Pure speculation from my part, but if LA ever gets its **** together and builds a new football stadium, I guess we all know where it´s going to be held.
Jerry Jones can't find LA on a map.
Pure speculation from my part, but if LA ever gets its **** together and builds a new football stadium, I guess we all know where it´s going to be held.
Arizona State (2 1-AA teams)
It worked for the Bears when the renovated Solider Field
Denver!
We can still watch the Pac-12 CCG at Invesco Field even if the Buffs don't play in that game. Just imagine the Arizona or California teams playing in the snow!
Denver!
We can still watch the Pac-12 CCG at Invesco Field even if the Buffs don't play in that game. Just imagine the Arizona or California teams playing in the snow!
The weather is absolutely perfect in December.
The weather is far more "perfect" in LA or Phoenix than it is in December in San Francisco. December is a pretty rainy month there.
The Rose Bowl is kind of an icon. This wouldn't bother me.
It would look sad only half full when CU plays Oregon, though. Vegas is a much better scenario.
Any stadium that holds 100,000+ is going to have a lot of work to do to fill it up. Plus, CU wouldn't be playing UO, as they're probably going to be in the same division.
If it can't be in Vegas, which is apparently off the table now anyway, then my vote goes to the Rose Bowl. Not that I have a vote, but you get the idea.
This.
I'd definitely watch a game at Kezar. Awesome location.
Weather in Santa Clara/San Jose area is far different than weather in San Francisco.
They'd have to at least double the size of the stadium in Vegas in order for the Pac-12 to have an interest in holding it there, and that's not gonna happen.
The argument about logistics being a problem when holding at the site of the higher-seeded team on only 6 days' notice is a weak one. This isn't the Super Bowl or a major bowl game we're talking about. At least 70% of the fans will already be living at or near the site. And I saw a mention in the DP article where 3 Pac-12 stadiums only seat 50K or less. So what. If you have it at a neutral site and the right teams don't make the game, that's about how many people you'd have at the game anyway. The big money for a title game is in the TV revenue anyway.
You guys thinking Vegas would be good are nuts. I live here and don't want it here. The stadium sucks and the weather in December sucks, too. It's windy as hell and by no means warm. Watch this years Vegas bowl-or better yet last years. If you want to freeze your ass off hold it in Denver. If you want to get your gamble or strip club on come some other time. Put the game in a warm weather site. San Diego, PHX or LA.
Aren't you saying that the stadium in Vegas, that can seat 40k+, "would have to be at least doubled," but also saying "so what" regarding the seven stadiums in the Pac-12 that seat 55k or less (some substantially less)? Your argument against Vegas gets smoked by your last line: "The big money for a title game is in the TV revenue anyway."
But from the perspective of the conference presidents and commissioner, if they were to have a neutral-site location for this game they sure as hell aren't going to pick a place with 50K or less seats, because they have the pipe dream that they could fill a large stadium like Phoenix or the Rose Bowl. And in their minds, one of the biggest if not the biggest drawback of having it at the site of the top seed is the potential of a smaller stadium hosting the game.
Point being, if they pick a neutral site for the CCG then they aren't going to pick a place that only holds about 50K or less.
You guys thinking Vegas would be good are nuts. I live here and don't want it here. The stadium sucks and the weather in December sucks, too. It's windy as hell and by no means warm. Watch this years Vegas bowl-or better yet last years. If you want to freeze your ass off hold it in Denver. If you want to get your gamble or strip club on come some other time. Put the game in a warm weather site. San Diego, PHX or LA.