PDA

View Full Version : Miami Awarded 2010 Super Bowl


GaryMrMets
10-06-2005, 07:44 PM
Miami Awarded 2010 Super Bowl

By LARRY LAGE
.c The Associated Press

ROMULUS, Mich. (AP) - South Florida heat prevailed over a city whose last Super Bowl was an icy one. Miami was awarded the 2010 Super Bowl on Thursday, a record 10th time the city will host the title game and record 15th time it will be in Florida.

``We love our city and we love our area. We think the weather is the best. We think we have the best hotels, the best restaurants, the best beaches and the best golf courses,'' Dolphins owner Wayne Huizenga said.

Miami, Atlanta and Houston made a final pitch for the marquee event at an NFL owners meeting about 25 miles from Detroit's Ford Field, where the next Super Bowl will be played.

What would Falcons owner Arthur Blank do differently?

``I would take Atlanta and move it to the Caribbean,'' he joked.

An ice storm and frigid temperatures struck Atlanta in 2000, the last time the game was played at the Georgia Dome.

With New York, which had been conditionally awarded the game, out of the running, the NFL picked from three cities that lost a bid in May for the 2009 game, which went to Tampa, Fla.

The vote took three ballots, with Houston eliminated on the first. No city got the three-quarters vote needed on the second ballot and Miami won by a simple majority on the third.

``Obviously, it was very close,'' Blank said.

Some regarded Atlanta and Houston as favorites because Miami already had been picked for the 2007 game, but Blank said South Florida's weather won out. The 2008 Super Bowl will be played in suburban Phoenix. That means after the game in Michigan this year, there will be three Super Bowls in Florida and one in Arizona.

``If you look at the last number of votes, it's very clear the ownership feels strongly about having the game where the weather is generally warmer,'' Blank said.

When the NFL is not awarding a Super Bowl to a city - like Detroit - with a new stadium, Huizenga expects Miami to have a good shot at landing the game.

``I think a lot of it is weather-driven,'' he said. ``It's a nice environment for our sponsors to take their guests. If you're a sponsor and you're doing business globally, to bring your guests to South Florida is pretty nice.''

After 2010, Miami will top New Orleans' record of nine for hosting the most Super Bowl games. Three off the first five Super Bowls - in 1968, 1969 and 1971 - were in Miami and the last one there was in 1999.

``We know that the best Super Bowls in history were in South Florida,'' said William Talbert, president and CEO of the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau. ``And we know the best place to hold Super Bowls is South Florida. We were somewhat of an underdog this time, but that never deters us.''

Florida is in the midst of what will be a four-Super Bowl, six-year run with last season's game in Jacksonville, the 2007 game in Miami and Tampa being the title-game site two years later.

``The NFL is finally realizing that the people who go to Super Bowls like warm-weather cities because of all the activities that can take place,'' said Dick Anderson, who played in three Super Bowls with the Dolphins and chaired the Super Bowl host committee for Miami in 1989.

Atlanta (2000 and 1994) and Houston (2004 and 1974) has each hosted the Super Bowl twice.

The 2010 Super Bowl originally was awarded to New York on the condition that a new stadium be built. The stadium, which also was part of the city's unsuccessful Olympic bid, failed to win government approval.

Last week, the New York Jets and Giants agreed to build a new stadium in New Jersey that could be opened by 2009. Both teams - as well as the NFL and New Jersey - would like a roof, but the teams have said the $200 million additional cost is beyond them. A roof would allow the Super Bowl and college basketball's Final Four to be played at the state-run Meadowlands complex.

10/06/05 17:05 EDT

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

Tigers#1
10-06-2005, 08:13 PM
Oh my gosh, they decided to have the superbowl in a southern state for a change? Thats unbelieveable. :eek:

00_Agent
10-08-2005, 04:26 PM
Finally starting to realize? What the hell? I thought that they ONLY played the games in warm weather cities? When was the last time they didn't? Even though it was cold in Atlanta in 2000, Atlanta is also a warm weather city and they expected it to be nice.

This is nothing new. I'd like to see them have the game in Pittsburgh, Buffallo, or New England. Let them suffer a bit.

00

BPBlueSox
10-08-2005, 04:36 PM
Acutally, I think half the thing about the Super Bowl is going to a nice, warm city. That's why I don't think Detroit should get the Super Bowl, either. Who the hell wants to go there on their vacation, what they've earned? That's kind of the way I see it. It's like how college bowl games are mostly in warm weather places, too, it's a reward.

So even though they may be crappy football cities sometimes, I say stick to Miami, Tampa, Phoenix, San Diego, LA maybe, etc.

Royce
10-08-2005, 11:24 PM
I'd love to see the Dolphins in that superbowl, and the 2007 one too. :D

Tigers#1
10-09-2005, 02:22 AM
Acutally, I think half the thing about the Super Bowl is going to a nice, warm city. That's why I don't think Detroit should get the Super Bowl, either. Who the hell wants to go there on their vacation, what they've earned? That's kind of the way I see it. It's like how college bowl games are mostly in warm weather places, too, it's a reward.

So even though they may be crappy football cities sometimes, I say stick to Miami, Tampa, Phoenix, San Diego, LA maybe, etc.
Is this a joke?

Thedatch
10-09-2005, 04:01 AM
see, I would love to see a superbowl in a coldweather city without a dome or whatnot...but it wouldn't be fair. Teams like Indianapolis or Miami would never be able to beat lets say the pats, or the steelers, because they know what it takes to play in those conditions, and you can't give away homefield advantage in the superbowl

Tigers#1
10-09-2005, 04:17 AM
Why don't we just get rid of all the teams North of Georgia in the NFL? Why would any team want to Green Bay or Buffalo any time of the year? :hmm:

Thedatch
10-09-2005, 04:29 AM
Why don't we just get rid of all the teams North of Georgia in the NFL? Why would any team want to Green Bay or Buffalo any time of the year? :hmm:

it's different during the year vs. during the superbowl. that should be pretty clear.

Tigers#1
10-09-2005, 05:29 AM
Why?

We should only recognize the northern teams during the year, but when the superbowl comes, which is a major profir for that city, we should only give it to southern states? That makes sence. :hmm:

Thedatch
10-09-2005, 06:41 AM
Why?

We should only recognize the northern teams during the year, but when the superbowl comes, which is a major profir for that city, we should only give it to southern states? That makes sence. :hmm:

not only southern states...any city with a dome IMO. Indianapolis would make a fine superbowl city.