Bowl destinations: Top places to visit?

[martinss01]

Originally Posted by LSUTyga73

Most Big 10 fans view bowl games in Florida as an opportunity to take a vacation anyways. So it's not like it's that hard for people in the north to come to Florida, because a lot of them do anyways for winter vacation.

if bowl games were played where i wanted to go on vacation they would be building stadiums in the bahamas. making a claim that it isn't a big deal to travel to the other side of the country just goes to prove exactly how different the other half of college football really lives. im sure me using what few vacation days i have and what little money i have set aside for vacations is no more difficult for me than you driving a couple of hours to the game from your home. seeing as im sure this is the case. i would imagine you would be more than happy to give me 2 or 3 of your vacation days and a couple grand to make the trip right?

The Sugar Bowl has been in New Orleans if i recall correctly for about 70 years. That's money and lots of it. There is no way that any of the BCS bowls or major bowls will be moved because of a long-standing financial gain to be had there.

fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by JohnLSU

No newspaper in SEC territory would use Ohio Stadium as an example of a stadium legendary for crowd noise.

#1 Tiger Stadium
#3 The Swamp
#5 Penn State
#9 Ohio State

ESPN - Death Valley tops list of scary venues for opposing teams - College Football

Even newspapers in Big Ten territory use Tiger Stadium and the Swamp as examples of stadiums legendary for their crowd noise.

just because a Michigan publication thinks that Autzen has an awesome crowd, doesn't mean a whole lot.

I'm surprised that Ohio State even made the list. That's pretty impressive! You Buckeye people should remind SEC fans of that more often.

we do, and yet you sec fans continue to completely dismiss any information not pro sec.

[JohnLSU]

Originally Posted by martinss01

if bowl games were played where i wanted to go on vacation they would be building stadiums in the bahamas. making a claim that it isn't a big deal to travel to the other side of the country just goes to prove exactly how different the other half of college football really lives. im sure me using what few vacation days i have and what little money i have set aside for vacations is no more difficult for me than you driving a couple of hours to the game from your home. seeing as im sure this is the case. i would imagine you would be more than happy to give me 2 or 3 of your vacation days and a couple grand to make the trip right?

Well, if it makes you feel better, today I was hanging out with two of my old college buddies from LSU who live much further away from the Superdome than people in Ohio. And one of them started talking about how he kind of regretted coming to New Orleans this year to watch the Tigers play (he grew up in New Orleans and has already come back to his hometown to watch the Tigers play in two Sugar Bowls, including the 2003 BCS Championship game). He was reflecting on how much money he spent on this vacation, and the vacation days he used, and he was thinking, in retrospect, that he could have easily gone instead to another famous city that he had never seen before.

And as for "bowl games [being] played where i wanted to go on vacation," no offense, but you are an absolute moron if New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Miami aren't on your list of top places to visit in the world. That's the whole point behind how the most famous bowl games got started -- because Los Angeles, Miami, and New Orleans are such huge vacation spots, that they offered post-season football games because they knew people would come. And people did. That's why the Rose, Orange, and Sugar are the three best bowls in history.

[Tigerfan90]

Good point, John. I grew up having Sugar Bowl tickets (family ticket connection), and always enjoyed the events, even when LSU was nowhere near sniffing the bowl game (we had some lean years).

New Orleans is one of the best places for the bowl. You can literally walk from the FQ to Harrah's and up to the Dome and everywhere in between. You can hop on the streetcar and hit the bars uptown and on into the Riverbend. Everything is just right there. Living in So.Cal. you can't do squat in L.A. In Pasadena all you have is Colorado Blvd. And there ain't much happening there anyway. Everywhere else, you gotta drive. And if you are in town for the game, you just end up blending in with the local traffic. No way it is the same feel.

I really hope that the OSU fans are enjoying themselves in NOLA. Something tells me they are. I mean, it's a wicked, massive, non-stop party, and you get to hang with NOTHING BUT football fans for blocks and blocks and blocks and blocks.

to all you OSU fans in the Big Easy (God, I hate calling my city that, lol).

[Steve19]

Originally Posted by JohnLSU

Well, if it makes you feel better, today I was hanging out with two of my old college buddies who live much further away from the Superdome than people in Ohio. And one of them started talking about how he kind of regretted coming to New Orleans this year to watch the Tigers play (he grew up in New Orleans and has already come back to his hometown to watch the Tigers play in two Sugar Bowls, including the 2003 BCS Championship game). He was reflecting on how much money he spent on this vacation, and the vacation days he used, and he was thinking, in retrospect, that he could have easily gone to Europe or Asia or some other exotic place instead.

Originally Posted by JohnLSU

And as for "bowl games [being] played where i wanted to go on vacation," no offense, but you are an absolute moron if New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Miami aren't on your list of top places to visit in the world. That's the whole point behind how the most famous bowl games got started -- because Los Angeles, Miami, and New Orleans are such huge vacation spots, that they offered post-season football games because they knew people would come. And people did. That's why the Rose, Orange, and Sugar are the three best bowls in history.

Well, they may be on some Americans' lists, but not at the top anymore. Cheaper air travel and increasing sophistication in international destinations has changed preferences considerably in recent years.

I like all of the cities you mentioned. We had a great vacation in Florida last year. However, vacation perceptions have changed remarkably over the decades and, after Katrina, New Orleans has taken a major ding. I'm not sure that people have had these cities at the top of their list for a long time.

In fact, New Orleans, Miami, and LA are not even in the top ten American cities mentioned by American travellers (see 2007 CondeNast survey results Cond? Nast Traveler Readers' Choice Top Cities on Concierge.com).

Here are the just released CondeNast rankings, with the top 10 in bold (tie for 10th place).

USA: 1.San Francisco 85.9, 2.Santa Fe 84.1, 3.New York City 82.9, 4.Chicago 82.2, 5.Charleston, S.C. 81.8, 6.Carmel 79.6, 7.Honolulu 78.4, 8.Aspen 78.3, 9.Seattle 78.0, 10.Sedona 77.7

AMERICAS: 1.Vancouver 82.2, 2.Buenos Aires 80.0, 3.San Miguel de Allende 79.8, 3.Victoria, B.C. 79.8, 5.Quebec City 79.3, 6.Oaxaca, Mexico 76.3, 7.Cuzco, Peru 75.7, 8.Montreal 74.6, 9.Toronto 70.3, 10.Rio de Janeiro 69.4,

AFRICA/ MIDDLE EAST: 1.Cape Town 82.8, 2.Marrakech 75.6, 3.Jerusalem 74.2, 4.Beirut 71.1, 5.Dubai 69.9

ASIA, 1.Bangkok 85.8, 2.Hong Kong 80.4, 3.Chiang Mai, Thailand 79.9, 4.Singapore 78.8, 5.Kyoto 77.7, 6.Shanghai 76.5, 7.Jaipur, India 74.1, 8.Tokyo 70.5, 9.Hanoi 69.8, 10.Beijing 67.3

EUROPE: 1.Florence 86.8, 2.Rome 85.0, 3.Venice 82.9, 4.Istanbul 81.3, 5.Paris 80.8, 6.Barcelona 79.7, 7.Siena 79.6, 8.Bruges 78.3, 8.London 78.3, 10.Vienna 78.1

PACIFIC RIM: 1.Sydney 87.7, 2.Melbourne 76.3, 3.Queenstown, N.Z. 74.6, 4.Christchurch, N.Z. 72.5, 5.Wellington, N.Z. 70.8

So, perhaps martinss01 makes a point that would resonate with a lot of people, including your friend. But he and I would gladly trade where we are for a seat in New Orleans today without any argument!

[schwab]

Originally Posted by JohnLSU

no offense, but you are an absolute moron if New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Miami aren't on your list of top places to visit in the world.

Color me moronic....

New Orleans - my sister's good friend used to live there up until Katrina, the tales of streets that smell like puke and urine don't get me all that excited.

Los Angeles - the land of fruits and nuts. Not interested. Go Lakers, though.

Miami - okay, maybe. I have been to other places in Florida, very close to Miami actually, and I don't feel like I'm absolutely moronic to not desire the full treatment.

I can think of worse, no doubt, but let's not sell ourselves short either.

[JohnLSU]

Originally Posted by Steve19

Well, they may be on some Americans' lists, but not at the top anymore. Cheaper air travel and increasing sophistication in international destinations has changed preferences considerably in recent years.

I like all of the cities you mentioned. We had a great vacation in Florida last year. However, vacation perceptions have changed remarkably over the decades and, after Katrina, New Orleans has taken a major ding. I'm not sure that people have had these cities at the top of their list for a long time.

In fact, New Orleans, Miami, and LA are not even in the top ten American cities mentioned by American travellers (see 2007 CondeNast survey results Cond? Nast Traveler Readers' Choice Top Cities on Concierge.com).

Here are the just released CondeNast rankings, with the top 10 in bold.

USA: 1.San Francisco 85.9, 2.Santa Fe 84.1, 3.New York City 82.9, 4.Chicago 82.2, 5.Charleston, S.C. 81.8, 6.Carmel 79.6, 7.Honolulu 78.4, 8.Aspen 78.3, 9.Seattle 78.0, 10.Sedona 77.7

AMERICAS: 1.Vancouver 82.2, 2.Buenos Aires 80.0, 3.San Miguel de Allende 79.8, 3.Victoria, B.C. 79.8, 5.Quebec City 79.3, 6.Oaxaca, Mexico 76.3, 7.Cuzco, Peru 75.7, 8.Montreal 74.6, 9.Toronto 70.3, 10.Rio de Janeiro 69.4,

AFRICA/ MIDDLE EAST: 1.Cape Town 82.8, 2.Marrakech 75.6, 3.Jerusalem 74.2, 4.Beirut 71.1, 5.Dubai 69.9, ASIA, 1.Bangkok 85.8, 2.Hong Kong 80.4, 3.Chiang Mai, Thailand 79.9, 4.Singapore 78.8, 5.Kyoto 77.7, 6.Shanghai 76.5, 7.Jaipur, India 74.1, 8.Tokyo 70.5, 9.Hanoi 69.8, 10.Beijing 67.3

EUROPE: 1.Florence 86.8, 2.Rome 85.0, 3.Venice 82.9, 4.Istanbul 81.3, 5.Paris 80.8, 6.Barcelona 79.7, 7.Siena 79.6, 8.Bruges 78.3, 8.London 78.3, 10.Vienna 78.1

PACIFIC RIM: 1.Sydney 87.7, 2.Melbourne 76.3, 3.Queenstown, N.Z. 74.6, 4.Christchurch, N.Z. 72.5, 5.Wellington, N.Z. 70.8

So, perhaps martinss01 makes a point that would resonate with a lot of people, including your friend. But he and I would gladly trade where we are for a seat in New Orleans today without any argument!

Although it is admirable, you are getting a little too over-zealous in defending one of your fellow Buckeyes. The fact of the matter is that New Orleans is one of the best cities in the world to visit. You and I, as Americans, should be proud of New Orleans. It is one of the few places in the U.S. that Americans can brag about as a major international tourist destination. And no, Katrina had no effect on New Orleans as a tourist destination. New Orleans is one of the oldest cities in the United States. The French Quarter was built in 1718 and has not changed much since then (look at the historical maps and drawings). People who come here feel like they are visiting a city in Europe. New Orleans has taken many, many direct hits by major hurricanes over the last 300 years. Yet, all of our historical buildings are still standing. Why? Because hurricanes don't do that much wind damage (especially to buildings that were built the way they used to build them back in the day). The only problem with hurricanes is the flooding. But all of historical New Orleans was built on the high ground along the river. That's why our entire "tourist" part of our city still has 150 to 250 year old buildings.

But yes, as New Orleans grew, and developed modern suburban sprawl, they had to move away from the high ground along the river. So we filled in the swamps with landfill, built canals to drain that area, etc. But it wasn't made to be. The original parts of New Orleans were meant to be and will always be there. But the suburbs are a disaster waiting to happen.

That's what you saw during Katrina. Sure, some of our suburbs got wasted, and some of them even today are still in bad shape (like St. Bernard Parish). But who in the hell comes to New Orleans to visit our suburbs? People come to visit the old French city (the French Quarter) and the Old South city (Uptown). Those parts of the city were not affected by Katrina. Just like they weren't affected by Betsy. Just like they weren't affected by the numerous direct hits they have taken from hurricanes for hundreds of years. Why? Because those parts of the city were built on high ground, because that was all you could do hundreds of years ago before modern engineering could try to conquer nature (like we did with our suburbs).

And as for your little list there by CondeNast, try looking at the other 20 most reputable tourist guides out there, and compiling a list on what they all agree on as the best cities to visit in the U.S.

Also, I'm not talking about international tourist destinations. I'm talking about the best tourist destinations in territory governed by the United States. We are talking about best places for college football bowl games. There are no college football fans outside of the U.S., so it would be pointless to have a college bowl game outside the U.S.

But back to your list of places in the U.S., your list has San Fran, Santa Fe, NYC, Chicago, Charleston, Carmel, Honolulu, Aspen, Seattle, and Sedona.

I'll give you San Fran and NYC. Both of those can compete with New Orleans, Los Angeles, or Miami. But you are crazy if you believe little ski towns in Colorado like Aspen and Sedona or a little beach town in California like Carmel or a little desert town like Sante Fe, are among the top 10 places to visit in the U.S. (although all of those little towns are extremely beautiful). As for Chicago, Seattle, and Honolulu... are you serious? All three of those cities are garbage in comparison to New Orleans. Haven't you ever visited them?

Yes, Charleston is beautiful, but its not even as good as New Orleans' uptown (which has the same exact historical Old South thing going on). And New Orleans has the old French/Spanish city in addition to that. Not to mention Bourbon Street, Royal Steet, Mid City, Faubourg Marigny, Algiers Point, the Warehouse District, etc. Anyway, like I said, you and I, as Americans, should be proud of New Orleans. It really is one of the few cities in the United States that we can brag about as an international tourist destination.

[Steve19]

Originally Posted by JohnLSU

Although it is admirable, you are getting a little too over-zealous in defending one of your fellow Buckeyes. The fact of the matter is that New Orleans is one of the best cities in the world to visit. You and I, as Americans, should be proud of New Orleans. It is one of the few places in the U.S. that Americans can brag about as a major international tourist destination. And no, Katrina had no effect on New Orleans as a tourist destination. New Orleans is one of the oldest cities in the United States. The French Quarter was built in 1718 and has not changed much since then (look at the historical maps and drawings). People who come here feel like they are visiting a city in Europe. New Orleans has taken many, many direct hits by major hurricanes over the last 300 years. Yet, all of our historical buildings are still standing. Why? Because hurricanes don't do that much wind damage (especially to buildings that were built the way they used to build them back in the day). The only problem with hurricanes is the flooding. But all of historical New Orleans was built on the high ground along the river. That's why our entire "tourist" part of our city still has 150 to 250 year old buildings.

But yes, as New Orleans grew, and developed modern suburban sprawl, they had to move away from the high ground along the river. So we filled in the swamps w