Most exciting Super Bowl

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
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.
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.
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
51,012
New York City
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.
What stadium did the 49ers play in during that season?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
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.

Edit: what John said
 
Last edited:

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
54,016
San Andreas Fault
What stadium did the 49ers play in during that season?
Candlestick Park.

Edit, why wasn’t XIX played at Candlestick Park, the 49ers home stadium at the time? I forgot, but some Googling showed its capacity in the 60 thousands was not considered big enough. Stanford Stadium was in the 80s. Maybe the location of the Stick was considered bad also (Hunter’s Point). Was there some renovation work being done at Candlestick also?
 
Last edited:

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
17,483
Unreal America
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.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
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.
This guy gets it.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
15,211
Maine
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.

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?
 

h8mfy

lurker
Jul 15, 2005
317
Orange County, CA
Somewhere upthread it was stated that with the AFC as home team they’d get the “home” locker room (and practice facility) but then when it seemed like it might mean displacing the Vikings they’d reverse that had they made it.
 

bradmahn

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
591
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
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.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
17,483
Unreal America
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?
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.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
It’s almost like words have definitions and connotations and stuff.

‘At home’, in the sense of sporting events means, quite literally, your stadium. If the Raiders player a Super Bowl at Levi, it wouldn’t be considered a home game simply because it’s closer to their fan base than the opponents’. Especially when the SB comes into play, being on the same coast or closer brings in that aspect, just from a logistics standpoint.

This really isn’t difficult.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
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.
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.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
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.
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.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
17,483
Unreal America
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.
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.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
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.
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.
 

8slim

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
17,483
Unreal America
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.
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.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
12,623
Also, the Pats are Home team. They’d have gotten Home locker room. The idea that location means shit is quite frankly...well...shit.
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."
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
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."
Ok. My bad on that detail.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
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.
Yes, let’s knock it down a little bit from 90% to 33%.

My whole point is that it still wouldn’t be a ‘home’ game. Pats fans travel well and would scoop up a lot of those secondary tickets. Add in the allocations and fans just there because they got a free ticket through work or want to be a part of it and throw in another 10% that just hate the Pats and how different is that than any other road game?

Who gives a shit? Bring it. At what point did we get intimidated by Vikings fans?
 

Dan Murfman

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2001
3,723
Pawcatuck

Dehere

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2010
3,143
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 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.

I think Viking fans would have absolutely swamped the secondary market. If you're not flying or staying in a hotel your budget for a ticket might be 3k higher than it would be otherwise. Add in the genuinely once-in-a-lifetime hook of seeing your team play the Super Bowl at home, and that Minneapolis isn't the most desirable site for a lot of neutral fans who have access to tickets. I think Vikes fans would have dominated the building.

Sort of related, I think that over the years SB crowds have become louder/better. Just speculating but I think stubhub and others have taken a lot of the seediness and all the risk out of participating in ticket resales, and so well-connected people who once would have attended the game now are more likely to cash out and those tickets end up in the hands of legit fans. Also, regular season crowds around the league have become worse IMO and so the gap between the SB and any other game doesn't feel as great as it once did.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Close to? Sure. I’ll agree to
. Enough to be an issue calling plays at the line moreso than any other game on the road? No, I’m not buying it.

35% go to the teams. Home team gets allotted 6.2%. 25% go to staff, media and a lottery. A third goes to the other teams equally.

There certainly would be a rush for Vikings fans and I agree they’d have the local advantage of not needing a hotel/flights, etc. But $3k?

It wouldn’t be normal home field advantage by any stretch and Steelers fans travel as well as anyone, certainly more than Cardinals fans or even Seahawks fans ten years ago.