Metroid wrote:I actually agree more with the Superbowl location being determined by the team with the best record than I do with the league arbitrarily selecting "neutral" sites.
Makes two of us. Team with the best record should be rewarded home field advantage.
It's a great idea but logistically your idea would be a nightmare. I can't imagine the NFL would ever let it come down to just two weeks before the big game to know where they'll need to set up camp just because it would be nearly impossible to do, not to mention expensive to do at the last minute.
I don't mind a "neutral" site as long as there is no favoritism (or at the very least *defined* rules they adhere to). This New York Superbowl seems to defy both of my arguments so I'd love to hear good reasons why Seattle shouldn't be allowed to host one now. I won't hold my breath on this one...
Metroid wrote:I actually agree more with the Superbowl location being determined by the team with the best record than I do with the league arbitrarily selecting "neutral" sites.
Makes two of us. Team with the best record should be rewarded home field advantage.
It's a great idea but logistically your idea would be a nightmare. I can't imagine the NFL would ever let it come down to just two weeks before the big game to know where they'll need to set up camp just because it would be nearly impossible to do, not to mention expensive to do at the last minute.
I don't mind a "neutral" site as long as there is no favoritism (or at the very least *defined* rules they adhere to). This New York Superbowl seems to defy both of my arguments so I'd love to hear good reasons why Seattle shouldn't be allowed to host one now. I won't hold my breath on this one...
Totally disagree. It's only a "nightmare" because the NFL makes it one, the Superbowl is a "nightmare" now. It would be a lot less of one if the NFL backed off a little on the stupid pageantry and BS that they smear all over what is supposed to be a championship game.
And all that said, I really don't think it'd be that big of a logistical nightmare anyway. They can plan for the Superbowl all year, as they do now. When it get's to the playoffs they know the "big game" only has 12 possible cities where it will be played. Once it gets to the championship games it's narrowed down to four. This is a billion dollar machine, with their nearly unlimited budget and resources that the NFL has, they could easily make it happen.
If we can put a man on the moon we can figure out a way to hold the Superbowl at an un-predetermined site.
Dawinner127 wrote:Makes two of us. Team with the best record should be rewarded home field advantage.
It's a great idea but logistically your idea would be a nightmare. I can't imagine the NFL would ever let it come down to just two weeks before the big game to know where they'll need to set up camp just because it would be nearly impossible to do, not to mention expensive to do at the last minute.
I don't mind a "neutral" site as long as there is no favoritism (or at the very least *defined* rules they adhere to). This New York Superbowl seems to defy both of my arguments so I'd love to hear good reasons why Seattle shouldn't be allowed to host one now. I won't hold my breath on this one...
Totally disagree. It's only a "nightmare" because the NFL makes it one, the Superbowl is a "nightmare" now. It would be a lot less of one if the NFL backed off a little on the stupid pageantry and BS that they smear all over what is supposed to be a championship game.
And all that said, I really don't think it'd be that big of a logistical nightmare anyway. They can plan for the Superbowl all year, as they do now. When it get's to the playoffs they know the "big game" only has 12 possible cities where it will be played. Once it gets to the championship games it's narrowed down to four. This is a billion dollar machine, with their nearly unlimited budget and resources that the NFL has, they could easily make it happen.
If we can put a man on the moon we can figure out a way to hold the Superbowl at an un-predetermined site.
Exactly. Every other major sport manages to pull it off, and it's in TWO cities over AT LEAST four games. They they usually have days, not weeks to pull it off.
biju wrote: It's a great idea but logistically your idea would be a nightmare. I can't imagine the NFL would ever let it come down to just two weeks before the big game to know where they'll need to set up camp just because it would be nearly impossible to do, not to mention expensive to do at the last minute.
I don't mind a "neutral" site as long as there is no favoritism (or at the very least *defined* rules they adhere to). This New York Superbowl seems to defy both of my arguments so I'd love to hear good reasons why Seattle shouldn't be allowed to host one now. I won't hold my breath on this one...
Totally disagree. It's only a "nightmare" because the NFL makes it one, the Superbowl is a "nightmare" now. It would be a lot less of one if the NFL backed off a little on the stupid pageantry and BS that they smear all over what is supposed to be a championship game.
And all that said, I really don't think it'd be that big of a logistical nightmare anyway. They can plan for the Superbowl all year, as they do now. When it get's to the playoffs they know the "big game" only has 12 possible cities where it will be played. Once it gets to the championship games it's narrowed down to four. This is a billion dollar machine, with their nearly unlimited budget and resources that the NFL has, they could easily make it happen.
If we can put a man on the moon we can figure out a way to hold the Superbowl at an un-predetermined site.
Exactly. Every other major sport manages to pull it off, and it's in TWO cities over AT LEAST four games. They they usually have days, not weeks to pull it off.
Well, you guys are also talking about changing the corporate lead up to the Superbowl as well. Not that I'm a fan of the week long media hoopla involved currently, but that's not going away any time soon as it's a big money maker. I suppose you can wish for this and complain about it not happening if you want, but I would say it's wasted time. And as to how long it takes to get the current Superbowl in place and how much logistics there are, there's a reason we're currently talking about a Superbowl 4 years from now--there's a ton of arrangements you must make that simply take time (such as permits).
Yes, the NBA and MLB do it quickly, but quite honestly those suck in comparison.
It is the single largest viewing audience for a reason. The NFL takes the time to do it right. While hardcore football fans may care less about the pageantry it is a large part of what has made 1 billion people watch the Superbowl each year. The money made off this thing is ridiculous and there is no way the NFL will change the way it is done.
biju wrote: And as to how long it takes to get the current Superbowl in place and how much logistics there are, there's a reason we're currently talking about a Superbowl 4 years from now--there's a ton of arrangements you must make that simply take time (such as permits).
As someone who lives in a city that is preparing to host its first Super Bowl it is something that has taken years to build up to. There were millions of dollars and many years spent getting a venue deemed nice enough and having enough hotel accomodations to just get into the discussion. Once chosen, the city started with lots of downtown projects to expand/improve/renovate. More restaurants and other service industry offerings are being attracted, etc.
I know this doesn't apply to a city like new York, but as to having the SB at whichever team has the better record, I don't know how many places could do that on short notice. Do it well, at least.
At least in NY they'll have plenty to do while they're in town for the week leading up to it. They're gunna get to Indy, hit some restaurants, and then look at each other like 'why did they pick this place again??'
Like I said, if they'd cut down on the hoopla and BS, it could easily be done. I watch football to watch football, I could care less about who's performing at the pre-Superbowl week block party or whatever. But you're right, a lot of people watch just for that crap, and in generates millions, so it is what it is.
It does kinda make me sad that a football fan would say the "NFL takes the time to do it right." They take the greatest sport's biggest game and make it look like Liberachi on meth. Sorry, to me that ain't doing anything right.
Metroid wrote:Like I said, if they'd cut down on the hoopla and BS, it could easily be done. I watch football to watch football, I could care less about who's performing at the pre-Superbowl week block party or whatever. But you're right, a lot of people watch just for that crap, and in generates millions, so it is what it is.
It does kinda make me sad that a football fan would say the "NFL takes the time to do it right." They take the greatest sport's biggest game and make it look like Liberachi on meth. Sorry, to me that ain't doing anything right.
IT is what pays for portions of your teams players, funding of stadiums, pension plans (poorly unfortunately) etc... forget the Superbowl for a minute and take an average stadium of 60K "fans" A good portion of them are there because of the hype that started in the NFL 20+ years ago. Before 1984 the NFL was a distant 2nd to MLB and really just grouped together with NBA.
As a football fan there are lots of different things I would like to see but they would be wholesale changes for my own personal greedy mind. The NFL has it right and has marketed itself better than any other sport in North America. I can't really say they should change it.
Metroid wrote:Like I said, if they'd cut down on the hoopla and BS, it could easily be done. I watch football to watch football, I could care less about who's performing at the pre-Superbowl week block party or whatever. But you're right, a lot of people watch just for that crap, and in generates millions, so it is what it is.
It does kinda make me sad that a football fan would say the "NFL takes the time to do it right." They take the greatest sport's biggest game and make it look like Liberachi on meth. Sorry, to me that ain't doing anything right.
IT is what pays for portions of your teams players, funding of stadiums, pension plans (poorly unfortunately) etc... forget the Superbowl for a minute and take an average stadium of 60K "fans" A good portion of them are there because of the hype that started in the NFL 20+ years ago. Before 1984 the NFL was a distant 2nd to MLB and really just grouped together with NBA.
As a football fan there are lots of different things I would like to see but they would be wholesale changes for my own personal greedy mind. The NFL has it right and has marketed itself better than any other sport in North America. I can't really say they should change it.
It is, but that is reverse logic, IMO. Salaries are so steep partly as a result of the money the NFL generates from this. If the NFL didn't make so much money, they could pay out so much.
"There is no charge for awesomeness or attractiveness." - Po (Kung Fu Panda)
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by biju » Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:45 pm 
