we deserve a Super Bowl here,” Snyder said last fall. “It’s the nation’s capital, it makes all the sense in the world.”

Said Kraft, “We would love one day to hold it. I’m a great supporter of playing this game in all elements.”

Some NFL cities (Green Bay, Buffalo and Cincinnati among them) just don’t have the hotel rooms and necessary infrastructure to host a Super Bowl. But weather will no longer disqualify the cities that are big enough to host the event. Get ready for more Super Bowls in northern climates.

Permalink 134 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Chicago Bears, New England Patriots, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Washington Redskins
134 Responses to “Chicago, Washington, New England all may make Super Bowl bids”
  1. ialwayswantedtobeabanker says: Feb 4, 2014 9:15 AM

    Pandora’s Box has officially been opened.

  2. l0glcalv0icesays says: Feb 4, 2014 9:17 AM

    How terrific would it be to watch the Washington Redskins, who are GOD’S CHOSEN TEAM, win a Super Bowl in Washington DC? #HailToTheRedskins #RedskinsSuperBowlChamps

  3. mancave001 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:17 AM

    Please stop. Though I can’t wait to see the inevitable blizzard one year!

  4. thebirdsareback says: Feb 4, 2014 9:21 AM

    One is a dump on the Coldest Lake in the world, One is in the middle of the woods in the Crappy northeast U.S.of A. and Washington’s stadium is a dump, in the hood of southern maryland, where there lacks transportation and parking with literally nothing to do. Baltimore, and Philadelphia are the ONLY east coast teams capable of pulling off a successful cold weather super bowl that is fun, inviting and scenic. These three cities are a joke of consideration. serious joke

  5. achap39 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:22 AM

    As a Chicago resident…PLEASE, DO NOT HOLD IT HERE!

    Traffic is horrid enough without the extra tens/hundreds of thousands invading the city during Super Bowl week.

  6. browns627 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:23 AM

    as in typical fashion cleveland leaders are sitting around thinking how to screw up the town and dont even try to do something positive. even if we dont have a chance in hell of getting a super bowl typical leadership been running this once great city into the ground for 20 years now

  7. sdelmonte says: Feb 4, 2014 9:23 AM

    Denver actually makes more sense than most “cold weather” sites as it’s often not cold there in January – been there four of five MLK Day weekends and it’s never been cold once.

    Washington would be a bigger risk than NYC since even a little snow screws things up.

    New England would have to take into account getting everyone to the backwoods of Foxboro from Boston. But at least they know how to handle snow there.

  8. bucrightoff says: Feb 4, 2014 9:26 AM

    Chicago and DC, two of America’s murder capitals? Sounds like a winner.

  9. ridingwithnohandlebars says: Feb 4, 2014 9:26 AM

    Pretty sure Goodell made a deal with the devil to have good weather this year. Not sure how much of his soul is left for future deals though.

  10. realnflmaster says: Feb 4, 2014 9:27 AM

    Chicago has a tiny, worthless stadium. No way they get the Superbowl. 60,000 seats is pathetic.

  11. ez4u2sa says: Feb 4, 2014 9:27 AM

    Why not? If the NFL is going to select outdoor cold weather sites, these destinations are just as deserving as New Jersey.

  12. tfilarski says: Feb 4, 2014 9:28 AM

    a superbowl in chicago would be a joke. NFL would never go for it. Soldier field has 20k less seats than MetLife.

  13. nfl4days says: Feb 4, 2014 9:28 AM

    ACL arena has no business hosting a preseason game, let alone the superbowl.

  14. wwwmattcom says: Feb 4, 2014 9:29 AM

    New England would be terrible. Boston is too far away from Foxboro and is in a suburb.

  15. skippynj says: Feb 4, 2014 9:29 AM

    Super Bowl week this year was awful. This is a bad idea and needs to be nipped in the bud, but as we all know, if there is an extra dollar to be made by the NFL for putting the game in cold weather cities, they won’t hesitate to do just that.

  16. bobleblah says: Feb 4, 2014 9:30 AM

    Will the governor of Maryland remind everyone that the DC Super Bowl would actually be played in Landover Maryland?

  17. russellwilsonismymvp says: Feb 4, 2014 9:30 AM

    If you wants to see star players going down with torn ACLs all game long, then by all means have one on the brown/green asphalt of FedEx field.

  18. 92nick182govikings says: Feb 4, 2014 9:31 AM

    It better come to minny once our new stadium is up and running. Wouldnt it be amazing if the Vikings ended up playing a super bowl in their own stadium!

  19. mantastic54 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:31 AM

    I’m a bears fan and you just can’t play the game in Chicago. I understand dealing with the elements, but in Chicago the weather can completely sanatorium the game. Do you really want to risk playing the biggest game if the year in below freezing temps with 45mph winds?

  20. mmmpierogi says: Feb 4, 2014 9:31 AM

    With FedEx field being in Maryland, hopefully we wouldn’t have to listen to more politicians whine about DC getting all the attention from the media and public while Landover, MD gets left out like we did from politicians in Bergen Co. and elsewhere in Jersey this year.

  21. bmorepositive123 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:33 AM

    Washington????????? Forget the owner. Forget the nickname controversey…. THAT STADIUM IS A PIECE OF TRASHHHHHH. Less than 20 years old and its falling apart!!!

    There’s rust EVERYWHERE!

  22. 69finfan says: Feb 4, 2014 9:33 AM

    While they’re at it, how about the North Pole?

  23. malek773 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:35 AM

    I’m from Chicago and I love watching games in terrible conditions, but seriously it would be the worst idea in the world to have a superbowl here. Just this past month we’ve had tempatures drop to negative 50 with the windchill. We’ve had snow storms that have lasted days. This is the superbowl. When watching two teams compete to see who is truly the best, I don’t want weather to be the deciding factor. NFL got lucky this year but it wont be that lucky every year if they push there luck. I don’t care about any other game being affected by weather, but not the superbowl.

  24. jimbo75025 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:36 AM

    The NFL was lucky–this time. If the game was played one day later the script on the weather would be far different.

    As a football fan, I have no issues with games being played in severe elements. To the sponsors the game itself is an afterthought though. Just a necessary evil scheduled between parties and events.

    The NFL knows who butters its bread and unfortunately it is not the fans.

  25. jmyjmy70 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:38 AM

    Lets just go back to playing the Super Bowl in the top seeds stadium. You want a Super Bowl game, earn it.

  26. Getoffmylawn! says: Feb 4, 2014 9:38 AM

    Why is it that I get the feeling that if Washington DC gets a Super Bowl, the NFL will keep it’s tax exempt status much longer?

  27. mrgreenbird says: Feb 4, 2014 9:43 AM

    I love the Bears. Soldier Field is not a dump, but it’s about 40,000 seats too small to host. Way to think ahead!…..Forget about it.

  28. seatownballers says: Feb 4, 2014 9:45 AM

    Only place it cities that have new stadiums, or renovated ones. Chicago and Oakland, are so old its embarrassing.

  29. kneelbeforesod says: Feb 4, 2014 9:47 AM

    Would YOU trust Dan Snyder to manage a massive football operation like the Super Bowl?

  30. eatitfanboy says: Feb 4, 2014 9:47 AM

    This is preposterous.

    The NFL got lucky by 24 hours. Forget the game on the field. If yesterday’s weather had been Sunday’s weather, half the people complaining about how long it took to get to the stadium never would have gotten there at all. And if they had gotten there, they still would have been there Monday morning.

    I’m not against cold weather Super Bowls. But they should only be held in cities where the stadiums are within walking distance from the majority of the hotels.

    Foxboro is THIRTY MILES from Boston. Washington? Give me a break. Have you tried getting anywhere in the DC Metro area in the slightest bit of weather?

    Besides, people are missing the point. The Super Bowl was in NY/NJ because they built a new stadium, period. So unless any of those cities are considering building their team a new home, I would suggest they don’t waste their time.

  31. revren10 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:48 AM

    Super Bowl in New England would be awesome.

  32. truesportsjunkie says: Feb 4, 2014 9:49 AM

    Roger Goodell also thinks Antarctica is nice this time of year.

  33. patriotsdefense says: Feb 4, 2014 9:50 AM

    New Orleans, California, Florida. Rinse and repeat.

  34. ravensterps says: Feb 4, 2014 9:50 AM

    Landover is one of the ugliest places in America. No chance they hold the Super Bowl there.

  35. jimthebuilder27 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:52 AM

    No way Chicago holds a Super Bowl.

    How many seats do they have? Less than 62,000? For the second largest market in the NFL (as LA doesn’t have a team) that is pathetic!

    And there is that something to do with the field itself. It is poorly maintained, and probably the worst field in the NFL. It would be an embarrassment to the league.

  36. floratiotime says: Feb 4, 2014 9:57 AM

    All 3 should be considered … once they do what New York did and build a new stadium.

  37. dtownsportslions says: Feb 4, 2014 9:58 AM

    Bring the SB back to Detroit

  38. whatnojets says: Feb 4, 2014 9:59 AM

    Let’s have it in Cleveland!

    That city needs to see some real “professional” football”.

  39. southpaw2k says: Feb 4, 2014 10:01 AM

    If this expansion of locations to include more cold-weather cities as hosts for the Super Bowl, what’s bound to happen is a combination of two things:

    1.) A massive snowstorm affecting the field of play,

    and

    2.) A warm weather team and/or a dome team playing in such conditions.

    Plus you’ve got fans of both teams trying to watch the game and deal with weather they are not normally accustomed to. The halftime show would have to be played in an alternate location somewhere. Leaving the stadium could be potentially hazardous if the driving conditions are bad.

    The NFL dodged a bullet this past weekend, but sooner or later their luck will run out.

  40. packr1 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:02 AM

    Lambeau ! Best stadium in the NFL, best fans. Who wouldn’t want to travel to Green Bay in the winter? Football was meant to be played outdoors in sub zero wind chills. Go Pack Go!

  41. harrisonhits2 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:02 AM

    The issue you get with New England is that Foxboro is far enough from Boston with limited hotel space that you can’t really have that much for Super Bowl events happen there. So like NYC, you’ll have all your events in Boston and then have to get everyone to Foxboro.

    Which is bad enough for a normal Pats game. Add in the thousands of extra press and other support for halftime show etc and it could be a situation where a good percentage of the fans don’t event get into the stadium until after the game is underway.

  42. tformation says: Feb 4, 2014 10:03 AM

    I’m from Chicago. I love Chicago. I’m a big Bears fan.

    But, no.

    No Super Bowl in Chicago. Doesn’t make sense.

  43. eatitfanboy says: Feb 4, 2014 10:08 AM

    jmyjmy70 says:
    Feb 4, 2014 9:38 AM
    Lets just go back to playing the Super Bowl in the top seeds stadium. You want a Super Bowl game, earn it.

    The NFL has never done this.

  44. dvdman123 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:11 AM

    I’m still laughing after reading this article. I cannot believe the NFL would even consider it. They were LUCKY this time around…..very lucky.

  45. goodellisruiningtheleague says: Feb 4, 2014 10:12 AM

    I guess having the Super Bowl in Washington is one way for them to be in the Super Bowl since the team that plays there won’t be making it under Danny.

  46. ninetysixer says: Feb 4, 2014 10:14 AM

    Washington? this is a joke right? cold weather and the game would be played in scenic PG county….would rather see it in Jacksonville again

  47. johnnyjagfan says: Feb 4, 2014 10:16 AM

    Why not Buffalo?!?

    Seriously, cold-weather towns need not apply. It freezes in ATL, JAX during Super Bowl week and people whine. Imagine if a foot of snow was dumping on the game and you couldn’t see the field.

  48. 2difshoe says: Feb 4, 2014 10:18 AM

    Chicago, give me a break.
    As a resident here, January alone had 50 inches of snow. The average temp has been 15 degrees and wind chills at 25 below.
    Today we are expecting 4 to 8 more inches of snow. The temp this Thursday, high of 8 with wind chills at 15 below.

    Yeah, those are the temps I want to watch a Superbowl in.

  49. mgmac says: Feb 4, 2014 10:19 AM

    Houston has a great stadium and leads the league in topless venues

  50. wfederal says: Feb 4, 2014 10:22 AM

    Charlotte would actually be a great place to hold it. Lots to do in Charlotte, tons of hotels and great weather. Just my two cents

  51. vegasgreek says: Feb 4, 2014 10:23 AM

    LETS CUT OUT THE STUPIDITY OF COLD WEATHER SB’S ! MOVE THE GAME TO HAWAII PERMANENTLY AS A REWARD FOR THE 2 HARD WORKING CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS GOING THROUGH ALL THAT ADVERSITY ! THIS IS A NO BRAINER MOVE ! THE SB IN A SUPER LOCATION ! NOBODY CARES ABOUT THE PRO BOWL !

  52. lifeistoughtrustmeimadolphinsfan says: Feb 4, 2014 10:23 AM

    So dumb. Who the hell wants to go to these cities in the winter? Keep it in the warm weather areas, no one wants to go to Green Bay for a week at the end of January, hell even the Canadians wouldn’t go.

  53. Patskrieg dot com says: Feb 4, 2014 10:30 AM

    I’d love a New England SB just to see the look on peoples faces when they show up to Foxboro, sit on Rt 1 for five hours each way and wonder why they aren’t seeing all those picturesque Boston skyline scenes that the networks show after breaks.

  54. roarfrom384 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:33 AM

    I wasn’t aware Daniel Snyder had a stadium in the nations capital.

  55. thebirdsareback says: Feb 4, 2014 10:35 AM

    As stated above by myself. BALTIMORE AND PHILADELPHIA ARE THE ONLY TWO CITIES ON THE EAST COAST CAPABLE OF HAVING A GOOD COLD WEATHER SB. Their stadiums are in their respective cities the way god intended them to be. They have hundreds of local/close proximity to stadium hotels and amenities. They have great bar scenes and scenic, historic things to see, in the cities the game would be actually held. The traffic in Baltimore is really good and would have no problem hosting the game. Plus Baltimore almost always misses out on the “Big Snow” storms. The Stadium is only 20 years old, and still looks brand new, because they actually win games, and can afford necessary improvements (Which were done last year after the superbowl victory, just in case you forgot).

  56. nvl004 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:37 AM

    Baltimore logistically could pull it off. More than enough hotels, right off I-95, and plenty of parking with Camden Yards being right next door. The city actually has more to offer than what is featured on The Wire. It will never happen though.

  57. brazzz01 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:39 AM

    Put the game in Buffalo NY.

    Lake effect blizzards would be fun to watch in a Super Bowl game.

  58. crewdawg says: Feb 4, 2014 10:43 AM

    “Chicago and DC, two of America’s murder capitals? Sounds like a winner.”
    Yet, they play the super bowl in New Orleans like every other year. One of the most dangerous cities in the nation.

  59. getyourownname says: Feb 4, 2014 10:44 AM

    “We deserve it’

    Little Danny’s sense of entitlement continues.

  60. pedmeg says: Feb 4, 2014 10:45 AM

    As a Pats fan I do enjoy going to Gillette for games – it’s a very nice stadium.

    However – weather aside, it would not be ideal location for a Super Bowl given it’s atrocious parking situation and the flow of traffic (or lack of thereof) on Route 1.

    Kraft family would just be asking for bad backlash if they put in a serious bid to host one.

  61. discountdoublecheck says: Feb 4, 2014 10:46 AM

    Sweet. We don’t already have hellacious enough traffic in the DC area.

  62. ubeengronked says: Feb 4, 2014 10:50 AM

    Im sorry, but the NFL has been on a losing streak lately in regards to brilliant ideas. 1) Thursday night football? Fail. 2) the grand experiment in England? Fail. 3) new rules to “protect the players” on the field thus wussifying the game? Fail. 4) a cold weather Super Bowl? Fail.

    As a lifelong New Englander, the thought of a Super Bowl in Foxborough makes me cringe. Let’s face it, New York dodged a serious bullet with the lack of percipitation on Sunday night. With 3 storms lined up this week up here, I dont think Foxborough or Chicago for that matter would be so lucky.

    Please stick to the “Big 3″ – Miami, San Diego and New Orleans.

  63. godofwine330 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:50 AM

    “Sucker money, every last cent.”

    That is a line from 70′s classic movie Let’s do it Again and that’s what I am going to use here. They just narrowly, narrowly missed unmitigated disaster from a winter storm in New York/New Jersey. This is a bad idea and it will continue to be a bad idea.

    I swear, the NFL is like a person who survived a potential deadly situation unscathed and now thinks that because he survived that the idea was actually a bright idea when it was far from it and it was nearly very bad. I was one hoping for a Mr. Freeze-esque, Winter wonderland, weather outside frightful snow storm to let the NFL know that you cannot predict weather in northern winters a couple of years in advance. This is only going ot hurt the fans because the Super Bowl is going to have record ratings regardless.A Super Bowl in New England, Chicago, Cleveland, Seattle (because of rain) or any northern city that doesn’t have a dome is ridiculous. This idea won’t be seen as horrible until mother nature bites them on their rear with 2 feet of snow and the stadium is only half full on national television (then they will likely pay the network not to show the empty seats).

  64. robf2010 says: Feb 4, 2014 11:01 AM

    The NFL shouldn’t even play football in Chicago or Washington until the turfs in those two stadiums are replaced and brought up to at least NCAA standards.

  65. expatpatfan says: Feb 4, 2014 11:04 AM

    I’m a Pats fan and love Boston, but Foxboro would be a terrible choice. 95 is not a great place to drive under the best of circumstances, and having tens of thousands of people trying to get out of Boston and down to the game would be a disaster.

  66. thefiesty1 says: Feb 4, 2014 11:06 AM

    Lucked out this time. don’t take a chance of it happening again. Not until they get a domed stadium.

  67. 1rockyracoon says: Feb 4, 2014 11:07 AM

    If your city isn’t a tourist destination on a regular day, then your city shouldn’t even bother bidding for the Super Bowl. The NFL made that mistake when they held it in Jacksonville. Sorry to the fans (Browns, Vikings, Bills, Bengals, Packers, etc.) of these types of places, but no one wants to spend Super Bowl week in your town.

  68. dmartin17 says: Feb 4, 2014 11:10 AM

    I’m from Mass, the LAST thing I want is a superbowl 45 miles southwest of Boston (where foxboro is)

    The real host city would be Providence, which is a dump.

    Keep the superbowl where it belongs: Warm places you want to vacation to. That means phx, LA, SD, NO, MIA…

  69. oakland49er2014 says: Feb 4, 2014 11:10 AM

    I don’t know why it was held in NYC. New Yorkers didn’t even want it there.

  70. ridingwithnohandlebars says: Feb 4, 2014 11:13 AM

    What about London?

  71. rajbais says: Feb 4, 2014 11:15 AM

    If they won’t win why bid?

  72. jimjets says: Feb 4, 2014 11:18 AM

    As well they should. Football is to be played in all weather. You all know I hate the Pats, but I support them and any other “cold weather” city in their bid to host the big game.

    It’s huge for the local economy, the small business people who would profut from it and the fans.

    This was a success in NY, and all cities should get their turn

  73. granadafan says: Feb 4, 2014 11:21 AM

    Those teams won’t get a Super Bowl until they can fleece the taxpayers into building them a new/ renovated stadium.

  74. ninetysixer says: Feb 4, 2014 11:21 AM

    Baltimore would actually be perfect, thousands of hotel rooms within walking distance of the stadium, a cruise ship terminal, Penn Station (amtrack and commuter trains) 5 mins from the stadium, a commuter train station in camden yards, lots of historic stuff to see, plenty of strip clubs (yes, that is a factor), and easy highway access to the stadium.

  75. jchuber says: Feb 4, 2014 11:22 AM

    Chicago and Washington have two of the worst playing fields in the NFL, and they have outright refused to repair or replace them.

    Rich team owners can do anything they want, while players get fined for wearing wrong color shoes. Typical NFL double standard.

  76. nvl004 says: Feb 4, 2014 11:25 AM

    “packr1 says:
    Feb 4, 2014 10:02 AM

    Lambeau ! Best stadium in the NFL, best fans. Who wouldn’t want to travel to Green Bay in the winter? Football was meant to be played outdoors in sub zero wind chills. Go Pack Go!”

    —It would be awesome to see it in that historic stadium, but it really couldn’t happen. There aren’t enough hotels in the area. Even if you had all the super bowl events in Milwaukee and took buses to the actual game, there still might not be enough hotels or a big enough airport.

  77. wend28 says: Feb 4, 2014 11:28 AM

    Chicago… No. New England… No. Suburban Maryland… No. New Jersey… Not again. The Super Bowl should be played in warm weathered cities/states. Period. Florida, California, Arizona and New Orleans. Then hit repeat. Teams and their fans shouldn’t be punished by going somewhere to freeze their rear ends off. Nothing about going to a Super Bowl in Chicago or Foxboro, which isn’t even in Boston is appealing.

  78. realskipbayless says: Feb 4, 2014 11:30 AM

    I think a snow superbowl would be interesting. I’m sure it would be a better game than the last one.

  79. canedaddy says: Feb 4, 2014 11:31 AM

    No. Just stop. Be happy that the obligatory New York Super Bowl wasn’t ruined by crappy weather, and never again hold it anywhere cold.

    I’d be in favor of a rotation of San Diego, Phoenix, New Orleans, Tampa and Miami.

  80. ctiggs says: Feb 4, 2014 11:34 AM

    I live in Cincy, there are plenty of hotels around here.

  81. jchuber says: Feb 4, 2014 11:41 AM

    Comment for godofwine330:

    How can you think it’s fair to take home field advantage away from northern cities, and give it to southern/dome cities. (SB worth estimated 1 Billion dollars total revenue) Regular season and most of play-offs played in weather.

    How is having a NFL raffle, better than giving home field advantage to team with best winning record. New expanded format will make play-offs a circus.

    Why give Dallas a SB, when their team hasn’t won anything in 20 years? So spectators can see game better? Dallas sold seats that couldn’t see playing field. Most fans watch SB on TV.

  82. iamedreed says: Feb 4, 2014 11:45 AM

    i dont get why Baltimore is continually passed over for the chance at a SB

    we have TONS of hotels all within walking distance to the stadium, and the infrastructure in place right downtown to host all of the other events leading up to the game

    yes its cold, yes it could snow, but i don’t really see why that even matters anymore, football was meant to be played in the elements

  83. caeser12 says: Feb 4, 2014 11:55 AM

    The grass on the National Mall, is better than that crap they play on at FedEx Field.

  84. crownofthehelmet says: Feb 4, 2014 11:57 AM

    I wouldn’t doubt that Kraft really wants to be part of another SB. And since he knows his team just hasn’t been the same since spygate, this is probably the best way to do it.

  85. fwippel says: Feb 4, 2014 12:09 PM

    This will continue only until the first blizzard hits and either drastically effects the game conditions, or forces the game to be postponed.

    That’s why I wish a blizzard had hit NY on Sunday.

  86. pastabelly says: Feb 4, 2014 12:10 PM

    Parking situation would be easier for a Super Bowl than a regular season game at Foxboro since many would be taking taxis, shuttles, and MBTA would add trains direct from Boston. The only problem with Gillette is really the weather and I agree with others that the NFL lucked out this year in terms of weather. The outdoor mall at Patriot Place is actually probably nicer (with restaurants, bars, skating rink, movie theater, stores) than what is in East Rutherford. The NHL will hold a Stadium Series game at Gillette Stadium as soon as next Winter and if the Bruins play Montreal, I’d expect many north of the border to come down. We’ll see how that goes.

  87. longbino says: Feb 4, 2014 12:11 PM

    If we’re going to start having Super Bowls in cold weather climates then let’s just go back to letting the team with the best record host the game

  88. patsfansincegrogan says: Feb 4, 2014 12:12 PM

    No to Foxboro please.

    Providence will be packed. It will be chaos, there isn’t enough police in the city now as is. Bad things WILL happen. The casino at Lincoln Woods will be packed. It will be a traffic nightmare.

    No one, not visiting teams, not fans stay in Boston for the Pats games, they all stay in Providence. The city will break with 2 weeks of this nonsense.

  89. crisper57 says: Feb 4, 2014 12:14 PM

    Please stick to the “Big 3″ – Miami, San Diego and New Orleans.

    Three of the oldest, most crap-tacular stadiums in the NFL? Really?

    Arizona, Houston, Tampa, and non-traditional sites like LA (when they have a new stadium) have good climates AND nice facilities.

  90. 12is3times4 says: Feb 4, 2014 12:23 PM

    Chicago and Green Bay are complete non-starters for a Super Bowl.

    They may not get Nor’easters like NY/NJ, but the lake effect still produces plenty of hellacious snow and ice storms this time of year – Milwaukee got socked by one just days before the Packers played in their last Super Bowl three years ago.

    Also, as others here have pointed out, Green Bay lacks the hotel space to accommodate a Super Bowl, and Chicago’s stadium is the smallest in the NFL. For the Bears, this is great – they can sell the place out in their sleep, ensuring every home game is televised – but unless they can somehow squeeze 10,000 more temporary seats into Soldier Field (a dangerous proposition, considering the seating fiasco in Dallas for XLV), it just won’t work for a Super Bowl.

  91. boiler72 says: Feb 4, 2014 12:27 PM

    As a Packer fan, it’d be hilarious to see them get to and win a Super Bowl in the Bears’ stadium, lol. They’ve won like, all but maybe five games in that place, in the past 20 years. Two Hall of Fame QB’s will do that, you know?

  92. patriotsdefense says: Feb 4, 2014 12:31 PM

    I wouldn’t want it as a part of the rotation, but if Atlanta does build that bird nest of the future they can have another Super Bowl.

  93. pastabelly says: Feb 4, 2014 12:31 PM

    dmartin17 says:
    Feb 4, 2014 11:10 AM
    I’m from Mass, the LAST thing I want is a superbowl 45 miles southwest of Boston (where foxboro is)

    The real host city would be Providence, which is a dump.

    Keep the superbowl where it belongs: Warm places you want to vacation to. That means phx, LA, SD, NO, MIA…
    =================================
    You may be from somewhere in Massachusetts, but definitely not too close to Boston. If you were, you would know that Foxboro is not 45 miles from Boston. It’s about 22 miles from Boston. Foxboro may be 4 miles closer to Providence, but Boston would be the host city and hotels from both cities would see plenty of business.

    Three of the cities you mentioned have serious stadium issues, preventing them for hosting a Super Bowl. Those are Miami, San Diego, and LA. Glendale has the next game already. New Orleans had last year’s and they need a new stadium as well.

  94. sportsnut101 says: Feb 4, 2014 12:39 PM

    Superbowl week in nyc or nj was awful
    Unless u had 1500 to drop for vip ticket for an event Broadway plays who cares to see that while wanting to see football game

    New Orleans is a dump of a town and they host it there all the time so Chicago and Washington u are in the mix since ur towns are dumps

    But it needs at least 80,000 seats
    If I was Miami or new orleans or Arizona I wouldn’t even spend money bidding on event NFL has to come to ur tow

  95. djshnooks says: Feb 4, 2014 12:40 PM

    Don’t discount Buffalo just quite yet…

    Sabres owner Terry Pegula is completely renovating the city of Buffalo…and once Wilson sells the Bills and they build a stadium downtown…it could be done.

    Not saying it will happen, long ways to go for that…but it’s possible in 10 years.

  96. lgbarn says: Feb 4, 2014 12:41 PM

    So many comments from people who have never had a SB in their city. The Superbowl is a week long affair, not just the 3-4 hours on your TV. You will have visitors from all over the world and you need things to do.

    No one wants to worry about transportation and weather during that week. We have Sperbowls in Tampa, Miami, New Orleans, Pheonix and California because the weather is bearable and there is plenty to do “outside”.

    No more northern Superbowls…it’s just stupid.

  97. weepingjebus says: Feb 4, 2014 12:48 PM

    I don’t care where we hold them so long as the Broncos aren’t invited anymore.

    #JVScrimmage

  98. birdfanatdabeach says: Feb 4, 2014 12:50 PM

    Let me put this Super Bowl issue to rest.

    Assumptions:
    1. A 12 year old kid can place a bet on a cell phone from anywhere.
    2. Having Las Vegas left out of the NFL is an idea suited for the 1960′s. We are in the 21st century.

    Proposal:

    The NFL, with all 32 owners invested should build a mega stadium, hotel, and entertainment complex in Las Vegas. The Super Bowl is always in Vegas. The Pro Bowl is in Vegas. The NFL Draft is in Vegas.

    In the year that the 18 game schedule starts a pair of teams plays each week in the NFL entertainment mecca in Las Vegas. You can have 60,000 fans from each city arriving in Vegas for 3-4 days or the entire week.

    Who wins???? The NFL owners making money. The fans. The people of Las Vegas. Geepers, EVERYBODY WINS.

    Blow it up or buy shares.

    In the words of ANDY REID…. TIMES YOURS.

    ICWT.

  99. garyeyee says: Feb 4, 2014 12:54 PM

    Have it in Buffalo ! Not many hotels but….People can camp out, It could be a winter WOODSTOCK !!!! The whole family can get back to outdoor camping together and survive ! Hay… why not a new reality show of family survival… or winter tailgate or something !!!!!!

  100. haileysbadoldad says: Feb 4, 2014 1:00 PM

    Going to be pretty cool to see the Skins play in the Super Bowl in their own stadium!

  101. gudy2shoes says: Feb 4, 2014 1:02 PM

    SEATTLE SUPER BOWL. Plenty of attractions, hotel rooms, easy to get to the stadium, a green pharmacy on every corner, and it would be a home game for the Hawks.

  102. cheapglazers says: Feb 4, 2014 1:03 PM

    Play the game in the elements. Don’t pad a greedy owner’s pocket. Bring it back to the original champs. Play the game in Greenbay.

  103. williamshatnerstoupee says: Feb 4, 2014 1:13 PM

    The NFL will not hesitate for a moment to give New England a Super Bowl.

  104. jnbnet says: Feb 4, 2014 1:14 PM

    Boston and Providence RI would both offer lodging. There are also many hotels/inns in the sorounding communities. Then there is Patriot’s Place, which is an expansive project containning shopping, dining, and entertainment as well as a medical facility and a hotel…all located adjacent to the stadium.

  105. jayniner says: Feb 4, 2014 1:26 PM

    In 2 years when the 49ers host Super Bowl L, you’ll see how a Super Bowl experience should be. Brand new outdoor stadium, 60′s and sunny, t-shirts and bikini tops, beautiful women and ice cold beer….

    Can anyone really not like that?

  106. rodell77 says: Feb 4, 2014 1:33 PM

    AND DON’T FORGET THE ICE STORM THAT HAPPENED IN NORTH TEXAS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. SAVED ONLY BY THE JONESMAHAL. ICE STORMS HAPPEN OFTEN THIS TIME OF YEAR THERE. HAD ONE THIS YEAR.

  107. vusnu says: Feb 4, 2014 1:34 PM

    I think the compromise is to make the cold weather, outdoor Super Bowl a novelty as opposed to a regular occurrence. In other words, have a cold weather outdoor Super Bowl once every 5-10 years, but no more than that.

  108. rodell77 says: Feb 4, 2014 1:37 PM

    DC WEATHER CAN BE MORE SEVERE THAN NY. AND THEY HAVE A DIRT FIELD. NEED TO CHANGE IT NOW FOR A BOWL BID AND FOR RG3. OH I KNOW TO BUSY PROTECTING THAT OUTDATED NICKNAME.

  109. rodell77 says: Feb 4, 2014 1:47 PM

    Cold weather is one thing but brutal weather is another. NY was very lucky. Blizzard before and a day after the game. Ask the players who played in the ice bowl. Some of those men have problems today because of that game. Did anyone notice the early signs of hyperthermia in the post game interviews after the niner’s game late in the season. DON’T DO IT……..

  110. rodvmunchiii says: Feb 4, 2014 1:54 PM

    No.

  111. rodell77 says: Feb 4, 2014 1:56 PM

    BY THE WAY AT&T STADIUM IS OFF THE CHAIN. ANY NFL FAN SHOULD AT LEAST SEE IT. SHOULD GET ANOTHER SHOT AT THE GAME. AND NO THE COWBOYS WON’T BE PLAYING IN IT.

  112. Dogsweat says: Feb 4, 2014 1:58 PM

    Buffalo, because there are a million things to do, and it is very sophisticated, the wives would love shopping in this great city.

  113. newsletterczar says: Feb 4, 2014 2:20 PM

    Mr. Snyder is using the Super Bowl as a playing card; if he finishes 3rd or 4th this time out that is OK because the lease on the stadium in Landover runs another 10 years. If he can dangle a Super Bowl in front of the DC City Council, maybe sweeten the pot with a name change, perhaps he can move from the stadium Mr. Cooke built (and paid for) back into the spot where RFK stands and get someone else to pay for it. Washington also wants the Olympics but that is a much harder straw to grasp. As far as other East Coast cold weather cites someone said Baltimore would be better than DC; no. Washington has the infrastructure, convention center, hotels to do an event this size or larger. Strictly business for the owner of the Redskins. I will not being posting any more negative comments on Mr. Goodell; the guy can control the weather.

  114. rgmememe says: Feb 4, 2014 2:52 PM

    ^lmao, do you even commute in that area? The Capital Beltway has some of the worst traffic in the country and one of the worst mass transit systems. So even IF DC allows Snyder to build in DC, (which I don’t think they will unless he changes the name, either way I could care less) that week here in the DMV would be absolutely terrible. Please NFL, stay away!

  115. leatherface2012 says: Feb 4, 2014 2:55 PM

    Some NFL cities (Green Bay, Buffalo and Cincinnati among them) just don’t have the hotel rooms and necessary infrastructure to host a Super Bowl.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA i thought gb was perfect. but when you only have 100 hotel rooms thats what happens

  116. sactogary says: Feb 4, 2014 4:00 PM

    They should certainly aim for no more often than every three years. That way, when the inevitable nightmare weather scenario eventually hits – and they say “never again” – they will not have already awarded one to a similarly situated city.

  117. davefrompalmsprings says: Feb 4, 2014 4:26 PM

    ALL Super Bowls should be played in New Orleans. No place even compares to the fun you can have there. Cold weather cities are too boring, or in the case of New York, is in New Jersey, which is the ultimate bore. (Except for Texas) NOWHERE is more boring than Dallas or Houston!

  118. seattlelibtard says: Feb 4, 2014 4:40 PM

    There’s plenty of time to bicker about it. Next two super bowl locations are confirmed (Glendale AZ and Santa Clara (SF), the 3rd is between 3 cities which have domed or roofed buildings.

  119. Phil says: Feb 4, 2014 4:59 PM

    As long as we’re speculating, why not San Antonio. The Alamodome holds 66,000 which is low but no one can match their location and proximity to hotels, restaurants, and fun things to do. You can walk everywhere and likely in good weather. If you are looking for an OK stadium and a great surrounding area, this is the place.

  120. rgmememe says: Feb 4, 2014 5:35 PM

    Best place in Texas would be Austin if it had the venue. More bars per capita than anywhere else in the good ol’ US of A.

  121. rgmememe says: Feb 4, 2014 5:37 PM

    ^Guess they could always do it at the University of Texas. 100k capacity there.

  122. i10east says: Feb 4, 2014 6:23 PM

    Qualcomm Stadium is the worst in the league. I don’t see San Diego hosting again until they get a new stadium.

  123. vicvinegar00 says: Feb 4, 2014 6:30 PM

    If you are having a Super Bowl in Maryland, have it in Baltimore. Superior facility with a superior game day experience. Fedex Field is awful. PG County is awful.

  124. xli2006 says: Feb 4, 2014 9:13 PM

    This is going to backfire one year.

    Chicago in early February…. Is this a joke? Have you seen the frozen Lake Michigan coastline this time of year?!? New York is balmy compared to Chicago in the winter. High winds and temps in the teens is an average day there. It’s also the smallest stadium in the NFL. Zero logic.

  125. gregmorris78 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:27 PM

    Doubt Snyder would ever host a Super Bowl. There is nothing around the stadium whatsoever – except the abandoned mall, which Snyder got the county to disallow crossing the street from to increase parking revenue. No restaurants, not even a subway reasonably close. No site seeing opportunities. Decrepit RFK stadium maybe, FEDEX Field – never.

    Ask again in five years when the end to the redskins lease there is in site. (Guarantee to the county to stay until about 2021).

  126. gregmorris78 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:28 PM

    YES – Baltimore would be a very good choice. It is a great stadium centrally located to all things Baltimore!

  127. hammertoe11 says: Feb 4, 2014 10:37 PM

    Any where but Indiana.

  128. kc114 says: Feb 4, 2014 11:09 PM

    Why would most of us care about the logistics of a Super Bowl as most of us couldn’t afford to go to one anyway?

  129. tyjohn47 says: Feb 5, 2014 9:48 AM

    The NFL needs to wise up about this event. Even playing it in an indoor stadium in a northern city in unappealing. Most would rather go someplace warm for the big game. The NFL should resolve to rotate the Super Bowl between these four locations:

    1. Miami
    2. New Orleans
    3. Phoenix
    4. Southern California

    That’s it. I can say this as a lifelong resident of a northern city where a shiny new indoor stadium is being built (Mpls, MN). Would folks rather spend a few February days in Minneapolis or in San Diego??? ‘Nuff said.

  130. bkg63 says: Feb 5, 2014 10:58 AM

    The NFL should (and can) devise a format that rotates the SB so it’s not monopolized by a few cities. For example, rotate the site by region (West, Midwest, South, Mid-Atlantic, NorthEast).

    I’m sure the bright minds at NFL HQ can figure it out; it’s not rocket science.

  131. patsfannh says: Feb 5, 2014 11:42 AM

    birdfanatdabeach says: Feb 4, 2014 12:50 PM

    Let me put this Super Bowl issue to rest.

    Assumptions:
    1. A 12 year old kid can place a bet on a cell phone from anywhere.
    2. Having Las Vegas left out of the NFL is an idea suited for the 1960′s. We are in the 21st century.

    Proposal:

    The NFL, with all 32 owners invested should build a mega stadium, hotel, and entertainment complex in Las Vegas. The Super Bowl is always in Vegas. The Pro Bowl is in Vegas. The NFL Draft is in Vegas.

    In the year that the 18 game schedule starts a pair of teams plays each week in the NFL entertainment mecca in Las Vegas. You can have 60,000 fans from each city arriving in Vegas for 3-4 days or the entire week.

    Who wins???? The NFL owners making money. The fans. The people of Las Vegas. Geepers, EVERYBODY WINS.

    Blow it up or buy shares.

    In the words of ANDY REID…. TIMES YOURS.

    ICWT.

    Vegas is a GREAT IDEA….I would add a major college bowl game or two and some major concert events as well to further increase the economic feasibility.

  132. joshriyl says: Feb 5, 2014 2:32 PM

    Super Bowl in New England would be awsome boston and providence could both share it their would be plenty of hotel rooms the teams could stay in providence and activity in Boston and media day at the Td garden and their plenty of stuff to do at patriot place and might be able to add more parking and widen rt 1 befor the games this would be great Super Bowl and then in the summer of 2024 summer Olympics

  133. tyconderoguer says: Feb 9, 2014 8:49 PM

    The team with best record deserves home field like ever other sport. Put a good team on field and maybe you will get one then.

  134. chaddukesthebuttpirate says: Feb 11, 2014 4:13 PM

    How cool would it be for Washington to get a superbowl and they ( the Redskins ) revamp RFK stadium, return home, and actually become a respected NFL franchise again?

    Would be great not only for the Redskins, but for the entire league.

Leave a Reply

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