MIAMI GARDENS - Sun Life Stadium (75,540)

[weava]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Not to mention competition in town with the new Marlins Stadiums as well. Remember it will have a roof, making it capable of hosting events a roofless Landshark or whatever its name will be cannot.

Marlins Stadium is to small for football, and not large enough for a final four so its irrelevent.

How many seats will the screens remove from the capacity. I know they already tarp off those corners for Hurricanes games, but why reduce the capacity for the NFL and bowl games? They already have new and huge video board above each endzone.

If anything the lowering of the capacity might hurt thier chances for future superbowls.

[Bobby3]

Because the Dolphins don't need that many seats. The stadium is privately held (unlike most NFL stadiums) meaning the Dolphins have to pay some bills, and more seats = more upkeep.

You realize that the stadiums will compete for more events than that, right? Football fans might "want to be part of the experience in the rain" (people who say this have never been outside in a tropical storm) but concert goers don't, at all.

[massp88]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Miami has been part of a tighter group of stadiums that aren't part of the equation anymore. That's why they are proposing the roof in the first place. Remember, it rained on Peyton last time he was in the Superbowl. New commish, new gen of stadiums open and ready to host. No gurantees. Just as I said, its about keeping up with the competition. Not to mention competition in town with the new Marlins Stadiums as well. Remember it will have a roof, making it capable of hosting events a roofless Landshark or whatever its name will be cannot.

Marlins Stadium is going to be the smallest, or one of the smallest venues in MLB. What big events will Dolphins Stadium lose out to it? Not the Final Four because the NCAA, correct me if I am wrong, has gone away from allowing baseball stadium from hosting it. The Marlins stadium won't host the Super Bowl, or the Orange Bowl. So what other major event is there for them to lose that host or have hosted?

By your statement, I assume you are talking about stadiums in Dallas, Houston and Glendale as the new gen stadiums. What other stadiums in warmer climates are capable of hosting?

Miami will not lose out on hosting, whether this roof gets put in or not.

[Bobby3]

Concerts, ACC/SEC events.

[rantanamo]

bowls, concerts, dirt racing series, x-games, college baseball classics, regional conference basketball tourneys. It will have a complete roof so it can do some things that don't want to be completely outside, but need bigger than the American Airlines Arena.

Cities that have been bidding the last couple of years include, Arlington, Houston, Glendale, Atlanta, Indianapolis, East Rutherford, Tampa, Detroit, New Orleans, San Diego and Miami. Not to mention possible new LA, San Diego and San Francisco venues. Its the largest field of bidding cities ever and those cities have new or renovated buildings except for San Diego. Miami is afraid of not getting another Superbowl, as are all the other cities. The new Commish has shown no desire to start a rotation or any preference for warm weather cities. He thinks the Giants/Jets bid is a good idea, while the old commish hated and didn't want to reward Superbowls to even moderately cool climates like Atlanta.

[massp88]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

bowls, concerts, dirt racing series, x-games, college baseball classics, regional conference basketball tourneys. It will have a complete roof so it can do some things that don't want to be completely outside, but need bigger than the American Airlines Arena.

Cities that have been bidding the last couple of years include, Arlington, Houston, Glendale, Atlanta, Indianapolis, East Rutherford, Tampa, Detroit, New Orleans, San Diego and Miami. Not to mention possible new LA, San Diego and San Francisco venues. Its the largest field of bidding cities ever and those cities have new or renovated buildings except for San Diego. Miami is afraid of not getting another Superbowl, as are all the other cities. The new Commish has shown no desire to start a rotation or any preference for warm weather cities. He thinks the Giants/Jets bid is a good idea, while the old commish hated and didn't want to reward Superbowls to even moderately cool climates like Atlanta.

You won't see the X-Games in South Florida. Also, I am pretty such plenty of dirt racing series host events in stadiums with no roofs.

The NFL is not going to regularly have SBs in cities like Detroit and Indianapolis. Why hasn't Tampa filed plans or made serious mention of needing a roof? The NFL will continue to include Miami in their rotation of host cities. Passing up Miami for cities such as Detroit and Indianapolis is not going to happen, roof or not.

I view these as the core SB hosting cities currently;

Miami
Tampa
Houston
New Orleans
Dallas
Glendale
San Diego
Los Angeles (when they get their stadium)

Possibilities:
Detroit
Indianapolis
Minneapolis
Atlanta
Jacksonville
St. Louis
San Francisco (if they get a new stadium)

All of the above possibilities only get mention because they have a dome, or are located is mild climates during the winter.

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by massp88

You won't see the X-Games in South Florida. Also, I am pretty such plenty of dirt racing series host events in stadiums with no roofs.

The NFL is not going to regularly have SBs in cities like Detroit and Indianapolis. Why hasn't Tampa filed plans or made serious mention of needing a roof? The NFL will continue to include Miami in their rotation of host cities. Passing up Miami for cities such as Detroit and Indianapolis is not going to happen, roof or not.

I view these as the core SB hosting cities currently;

Miami
Tampa
Houston
New Orleans
Dallas
Glendale
San Diego
Los Angeles (when they get their stadium)

Possibilities:
Detroit
Indianapolis
Minneapolis
Atlanta
Jacksonville
St. Louis
San Francisco (if they get a new stadium)

All of the above possibilities only get mention because they have a dome, or are located is mild climates during the winter.

I'd consider Orlando if the Citrus Bowl wasn't such a hole.

Too bad they ran out of money to fix it up.

Instead of spending $480M on a new arena, they should've renovated both the old one and the Citrus.

I'd also look at San Antonio or maybe even Charlotte.

[ryebreadraz]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

I'd consider Orlando if the Citrus Bowl wasn't such a hole.

Too bad they ran out of money to fix it up.

Instead of spending $480M on a new arena, they should've renovated both the old one and the Citrus.

I'd also look at San Antonio or maybe even Charlotte.

No team, no Super Bowl and Charlotte is too cold to host.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by massp88

You won't see the X-Games in South Florida. Also, I am pretty such plenty of dirt racing series host events in stadiums with no roofs.

The NFL is not going to regularly have SBs in cities like Detroit and Indianapolis. Why hasn't Tampa filed plans or made serious mention of needing a roof? The NFL will continue to include Miami in their rotation of host cities. Passing up Miami for cities such as Detroit and Indianapolis is not going to happen, roof or not.

I view these as the core SB hosting cities currently;

Miami
Tampa
Houston
New Orleans
Dallas
Glendale
San Diego
Los Angeles (when they get their stadium)

Possibilities:
Detroit
Indianapolis
Minneapolis
Atlanta
Jacksonville
St. Louis
San Francisco (if they get a new stadium)

All of the above possibilities only get mention because they have a dome, or are located is mild climates during the winter.

I don't think you understand. There is no rotation anymore. New commish has said as much.

And if you haven't noticed:

- Houston seems to have been forgotten, though they keep trying
- Goddell stated in the article about New York bidding that he's not opposed to cold weather Super Bowls
- Indianapolis was already awarded the 2012 Superbowl
- That's a big list even in your core group. Much bigger than at any previous time.
- If Miami was so confident, they wouldn't have mentioned a roof at all two years ago. Now they have renderings? They know the league did not look favorably upon it raining on the last Superbowl there. Cold would have less of an effect on the game than precipitation.
- Dallas is NOT warm during Superbowl time. Its always possible it will be in the 20s and 30s on that day, and the biggest snowfalls have been in Late Jan/Early Feb, yet they were rewarded a Superbowl. See new commisioner.

[massp88]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

I don't think you understand. There is no rotation anymore. New commish has said as much.

And if you haven't noticed:

- Houston seems to have been forgotten, though they keep trying
- Goddell stated in the article about New York bidding that he's not opposed to cold weather Super Bowls
- Indianapolis was already awarded the 2012 Superbowl
- That's a big list even in your core group. Much bigger than at any previous time.
- If Miami was so confident, they wouldn't have mentioned a roof at all two years ago. Now they have renderings? They know the league did not look favorably upon it raining on the last Superbowl there. Cold would have less of an effect on the game than precipitation.
- Dallas is NOT warm during Superbowl time. Its always possible it will be in the 20s and 30s on that day, and the biggest snowfalls have been in Late Jan/Early Feb, yet they were rewarded a Superbowl. See new commisioner.

I should have clarified. I meant the rotation of cities that bid to host. Not that the NFL has the SB on a city by city rotation of who get to host.

The snow in Dallas point is irrelevant, they not have a retractable roof stadium so if it snows, it will not be a problem for the game.

Personally, I think it's great the Roger is not opposed to a cold weather game, I think every NFL city should have a chance to host the game.

Houston just hosted the game back on 2004. They will have their turn coming up. New Orleans is going to have waited 11 years between SBs. Miami has waited only 3 years between their SBs.

[massp88]

Also, the fact that it rained back in 2007 was pure luck. I believe this was first Super Bowl to be played in inclement weather. So you are talking about 30 plus SBs that have been played outside with no bad weather.

[jl1718]

The commish has said no Super Bowl for San Diego til they get a new stadium.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by massp88

Also, the fact that it rained back in 2007 was pure luck. I believe this was first Super Bowl to be played in inclement weather. So you are talking about 30 plus SBs that have been played outside with no bad weather.

Nevertheless, the commissioner talked about it and Miami feels they need a roof.

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by ryebreadraz

No team, no Super Bowl and Charlotte is too cold to host.

Average daily high in Charlotte is about 50-55º in January.

Why wouldn't the NFL want to hold a Superbowl in what is virtually a giant amusement park? One reason: Stadium.

I'm 100% positive San Antonio could handle an NFL franchise. The Alamodome just needs some sprucing up.

[Bobby3]

Originally Posted by ryebreadraz

No team, no Super Bowl and Charlotte is too cold to host.

Actually, it's warm enough. Legally, but not theoretically. Charlotte's weather statistics are unreliable. It was 66 with blazing sun a few days back, and we'll have an ice storm tonight.

There are other conflicts though. Jacksonville took a lot of heat, and that didn't go unnoticed here. Don't expect Charlotte to ever bid.

Re: Tampa and a roof. Raymond James Stadium is a municipal venue, and not a particularly popular one to begin with. There's no way the people of Tampa would vote to put a roof on it when the Tropicana Dome -- however awful -- is next door in St. Pete and the housing market there is in chaos.

[rantanamo]

Interesting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aReB6pbT30Q8

[massp88]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Interesting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aReB6pbT30Q8

Indeed interesting. If the single motivating factor behind these millions in upgrades is to land the SB every 3 or 4 years, how are the taxpayers going to feel? Especially considering the new Marlins stadium.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Interesting.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aReB6pbT30Q8

So long as local govts. keep bending over for the pro sports leagues and their owners, the leagues will keep demanding the money. Miami would take a minor hit in the national mindset if they're no longer as preeminent a destination, but the NFL should also realize they're no longer the holy grail in terms of drawing tourists.

[rantanamo]

Who didn't see this coming. Statements have been coming out all decade from the NFL, not to mention new stadiums that are more of what they want are being built. There is huge business done at these events, and the NFL may not be the holy grail of drawing tourists, but they do draw huge numbers. Its no different than what many convention centers are doing. Yes there are multiple conventions, but most cities count on 1 or 2 that are the real big hitters, so they spend hundreds of millions to keep them. Dallas actually had to choose between the stadium and the convention politically and chose the convention center(I know it wasn't that simple, but there was a lot of pressure from their two largest conventions not to raise taxes for a stadium, vs raising them for a convention center hotel).

[KingmanIII]

The stadium has been renamed Sun Life Stadium.