BC works better, because the 49ers HQ and practice facility at that time was 5 miles away from Stanford (now, it's like 12 miles away). It was a Super Bowl explicitly promoted as a San Francisco Super Bowl, and the San Francisco football team won it. So that has to count as winning the Super Bowl at home.Even this doesn't make a ton of sense since those sports are supposed to play home and road games in the playoffs. I think a more apt comparison would be BC winning the national hoops title in the Garden. Or say something like Michigan State winning the national title (hoops or football, whatever) in Detroit. Or something like that.
What stadium did the 49ers play in during that season?BC works better, because the 49ers HQ and practice facility at that time was 5 miles away from Stanford (now, it's like 12 miles away). It was a Super Bowl explicitly promoted as a San Francisco Super Bowl, and the San Francisco football team won it. So that has to count as winning the Super Bowl at home.
You can use whatever analogy you want; if they weren’t playing in their stadium they weren’t at home just because they were nearby it.BC works better, because the 49ers HQ and practice facility at that time was 5 miles away from Stanford (now, it's like 12 miles away). It was a Super Bowl explicitly promoted as a San Francisco Super Bowl, and the San Francisco football team won it. So that has to count as winning the Super Bowl at home.
Candlestick Park.What stadium did the 49ers play in during that season?
Exactly. I have no idea why this seems complex.You can use whatever analogy you want; if they weren’t playing in their stadium they weren’t at home just because they were nearby it.
This guy gets it.I think everyone understands the difference between actual home stadium and home region. It’s just odd to me that the 49ers Bay Area Super Bowl appearance and the Rams LA appearance are never mentioned when announcers talk about the subject.
And the way some commentators talk about it you’d think that no team has ever played a SB in their home region, yet it’s happened twice.
I've never heard it stated as "home region" though...always as "home" or "home stadium". The implication of the stat has always been no team has played a Super Bowl in their home stadium.I think everyone understands the difference between actual home stadium and home region. It’s just odd to me that the 49ers Bay Area Super Bowl appearance and the Rams LA appearance are never mentioned when announcers talk about the subject.
And the way some commentators talk about it you’d think that no team has ever played a SB in their home region, yet it’s happened twice.
But it's not the architecture that confers a home field advantage, it's the friendly crowd, routine practice, lack of travel, and consequent sleeping in your own bed. All of which, SF had despite playing at Stanford.You can use whatever analogy you want; if they weren’t playing in their stadium they weren’t at home just because they were nearby it.
Edit: what John said
Again, totally get it. But I imagine most people here didn’t want to play the Vikings because they might use the same lockerroom as they usually do. It was because we didn’t want to play in a stadium that was 90% rooting for them. I mean, if the Pats played a “neutral” game at Alumni Stadium or Fenway Park I think it’d be a stretch to not consider it a home game, practically speaking.I've never heard it stated as "home region" though...always as "home" or "home stadium". The implication of the stat has always been no team has played a Super Bowl in their home stadium.
Even if the stadium is local to the team, if the place is unfamiliar, its not home. Not the same locker room. Not the same turf. Not the same weather conditions (wind/sun angles, etc).
I'm curious though...if a team were to play in their home stadium (say the Vikings made it this year) and they were designated the "road" team, would they have to switch to the visitor locker room?
See, this is just foolish. The way the nfl distributes tickets and the neutral fans that buy no matter what teams are playing, a stadium is never going to be 90% one team or the other for a super bowl. There’s also the factor that negates it in part because half the neutral fans are going to hate he Pats anyway. I could have given less than two shits if they played the Vikings when it comes to home field advantage. Also, the Pats are Home team. They’d have gotten Home locker room. The idea that location means shit is quite frankly...well...shit.Again, totally get it. But I imagine most people here didn’t want to play the Vikings because they might use the same lockerroom as they usually do. It was because we didn’t want to play in a stadium that was 90% rooting for them. I mean, if the Pats played a “neutral” game at Alumni Stadium or Fenway Park I think it’d be a stretch to not consider it a home game, practically speaking.
Not to belabor it, but ‘friendly crowd’ is nonsense - so many tickets are bought by neutral fans or allocated to teams. They travel a week ahead of time, on normal off days and resume practice just fine. And do you really think sleeping in a hotel is robbing these guys of anything? I’d argue it’s even better, they don’t need to deal with the wife and kids. They also don’t need to deal with as many ticket requests from their hangers on. There’s something to be said for solitude and removing yourself from the fray.But it's not the architecture that confers a home field advantage, it's the friendly crowd, routine practice, lack of travel, and consequent sleeping in your own bed. All of which, SF had despite playing at Stanford.
It’s not foolish at all. If you don’t think the vast majority of the crowd would have been Vikings fans I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve been to Super Bowls and a LOT of “neutral” tickets end up on the secondary market. Nearly all of them would’ve been bought by Vikings fans.See, this is just foolish. The way the nfl distributes tickets and the neutral fans that buy no matter what teams are playing, a stadium is never going to be 90% one team or the other for a super bowl. There’s also the factor that negates it in part because half the neutral fans are going to hate he Pats anyway. I could have given less than two shits if they played the Vikings when it comes to home field advantage. Also, the Pats are Home team. They’d have gotten Home locker room. The idea that location means shit is quite frankly...well...shit.
I’m well aware a lot of tickets end up in secondary market. If you’re trying to tell me 90% would end up in the hands of Vikings fans, I’m going to tell you I have a 12” cock.It’s not foolish at all. If you don’t think the vast majority of the crowd would have been Vikings fans I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve been to Super Bowls and a LOT of “neutral” tickets end up on the secondary market. Nearly all of them would’ve been bought by Vikings fans.
But whatever.
Jesus, my whole point was that a team does not need to play in its home stadium to enjoy a substantial home field advantage. Knock the 90% down some if it so offense your delicate sensibilities.I’m well aware a lot of tickets end up in secondary market. If you’re trying to tell me 90% would end up in the hands of Vikings fans, I’m going to tell you I have a 12” cock.
http://www.startribune.com/even-with-nfc-as-the-super-bowl-road-team-vikings-would-be-afforded-all-of-the-advantages-of-home/467938353/Also, the Pats are Home team. They’d have gotten Home locker room. The idea that location means shit is quite frankly...well...shit.
Ok. My bad on that detail.http://www.startribune.com/even-with-nfc-as-the-super-bowl-road-team-vikings-would-be-afforded-all-of-the-advantages-of-home/467938353/
Not what I read, but you seem really sure of yourself so probably the Star Tribune is wrong.
"The “home” team for the Super Bowl is determined on an alternating basis, and the AFC team is scheduled to be the home club for Super Bowl LII. The NFL plans for that team to use the Vikings’ practice facility in Eden Prairie, and have the NFC team practice at the University of Minnesota football facility. On game day, the AFC champion would use the Vikings’ locker room, while the NFC team would use the visiting locker room at U.S. Bank Stadium.
All that will change, however, if the Vikings win the NFC. They’d be able to practice in Eden Prairie, with their AFC opponent instead using the U of M facilities. Instead of staying at the Radisson Blu (the NFC hotel) at the Mall of America, the Vikings might also have the option to allow players and coaches to sleep in their own beds. And on Feb. 4, the Vikings would be in their home locker room and on their normal sideline."
Yes, let’s knock it down a little bit from 90% to 33%.Jesus, my whole point was that a team does not need to play in its home stadium to enjoy a substantial home field advantage. Knock the 90% down some if it so offense your delicate sensibilities.
I’m sure if the NFL had the Super Bowl at Gillette and the Pats made it that barely a third of the crowd would be Pats fans. Totally.
I don't know about 90% but at SB40 the crowd was overwhelmingly Pittsburgh fans. 43 was also pretty lopsided for Pittsburgh. SB50 was very heavily in favor of Denver fans. You can have something close to a home field advantage in the Super Bowl.See, this is just foolish. The way the nfl distributes tickets and the neutral fans that buy no matter what teams are playing, a stadium is never going to be 90% one team or the other for a super bowl. There’s also the factor that negates it in part because half the neutral fans are going to hate he Pats anyway. I could have given less than two shits if they played the Vikings when it comes to home field advantage. Also, the Pats are Home team. They’d have gotten Home locker room. The idea that location means shit is quite frankly...well...shit.