Example: Metro Miami's hosted ten SBs and the Dolphins have been to five, but the appearances and the hosting never coincided. NOLA's hosted ten as well, but the Saints have been to only one, and that one wasn't in NOLA. How long do you all think it'll be before a team plays a SB in its home stadium, and does anyone here think it'll be an advantage during the game? I don't have anything on which to base a guess as to when it'll happen. There have been 49 of these games, (or 47, or 45, depending on who's counting and what they're counting), but every NFL city's never had the same chances of hosting. Pittsburgh isn't going to host one anytime soon, and I'd say the same for ATL, KC, Cleveland, Cincy, Buffalo, Minnesota, Green Bay and Charlotte. Those cities just aren't going to be the top contender/bidder to host a SB in any given season. February playing conditions are going to be an issue for NYC, Philly, Boston, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, maybe even Washington and Baltimore. New Jersey hosted a while back, but they were fortunate that the weather was okay. As far as an advantage, I don't see one during the game itself. Yeah, great to be able to stay in your own house during the two weeks of garbage leading up to the kickoff, great to have the fans in town talking about and supporting the home team at home, but too many of the ticket purchases will be made by the same people IMO for the crowd noise to reflect any sort of home atmosphere.
Throughout the 50 years of the Super Bowl era there have only been six occasions when the host team for the Super Bowl made the playoffs that same season. And none of those teams even reached the Conference Championship game: 1970 Miami Dolphins - Divisional round 1978 Miami Dolphins - Wild Card round 1994 Miami Dolphins - Divisional round 1998 Miami Dolphins - Divisional round 2000 Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Wild Card round 2014 Arizona Cardinals - Wild Card round However, of the 50 Super Bowls played, seven were played in three stadiums that did not host regular season NFL. And there are two instances when a local team played a Super Bowl in a non-NFL stadium that was located just a few miles from their home stadium: • Super Bowl XIV at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena hosted the Los Angeles Rams who played their home games at the LA Coliseum (15 miles apart). No shame that the Rams lost to that dynasty Steelers team 31-19 but they more than held their own and led after three quarters. • Super Bowl XIX at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto hosted the San Francisco 49ers who played their home games at Candlestick Park (30 miles). That was during the Walsh-Montana era and the Niners handled the Dolphins, 38-16. Upcoming Super Bowl host cities: SB LI in 2017: NRG Stadium, Houston (Houston Texans) SB LII in 2018: U.S. Bank Stadium, Minneapolis (Minnesota Vikings - new stadium to open for the 2016 season) The sites for 2019 (LIII) and 2020 (LIV) will be voted on by the owners in May. The four finalists are all in the South: Miami, Tampa, New Orleans and Atlanta. And there have been rumors that Stan Kroenke's new stadium in LA is planning to bid for Super Bowl LV (February 2021). Sleeping in your home and using your team's practice facilities helps out. The Rams and 49ers had those advantages as I noted above. But it's usually just for one week as teams don't travel to the host city until the Sunday or Monday before the game itself. They stay home the week following the Conference Championship. I've also read that each participating team receives 17% of tickets while the other 30 teams only receive 1% each. The rest goes to the NFL and various sponsors. So yeah, support-wise I don't see much of a difference. It really depends on the teams playing because some teams have fans that travel well and often find ways to get tickets to away games. Steeler fans are amazing at this and I can easily envision more Steeler fans at a Super Bowl where their opponent is playing in their own stadium.
Wow. That's an interesting stat. Yeah, I recall that one or two were played at Tulane Stadium, back when Tulane halfway mattered (80K capacity isn't much today, but it was a decent size in the 70s). Also, there've been only 49. #50 will be Sunday. No shame at all. Ferragamo had the game of his life that day, and it took the best from the best ever to beat them. I still remember how the Rams ran to the other end of the field at the end of the third quarter with a two-point lead. It wasn't until I saw that premature display that I absolutely believed the Steelers would respond and win. The Rams did not score again. Minny got a new stadium, which I didn't know about when I posted. NOLA won't win that bid, and neither will ATL. I didn't think about the week they spend at home, either, Thanks!
The seven Super Bowls played in non-NFL stadiums were in Houston (1), Pasadena (5) and Stanford (1). Houston's Rice Stadium hosted SB VIII (Jan. '74) but the Oilers played at the Astrodome which, perhaps incredibly, never hosted a Super Bowl. Tulane Stadium hosted three Super Bowls (in January '70, '72 and '75) and they were seasons when the Saints played their home games at Tulane. On the last occasion, the Saints played the '74 season at Tulane. The stadium then hosted that season's Super Bowl and the Saints then moved to the Superdome for the '75 season. Yeah, my comment on "the 50 Super Bowls played" is wrong. I was pointing more towards knowing that the venue (Levi's) is an NFL stadium and that the host 49ers didn't make the playoffs. None of that will change between now and Sunday.
Atlanta is building a new stadium next to the Georgia Dome. Mercedes Benz Stadium is expected to open and host Falcons home games in 2017. Looks interesting with a pinwheel-style retractable roof. The last time Atlanta hosted the Super Bowl the weather was bitterly cold, which was very unexpected. Still, there have been suggestions that the weather experienced in 2000 is why Atlanta hasn't hosted another Super Bowl since.
But they gave NYC a shot a decade later hoping the weather would play nice, which it did, sorta (not quite that 70-degree athletic event perfection, but it was better than it could have been). I don't now if ATL's big enough to get it again, tho. And I admit that I forgot that my United will be sharing that venue with the Falcons Can't wait to see it.
I bashed MLS mercilessly for years here on BS because they dragged their feet on emphasizing the importance of a team in the Southeast's hub (it was bigger than just nobody showing up with the cash and interest- MLS wasn't doing their job of actively trying to generate interest. It seems the region's been largely ignored in both WCQ and MLS). But I'm shocked that you missed so many of my soccer-related posts in WR and during the last four World Cups.
Let's remember that for a stadium to be considered for hosting a Super Bowl today, its home team has to schedule playing a game in London first.
Steelers vs. LA Rams was played in Pasadena. Dolphines vs. 49ers was played in Palo Alto. Not quite home stadium, but pretty close. 'Home' team was 1-1.
Even if a host team made that Super Bowl, I doubt the NFL would let them have 'home field advantage'. They'd have to stay at the hotel that conference's champion was scheduled to stay at. And they'll be forced to practice at the facility that conference's champion was schedule to practice at. Their home facility would probably be off-limits for use as the other team would complain of the unfair advantage of using their home facility. The interesting thing is if the NFL will ever again have a Super Bowl in a venue that doesn't host an NFL team. The obvious reason that Los Angeles area, once a regular host of Super Bowls, hasn't had one since 1995. And the Rose Bowl is no longer an option with its lack of luxury boxes despite its large size.