Originally posted by mayo49:Originally posted by StOnEy333:Originally posted by dcsham:Originally posted by Faraz80:You're right in that SF is a better venue than Miami. The problem with SF is that it has an unproven track record. Not only that, you're trying to host a SB in a good city with the stadium being offsite. This is where access, transportation, etc. can become an issue. I would love to see a SB in SF, but I think it would be a risk for the NFL to do it. It would be smarter to host it in an indoor venue. Dallas, Houston, or even NO would be good options, although from what everyone is saying...chances are that SF would get it over Miami.
I have no idea where you are getting your transportation, risk, etc. information. Obviously you do not live in the bay area to have any comprehension of traffic in this area of the bay. Getting to/from this place is going to be a breeze...101, 680, 880, 280, 237, and light rail + busses running right down Tasman. Guadalupe Parkway from the West. If you don't know what any of that means, you don't have a clue.
For the reasons that you've pointed out, I think no way we get the 50th Superbowl. Too big, of an occasion to give it to a first time city.
Well..there's always Jacksonville