What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Super Bowl LII awarded to Minneapolis. VIP ice fishing parties! (1 Viewer)

massraider

Footballguy
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/minneapolis-publicly-funded-stadium-wins-bid-super-bowl-203102937--nfl.html

New Orleans had a perfect record when it came to Super Bowl bids. But, NFL owners like rewarding cities that build expensive publicly-funded stadiums even more than they love the Crescent City.

Minneapolis will be the home of Super Bowl LII in 2018, beating New Orleans in the final vote on Tuesday at the NFL owners meetings. The NFL has made it clear that if you build a stadium, as Minnesota is doing with the help of $498 million in public funds, it will do everything it can to get your city the big game. Nothing else matters. Not the fan experience, the weather during the week, or anything else. After all, NFL owners might want their own new stadium someday, and they'll want the tax money to make sure they don't pay for it. Minnesota’s new dome will open for the 2016 season.

“I think it had a great deal to do with it, and we want to thank our public for giving that support,” US Bank CEO and Minneapolis Super Bowl committee co-chair Richard Davis told NFL Network about how much public tax money led to winning the bid. “It’s $498 million, one of the largest public-private partnerships, I think in the history of the NFL.”
New Orleans had been 10-for-10 when it bid on the Super Bowl. The city will be celebrating its 300[SIZE=inherit]th[/SIZE]birthday in 2018. But, it plays in an old stadium, the Superdome. Feel free to wonder when the next pitch for public funds for a new stadium in New Orleans will come. It’ll surely include the reality that without a new stadium it’ll be harder to compete with cities that have new tax-funded stadiums for future Super Bowls. The Big Easy put up a good fight against Minneapolis and its new stadium, however.

Indianapolis, a very good host for big sporting events (and one that got a Super Bowl shortly after Lucas Oil Stadium was built mostly through tax money), was eliminated early in the process, leaving Minnesota and New Orleans to battle for the bid. There was no supermajority in the third round of votes. Only a simple majority was needed in the fourth round, and Minneapolis got it.

When commissioner Roger Goodell announced Minneapolis had won the Super Bowl, the NFL Network showed the committee erupt in celebration. Minneapolis is a nice city, and surely will put on a good show. Minneapolis hosted Super Bowl XXVI so it’s not the first time. Minneapolis has hosted many big sporting events without a problem. But this had nothing to do with the best city for the game. Unless Las Vegas gets a 100,000-seat stadium and the NFL gives up its disingenuous crusade against gambling, or New York gets a different climate, New Orleans will always be the best city to host the Super Bowl. Good luck finding anyone that would choose to spend early February in Minneapolis rather than New Orleans. This vote had absolutely zero to do with that.

Goodell said he sensed after the vote that the efforts the Vikings and Minneapolis put into getting the stadium built was a big factor for the owners. The league doesn't deny that new stadiums are a huge factor in the decision.

"The new stadiums are obviously a big factor and I think drive and influence the owners’ perspective," Goodell said in his press conference shown on the NFL Network.

Billionaire owners like when one of their own pulls off the trick of getting millions in public tax money to build stadiums. If you can pull off that feat, there's an unspoken promise of a Super Bowl in the future. New Orleans got that message very clearly on Tuesday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question I want to ask after reading that is why has New Orleans hosted it 10 times already? Phoenix. LA. Houston. San Diego. Dallas. Atlanta. Miami. Tampa. Etc. etc. are all good warm weather spots. Why not go somewhere besides New Orleans? It sounds greedy and more like sour grapes when they've hosted it so many times already. I understand that Minnesota is not a great destination in the winter, but there are plenty of places that are.

 
The question I want to ask after reading that is why has New Orleans hosted it 10 times already? Phoenix. LA. Houston. San Diego. Dallas. Atlanta. Miami. Tampa. Etc. etc. are all good warm weather spots. Why not go somewhere besides New Orleans? It sounds greedy and more like sour grapes when they've hosted it so many times already. I understand that Minnesota is not a great destination in the winter, but there are plenty of places that are.
New Orleans is just built to host events like the Super Bowl. Everything is within a mile... world-class restaurants, hotels, casinos, other tourist destinations, etc. The weather is usually mild enough and the city is simply used to hosting huge events (Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, bowl games, etc.).

Some of the cities you mention have downtown venues, others do not.

As for Minneapolis hosting in 2018, the fact that the downtown area (and the stadium being built) is connected by indoor skyways makes for a much better experience. Hotels, restaurants and other attractions will be linked by the skyway system, there's a decent light rail system and the downtown, while not as buzzing as some other Midwest cities, does have a decent amount of restaurants, bars, etc.

 
I really like that my state has a natural deterent for p***ies. Surprised the same people don't whine about going to Seattle cuz their hair might get wet. New Orleans having hosted it 10 times already is ridiculous...they shouldn't even be allowed to put in a bid for a decade. For a sport that is supposed to be so tough, sure seems like a lot of fans are colossal babies. haha.

The people in attendance at Super Bowls typically aren't even the real fans anyway.

If weather is scary to you, stay home and watch the game like millions of other people cuz you'll see it better anyway.

 
NO gets the 10 SB's because it's the best host city along with Miami. NO had won 10 of 10, but then it had never gone up against a city with a new stadium.

And MIN getting the SB was pretty much a fait accompli all along, everyone knew that's what would happen, and that's ok because that's how the league does things. I think NO went for this one because it's the city's 300th anniversary.

As an aside I think MIN should have returned to having an outdoor stadium. They were 10-1 in the playoffs, with one fluke loss to a great Cowboys team on a late bomb from Staubach to Dupree, otherwise they probably would have been 11-0 or 12-0 at Bloomington with 5 SB's. Since then they have been starstruck in the playoffs and have never made another SB, including NFCC losses at home. I don't think ATL would have won that game outdoors, that's one MIN would have had for sure. Oh well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
New Orleans is the best city for hosting.

That's not enough. Every other city that gets public money should host a Super Bowl. It's a bunch of cocktail parties. Which city cannot handle that? I'd like to see on in Seattle, Green Bay, and New England.

 
Every team that wants to host it should get to host it unless there is a rational reason why they couldn't manage it.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
NO gets the 10 SB's because it's the best host city along with Miami. NO had won 10 of 10, but then it had never gone up against a city with a new stadium.

And MIN getting the SB was pretty much a fait accompli all along, everyone knew that's what would happen, and that's ok because that's how the league does things. I think NO went for this one because it's the city's 300th anniversary.

As an aside I think MIN should have returned to having an outdoor stadium. They were 10-1 in the playoffs, with one fluke loss to a great Cowboys team on a late bomb from Staubach to Dupree, otherwise they probably would have been 11-0 or 12-0 at Bloomington with 5 SB's. Since then they have been starstruck in the playoffs and have never made another SB, including NFCC losses at home. I don't think ATL would have won that game outdoors, that's one MIN would have had for sure. Oh well.
The team that lost to Atlanta was built for artificial turf, though. Robert Smith, Randy moss, etc.
 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
NO gets the 10 SB's because it's the best host city along with Miami. NO had won 10 of 10, but then it had never gone up against a city with a new stadium.

And MIN getting the SB was pretty much a fait accompli all along, everyone knew that's what would happen, and that's ok because that's how the league does things. I think NO went for this one because it's the city's 300th anniversary.

As an aside I think MIN should have returned to having an outdoor stadium. They were 10-1 in the playoffs, with one fluke loss to a great Cowboys team on a late bomb from Staubach to Dupree, otherwise they probably would have been 11-0 or 12-0 at Bloomington with 5 SB's. Since then they have been starstruck in the playoffs and have never made another SB, including NFCC losses at home. I don't think ATL would have won that game outdoors, that's one MIN would have had for sure. Oh well.
The team that lost to Atlanta was built for artificial turf, though. Robert Smith, Randy moss, etc.
True and Buffalo made 4 SBs outdoors with Jim Kelly and the Thomas/Reed offense. That Minnesota team could and did win outdoors, but ATL would have been miserable in the ~15 degree weather they had that day. No visiting team would want to play outdoors in Minny in December or January.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The question I want to ask after reading that is why has New Orleans hosted it 10 times already? Phoenix. LA. Houston. San Diego. Dallas. Atlanta. Miami. Tampa. Etc. etc. are all good warm weather spots. Why not go somewhere besides New Orleans? It sounds greedy and more like sour grapes when they've hosted it so many times already. I understand that Minnesota is not a great destination in the winter, but there are plenty of places that are.
New Orleans is just built to host events like the Super Bowl. Everything is within a mile... world-class restaurants, hotels, casinos, other tourist destinations, etc. The weather is usually mild enough and the city is simply used to hosting huge events (Mardi Gras, Jazz Fest, bowl games, etc.).

Some of the cities you mention have downtown venues, others do not.
:goodposting:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BusterTBronco said:
What a joke. Even FIFA is laughing at the NFL over this.
What's the joke??? Spend a billion $$ on a stadium, get a super bowl. Frankly surprised that NO is still in the running so consistently, given that the superdome is so old. The NFL is boycotting San Diego over an old stadium, after all, and SD is set up every bit as well as NO is for a big event.

 
BusterTBronco said:
What a joke. Even FIFA is laughing at the NFL over this.
What's the joke??? Spend a billion $$ on a stadium, get a super bowl. Frankly surprised that NO is still in the running so consistently, given that the superdome is so old. The NFL is boycotting San Diego over an old stadium, after all, and SD is set up every bit as well as NO is for a big event.
The Superdome did a major upgrade, basically an interior rebuild in 2012 when they got the SB last.

 
BusterTBronco said:
What a joke. Even FIFA is laughing at the NFL over this.
What's the joke??? Spend a billion $$ on a stadium, get a super bowl. Frankly surprised that NO is still in the running so consistently, given that the superdome is so old. The NFL is boycotting San Diego over an old stadium, after all, and SD is set up every bit as well as NO is for a big event.
The Superdome did a major upgrade, basically an interior rebuild in 2012 when they got the SB last.
That makes sense. Has there been any noise in NO about building a new stadium?

Also note Miami being booted from the SB rotation for the last several years while they fight over a new stadium.

 
BusterTBronco said:
Remember the good old days when the Superbowl was always held in cities that people would actually want to visit? Now it is just a carrot which the league uses to reward cities for building new stadiums.
The NFL does not care. The tickets will be sold & filled (they don't really care what the resale prices end up being) & more important the tv ratings will not suffer as people watching on tv will not be cold.

 
BusterTBronco said:
What a joke. Even FIFA is laughing at the NFL over this.
What's the joke??? Spend a billion $$ on a stadium, get a super bowl. Frankly surprised that NO is still in the running so consistently, given that the superdome is so old. The NFL is boycotting San Diego over an old stadium, after all, and SD is set up every bit as well as NO is for a big event.
The Superdome did a major upgrade, basically an interior rebuild in 2012 when they got the SB last.
That makes sense. Has there been any noise in NO about building a new stadium?

Also note Miami being booted from the SB rotation for the last several years while they fight over a new stadium.
Yes there was quite a bit until the 2012 reno. The state not only did that but basically gave, no exaggeration, some buildings by the Dome, and pretty much all concessions relating to the Dome and the Arena. Benson now owns a local tv station, he owns the NBA Pelicans, he gets revenues from both stadiums, nearly all the game day revenue, and he gets payments from the state. Really insane.

The renovation gave us expensive food and beer, our seats got moved, etc. - And we got the SB.

 
Agent575 said:
New Orleans having hosted it 10 times already is ridiculous...they shouldn't even be allowed to put in a bid for a decade.
You've obviously never been to the city. If you had, you'd refrain from speaking such nonsense.
 
Agent575 said:
New Orleans having hosted it 10 times already is ridiculous...they shouldn't even be allowed to put in a bid for a decade.
You've obviously never been to the city. If you had, you'd refrain from speaking such nonsense.
I said in my post I hadn't been there but I assure even if I had, I would like to see the Super Bowl somewhere else. Variety is nice. I seriously couldn't care less what the people who go to the Super Bowl think of the weather or the city or anything else...most of them are fringe football fans at best anyway. New Orleans getting that sort of revenue gifted to them that many times is sad. I don't get why it isn't just on a rotation for the entire league...other cities would love to host it. Screw New Orleans.

 
Agent575 said:
New Orleans having hosted it 10 times already is ridiculous...they shouldn't even be allowed to put in a bid for a decade.
You've obviously never been to the city. If you had, you'd refrain from speaking such nonsense.
I said in my post I hadn't been there but I assure even if I had, I would like to see the Super Bowl somewhere else. Variety is nice. I seriously couldn't care less what the people who go to the Super Bowl think of the weather or the city or anything else...most of them are fringe football fans at best anyway. New Orleans getting that sort of revenue gifted to them that many times is sad. I don't get why it isn't just on a rotation for the entire league...other cities would love to host it. Screw New Orleans.
Oh I get it.......another bitter Viking fan. Lol! That's what you get for signing Favre.
 
BusterTBronco said:
Remember the good old days when the Superbowl was always held in cities that people would actually want to visit? Now it is just a carrot which the league uses to reward cities for building new stadiums.
The NFL does not care. The tickets will be sold & filled (they don't really care what the resale prices end up being) & more important the tv ratings will not suffer as people watching on tv will not be cold.
Exactly. What do they care if a bunch of beer execs, and random salesmen who made their numbers are cold for a few hours?

Seattle should get one as well.

 
Agent575 said:
New Orleans having hosted it 10 times already is ridiculous...they shouldn't even be allowed to put in a bid for a decade.
You've obviously never been to the city. If you had, you'd refrain from speaking such nonsense.
I said in my post I hadn't been there but I assure even if I had, I would like to see the Super Bowl somewhere else. Variety is nice. I seriously couldn't care less what the people who go to the Super Bowl think of the weather or the city or anything else...most of them are fringe football fans at best anyway. New Orleans getting that sort of revenue gifted to them that many times is sad. I don't get why it isn't just on a rotation for the entire league...other cities would love to host it. Screw New Orleans.
Oh I get it.......another bitter Viking fan. Lol! That's what you get for signing Favre.
Missed your mark there. Actually I just see it how it is...there is no reason New Orleans should be hosting the Super Bowl in front of any other NFL city when they have clearly been handed more than the deserve. So I guess I should say I get it...a spoiled brat being told their spoiled never goes down smooth, huh?

 
Agent575 said:
New Orleans having hosted it 10 times already is ridiculous...they shouldn't even be allowed to put in a bid for a decade.
You've obviously never been to the city. If you had, you'd refrain from speaking such nonsense.
I said in my post I hadn't been there but I assure even if I had, I would like to see the Super Bowl somewhere else. Variety is nice. I seriously couldn't care less what the people who go to the Super Bowl think of the weather or the city or anything else...most of them are fringe football fans at best anyway. New Orleans getting that sort of revenue gifted to them that many times is sad. I don't get why it isn't just on a rotation for the entire league...other cities would love to host it. Screw New Orleans.
Oh I get it.......another bitter Viking fan. Lol! That's what you get for signing Favre.
When I was in New Orleans in March, attending a conference for work, I couldn't resist rolling down my window as I passed by Superdome and, at the top of my lungs, yelled "CHEATERS!" Made my wife practically jump out of her skin I startled her so much, LOL. :P [/skol] Felt good...even though it doesn't change anything from that NFC Championship Game. As a Vikings fan? I'd trade Super Bowl LII for the Vikings having a title any day. And it probably is just another bitter Viking fan talking. But all the "close but no cigar" gets REEEEEAAAALLLLLYYY old after 3-4 decades. And when those poor 'ol Saints fans became "God's chosen team" to lift the towns' spirits post-Katrina, and the team had to cheat their way into the Super Bowl? Screw New Orleans sounds about right.

Bitterness aside? There are about a ba-zillion great bars/restaurants within walking distance of the new stadium in Minneapolis, and the City hosts more live theater/music events than just about anyplace in the country not located on Manhattan Island. It'll be friggin' COLD in February 2018! But it'll be 72 and sunny inside those skyways and light rail cars. A bad snowstorm could do a number on the week's festivities. But blizzard or ??? aside? If folks from the South gotta throw on a hat, gloves, and 2-3 layers when the temperature dips below [gasp] 50? Stay home. More tickets and less lines for the rest of us.

 
God's chosen team? Just stop. Sorry that most of the city was destroyed by a natural disaster and many lost their lives. Their Super Bowl year was one of destiny. Maybe if you watched every one of their games that year you would have seen. Outside of their first loss of the season to Dallas, they were hitting on all cylinders. I have nothing against the Vikings or their hosting the Super Bowl, but you fans are some of the worst losers I've ever seen. The whole cheating thing is played out. The Saints lost their coach for a year, draft picks, and other suspensions and nothing was ever proven. It was just something stemming from a former disgruntled employee. Whatever. The Super Bowl victory can't be taken away. All the crying in the world can't change that. Neither can the week one victory over the Vikings the following year.

 
As a Vikings fan? I'd trade Super Bowl LII for the Vikings having a title any day. And it probably is just another bitter Viking fan talking. But all the "close but no cigar" gets REEEEEAAAALLLLLYYY old after 3-4 decades.
Datonn, would you?

Just a football fan talking here but Seattle and NE have the two of the best home field advantages going and they are both northern teams, with occasionally harsh (wet/cold/windy) weather that really creates an environment that opposing teams don't like to visit. Since 1982, when the Metrodome was built, NE has made 7 SBs, SEA has made 2 SBs (both since moving outdoors in `02), GB of course is well known for its HFA and it's made 3 SBs, BUF has made four. Denver's not northern but they're cold weather and they have made 6.

The two northern teams that haven't made it to the SB? The two that play indoors, MIN & DET. Of course MIN made 4 SBs while playing outdoors and were 10-1 in the playoffs there. (And maybe CLE is an exception since they have been so consistently awful no stadium HFA could help them).

Would you want an outdoor stadium if you thought it would help your team have a better HFA and a better chance of making the SB? (Not saying it does, though I think there's an argument there that it does, just say assuming here it does).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a Vikings fan? I'd trade Super Bowl LII for the Vikings having a title any day. And it probably is just another bitter Viking fan talking. But all the "close but no cigar" gets REEEEEAAAALLLLLYYY old after 3-4 decades.
Datonn, would you?

Just a football fan talking here but Seattle and NE have the two of the best home field advantages going and they are both northern teams, with occasionally harsh (wet/cold/windy) weather that really creates an environment that opposing teams don't like to visit. Since 1982, when the Metrodome was built, NE has made 7 SBs, SEA has made 2 SBs (both since moving outdoors in `02), GB of course is well known for its HFA and it's made 3 SBs, BUF has made four.

The two northern teams that haven't made it to the SB? The two that play indoors, MIN & DET. Of course MIN made 4 SBs while playing outdoors and were 10-1 in the playoffs there. (And maybe CLE is an exception since they have been so consistently awful no stadium HFA could help them).

Would you want an outdoor stadium if you thought it would help your team have a better HFA and a better chance of making the SB? (Not saying it does, though I think there's an argument there that it does, just say assuming here it does).
So CLE, PHI, CHI and the NY teams aren't 'northern'? This is a very weird argument.
 
As a Vikings fan? I'd trade Super Bowl LII for the Vikings having a title any day. And it probably is just another bitter Viking fan talking. But all the "close but no cigar" gets REEEEEAAAALLLLLYYY old after 3-4 decades.
Datonn, would you?

Just a football fan talking here but Seattle and NE have the two of the best home field advantages going and they are both northern teams, with occasionally harsh (wet/cold/windy) weather that really creates an environment that opposing teams don't like to visit. Since 1982, when the Metrodome was built, NE has made 7 SBs, SEA has made 2 SBs (both since moving outdoors in `02), GB of course is well known for its HFA and it's made 3 SBs, BUF has made four.

The two northern teams that haven't made it to the SB? The two that play indoors, MIN & DET. Of course MIN made 4 SBs while playing outdoors and were 10-1 in the playoffs there. (And maybe CLE is an exception since they have been so consistently awful no stadium HFA could help them).

Would you want an outdoor stadium if you thought it would help your team have a better HFA and a better chance of making the SB? (Not saying it does, though I think there's an argument there that it does, just say assuming here it does).
So CLE, PHI, CHI and the NY teams aren't 'northern'? This is a very weird argument.
Well I did mention CLE, but yes PHI (1), NYG (5) and CHI (2) have made SBs too in that time period, also playing outdoors. The PHI win vs DET this past season was a big game for the Eagles, DET never wanted to be there.

Not saying it's 100% logical, but OTOH I think it's safe to say the Vikes would have a major HFA in December and January, or at least a far better one if they were outdoors. But they would never have a shot at a SB.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
God's chosen team? Just stop. Sorry that most of the city was destroyed by a natural disaster and many lost their lives. Their Super Bowl year was one of destiny. Maybe if you watched every one of their games that year you would have seen. Outside of their first loss of the season to Dallas, they were hitting on all cylinders. I have nothing against the Vikings or their hosting the Super Bowl, but you fans are some of the worst losers I've ever seen. The whole cheating thing is played out. The Saints lost their coach for a year, draft picks, and other suspensions and nothing was ever proven. It was just something stemming from a former disgruntled employee. Whatever. The Super Bowl victory can't be taken away. All the crying in the world can't change that. Neither can the week one victory over the Vikings the following year.
:lol:

 
As a Vikings fan? I'd trade Super Bowl LII for the Vikings having a title any day. And it probably is just another bitter Viking fan talking. But all the "close but no cigar" gets REEEEEAAAALLLLLYYY old after 3-4 decades.
Datonn, would you?

Just a football fan talking here but Seattle and NE have the two of the best home field advantages going and they are both northern teams, with occasionally harsh (wet/cold/windy) weather that really creates an environment that opposing teams don't like to visit. Since 1982, when the Metrodome was built, NE has made 7 SBs, SEA has made 2 SBs (both since moving outdoors in `02), GB of course is well known for its HFA and it's made 3 SBs, BUF has made four.

The two northern teams that haven't made it to the SB? The two that play indoors, MIN & DET. Of course MIN made 4 SBs while playing outdoors and were 10-1 in the playoffs there. (And maybe CLE is an exception since they have been so consistently awful no stadium HFA could help them).

Would you want an outdoor stadium if you thought it would help your team have a better HFA and a better chance of making the SB? (Not saying it does, though I think there's an argument there that it does, just say assuming here it does).
So CLE, PHI, CHI and the NY teams aren't 'northern'? This is a very weird argument.
Well I did mention CLE, but yes PHI (1), NYG (5) and CHI (2) have made SBs too in that time period, also playing outdoors. The PHI win vs DET this past season was a big game for the Eagles, DET never wanted to be there.

Not saying it's 100% logical, but OTOH I think it's safe to say the Vikes would have a major HFA in December and January, or at least a far better one if they were outdoors. But they would never have a shot at a SB.
It's also true that Northern teams have been around longer.
 
I'm probably in the vast minority but if were up to me, I'd just play the SB in a rotation of San Diego, San Fran, Phoenix, Miami, New Orleans, and maybe a few others. Its winter and we have warm-weather stadiums in huge cities. It's really that simple.

No use for arguing over "this city is greedy" or what's fair because if we want to be FAIR, then we need a SB in Philly, Buffalo, and Cleveland, etc.

Just use what makes for an awesome week and if some cities and communities benefit more, then so be it.

 
I know the process of selecting a host city isn't going to change, for a variety of reasons, but I've always believed that the Super Bowl should be played at the team which had the higher seed (of those two involved in the game.) Correct me if I'm wrong, but prior to the SB era, all championship game host cities were determined this way, no? Currently, the entire season and the playoff games are hosted among 32/16 teams, so why shouldn't the big game? I don't understand the need to have a neutral site. There is no need. Philadelphia, Chicago and Green Bay have hosted championship games in the pre-SB era. If, as a team, you prepared during the regular season and playoffs to play in the elements, why couldn't you do that for one more game?

It has everything to do with the almighty $$$. I don't think the NFL lost money hosting it in NYC/Northern NJ last year. There is nothing to indicate northern host cities without domes couldn't be lucrative to the NFL.

Buffalo, New England, Philly, Chicago and every other city that has yet to host a Super Bowl should be given a chance to do so. I know that will not happen though and that just suxx.

Still, congratulations to Minnesota!!

 
New Orleans having hosted it 10 times already is ridiculous...they shouldn't even be allowed to put in a bid for a decade.
You've obviously never been to the city. If you had, you'd refrain from speaking such nonsense.
I said in my post I hadn't been there but I assure even if I had, I would like to see the Super Bowl somewhere else. Variety is nice. I seriously couldn't care less what the people who go to the Super Bowl think of the weather or the city or anything else...most of them are fringe football fans at best anyway. New Orleans getting that sort of revenue gifted to them that many times is sad. I don't get why it isn't just on a rotation for the entire league...other cities would love to host it. Screw New Orleans.
[SIZE=10.5pt]Congrats to Minnesota getting the Super Bowl. I've been to the city a couple of times; enjoyed my visits.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]Agent, there is some built up anger there sport. Find your nearest massage parlor to alleviate that. :thumbup: [/SIZE]


 
The new stadium is enclosed, no?

I don't see the problem with it if it is. It might not be Miami or New Orleans but really the NFL will basically bring their own party. The only thing is people will have have to put on a jacket when they hop into cabs between destinations.

I also believe that the new stadium was at least some what publicly/government funded. So, it's good for the NFL to reward a city that is willing to put up the money for a new stadium with a Superbowl. Going forward it may help other teams with negotiations for new stadiums.

 
God's chosen team? Just stop. Sorry that most of the city was destroyed by a natural disaster and many lost their lives. Their Super Bowl year was one of destiny. Maybe if you watched every one of their games that year you would have seen. Outside of their first loss of the season to Dallas, they were hitting on all cylinders. I have nothing against the Vikings or their hosting the Super Bowl, but you fans are some of the worst losers I've ever seen. The whole cheating thing is played out. The Saints lost their coach for a year, draft picks, and other suspensions and nothing was ever proven. It was just something stemming from a former disgruntled employee. Whatever. The Super Bowl victory can't be taken away. All the crying in the world can't change that. Neither can the week one victory over the Vikings the following year.
:lol:
As I said, you obviously didn't watch the Saints that year. Use your eyes instead of believing media hype.

 
God's chosen team? Just stop. Sorry that most of the city was destroyed by a natural disaster and many lost their lives. Their Super Bowl year was one of destiny. Maybe if you watched every one of their games that year you would have seen. Outside of their first loss of the season to Dallas, they were hitting on all cylinders. I have nothing against the Vikings or their hosting the Super Bowl, but you fans are some of the worst losers I've ever seen. The whole cheating thing is played out. The Saints lost their coach for a year, draft picks, and other suspensions and nothing was ever proven. It was just something stemming from a former disgruntled employee. Whatever. The Super Bowl victory can't be taken away. All the crying in the world can't change that. Neither can the week one victory over the Vikings the following year.
:lol:
:goodposting:

 
God's chosen team? Just stop. Sorry that most of the city was destroyed by a natural disaster and many lost their lives. Their Super Bowl year was one of destiny. Maybe if you watched every one of their games that year you would have seen. Outside of their first loss of the season to Dallas, they were hitting on all cylinders. I have nothing against the Vikings or their hosting the Super Bowl, but you fans are some of the worst losers I've ever seen. The whole cheating thing is played out. The Saints lost their coach for a year, draft picks, and other suspensions and nothing was ever proven. It was just something stemming from a former disgruntled employee. Whatever. The Super Bowl victory can't be taken away. All the crying in the world can't change that. Neither can the week one victory over the Vikings the following year.
:lol:
:goodposting:
Dude you guys are some serious crybabies! What's your excuse for the other 3 Super Bowl losses? :losers:

 
I'd like to note that most Viking fans are actually semi-rational humans that are able to get over horrible losses, as we've had a ####-load of practice.

That said, why do we need to keep bringing this up? You know it is possible to have a conversation in which MN and NO are both key factors and not bring up the 2009 NFCCG, right? And not resort to name calling? Right?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top