Super Bowl 60 to Santa Clara

[Soggust]

1 minute ago, Acgott said:

Because it’s bigger than 1 game. It’s a whole week. Cleveland is cold, a smaller city, and an older stadium.

 

 

I'm not sure what you are saying here. They face this same problem 17 weeks a year and are able to handle it.

I can't imagine you are arguing that the city of Cleveland couldn't muster the infrastructure to support a Super Bowl. They have ubers + hotels, etc. People sit in snow games. 

So again, it just seems like "money is more important than being fair" take, which I really don't understand in a competitive sport. 

[Acgott]

6 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I'm not sure what you are saying here. They face this same problem 17 weeks a year and are able to handle it.

I can't imagine you are arguing that the city of Cleveland couldn't muster the infrastructure to support a Super Bowl. They have ubers + hotels, etc. People sit in snow games. 

So again, it just seems like "money is more important than being fair" take, which I really don't understand in a competitive sport. 

Yes, the money is the main issue. I would love the superbowl in Cleveland. The NFL is a business though. They want to show off their biggest and newest toys. It’s just not a tourist attraction compared to other locations.

[Soggust]

10 minutes ago, Acgott said:

Yes, the money is the main issue. I would love the superbowl in Cleveland. The NFL is a business though. They want to show off their biggest and newest toys. It’s just not a tourist attraction compared to other locations.

Yeah, let me say - I understand you are arguing reality and I'm arguing ideality. 

Unfortunately, in a capitalist world the dollar does matter. I'm prolly a little oversensitive because I'm a UFC fan and they literally assign title shots based upon ticket sales, which is clearly way more egregious than what we are discussing here, but [insert slippery slope argument here]. I mean they already floating the idea of doing the same for AFCCG/NFCCG games too.

Idk, just feels like "duh it's a business" gets used to justify a lot of theoretically unfair practices in sports. So, I'm always going to get my old man butt out on the porch and shake my cane at it every time, because I hate it even if I know it's the way of the world.

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Soggust

[Acgott]

1 minute ago, Soggust said:

Yeah, let me say - I understand you are arguing reality and I'm arguing ideality. 

Unfortunately, in a capitalist world the dollar does matter. I'm prolly a little oversensitive because I'm a UFC fan and they literally assign title shots based upon ticket sales, which is clearly way more egregious than what we are discussing here, but [insert slippery slope argument here]. I mean they already floating idea of same for AFCCG/NFCCG games too.

Idk, just feels like "duh it's a business" gets used to justify a lot of theoretically unfair practices in sports. So, I'm always going to get my old man butt out on the porch and shake my cane at it every time, because I know it's the way of the world even if I hate it.

 

I don’t disagree. I don’t attend the Super Bowl. It would be the same at any stadium for me on tv. I’ll love snow games and having Superbowls in Buffalo, Green Bay, Cleveland, etc. would be great for the fans and the communities. I hate the idea of neutral games. I feel hosting the draft at different locations was an olive branch from the NFL to the smaller cities, that won’t get Superbowls and the fan events that goes with it.

[ET80]

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

Is the concern that the stadium won't sell out?

It’s not about the game at all. 

As somebody who lives in a city that hosted the Super Bowl twice this century, I’ll tell you - the Super Bowl is a week long event, with majority of events outdoors. The NFL Experience, Radio Row, NFL Honors, live concerts, parties, etc. Host cities go as far to lift any laws regarding public intoxication and public drinking, vendors set up booths all over the streets selling beer and food… because the week leading up to the Super Bowl is people walking around, drinking and celebrating football. These concerts and parties and skills challenges? They’re all usually done outdoors. 

Would you rather do that on a warm, sunny day wearing shorts and a t-shirt? Or wearing multiple layers and gloves? 

[Nabbs4u]

4 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Would you rather do that on a warm, sunny day wearing shorts and a t-shirt? Or wearing multiple layers and gloves? 

Or not at all because a winter storm has completely shut the city and it's infrastructure down with 4-6 ft of snow. NFL will never risk it again, nor should they. 

[Soggust]

1 hour ago, ET80 said:

It’s not about the game at all. 

As somebody who lives in a city that hosted the Super Bowl twice this century, I’ll tell you - the Super Bowl is a week long event, with majority of events outdoors. The NFL Experience, Radio Row, NFL Honors, live concerts, parties, etc. Host cities go as far to lift any laws regarding public intoxication and public drinking, vendors set up booths all over the streets selling beer and food… because the week leading up to the Super Bowl is people walking around, drinking and celebrating football. These concerts and parties and skills challenges? They’re all usually done outdoors. 

Would you rather do that on a warm, sunny day wearing shorts and a t-shirt? Or wearing multiple layers and gloves? 

But ... shouldn't HFA be about the game? Considering it's literally the most important game of the year? 

I would imagine you would agree that home field is worth at least SOMETHING considering it is the reward for winning more games than other teams. Even if the majority of SB fans are transient, there are other advantages with being at home like being able to sleep in your own bed, etc.

So why would we only allow that advantage to certain teams? Because we don't want to drink inside? Because the league makes more money?

You can see why it's hard for some of us to get on board with that, right?

[pf9]

2 hours ago, ET80 said:

It’s not about the game at all. 

As somebody who lives in a city that hosted the Super Bowl twice this century, I’ll tell you - the Super Bowl is a week long event, with majority of events outdoors. The NFL Experience, Radio Row, NFL Honors, live concerts, parties, etc. Host cities go as far to lift any laws regarding public intoxication and public drinking, vendors set up booths all over the streets selling beer and food… because the week leading up to the Super Bowl is people walking around, drinking and celebrating football. These concerts and parties and skills challenges? They’re all usually done outdoors. 

Would you rather do that on a warm, sunny day wearing shorts and a t-shirt? Or wearing multiple layers and gloves? 

A Super Bowl in Cleveland can hold associated events at Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse

[Soggust]

21 minutes ago, pf9 said:

A Super Bowl in Cleveland can hold associated events at Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse

Yeah in 2023, I gotta believe they can reserve a convention center or set up outdoor venues with heaters etc for other activities.

I imagine the nuclear scenario is that they get a blizzard or something that restricts travel to/from the city and kills the attendance/ratings/game. 

I get the concern from the league, don't get me wrong. I just don't agree that disrupting competitive balance is the answer. 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Soggust

[cp0k2]

[ET80]

2 hours ago, Soggust said:

But ... shouldn't HFA be about the game? Considering it's literally the most important game of the year? 

No - because no two schedules are identical. If I have Jacksonville at 13-4 (with six cupcake games in division) and Philly goes 12-5 (with six bloodbaths in division) did Jax really EARN anything over Philly?

It’s going to be impossible to provide HFA contingent on record - there’s always going to be some nuance that will be criticized. 

2 hours ago, Soggust said:

Because the league makes more money?

Sort of - the league isn’t interested in making MORE money, the league wants to make the MOST money possible. There is a difference in these two positions; They’ll make money wherever they host the games, but they want the maximum amount of dollars they can get out of this event - and that means 4-6 venues or somewhere with a new stadium. 

To the 31 owners - this might be a labor of love, but it’s still labor (and a billion dollar wealth generator). When you’re making billions like this, it’s all about maximizing earnings - and attractive locales is probably the biggest driver of those earnings, so you don’t interfere with that.

2 hours ago, Soggust said:

You can see why it's hard for some of us to get on board with that, right?

Likewise, you can see why owners aren’t interested in disrupting a wildly successful business model, right? If you look at the NFL as a business, it makes sense. You may not like the response, but you see the validity. Owners don’t look at the NFL the same way a fan does.

2 hours ago, pf9 said:

A Super Bowl in Cleveland can hold associated events at Rocket Mortgage Fieldhouse

No one building is holding ALL of this indoors - this took up 6-8 city blocks in Houston, what indoor venue covers that many city blocks?

[Soggust]

4 hours ago, ET80 said:

Sort of - the league isn’t interested in making MORE money, the league wants to make the MOST money possible. There is a difference in these two positions; They’ll make money wherever they host the games, but they want the maximum amount of dollars they can get out of this event - and that means 4-6 venues or somewhere with a new stadium. 

To the 31 owners - this might be a labor of love, but it’s still labor (and a billion dollar wealth generator). When you’re making billions like this, it’s all about maximizing earnings - and attractive locales is probably the biggest driver of those earnings, so you don’t interfere with that.

Okay, but let's say the Jets & Bills are in the playoffs and the Bills win on a last second FG.

If the NFL stepped in mid-week and said "Hey guys - I know the Bills won, but NYC is a bigger demographic and more profitable so we are actually going to advance the Jets to the second round of the playoffs instead" - I don't imagine you would have the same perspective of "Hey guys, it's just a business doing what's best for business. Think about the owners who are trying to maximize the revenue."

But Soggust, obviously that's an extreme polarization! Maybe, but the principle is the same. You don't sacrifice a substantial competitive edge for profits. 

We don't even have to polarize it tbh - look at the Demar Hamlin situation. Remember the big hoopla the NFL had to navigate and how they had to ad-hoc create rules mid-week in order to cater to an issue where HFA was possibly lost? In that scenario, everyone understood HFA was an advantage. Yet, we are quite literally sweeping that same exact advantage under the rug in the name of "league profits" and no one thinks that's odd? We all agree it's okay for the rules to be unfair as long as Stephen Ross' net worth is still rising?

 

4 hours ago, ET80 said:

Likewise, you can see why owners aren’t interested in disrupting a wildly successful business model, right? If you look at the NFL as a business, it makes sense. You may not like the response, but you see the validity. Owners don’t look at the NFL the same way a fan does.

I understand the rationale, I just don't agree that the idea of giving unfair edges in the most important game of the year based upon "corporate greed", is a valid take.

And I understand I'm in the minority with my position on this, but I feel like I'm in the twilight zone because I cannot understand how fans would prioritize lining an owners pocketbooks over competitive balance lol.

[ET80]

3 hours ago, Soggust said:

I understand the rationale, I just don't agree that the idea of giving unfair edges in the most important game of the year based upon "corporate greed", is a valid take.

How is it an unfair edge? The whole idea of neutral field is nobody gets an edge - it’s neutral.

[pf9]

10 hours ago, ET80 said:

No - because no two schedules are identical. If I have Jacksonville at 13-4 (with six cupcake games in division) and Philly goes 12-5 (with six bloodbaths in division) did Jax really EARN anything over Philly?

It’s going to be impossible to provide HFA contingent on record - there’s always going to be some nuance that will be criticized. 

Sort of - the league isn’t interested in making MORE money, the league wants to make the MOST money possible. There is a difference in these two positions; They’ll make money wherever they host the games, but they want the maximum amount of dollars they can get out of this event - and that means 4-6 venues or somewhere with a new stadium. 

To the 31 owners - this might be a labor of love, but it’s still labor (and a billion dollar wealth generator). When you’re making billions like this, it’s all about maximizing earnings - and attractive locales is probably the biggest driver of those earnings, so you don’t interfere with that.

Likewise, you can see why owners aren’t interested in disrupting a wildly successful business model, right? If you look at the NFL as a business, it makes sense. You may not like the response, but you see the validity. Owners don’t look at the NFL the same way a fan does.

No one building is holding ALL of this indoors - this took up 6-8 city blocks in Houston, what indoor venue covers that many city blocks?

I believe something similar was done when the Super Bowl was in New Jersey

[ET80]

16 minutes ago, pf9 said:

I believe something similar was done when the Super Bowl was in New Jersey

A lot of it was outdoors, it had to be outdoors - and that’s why the feedback on that particular Super Bowl was that it was one of the worst experiences when compared to other host cities:

https://syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/1038198-ranking-every-city-that-has-ever-hosted-a-super-bowl.amp.html
 

https://athlonsports.com/nfl/ranking-super-bowl-venues