Why isn't the superbowl played in cold weather states?

Well you have to remember that the Super Bowl gets played after the entire season is over and normally gets played in January or so at probably the worst winter weather of the year.

Only two teams have won Super Bowl bids. Detroit hosted a few years ago. And Indianapolis won the 2012 bid by competing hard for it twice.

They look for cities that will cater the best to the fans at the Super Bowl.

Indianapolis and Detroit both had built brand new totally enclosed stadiums. The new Colts stadium has a retractable roof.

Also Indianapolis in their bid proposed putting up tons of awnings down the streets to basically heat all the walkways around downtown. They also added thousands upon thousands of hotel rooms within walking distance of the stadium. So basically even though it is in a cold weather city, Super Bowl attendees won't have to brave the cold weather hardly at all. And they will be in a practically brand new totally enclosed stadium.

It's all about the comfort for Super Bowl ticket holders. I guess they figure if you are going to pay over $1,000 for a ticket you don't want to have to brave the elements.

The super bowl only hosts about 10-20k fans from the 2 particpants, the rest are there for a party - and they want it to be in a tourist destination. It has little to do with the game conditions.

I maintain having a game in a dome is not necessarily a neutral condition, as it does favor certain styles of offense over others, as would a cold weather (snow, rain) site.

The Super Bowl is a week long party and that is why it's almost always somewhere warm (with an occassional dome in cold weather state thrown in).

Chicago and Seattle (as well as NY, PHI) could all be host cities. The host city needs to have sufficient hotel space, cab and/or public transportation, stadium in proximity to the major city (rule out New England - Foxboro is about 30+ miles from Boston, no easy way to get there).

Houston and Jacksonville were awful host cities because the surrounding areas are so sprawling - no public transportation, not enough cabs - and in Jacksonville's case, not enough hotel rooms either. Chicago was a much better choice.

Detroit had one in 2005. Nice stadium, downtown location, easy to get around, sufficient hotel space - but awful, depressed town - no reason to be held there. It's okay if it's cold out, but there has to be something to do as well.

The only way to make the Superbowl for the fans would be to let one of the two participants host the game. And that won't happen, because there's not enough lead time to accommodate all the incoming attention.

80% of the 'fans' at the Superbowl don't give a crap about the game unless they have a bet on it. That will never change.

well, a main reason they do this is because imagine being in Green Bay in February...you would face a series of problems

- plane delays from fans flying into and out of this cold city (snow, maybe ice)

- what is there to do outdoors if you are in Green Bay for the entire week of the Superbowl? It is freezing outside and people don't want to have to deal with shoveling snow and driving in snow and ice.

- The NFL is a business, if the Superbowl was in a cold weather state, they'd get less turnout on "media day" considering it is outside and it would be freezing. Also, there are FAR less activities to do in February in Greenbay than say Arizone or Miami etc.

of course I am using Green Bay as an example but other cities like New England, Denver, Seattle, Buffalo, Philadelphia etc could face a series of weather problems

I see no problem with the Superbowl being in a warm weather state. I'd havte to freeze in a game like the ice bowl or see a sloppy game in New England where everyone is slipping and sliding everywhere.

TLDNR. But I read your question and I totally agree. In fact my friends and I were just discussing this Sunday. Like man up and just play in awful, cold and preferably snowy weather. That's what makes football great, it's played during the worst time of the year to be outside. And I completely agree with you about the fans too (I managed to pick that out of your diatribe). The most die hard fans are the most die hard because they're willing to sit out there in the rain and cold and watch these games. They really should consider a cold outdoor Super Bowl. No more domes.

I think that is an excellent question. I, for one, would LOVE to see a Superbowl in the snow...or the mud. Gosh, how much fun would that be?!?!?!

I think the answer is a combination of tourist statistics and ease of logistics for the players and media. Yes, sure, many people are more willing to travel to a warm destination at the end of January. But also, cold weather adds complications (flight delays, road trouble, etc.) for everyone who needs to get there. For the most part, the owners and the media are pantywaists who can't handle the cold.

It's all about money and tourism. A warm-climate city will always attract more tourists than a cold-climate city. Nice weather means no worries, creating a 24-7 party atmosphere.

Thats a great question. I really don't know why other then the fact that people may not wanna pay the money. I sure would! You're right about the die hard fans being mostly from the north.

I'd hate to plan on going to a Superbowl up north when the weather might prevent me from getting there. With amount of traffic the games cause warmer weather is better to get in a traffic jam.

because its all about money. Average NFL fans would prefer to see a game in a nice dome than a muddy rainy, cold stadium where football can get sloppy.

I wish it was. It would measure the toughness of the teams. I've always wanted to see one in Lambeau. But it would be fun to see the Superbowl in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia and Boston too. I hope that they will someday.