October 07, 2005
Houston loses out again on the Super Bowl

Once again, Houston has lost out on landing a second Super Bowl.


Houston and Atlanta may want to get out of the Super Bowl business after being rejected a second time in less than five months in favor of a Florida city.

In May, Houston and Atlanta were considered the favorites to land the 2009 Super Bowl that was awarded to Tampa, Fla. the long shot going in.

On Thursday, NFL owners voted the 2010 Super Bowl to Miami, even though the city has been awarded the 2007 Super Bowl as well.

Once again, Houston and Atlanta were considered the favorites. South Florida media were so certain that Miami had no chance that not one outlet sent a reporter to suburban Detroit for Thursday's vote.

"I was feeling pretty good until (Dolphins owner) Wayne Huizenga said everybody was going to get a yacht for a week," Texans owner Bob McNair said, laughing at a South Florida bid enhancement. "And he guaranteed they'd all be over 100 feet long.

"I offered quail hunting, but that didn't quite compete."

Owners representing the three finalists made five-minute speeches to their partners Thursday morning. During his presentation on Miami's behalf, Huizenga disclosed that the other 31 owners would be given free use of a yacht at Super Bowl XLIV.

"When Wayne said it, a collective gasp kind of went around the room," McNair said. "That was a last-minute addition that kind of changed the dynamics.

"We're not giving up, though. Hopefully, the next time there's a vote, we won't run into another regatta."


Well, so much for the notion that the city's actions during Hurricane Katrina might sway the vote in our favor. But at least we're probably in a better position for the next time than Atlanta is:

Falcons owner Arthur Blank was frustrated because, once again, Atlanta's weather was the biggest factor working against his city. The owners haven't forgotten that freezing temperature and icy conditions put a damper on Super Bowl XXXIV in Atlanta.

"I guess the only way we might get another Super Bowl is if we build a stadium in Puerto Rico so the weather won't be a factor," Blank said. "It's very clear that the ownership wants the game where the weather's generally warmer."

Knowing the outcome of Thursday's vote, Blank was asked what he would have done differently.

"I'd take Atlanta and move it to the Caribbean," he said.


And yet the 2006 Super Bowl will be played in that balmy island paradise known as Detroit. Methinks the owners could use a geography lesson. Will someone please tell Bill "The Sports Wimp" Simmons that he'll need to pack his thermal undies for this one? Thanks.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 07, 2005 to Elsewhere in Houston | TrackBack
Comments

Ah, but remember.. Super Bowl XL is because it was part of the deal the league helped the Lions cut to get Ford Field (as opposed to the old Silverdome(?)).

You will never see a Super Bowl in Detroit again, at least not until their next new stadium.

Posted by: Jeff G. on October 7, 2005 9:10 AM

Uh, wouldn't this be Houston's third Super Bowl?

Posted by: Jeb on October 7, 2005 10:20 AM

Sorry - second at Reliant Stadium.

Posted by: Charles Kuffner on October 7, 2005 10:41 AM

>> Ah, but remember.. Super Bowl XL is because it was part of the deal the league helped the Lions cut to get Ford Field (as opposed to the old Silverdome(?)).

See, this is why I thought New Orleans might wind up with it somehow -- not just because of post-Katrina sympathy per se, but because I figured the NFL would love to be rid of the Superdome and that it might dangle a carrot to the city and state -- you get your taxpayers to pay $500 million for a new stadium to benefit millionaires, you get a Super Bowl.

Then again, the Saints might not still be in New Orleans in 2010. It would be a shame if not, but I'm not sure I'd bet they'll be there.

Posted by: Tim on October 7, 2005 1:17 PM