Bring The Super Bowl To Seattle in 2016!!!
aNiMaL
Posts: 7,117
Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bring-The ... 6020047353
Great article written about it: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/02/1 ... break.html
C'mon, NFL, give Seattle a break
Has it only been eight days since Pandora did Dallas?
JOHN MCGRATH; STAFF WRITER
Published: 02/14/1112:05 am
PETER HALEY/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER FILE - The blue-and-green lit arches of Qwest Field and the Space Needle make for a Super Bowl-worthy sight … right?
Has it only been eight days since Pandora did Dallas?
Between the tales of icy streets, slippery sidewalks, stranded tourists, chilly hotel rooms, rampant price gouging and the kickoff-time chaos created when several hundred fans learned they had bought tickets that weren’t worth a seat, I get the sense the debacle destined to be remembered as Super Bowl XLV was originally reported in an expose written by Upton Sinclair.
Amid the fallout of a botched-up sporting event whose aftermath turned out to be longer than its prelude, the Dallas Morning News published an editorial touting North Texas’ worthiness as a future Super Bowl site.
Such civic pride is an understandable reaction to the scathing commentary of visitors – reminiscent of Atlanta’s 1996 Summer Olympics, panned everywhere, by everybody, except the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And to be fair, although Super Bowl XLV wasn’t the first rodeo at the $1.2 billion Cowboys Stadium, it was Cowboys Stadium’s first rodeo during a major winter storm.
But before the NFL extends a mulligan to North Texas (more specifically, to North Texas grand poohah Jerry Jones, the host with the most), shouldn’t a qualified market get its first chance to hold a Super Bowl?
With the help of $300 million in state tax money, Qwest Field opened almost nine years ago to rave reviews. The raves haven’t diminished: No NFL stadium boasts a better combination of aesthetics and intimacy in a downtown hub adjacent to restaurants, shops and public transportation.
Yet Qwest Field never has been seen as a candidate for the Super Bowl. An outdoor stadium in a “cold-climate” city, it’s been dismissed from the discussion – without any discussion.
Aaron Levine, the sports director of Q13 Fox News Seattle, is eager to begin a discussion. Upon returning from Dallas, where he covered an entertaining Packers-Steelers game that almost was obscured by the fiasco that surrounded it, Levine organized a “Bring the Super Bowl to Seattle” campaign on Facebook. Over the first 24 hours, there were 2,280 followers.
Levine notes the knee-jerk objections against Seattle – the typical temperature in February and, to a lesser degree, the size of the stadium – and offers compelling refutations of both.
During the first week of February, Seattle averages a high of 49 degrees, which is indistinguishable from the NFL-mandated minimum of a 50-degree average for an outdoor Super Bowl site.
By the way, that minimum was waived when league owners awarded a bid to New York/New Jersey for 2014.
As for Qwest Field’s 67,000-seat capacity, 3,000 below the Super Bowl minimum, it was designed with the capability of expanding the capacity to 72,000 for “special events.”
I presume the game that annually rates as America’s most-watched television show qualifies as a “special event.”
(Heck, the Super Bowl halftime show is a special event, if for no other reason than it inspires thousands of young adults to perform a cohesive jumping exercise in front of the stage.)
I’m not sure where those extra 5,000 seats would be installed, but I’ll guarantee you they wouldn’t be installed with the reckless, morning-of-the-game urgency used at Cowboys Stadium.
On a personal note, here’s something else I like about Levine’s qwest – er, quest – to bring the Super Bowl to Seattle. I don’t feel like a pipe-dreaming advocate of the absurd anymore.
Several years ago, not long after Qwest Field impressed me as the ultimate NFL experience, I wrote a column on why Seattle deserved consideration as a Super Bowl destination. I was baffled, as I recall, at how the league owners had awarded future sites to Jacksonville, Fla. (for 2005) and Detroit (for 2006), while Seattle was permanently off the board.
I mentioned how Seattle-area tourists could entertain themselves skiing in the mountains, or visiting one of two national parks within a few hours’ driving distance, or taking a day trip anywhere from Victoria, B.C., to Portland. For those less adventurous, there are museums, and bars, and museums with bars.
As for the possibility of inclement weather? Bring it on; it would guarantee a Super Bowl stadium full of genuine football fans.
Anyway, I put forth the merits of Seattle as a possible Super Bowl site, and the feedback I got was the sound of birds chirping before sunrise: Won’t happen. You can’t be serious. Get a clue. The NFL would never put its championship game in an outdoor stadium facing potentially nasty weather conditions.
Except that’s just what the NFL did, when it awarded a Super Bowl to New York/New Jersey. To paraphrase the lyrics of the Sinatra song: If you can play it there, you can play it anywhere.
A Super Bowl bid requires some grass-roots momentum. Owners aren’t inclined to think out of the box, so they must be persuaded to think out of the box.
Hello? Anybody? Hello?
Because bids must be submitted in the fall before they’re voted on in the spring, the next available slot is for 2016: Super Bowl L, the 50th anniversary game.
Dallas wants it. After a humiliating display of bureaucratic bumbling, after a Super Bowl week that went so wrong it took Jacksonville off the hook as Worst Site Ever, Dallas is asking for one more chance.
And Seattle just watches, content to chill as an afterthought as the blossoms show their colors.
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:john.mcgrath@thenewstribune.com">john.mcgrath@thenewstribune.com</a><!-- e -->
Great article written about it: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2011/02/1 ... break.html
C'mon, NFL, give Seattle a break
Has it only been eight days since Pandora did Dallas?
JOHN MCGRATH; STAFF WRITER
Published: 02/14/1112:05 am
PETER HALEY/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER FILE - The blue-and-green lit arches of Qwest Field and the Space Needle make for a Super Bowl-worthy sight … right?
Has it only been eight days since Pandora did Dallas?
Between the tales of icy streets, slippery sidewalks, stranded tourists, chilly hotel rooms, rampant price gouging and the kickoff-time chaos created when several hundred fans learned they had bought tickets that weren’t worth a seat, I get the sense the debacle destined to be remembered as Super Bowl XLV was originally reported in an expose written by Upton Sinclair.
Amid the fallout of a botched-up sporting event whose aftermath turned out to be longer than its prelude, the Dallas Morning News published an editorial touting North Texas’ worthiness as a future Super Bowl site.
Such civic pride is an understandable reaction to the scathing commentary of visitors – reminiscent of Atlanta’s 1996 Summer Olympics, panned everywhere, by everybody, except the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. And to be fair, although Super Bowl XLV wasn’t the first rodeo at the $1.2 billion Cowboys Stadium, it was Cowboys Stadium’s first rodeo during a major winter storm.
But before the NFL extends a mulligan to North Texas (more specifically, to North Texas grand poohah Jerry Jones, the host with the most), shouldn’t a qualified market get its first chance to hold a Super Bowl?
With the help of $300 million in state tax money, Qwest Field opened almost nine years ago to rave reviews. The raves haven’t diminished: No NFL stadium boasts a better combination of aesthetics and intimacy in a downtown hub adjacent to restaurants, shops and public transportation.
Yet Qwest Field never has been seen as a candidate for the Super Bowl. An outdoor stadium in a “cold-climate” city, it’s been dismissed from the discussion – without any discussion.
Aaron Levine, the sports director of Q13 Fox News Seattle, is eager to begin a discussion. Upon returning from Dallas, where he covered an entertaining Packers-Steelers game that almost was obscured by the fiasco that surrounded it, Levine organized a “Bring the Super Bowl to Seattle” campaign on Facebook. Over the first 24 hours, there were 2,280 followers.
Levine notes the knee-jerk objections against Seattle – the typical temperature in February and, to a lesser degree, the size of the stadium – and offers compelling refutations of both.
During the first week of February, Seattle averages a high of 49 degrees, which is indistinguishable from the NFL-mandated minimum of a 50-degree average for an outdoor Super Bowl site.
By the way, that minimum was waived when league owners awarded a bid to New York/New Jersey for 2014.
As for Qwest Field’s 67,000-seat capacity, 3,000 below the Super Bowl minimum, it was designed with the capability of expanding the capacity to 72,000 for “special events.”
I presume the game that annually rates as America’s most-watched television show qualifies as a “special event.”
(Heck, the Super Bowl halftime show is a special event, if for no other reason than it inspires thousands of young adults to perform a cohesive jumping exercise in front of the stage.)
I’m not sure where those extra 5,000 seats would be installed, but I’ll guarantee you they wouldn’t be installed with the reckless, morning-of-the-game urgency used at Cowboys Stadium.
On a personal note, here’s something else I like about Levine’s qwest – er, quest – to bring the Super Bowl to Seattle. I don’t feel like a pipe-dreaming advocate of the absurd anymore.
Several years ago, not long after Qwest Field impressed me as the ultimate NFL experience, I wrote a column on why Seattle deserved consideration as a Super Bowl destination. I was baffled, as I recall, at how the league owners had awarded future sites to Jacksonville, Fla. (for 2005) and Detroit (for 2006), while Seattle was permanently off the board.
I mentioned how Seattle-area tourists could entertain themselves skiing in the mountains, or visiting one of two national parks within a few hours’ driving distance, or taking a day trip anywhere from Victoria, B.C., to Portland. For those less adventurous, there are museums, and bars, and museums with bars.
As for the possibility of inclement weather? Bring it on; it would guarantee a Super Bowl stadium full of genuine football fans.
Anyway, I put forth the merits of Seattle as a possible Super Bowl site, and the feedback I got was the sound of birds chirping before sunrise: Won’t happen. You can’t be serious. Get a clue. The NFL would never put its championship game in an outdoor stadium facing potentially nasty weather conditions.
Except that’s just what the NFL did, when it awarded a Super Bowl to New York/New Jersey. To paraphrase the lyrics of the Sinatra song: If you can play it there, you can play it anywhere.
A Super Bowl bid requires some grass-roots momentum. Owners aren’t inclined to think out of the box, so they must be persuaded to think out of the box.
Hello? Anybody? Hello?
Because bids must be submitted in the fall before they’re voted on in the spring, the next available slot is for 2016: Super Bowl L, the 50th anniversary game.
Dallas wants it. After a humiliating display of bureaucratic bumbling, after a Super Bowl week that went so wrong it took Jacksonville off the hook as Worst Site Ever, Dallas is asking for one more chance.
And Seattle just watches, content to chill as an afterthought as the blossoms show their colors.
<!-- e --><a href="mailto:john.mcgrath@thenewstribune.com">john.mcgrath@thenewstribune.com</a><!-- e -->
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Now, that was funny. :thumbup:
PJ: 2011-09-03 2011-09-04
wonder if they'll postpone it till tuesday...
why? its your beloved superbowl? why all the hate
its ny..deal with it younger step brother
hate? :? :? tis' a jab at the city of philadelphia, my friend. remember the dreadful vikings/birds tuesday game late december? ...no?
domes....
i remember thinking when quest was built why they didn't opt for a retractable dome. that would have put them on the shortlist for a sb within 10 years.
Retractable roofs over baseball parks (like Safeco Field) makes sense because they do not play in the rain.
agreed. but if you wanna host a super bowl, which it appears seattle does, they should have opted for a dome like indy and detroit. hell minnesota has hosted a couple.
we'll have to see how the north jersey sb goes, but i'd be willing to bet the nfl holds off on outdoor cold weather cities for a while...
I bet you are right about them waiting to see how NJ goes.
ha! i totally forgot about the kingdome.....did seattle make any attempt to host a super bowl there back in the day? if the metrodome or silverdome could have hosted one, i'm actually suprised the kingdome did not.
not really to be honest.but i believe you
regardless ..its the nyc party..the game may be in jersey..but its all about NYC for the days leading up to the game..the league cares about that
no offense to ft worth and dallas or indy but cmon .. cool but nowhere near nyc or seattle or even philly... for that matter
besides the beautiful weather cities (which are a must every few years) the league should start playing in different cities
half the appeal for me is to go to the nice wather in feb..but id rather party and enjoy my vacation in cold nyc than cold ft.worth
as pointed out, they've had multiple super bowls in detroit and minnesota before. the issue is not where the parties are its the threat of bad weather on game day. the nfl can throw a party in the middle of nowhere and have tens of thousands of people show up and spend money.
the birds and vikings were supposed to be on sunday night football in december but they postponed the game to tuesday due to concerns about fan safety because snow was in the forecast. first time that ever happened in the nfl. set a bad precedent, thus a lot of talk about having the super bowl in jersey, in february, started up.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce