There are 169 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

New Stadium pics and info (added pics from stadium tour)...

Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
Apple iWin Stadium coming soon August 2014

No...it would be the Apple iStadium.

this

Considering all the planned technology within the stadium, it actually isn't all that bad an idea.
I dont think we get SB50. Too risky a proposition for the NFL. I know it would be a big event for the city of San Francisco, but holding the 50th SB at an unproven venue is not a safe bet for the NFL. Although Miami has a good track record hosting SBs, weather is always a risk and IMO rainy weather takes away from the Superbowl celebratory effect.

If the NFL was smart, they's put SB 50 in Dallas. Putting aside our hatred for the Cowboys, its the most entertaining venue in the NFL. The stadium is a combo mall, entertainment center, stadium. It would go a long ways in promoting the event internationally.
Originally posted by Faraz80:
I dont think we get SB50. Too risky a proposition for the NFL. I know it would be a big event for the city of San Francisco, but holding the 50th SB at an unproven venue is not a safe bet for the NFL. Although Miami has a good track record hosting SBs, weather is always a risk and IMO rainy weather takes away from the Superbowl celebratory effect.

If the NFL was smart, they's put SB 50 in Dallas. Putting aside our hatred for the Cowboys, its the most entertaining venue in the NFL. The stadium is a combo mall, entertainment center, stadium. It would go a long ways in promoting the event internationally.

you make a good point, but i really hope you're wrong
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
Apple iWin Stadium coming soon August 2014

No...it would be the Apple iStadium.

this

Considering all the planned technology within the stadium, it actually isn't all that bad an idea.
Terrible idea, we would have to upgrade/Pay for something every year
Originally posted by paperplanemedia:

The thing about Dallas is that as far as tourism, it ain't a destination. For Super Bowl 50 you need a great city with lots of tourist attractions hotel accomodations, great weather, and a great stadium. The Super Bowl is just as much about the week as it is the stadium. Dallas has the Millenium Falcon but the problem is its hovering in outer space and they ain't ready for that onslaught of visitors and just don't have enough to keep em occupied
[ Edited by Pillbusta on Oct 26, 2012 at 4:49 PM ]
Originally posted by Faraz80:
I dont think we get SB50. Too risky a proposition for the NFL. I know it would be a big event for the city of San Francisco, but holding the 50th SB at an unproven venue is not a safe bet for the NFL. Although Miami has a good track record hosting SBs, weather is always a risk and IMO rainy weather takes away from the Superbowl celebratory effect.

If the NFL was smart, they's put SB 50 in Dallas. Putting aside our hatred for the Cowboys, its the most entertaining venue in the NFL. The stadium is a combo mall, entertainment center, stadium. It would go a long ways in promoting the event internationally.

Dallas isn't even in consideration largely because it was a bit of a disaster when they hosted it last.

I think you're wrong about the NFL not putting it in SF tho for SB50. I think they only reason Miami is in on the process for 50 or 51 is to get people in Miami to start working on the upgrades and roof for that stadium. Its a carrot. They haven't even approved the thing, let alone started building it.

SB50 in SF/SC is a return to California where the FIRST SB was played and will be in a brand spakin' new facility, not a crappy renovation that makes the place look like a toilet.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by DonnieDarko:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Pillbusta:
Apple iWin Stadium coming soon August 2014

No...it would be the Apple iStadium.

this

Considering all the planned technology within the stadium, it actually isn't all that bad an idea.
Terrible idea, we would have to upgrade/Pay for something every year

LOL...

Well....just look around at companies that have large amounts of disposable income and Apple would be the first one that comes to mind. I thought about Cisco Field there for awhile, but that's not going to happen now that Brocade is the stadiums official Networking Partner.
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Faraz80:
I dont think we get SB50. Too risky a proposition for the NFL. I know it would be a big event for the city of San Francisco, but holding the 50th SB at an unproven venue is not a safe bet for the NFL. Although Miami has a good track record hosting SBs, weather is always a risk and IMO rainy weather takes away from the Superbowl celebratory effect.

If the NFL was smart, they's put SB 50 in Dallas. Putting aside our hatred for the Cowboys, its the most entertaining venue in the NFL. The stadium is a combo mall, entertainment center, stadium. It would go a long ways in promoting the event internationally.

Dallas isn't even in consideration largely because it was a bit of a disaster when they hosted it last.

I think you're wrong about the NFL not putting it in SF tho for SB50. I think they only reason Miami is in on the process for 50 or 51 is to get people in Miami to start working on the upgrades and roof for that stadium. Its a carrot. They haven't even approved the thing, let alone started building it.

SB50 in SF/SC is a return to California where the FIRST SB was played and will be in a brand spakin' new facility, not a crappy renovation that makes the place look like a toilet.


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.
SFO is getting this game. Look at a couple of weeks ago, you had Oracle convention, festivals, 49ers, Raiders, Jets, Bills, Giants, SF Giants and A's games, Fleet Week, etc, etc, etc and the Bay Area pulled it off. This area is primed for the big show, it just needed the proper venue. Here's to hoping we pull it off and get many more games to come. Now that we are winning again, all you hear during games is announcers commenting on how beautiful the bay is. It is a destination city as well as the Bay Area period. I would be shocked if the game is not here. Another thing, public and mass transpiration in DFW is atrocious and pales in comparison to SFO. There might be 2 light rail lines in DFW total and they don't go but maybe twenty miles and they don't go to the stadium in Arlington to my knowledge. Plus Arlington is about 20 minutes outside Dallas in the wee hours of the morning with no traffic. On game day it could be over an hour getting there.
[ Edited by Pillbusta on Oct 26, 2012 at 5:07 PM ]
Originally posted by Faraz80:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by Faraz80:
I dont think we get SB50. Too risky a proposition for the NFL. I know it would be a big event for the city of San Francisco, but holding the 50th SB at an unproven venue is not a safe bet for the NFL. Although Miami has a good track record hosting SBs, weather is always a risk and IMO rainy weather takes away from the Superbowl celebratory effect.

If the NFL was smart, they's put SB 50 in Dallas. Putting aside our hatred for the Cowboys, its the most entertaining venue in the NFL. The stadium is a combo mall, entertainment center, stadium. It would go a long ways in promoting the event internationally.

Dallas isn't even in consideration largely because it was a bit of a disaster when they hosted it last.

I think you're wrong about the NFL not putting it in SF tho for SB50. I think they only reason Miami is in on the process for 50 or 51 is to get people in Miami to start working on the upgrades and roof for that stadium. Its a carrot. They haven't even approved the thing, let alone started building it.

SB50 in SF/SC is a return to California where the FIRST SB was played and will be in a brand spakin' new facility, not a crappy renovation that makes the place look like a toilet.


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.


All those sites aren't in consideration. It was announced by the commish that its SF or Miami. That's it. Since Miami doesn't even have the stadium construction approved or underway, I think SF is the site and the possibility for Miami to get the game is just a carrot to get things moving in Miami. If SF wins the SB50 bid, then Miami competes with Houston for SB 51.
Lol, I can tell all of you right now that the NFL and Roger Goodell does not consider SF for a Superbowl as a "risk". To protect the Shield, Eddie D did everything the league asked to divest himself from the team while still keeping it in the "family". The Debartolo's (Yorks) are a premier ownership group with the league. The NFL was all in on helping the niners secure financing for this venue, fully realizing that getting the Superbowl here was a major consideration. The 49ers stepped up by doing EVERYTHING that was asked to get this place built. San Francisco (and the bay area) is one of the top destinations in the WORLD, not just the United States. So you can bank on it right now...Superbowl 50 (or however the hell the NFL Roman Numerals it) will be played in the 49ers new stadium.
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.
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.

Agreed.
  • mayo49
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 20,067
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.

Agreed.

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.
[ Edited by mayo49 on Oct 26, 2012 at 8:58 PM ]
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home