Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Superbowl in NY (actually NJ)

Jangler

By Jangler,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

grateflday Collaborator

grateflday

Posted
Posted

The interesting thing about having a Superbowl at Giants/Jets Stadium is the location is NOT in NYC. The stadium itself is about ~10 miles away from the City and the place itself is the middle of a swamp called the Meadowlands. There is nothing around the place. There are some hotels but not that many, and none you can walk to. So yeah I know most people will be staying in NYC which is the draw and has everything, but getting from there to the Stadium is a pain in the a**. The only way to the stadium is by car or bus and depending on where you are coming from you will have to get and sit through crazy traffic, etc.

I see the lore of having a Superbowl in NYC but having it at Giants Stadium is not the same as having it in a city. I can see at the end of the day most people are going to end up being annoyed by it who dont know the area. The media, fans, team people, other etc are either going to end up staying in the city which is great but a pain to get to the stadium or vica versa stay by the stadium where there is nothing around but a swamp and then having to get into the city for stuff which is a pain.

This idea would be much better if the Stadium was actually IN THE CITY. That is why places like Chicago, Charlotte, Atlanta, etc are actually better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Rockets Rookie

Johnny Rockets

Posted
Posted

The interesting thing about having a Superbowl at Giants/Jets Stadium is the location is NOT in NYC. The stadium itself is about ~10 miles away from the City and the place itself is the middle of a swamp called the Meadowlands. There is nothing around the place. There are some hotels but not that many, and none you can walk to. So yeah I know most people will be staying in NYC which is the draw and has everything, but getting from there to the Stadium is a pain in the a**. The only way to the stadium is by car or bus and depending on where you are coming from you will have to get and sit through crazy traffic, etc.

What about the train? I've never done it personally but I have always heard that staying in NYC and hopping on one of the trains to the Meadowlands is very easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grateflday Collaborator

grateflday

Posted
Posted

What about the train? I've never done it personally but I have always heard that staying in NYC and hopping on one of the trains to the Meadowlands is very easy.

There is no train to the Meadowlands. You can take a train from NYC to Hoboken which is across the river then drive the ~10 miles up RT 3 to the Meadowlands. There are also trains from NYC to Newark but that is then a drive to the Meadowlands.

The Stadium is in the middle of swamp and surrounded by nothing but a big huge parking lot. The only way to get to anything is by car and like I said there is nothing even really nice around the area. You will really have to take the drive into the City to do stuff.

Ok... let me stand a bit corrected..... in the Meadowlands is also a horse track, Arena, and a never finished place called Xanadu that was supposed to be an indoor ski slope :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Section 505 Newbie

Section 505

Posted
Posted

This isnt about cold weather places getting a Superbowl.. this is about whatever NY wants, it gets

Amen. The NFL has always done whatever "is in the best interests of NY".

This idea would be much better if the Stadium was actually IN THE CITY.

Never hurt Arizona I guess because of the great weather. All the official hotels and NFL events are 20 miles away from Glendale in downtown Phoenix. All the partying is further away over in Scottsdale. The stadium itself is in the middle of nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bobby Newbie

Bobby

Posted
Posted

On the NASCAR, Super Bowl comparison. Aside from the aforementioned NASCAR fans bringing motor homes, the media (and, yes, fan base) associated with NASCAR isn't quite as, for lack of a better word, prickish, as the group that would follow the Super Bowl.

They treated Jacksonville like garbage, and Jacksonville doesn't have the ego that Charlotte does. Someone here may haul off and kick a reporter's ass for that stuff.

I think the rule means "five star" hotel rooms, and we don't have enough of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boltergeist Newbie

Boltergeist

Posted
Posted

And since when did having a new stadium make you a sure thing to host a Superbowl

Wouldn't call it a sure thing, but Houston, Detroit, Dallas, Indy, and now the Meadowlands got SBs shortly after their new facilities were built (and JAX after the remodel). Another thing to consider is that until stadiums are built in LA and San Diego, the NFL won't go there, and there was the uncertainty of going back to NO for a few years, opening up some of these slots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dpantherman Newbie

Dpantherman

Posted
Posted

Type of poo is this. SB supposed to be in fair climates for both teams

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in NFL in quite some time. This shouldn't even be a debate. Goodell or somebody need to speak up

boo freaking hoo. its Football. Deacon Jones would slap the taste out of your mouth if he heard that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hawk Newbie

Hawk

Posted
Posted

personally...I think if you are big enough to host an NFL team, you are big enough to host a Super Bowl! Same with the weather....Seattle can't host because they have an open air stadium and it might rain/snow? That's bullshit....it's an all weather game!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...