Hosting the SB in the Burgh?

but the rest of the NFL playoffs are... keep the home field going. no need to change it for the last game.

 

Soldier Field seats less than 63k. Should they host a Super Bowl instead of FedX Field which seats and extra 22k?

Not gonna happen.

 

Uh, I was prepared.

It was freezing.

The Kansas City game was BRUTALLY cold. Light rain all night, brisk wind. People stayed in the Coca-Hall Great Hall much longer than usual. The vendors ran out of hot chocolate at halftime. More cocoa was being sold that night than beer. It was rough. It was November 12th.

The Baltimore game the following week . . . cold as hell too. Didn't help that both of those were prime time games.

The game at Cleveland the week after that . . . people were leaving. Browns fans were leaving a beatdown of our team because it was so cold. That was November 25th. And the sun was out that day. It was 34 degrees.

The San Diego game. That game was brutally cold too. And the sun was out that day (til late second half).

I would guess most of the people talking about how great it would be to stand outside for three hours in freezing temperatures to watch a football game are probably only speaking in theory.

 

Uh, I've deer hunted for 6 hours in 30 degrees with snow and was comfortable. You didn't have the right gear, plain and simple.

 

Exactly! No way Goodell is giving up that kind of cash from a single game.

 

I think San Diego already has hosted one

 

Bull Dookie. I paid $139.00 for a veal chop in NY Geombellies or some damn name. I'll pass on a NY super Bowl

 

And the thin air? hah!

 

Pittsburgh could never hold a Superbowl, not enough hotel rooms.
unless someone would build a couple of large hotels. I don't see the Superbowl
ever coming to the Steel City. And I live here locally. It would be a boon
for the economy. Hell we can't even get PAT to operate on weekends. Or Heinz
field expanded. NO THANKS TO ANY COLD WEATHER SUPERBOWL FOR ME.

 

Exactly why they should have the biggest game of the year as a celebration of both teams at a neutral site...

 

I think a better solution would be the team that wins the Super Bowl gets to host it the following year. Only seems fair that the city should be able to get in on the action and cash in on their win too.

I would also love a cold weather Super Bowl. Problem is I'm sure that Pittsburgh would be pretty far down the list of potential cities. If they do additional Super Bowls outside, I see New England, Chicago and even Philadelphia getting it before Pittsburgh.

 

Goodell and the owners would never give up millions in ticket sales and concessions by having a Super Bowl in a small stadium.

 

The super bowl is much more about the experience than the game for most people. It should only be in 4 cities and that is it. NO, PHX, Miami, SD. Now that SD is out, I suppose Houston could be an option. I was at the SB in Detroit. As much fun as it was during the game, the saturday before and the especially the time immediately after the game blew due to freezing weather and a terrible city.

 

The Superbowl is not just a game, it is an event. They need several years notice to hold it as well. For one thing, when the Superbowl was pushed back from Jan 2002 to Feb 2002 because of the week missed due to the Sep 11th attacks, there was a conflict with hotel rooms. There was a big convention in NOLA (at least I think it was NOLA). In the end, money talks, and they moved the dates of their convention. Bottom line, warmer locations, as well as bigger host cities (thereby excluding Jacksonville) offer the best opportunities.

Atlanta may have been a good site, but we all know what happened the last time they were there. Anyway, since the superbowl sites are determined many years in advance, I believe that NY became an option after the Sep 11th attacks. Wintery weather could dampen the money spent, but I don't know that a host city would complain about that. The money raked in by the NFL is probably what the mostly look at.

Having said all that, I wouldn't be surprised to see Washington host. Certainly between Washington and Baltimore, there are plenty of hotel rooms and there are lots of places to host Superbowl events. For me, sitting on my recliner, I could care less if it is cold or not. Wasn't it raining in Tampa? I seem to recall rain for the Colts Bears game as well. I think rain impacts the game more than snow (unless you are Peyton Manning).

 

Because of the Marcellus Shell, there is an absolute BOOM in hotel construction here. There are 5 alone right next to the Meadows Casino another planned for Southpointe (which just opened their 2nd last year), and a new one going in just off of the Bridgeville exit.

And thats just the South Hills I-79 corridor.

But I agree with the few others...just say NO to a cold weather SB. You don't want the biggest game of the year sabotaged by the weather.

 

It would take way more rooms than what you just mentioned, I think TE thinks
that everything he reads on the internet is true. I have some waterfront property
in Arizona I am willing to sell both of you cheap!

 

Exactly. Plain and simple: if I have to dress like I'm going deer hunting in the winter to watch a three-hour football game . . . no thanks. And, it's not just about the game. it's a weeklong event. The Dallas Super Bowl was slammed and labeled an absolute disaster because of the weather conditions. People are supposed to dress for deer hunting to hit all of the parties and NFL events?

The good thing about Pittsburgh is that everything is close. The stadium is walking distance from downtown. Locations like Glendale, Miami, Dallas, and Pasadena are challenging because the stadiums are so far removed from the city's activity/hotspots.

The bad thing is that there is little to do. What nightlife does Pittsburgh provide? Carson St? Ha. People attending the Super Bowl don't want to be doing a pub crawl with college students or hitting ghetto clubs in the strip district. Station Square? You can only go to Buca di Bepo so many times . . .

The lack of hotels has already been mentioned. There simply aren't enough. Most people would have to be staying out near the airport a solid thirty minutes away.

I love the city for what it is but it's a terrible place for a Super Bowl.

 

You don't have to dress like you are going deer hunting, you have to dress for the weather. If you don't want to dress for the weather, don't go to the game. Pretty simple.

 

True, now that Ray Lewis won't be in anymore superbowls.

 

The problem to me is...people who go to the Superbowl aren't always hardcore fans, sometimes it is just casual fans who just wants to go to a SB just to say they have gone to one. Can't tell me you guys would love every minute of the Steelers in a cold weather SB if you got a ticket. If I was just a casual fan I'm sure I would like the cold weather one bit.

There is definitely a routine you need to do when going to a game... I learned the hard way the first couple years me and my dad started going to a game, the cold air by halftime would cut right through you. Since then, by preparing and dressing for the weather I have enjoyed a bunch of cold sub-freezing weather games without much discomfort at all.

 

Well, I most likely won't be attending a superbowl any time soon, so I could care less about the weather. My preference is that the Steelers are in the superbowl. To date, they've been there once ever 6 times. Once every 5 if you take away the first 8...so it's soon about time!

 

The SB has been here twice. The Doug Williams win over Denver and Bucs over the Raiders.