Denver Broncos fan spends $30,000 on Super Bowl tickets

[syednaeemul]

I can't say I'm familiar with NFL enough to rate the Broncos, but geez!

If someone can readily afford it then ok, go for it. But this article talks about "paying for it for a very, very long time."

http://www.news.com.au/sport/sports-life/denver-broncos-fan-drops-30000-on-super-bowl-tickets/news-story/2d391164e24bf05f48eb3343b1b37122?from=google_rss&google_editors_picks=true

[nereo]

When I read your headline I thought it was going to be for a pair of tickets in $USD.  I can't say four tix ofr $5500USD surprises me very much - the cheapest seats for previous games have started at over $1k each, and "good" seats can sell for well north of $15,000 USD.  Take a look here:
-[{adid}]-S-[%2Bsuper%20%2Bbowl%20%2Bseats]&xts=564378&gclid=CIXF-ZzT5MoCFQFkhgodGrwMlA&gclsrc=aw.ds]http://www.ticketliquidator.com/tix/tickets.aspx?evtid=2492301&xtor=SEC-34-GOO-[Super+Bowl]-[{adid}]-S-[%2Bsuper%20%2Bbowl%20%2Bseats]&xts=564378&gclid=CIXF-ZzT5MoCFQFkhgodGrwMlA&gclsrc=aw.ds
It would be fairly easy for a family of four to spend $50,000USD (about $80k AUS) on a single game.

That isn't to say it's not all bat-s*&t crazy.  Unless you're FI going to the game is entirely ridiculous from a financial standpoint.  You could buy four 65" UHD TVs and have a privately catered party with an open bar for less than 1/4 of what you'd pay to go with you and your family.  And ironically it's much easier to see the game on TV than in the stadium.
But for some, it's all about "the experience".

[Kenbo]

Yeah 4 tickets for 21,000 is pretty much par for the course.  I read an article comparing this years prices to last year and they're actually down in price this year.  The minimum to get in the door was around 2500-3000 American dollars.  Much better experience for the pocket book and view at home looking at the TV.

[Larabeth]

I'd rather get the replays at home anyway.  Much more fun and the food and booze is cheaper!!

[MgoSam]

Also gotta add hotels (likely not cheap for the Superbowl), airfare, food, and incidentals.

[nereo]

I'd rather get the replays at home anyway.  Much more fun and the food and booze is cheaper!!

I'll say this about this year's game... the NFL realizes how important instant replay, etc. are and the game is being played in the heart of Silicon Valley.  Apparently they have over 1300 wifi hotspots set up just inside the stadium, huge TVs throughout the concourse (including in the restrooms) and the network is streaming it all for free.

So... I worry that instead of a bunch of people watching the game with their own eyeballs, we'll see lots of people in the stands staring at their iPads.

From a qualitative standpoint it's much better just to watch it from home or in a bar :-)
 

[nereo]

Also gotta add hotels (likely not cheap for the Superbowl), airfare, food, and incidentals.

Meh.  That's largely a rounding error on a trip like this.  $20,000 for tickets, and then $300 for a really nice hotel room, $500 for some really nice meals out and $2000 for plane tickets. 

[Paul der Krake]

On top of being Superbowl 50 (round number and all that), it is widely believed that this will be Peyton's last NFL appearance. A not insignificant number of players on the field tonight grew up watching him on TV when they were little kids playing for their middle school team. He's hall of fame material many times over.

I would never drop thousands of dollars on a sporting event, but I am not surprised one bit that people do it for this game.

That being said, conference championship games are usually a much better choice if you want the right combination of ticket price, stakes, and fan atmosphere. Average fans aren't priced out of these games like they are at the superbowl.

[Tabaxus]

I love football, but I have never been to a live game, and never will.  As others have said, the view on the TV is much better, it's more comfortable, there's not the hassle of getting in and out of the stadium, the food is better and cheaper, the beer or wine or liquor is better and cheaper.  I just don't get it.

[Paul der Krake]

I love football, but I have never been to a live game, and never will.  As others have said, the view on the TV is much better, it's more comfortable, there's not the hassle of getting in and out of the stadium, the food is better and cheaper, the beer or wine or liquor is better and cheaper.  I just don't get it.

Meh. It doesn't take a genius to bring in booze in a football stadium, so long as you don't give the security reasons to pat you down extra closely. And usually the tailgate buzz carries at least until half-time.

[OneDollarAtATime]

Also gotta add hotels (likely not cheap for the Superbowl), airfare, food, and incidentals.

Meh.  That's largely a rounding error on a trip like this.  $20,000 for tickets, and then $300 for a really nice hotel room, $500 for some really nice meals out and $2000 for plane tickets.

Rounding error?!?!  That's almost another 20% on top of the tickets.  A rounding error would be like buying a $20 beer at the game.

[nereo]

I love football, but I have never been to a live game, and never will.  As others have said, the view on the TV is much better, it's more comfortable, there's not the hassle of getting in and out of the stadium, the food is better and cheaper, the beer or wine or liquor is better and cheaper.  I just don't get it.

Meh. It doesn't take a genius to bring in booze in a football stadium, so long as you don't give the security reasons to pat you down extra closely. And usually the tailgate buzz carries at least until half-time.

Not for this game.  It's "airport style" security.  Everyone goes through metal detectors and/or body scanners, all bags go through X-ray scanners.  Dept. of Homeland Security calls it a "level 1 special event" (the highest security designation).
I don't think sneaking in a flask is going to be very easy.

check it out...

Rounding error?!?!  That's almost another 20% on top of the tickets.  A rounding error would be like buying a $20 beer at the game.

Ok, a bit of hyperbole.  It's NOT a rounding error, but the event tickets eclipse everything else, including airfare, restaurants and hotel reservations.

[Paul der Krake]

Not for this game.  It's "airport style" security.  Everyone goes through metal detectors and/or body scanners, all bags go through X-ray scanners.  Dept. of Homeland Security calls it a "level 1 special event" (the highest security designation).
I don't think sneaking in a flask is going to be very easy.

Ha! Makes sense, disrupting the most watched event of the year would make for some killer propaganda.

[College Stash]

If I was going to dump a ton of money on a sporting event, it would be the champions league final. I could get rt airfare, decent seats, and travel experience for less. Plus a better sport by far. Still wouldn't do it though unless I'm already there.

[Undecided]

Also gotta add hotels (likely not cheap for the Superbowl), airfare, food, and incidentals.

Meh.  That's largely a rounding error on a trip like this.  $20,000 for tickets, and then $300 for a really nice hotel room, $500 for some really nice meals out and $2000 for plane tickets.

$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night. I know the W in SF was getting $1,500/night (with a four-night minimum).

[nereo]

Also gotta add hotels (likely not cheap for the Superbowl), airfare, food, and incidentals.

Meh.  That's largely a rounding error on a trip like this.  $20,000 for tickets, and then $300 for a really nice hotel room, $500 for some really nice meals out and $2000 for plane tickets.

$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night. I know the W in SF was getting $1,500/night (with a four-night minimum).

Well that's not true.  There's four different 4-star hotels available for under $200/night  There's over a dozen for under $300.
https://www.priceline.com/stay/#/search/hotels/sfo/20160213/20160214/1?searchType=CITY&page=1&starRatings=4

Can you spend more?  sure. 

[Fishingmn]

I love football, but I have never been to a live game, and never will.  As others have said, the view on the TV is much better, it's more comfortable, there's not the hassle of getting in and out of the stadium, the food is better and cheaper, the beer or wine or liquor is better and cheaper.  I just don't get it.

You will never "get it" if you "never will" go to a live game.

Yes, the view is better is better, the food is cheaper and you don't have to wait in line for the bathroom when you watch from home.

That said, the experience of being surrounded by thousands of other fans all living and dying with each play is something you can never replicate at home. Being there live is much more exhilarating. You should at least try it once. If the experience wasn't better then thousands of other people wouldn't be spending lots of money to do it.

[Chris22]

I love football, but I have never been to a live game, and never will.  As others have said, the view on the TV is much better, it's more comfortable, there's not the hassle of getting in and out of the stadium, the food is better and cheaper, the beer or wine or liquor is better and cheaper.  I just don't get it.

You will never "get it" if you "never will" go to a live game.

Yes, the view is better is better, the food is cheaper and you don't have to wait in line for the bathroom when you watch from home.

That said, the experience of being surrounded by thousands of other fans all living and dying with each play is something you can never replicate at home. Being there live is much more exhilarating. You should at least try it once. If the experience wasn't better then thousands of other people wouldn't be spending lots of money to do it.

Exactly.  When you watch from home, you are watching the game, when you are there you are EXPERIENCING the game.  It's completely different.

That said, it IS expensive, and I don't do it very often (and never for a playoff game), but every few years it is fun if you have the opportunity. 

[MgoSam]

Exactly.  When you watch from home, you are watching the game, when you are there you are EXPERIENCING the game.  It's completely different.

That said, it IS expensive, and I don't do it very often (and never for a playoff game), but every few years it is fun if you have the opportunity.

+1, I completely agree and haven't gone to a game in a few years (aside from a minor league baseball game, ticket was $5).

I miss going to games at college, where you feel like part of the 'team,' especially at hockey games where you are close enough to really heckle someone from the other team.

[Chris22]

Come to think of it, I've never paid for an NFL ticket.  I've seen a few games, but they've always been for free (have a relative who gets them from work on occasion).  Usually I'll pick up the beers and food or parking or whatever to pay him back.  Notably, I was at the last regular season game at Lambeau Field, Bears-Packers, a few years ago.  4 rows in from the end zone.  That was bucket list-level stuff. 

[partgypsy]

Not going to comment on cost. I'm not a sports person. I did watch part of the superbowl because I was with friends. I don't go somewhere to watch games. But the few times I have watched a game in person (baseball, rugby, basketball) it was somehow a lot more exciting and more of an experience than watching it. So I can understand that difference. My mother was not a sports person but while an undergrad in U of Il and being on the school newspaper got to travel and watch her team in the Rose bowl. It was a once in a lifetime experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Rose_Bowl

[slugline]

Exactly.  When you watch from home, you are watching the game, when you are there you are EXPERIENCING the game.  It's completely different.

That said, it IS expensive, and I don't do it very often (and never for a playoff game), but every few years it is fun if you have the opportunity. 

I agree, and feel the same way about seeing a great band, comedian, or other theatre performance too. It's an expensive luxury, but it's certainly a different experience being part of a live audience.

[celticmyst08]

I love football, but I have never been to a live game, and never will.  As others have said, the view on the TV is much better, it's more comfortable, there's not the hassle of getting in and out of the stadium, the food is better and cheaper, the beer or wine or liquor is better and cheaper.  I just don't get it.

You will never "get it" if you "never will" go to a live game.

Yes, the view is better is better, the food is cheaper and you don't have to wait in line for the bathroom when you watch from home.

That said, the experience of being surrounded by thousands of other fans all living and dying with each play is something you can never replicate at home. Being there live is much more exhilarating. You should at least try it once. If the experience wasn't better then thousands of other people wouldn't be spending lots of money to do it.

Exactly.  When you watch from home, you are watching the game, when you are there you are EXPERIENCING the game.  It's completely different.

That said, it IS expensive, and I don't do it very often (and never for a playoff game), but every few years it is fun if you have the opportunity.

Totally agree. I surprised my husband with tickets to our first NFL game in December and it was insanely fun and unlike anything I'd experienced before. Expensive, yeah, but I saved up my allowance and used a checking account signup bonus to pay for it. We obviously don't plan on going very frequently but I'd definitely like to every couple years or so.

The view is absolutely better at home on TV though. After the game we watched replays and realized we hadn't seen a LOT of what happened. (Nosebleed seats, wooo.)

[Eric]

Also gotta add hotels (likely not cheap for the Superbowl), airfare, food, and incidentals.

Meh.  That's largely a rounding error on a trip like this.  $20,000 for tickets, and then $300 for a really nice hotel room, $500 for some really nice meals out and $2000 for plane tickets.

$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night. I know the W in SF was getting $1,500/night (with a four-night minimum).

Well that's not true.  There's four different 4-star hotels available for under $200/night  There's over a dozen for under $300.
https://www.priceline.com/stay/#/search/hotels/sfo/20160213/20160214/1?searchType=CITY&page=1&starRatings=4

Can you spend more?  sure.

Sure, but all those hotels are 45 miles away.  They weren't really experiencing Super Bowl type demand.  Too far.

The Hyatt across the street from the stadium also had a 4 night minimum at around $650/night.  Anywhere within walking distance would've cost another $2k.  Not exactly chump change, although still a better deal than a $15 Bud Light.

[nereo]

Also gotta add hotels (likely not cheap for the Superbowl), airfare, food, and incidentals.

Meh.  That's largely a rounding error on a trip like this.  $20,000 for tickets, and then $300 for a really nice hotel room, $500 for some really nice meals out and $2000 for plane tickets.

$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night. I know the W in SF was getting $1,500/night (with a four-night minimum).

Well that's not true.  There's four different 4-star hotels available for under $200/night  There's over a dozen for under $300.
https://www.priceline.com/stay/#/search/hotels/sfo/20160213/20160214/1?searchType=CITY&page=1&starRatings=4

Can you spend more?  sure.

Sure, but all those hotels are 45 miles away.  They weren't really experiencing Super Bowl type demand.  Too far.

The Hyatt across the street from the stadium also had a 4 night minimum at around $650/night.  Anywhere within walking distance would've cost another $2k.  Not exactly chump change, although still a better deal than a $15 Bud Light.

@Eric - you're just being argumentative without reason here.  The statement was: "$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night."  That is completely and utterly untrue. I chose hotels near SFO because it handles more flights than San Jose, though visitors could use either (or Oakland).  And it's 30 miles away, not 45 - a straight shot on the 101.

Want closer hotels?  No problem.  Lots of 4-star hotels under $200, including ones just blocks from Levi's stadium.  Would the rates for the very close hotels be higher that weekend?  Sure.  Are there literally dozens of other places to stay for under $300 within a 30 minute drive?  absolutely.

[Eric]

Also gotta add hotels (likely not cheap for the Superbowl), airfare, food, and incidentals.

Meh.  That's largely a rounding error on a trip like this.  $20,000 for tickets, and then $300 for a really nice hotel room, $500 for some really nice meals out and $2000 for plane tickets.

$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night. I know the W in SF was getting $1,500/night (with a four-night minimum).

Well that's not true.  There's four different 4-star hotels available for under $200/night  There's over a dozen for under $300.
https://www.priceline.com/stay/#/search/hotels/sfo/20160213/20160214/1?searchType=CITY&page=1&starRatings=4

Can you spend more?  sure.

Sure, but all those hotels are 45 miles away.  They weren't really experiencing Super Bowl type demand.  Too far.

The Hyatt across the street from the stadium also had a 4 night minimum at around $650/night.  Anywhere within walking distance would've cost another $2k.  Not exactly chump change, although still a better deal than a $15 Bud Light.

@Eric - you're just being argumentative without reason here.  The statement was: "$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night."  That is completely and utterly untrue. I chose hotels near SFO because it handles more flights than San Jose, though visitors could use either (or Oakland).  And it's 30 miles away, not 45 - a straight shot on the 101.

Want closer hotels?  No problem.  Lots of 4-star hotels under $200, including ones just blocks from Levi's stadium.  Would the rates for the very close hotels be higher that weekend?  Sure.  Are there literally dozens of other places to stay for under $300 within a 30 minute drive?  absolutely.

Okay.  Good job.  You've proven without a doubt that it's cheap to get a really nice hotel room near the Super Bowl, as long as it's not Super Bowl weekend.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

At least the fan who paid $30k consented to being financially screwed. Not so for the thousands of employees working in the concession stands that day. The going rate of pay was less than $13 per hour, they didn't get breaks except for lunch, and they were required to stand up to four or five hours waiting for shuttle buses, during which time they were not paid (also in violation of the law).

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_grind/2016/02/i_sold_beer_and_hot_dogs_at_the_super_bowl_and_got_paid_a_pittance.html

I'm sure the team owners raked in a fortune, though. No coincidence that the NFL gave up its tax exempt not-for-profit status in 2015; the profiteering has never been so blatant.

[Undecided]

Also gotta add hotels (likely not cheap for the Superbowl), airfare, food, and incidentals.

Meh.  That's largely a rounding error on a trip like this.  $20,000 for tickets, and then $300 for a really nice hotel room, $500 for some really nice meals out and $2000 for plane tickets.

$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night. I know the W in SF was getting $1,500/night (with a four-night minimum).

Well that's not true.  There's four different 4-star hotels available for under $200/night  There's over a dozen for under $300.
https://www.priceline.com/stay/#/search/hotels/sfo/20160213/20160214/1?searchType=CITY&page=1&starRatings=4

Can you spend more?  sure.

Sure, but all those hotels are 45 miles away.  They weren't really experiencing Super Bowl type demand.  Too far.

The Hyatt across the street from the stadium also had a 4 night minimum at around $650/night.  Anywhere within walking distance would've cost another $2k.  Not exactly chump change, although still a better deal than a $15 Bud Light.

@Eric - you're just being argumentative without reason here.  The statement was: "$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night."  That is completely and utterly untrue. I chose hotels near SFO because it handles more flights than San Jose, though visitors could use either (or Oakland).  And it's 30 miles away, not 45 - a straight shot on the 101.

Want closer hotels?  No problem.  Lots of 4-star hotels under $200, including ones just blocks from Levi's stadium.  Would the rates for the very close hotels be higher that weekend?  Sure.  Are there literally dozens of other places to stay for under $300 within a 30 minute drive?  absolutely.

Okay.  Good job.  You've proven without a doubt that it's cheap to get a really nice hotel room near the Super Bowl, as long as it's not Super Bowl weekend.

If a really nice hotel room is an airport hotel.

[nereo]

@Eric - you're just being argumentative without reason here.  The statement was: "$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night."  That is completely and utterly untrue. I chose hotels near SFO because it handles more flights than San Jose, though visitors could use either (or Oakland).  And it's 30 miles away, not 45 - a straight shot on the 101.

Want closer hotels?  No problem.  Lots of 4-star hotels under $200, including ones just blocks from Levi's stadium.  Would the rates for the very close hotels be higher that weekend?  Sure.  Are there literally dozens of other places to stay for under $300 within a 30 minute drive?  absolutely.

Okay.  Good job.  You've proven without a doubt that it's cheap to get a really nice hotel room near the Super Bowl, as long as it's not Super Bowl weekend.

If a really nice hotel room is an airport hotel.

You guys are taking this argument to ridiculous levels.  Clearly I've shown that the original statement ($300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night.) is clearly false. You can find four-star hotels for under $200/night throughout Silicon valley on a 'normal night' - both close to and away from the three major airports. They're 4-star hotels. It's ok to admit when you've misspoken when making an assertion.

As for superbowl weekend - the SF Metropolitan area is home to about 7MM people with over a thousand major hotels, not to mention Airbnb rentals and smaller boutique hotels. The SuperBowl barely moved the needle, especially since early Feb. is smack in the 'dead time' for tourists.  I've already agreed that you could spend upwards of $1,000/night if one was so inclined, but to continue to claim that it was necessary to spend >>$300/night is just absurd.

[Gone Fishing]

I love football, but I have never been to a live game, and never will.  As others have said, the view on the TV is much better, it's more comfortable, there's not the hassle of getting in and out of the stadium, the food is better and cheaper, the beer or wine or liquor is better and cheaper.  I just don't get it.

Meh. It doesn't take a genius to bring in booze in a football stadium, so long as you don't give the security reasons to pat you down extra closely. And usually the tailgate buzz carries at least until half-time.

Not for this game.  It's "airport style" security.  Everyone goes through metal detectors and/or body scanners, all bags go through X-ray scanners.  Dept. of Homeland Security calls it a "level 1 special event" (the highest security designation).
I don't think sneaking in a flask is going to be very easy.

check it out...

It'd take a little work to set up and one would have to be committed but a catheter bag and brown liquor might do it.  I could see the conversation with security going something like this: "See this tube? It is connected to my bladder via my urethra.  What do you want to do, sniff it?"

Doubt anyone who paid $5500 for a ticket would go through the trouble, though... 

[Undecided]

@Eric - you're just being argumentative without reason here.  The statement was: "$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night."  That is completely and utterly untrue. I chose hotels near SFO because it handles more flights than San Jose, though visitors could use either (or Oakland).  And it's 30 miles away, not 45 - a straight shot on the 101.

Want closer hotels?  No problem.  Lots of 4-star hotels under $200, including ones just blocks from Levi's stadium.  Would the rates for the very close hotels be higher that weekend?  Sure.  Are there literally dozens of other places to stay for under $300 within a 30 minute drive?  absolutely.

Okay.  Good job.  You've proven without a doubt that it's cheap to get a really nice hotel room near the Super Bowl, as long as it's not Super Bowl weekend.

If a really nice hotel room is an airport hotel.

You guys are taking this argument to ridiculous levels.  Clearly I've shown that the original statement ($300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night.) is clearly false. You can find four-star hotels for under $200/night throughout Silicon valley on a 'normal night' - both close to and away from the three major airports. They're 4-star hotels. It's ok to admit when you've misspoken when making an assertion.

As for superbowl weekend - the SF Metropolitan area is home to about 7MM people with over a thousand major hotels, not to mention Airbnb rentals and smaller boutique hotels. The SuperBowl barely moved the needle, especially since early Feb. is smack in the 'dead time' for tourists.  I've already agreed that you could spend upwards of $1,000/night if one was so inclined, but to continue to claim that it was necessary to spend >>$300/night is just absurd.

No, you introduced a false equivalency. I lived in Silicon Valley for more than a decade and travel there for work on a regular basis. I cannot recall the last time I got a room in a "really nice" hotel for $300. I took "really nice" to be in the context of someone who spends $30,000 on Super Bowl tickets. You decided that "really nice" means a fine hotel, in whatever location. That's just not what I'd consider really nice in the original context.

[nereo]

@Eric - you're just being argumentative without reason here.  The statement was: "$300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night."  That is completely and utterly untrue. I chose hotels near SFO because it handles more flights than San Jose, though visitors could use either (or Oakland).  And it's 30 miles away, not 45 - a straight shot on the 101.

Want closer hotels?  No problem.  Lots of 4-star hotels under $200, including ones just blocks from Levi's stadium.  Would the rates for the very close hotels be higher that weekend?  Sure.  Are there literally dozens of other places to stay for under $300 within a 30 minute drive?  absolutely.

Okay.  Good job.  You've proven without a doubt that it's cheap to get a really nice hotel room near the Super Bowl, as long as it's not Super Bowl weekend.

If a really nice hotel room is an airport hotel.

You guys are taking this argument to ridiculous levels.  Clearly I've shown that the original statement ($300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night.) is clearly false. You can find four-star hotels for under $200/night throughout Silicon valley on a 'normal night' - both close to and away from the three major airports. They're 4-star hotels. It's ok to admit when you've misspoken when making an assertion.

As for superbowl weekend - the SF Metropolitan area is home to about 7MM people with over a thousand major hotels, not to mention Airbnb rentals and smaller boutique hotels. The SuperBowl barely moved the needle, especially since early Feb. is smack in the 'dead time' for tourists.  I've already agreed that you could spend upwards of $1,000/night if one was so inclined, but to continue to claim that it was necessary to spend >>$300/night is just absurd.

No, you introduced a false equivalency. I lived in Silicon Valley for more than a decade and travel there for work on a regular basis. I cannot recall the last time I got a room in a "really nice" hotel for $300. I took "really nice" to be in the context of someone who spends $30,000 on Super Bowl tickets. You decided that "really nice" means a fine hotel, in whatever location. That's just not what I'd consider really nice in the original context.

Glad to know we've both been long-term residents of Silicon Valley.  I guess what still baffles me is your classification of what "really nice" is.  We've already established that $30,000 would purchase just four 'mid-level' seats at SB50. 
Personally, i consider a 4-star hotel to be 'really nice,' and there are dozens to choose from for under your $300 threshold, including chains like the Westin, Fairmont, Four Points and Sheraton.
Not swanky enough?  Want something away from the airport? There's 5-star hotels like the Four Seasons Palo Alto, Fairmont SF and Palace Hotel.
The list, literally, goes on and on.  Just 5 minutes of googling travel websites will show you lots of various options for 4 and 5 star hotels, whether you want to be near the airport or in Downtown San Jose, SF, Palo Alto, Los Gatos etc.

If you want to say "someone splurging on SB tix might spend $1,000+ a night for a premium hotel suite" I would have no objection.  You absolutely can spend this kind of money in the Bay Area.  But you introduced this by claiming you can't get a really nice hotel for under $300 during a normal time, and then you just doubled-down by saying "I cannot recall the last time I got a room in a "really nice" hotel [in Silicon Valley] for $300"  I question why you are even on this forum if your standards are so high (or your willingness to look for deals even in luxury items is so low).

[Papa Mustache]

But where would these hotels require me to park my 17 year old sedan??? Also tough to dress for hotels out of my budget wardrobe. ;)

[pbkmaine]

I drove my yellow Ford Focus hatchback to many a fancy hotel on business trips. When handing the keys to the valet, I would say: "This is Eggbert. I love him. Please treat him well." Then I would hand the keys to the valet with a $20. Let me tell you, Eggbert always got the best parking spot in the garage. As for designer clothes, thrift shops have them by the carload.

[Undecided]

Glad to know we've both been long-term residents of Silicon Valley.  I guess what still baffles me is your classification of what "really nice" is.  We've already established that $30,000 would purchase just four 'mid-level' seats at SB50. 
Personally, i consider a 4-star hotel to be 'really nice,' and there are dozens to choose from for under your $300 threshold, including chains like the Westin, Fairmont, Four Points and Sheraton.
Not swanky enough?  Want something away from the airport? There's 5-star hotels like the Four Seasons Palo Alto, Fairmont SF and Palace Hotel.
The list, literally, goes on and on.  Just 5 minutes of googling travel websites will show you lots of various options for 4 and 5 star hotels, whether you want to be near the airport or in Downtown San Jose, SF, Palo Alto, Los Gatos etc.

If you want to say "someone splurging on SB tix might spend $1,000+ a night for a premium hotel suite" I would have no objection.  You absolutely can spend this kind of money in the Bay Area.  But you introduced this by claiming you can't get a really nice hotel for under $300 during a normal time, and then you just doubled-down by saying "I cannot recall the last time I got a room in a "really nice" hotel [in Silicon Valley] for $300"  I question why you are even on this forum if your standards are so high (or your willingness to look for deals even in luxury items is so low).

Although I should just walk away from the whole board, given your doubt as to my reasons for being here, I'll just point out that you're quoting weekend rates for a place that I would never want to travel to on a weekend. The 4 Seasons you just quoted is a different story for the following Monday night: https://www.priceline.com/stay/#/search/hotels/3000002250/20160222/20160223/1?page=1&starRatings=5

I don't want to be an asshole (perhaps I'm the only one), so I'll say that you're right, that there are days, relevant to neither me nor the Super Bowl, when what you've said is true.

[MrsDinero]

I want to know how he spent $30k from his wife?  did he max out several credit cards?  cash in his 401k?  Also how did his wife react when she found out?

[Eric]

You guys are taking this argument to ridiculous levels.  Clearly I've shown that the original statement ($300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night.) is clearly false. You can find four-star hotels for under $200/night throughout Silicon valley on a 'normal night' - both close to and away from the three major airports. They're 4-star hotels. It's ok to admit when you've misspoken when making an assertion.

As for superbowl weekend - the SF Metropolitan area is home to about 7MM people with over a thousand major hotels, not to mention Airbnb rentals and smaller boutique hotels. The SuperBowl barely moved the needle, especially since early Feb. is smack in the 'dead time' for tourists.  I've already agreed that you could spend upwards of $1,000/night if one was so inclined, but to continue to claim that it was necessary to spend >>$300/night is just absurd.

Sorry bud, but you're out of your depth here.  The only ridiculous thing is your claim that the Super Bowl didn't increase prices.  I'm not sure how you can even claim that to be a serious statement.  Nice, not nice, 3 stars, 12 stars, who gives a fuck?  Prices increased dramatically for the Super Bowl at all places, with many places requiring multiple night stays at more than double their regular rates.  That's a fact, jack!

Feel free to continue to ramble about non-Super Bowl pricing in a Super Bowl pricing thread.  I don't care.  But you seriously have no clue what you're talking about regarding rates charged over Super Bowl weekend.

[Khaetra]

I want to know how he spent $30k from his wife?  did he max out several credit cards?  cash in his 401k?  Also how did his wife react when she found out?

+1!  I would be beyond pissed.

[nereo]

You guys are taking this argument to ridiculous levels.  Clearly I've shown that the original statement ($300/night doesn't get you a really nice hotel room in Silicon Valley on a normal night.) is clearly false. You can find four-star hotels for under $200/night throughout Silicon valley on a 'normal night' - both close to and away from the three major airports. They're 4-star hotels. It's ok to admit when you've misspoken when making an assertion.

As for superbowl weekend - the SF Metropoli
tan area is home to about 7MM people with over a thousand major hotels, not to mention Airbnb rentals and smaller boutique hotels. The SuperBowl barely moved the needle, especially since early Feb. is smack in the 'dead time' for tourists.  I've already agreed that you could spend upwards of $1,000/night if one was so inclined, but to continue to claim that it was necessary to spend >>$300/night is just absurd.

Sorry bud, but you're out of your depth here.  The only ridiculous thing is your claim that the Super Bowl didn't increase prices.  I'm not sure how you can even claim that to be a serious statement.  Nice, not nice, 3 stars, 12 stars, who gives a fuck?  Prices increased dramatically for the Super Bowl at all places, with many places requiring multiple night stays at more than double their regular rates.  That's a fact, jack!

Feel free to continue to ramble about non-Super Bowl pricing in a Super Bowl pricing thread.  I don't care.  But you seriously have no clue what you're talking about regarding rates charged over Super Bowl weekend.

you interject on what a rate for a "normal time" is to get indignant when I use some actual numbers to prove my assertion?  Sure, that OP was about the super-bowl (and we'll get back to that shortly) but that game has finished and this has gone way past Wheaton's law.  You can find hotel rooms throughout the SF bay area that are nice, really nice, very nice etc. for reasonable rates (which was defined early on as <$300).  Period.

As for the Super Bowl, it's true that rates went up, especially those nearest the stadium, but for those flying into see the game they had a breadth of options.  Here's an article about prices around the SF area leading up to Super Bowl weekend.  If you don't want to read the entire thing, here's a quote:

Hotel rooms in the Bay Area during Super Bowl weekend were going for pretty high prices, according to Priceline data cited by Forbes. Three-star options in San Francisco were ranging from $154-$830 and $159-$794 in San Jose. Four star rooms ranged from $284-$1,204 in San Francisco and $289-$1,999 in San Jose. Many hotels have been completely booked, however, especially those closest to the stadium's location in Santa Clara, California.

Room-sharing service Airbnb said that average price for a listing in San Francisco this weekend was $211 per night, while the great Super Bowl area was $225 per night.

The point is, the week before the super bowl you could book a hotel room for under $300.  If you want me to re-phrase my assertion that it "barely moved the needle" - fine.  I'll change that to "the superbowl did not move the needle enough to make all 3+ star hotels in the area cost over $300."  Perhaps my earlier phrasing was overly simplistic.  My bad.
Ultimately  the whole point of this bickering and arguing is whether or not one could get a nice place to stay in Silicon Valley or SF Bay for ≥ $300.  And it's certainly easy to do both on Super Bowl weekend and during other weekends throughout Feb.

[nereo]

Although I should just walk away from the whole board, given your doubt as to my reasons for being here, I'll just point out that you're quoting weekend rates for a place that I would never want to travel to on a weekend. The 4 Seasons you just quoted is a different story for the following Monday night: https://www.priceline.com/stay/#/search/hotels/3000002250/20160222/20160223/1?page=1&starRatings=5

I don't want to be an asshole (perhaps I'm the only one), so I'll say that you're right, that there are days, relevant to neither me nor the Super Bowl, when what you've said is true.

I don't want to be an asshole either, but I'm legitimately trying to udnerstand how you are coming up with these conclusions.
Here's the same date (the monday after) you listed above; I see two hotels in downtown San Jose that have rooms available for $140 and $242/night.
The Crown-Plaza in San Jose is currently renting rooms for $269/night for that date from their own website.

So... I'm still not getting how you are concluding that you can't find a nice hotel room for under $300.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  I absolutely agree that you could spend a lot more, but that's not hte same argument. IF you want to say that nothing but an executive suite at a 5 star hotel room can be considered in-line with someone going to the superbowl then I'll give you that they cost quite a bit more, and we'll just have to agree to disagree about the standards and quality of rooms for someone going to the superbowl.

I'll also apologize for making this thread more vitriolic than necessary. My comment about why you are on this forum was a low blow. Consider it a character flaw enhanced by my profession, but whenever I'm confronted with a quantifiable number that seems so far out of whack I can't help but question it.

[MrsDinero]

I want to know how he spent $30k from his wife?  did he max out several credit cards?  cash in his 401k?  Also how did his wife react when she found out?

+1!  I would be beyond pissed.

Found it!
http://madworldnews.com/30k-super-bowl-wife-confession/

Apparently the wife saw the interview on line and found the accounts drained (the article says "her accounts" but unsure if they are join accounts).

It also seems like this is not the first time he did something like this.

I think I would be pissed but more at myself for marrying a guy who would blow $30k on the Superbowl without thinking or discussing.   

[Chris22]

I want to know how he spent $30k from his wife?  did he max out several credit cards?  cash in his 401k?  Also how did his wife react when she found out?

+1!  I would be beyond pissed.

Found it!
http://madworldnews.com/30k-super-bowl-wife-confession/

Apparently the wife saw the interview on line and found the accounts drained (the article says "her accounts" but unsure if they are join accounts).

It also seems like this is not the first time he did something like this.

I think I would be pissed but more at myself for marrying a guy who would blow $30k on the Superbowl without thinking or discussing.

It also said he paid $30k up front, but that included money for the other three friends.  $30k/4 = $7500, not the $4400 she expected in the article, but either way, it's a large amount of money but not $30k.

[nereo]

I want to know how he spent $30k from his wife?  did he max out several credit cards?  cash in his 401k?  Also how did his wife react when she found out?

+1!  I would be beyond pissed.

Found it!
http://madworldnews.com/30k-super-bowl-wife-confession/

Apparently the wife saw the interview on line and found the accounts drained (the article says "her accounts" but unsure if they are join accounts).

It also seems like this is not the first time he did something like this.

I think I would be pissed but more at myself for marrying a guy who would blow $30k on the Superbowl without thinking or discussing.

It also said he paid $30k up front, but that included money for the other three friends.  $30k/4 = $7500, not the $4400 she expected in the article, but either way, it's a large amount of money but not $30k.

Speechless.  I'm pretty certain if I were to ever do something like this I'd come home to an empty house, and I would deserve that.

[Undecided]

Although I should just walk away from the whole board, given your doubt as to my reasons for being here, I'll just point out that you're quoting weekend rates for a place that I would never want to travel to on a weekend. The 4 Seasons you just quoted is a different story for the following Monday night: https://www.priceline.com/stay/#/search/hotels/3000002250/20160222/20160223/1?page=1&starRatings=5

I don't want to be an asshole (perhaps I'm the only one), so I'll say that you're right, that there are days, relevant to neither me nor the Super Bowl, when what you've said is true.

I don't want to be an asshole either, but I'm legitimately trying to udnerstand how you are coming up with these conclusions.
Here's the same date (the monday after) you listed above; I see two hotels in downtown San Jose that have rooms available for $140 and $242/night.
The Crown-Plaza in San Jose is currently renting rooms for $269/night for that date from their own website.

So... I'm still not getting how you are concluding that you can't find a nice hotel room for under $300.  It just doesn't make any sense to me.  I absolutely agree that you could spend a lot more, but that's not hte same argument. IF you want to say that nothing but an executive suite at a 5 star hotel room can be considered in-line with someone going to the superbowl then I'll give you that they cost quite a bit more, and we'll just have to agree to disagree about the standards and quality of rooms for someone going to the superbowl.

I'll also apologize for making this thread more vitriolic than necessary. My comment about why you are on this forum was a low blow. Consider it a character flaw enhanced by my profession, but whenever I'm confronted with a quantifiable number that seems so far out of whack I can't help but question it.

The problem is that you've treated "really nice" as quantifiable and assumed that you've definitively quantified it. I have spent a lot of time in a lot of really nice hotels (for work), and I travel exactly the place we're talking about. If going to SV, I'd like to stay in Palo Alto, preferably at the Garden Court or lately at the Epiphany. Neither one has the most luxurious (regular) rooms in the area, but for the other things that make a hotel nice, they beat the hell out of staying in a giant hotel from a mid-upscale chain on the side of the freeway. I think you're just insisting that "really nice" is what you say it is. OK, but I've got a lot of experience with high-end hotels.

[nereo]

The problem is that you've treated "really nice" as quantifiable and assumed that you've definitively quantified it. I have spent a lot of time in a lot of really nice hotels (for work), and I travel exactly the place we're talking about. If going to SV, I'd like to stay in Palo Alto, preferably at the Garden Court or lately at the Epiphany. Neither one has the most luxurious (regular) rooms in the area, but for the other things that make a hotel nice, they beat the hell out of staying in a giant hotel from a mid-upscale chain on the side of the freeway. I think you're just insisting that "really nice" is what you say it is. OK, but I've got a lot of experience with high-end hotels.

That's a fair enough criticism.  Certainly a more narrow and qualitative definition of 'really nice' could confirm your earlier statements.  My only response is that people coming from afar who don't have local knowledge often use the imperfect 'star-rating' system to judge how swanky a hotel is, and they might select any 4-star hotel in the area.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I want to know how he spent $30k from his wife?  did he max out several credit cards?  cash in his 401k?  Also how did his wife react when she found out?

+1!  I would be beyond pissed.

Found it!
http://madworldnews.com/30k-super-bowl-wife-confession/

Apparently the wife saw the interview on line and found the accounts drained (the article says "her accounts" but unsure if they are join accounts).

It also seems like this is not the first time he did something like this.

I think I would be pissed but more at myself for marrying a guy who would blow $30k on the Superbowl without thinking or discussing.

One of the other articles I read indicates that she happily forgave him for not only spending about $8k on himself but for spending more than twenty thousand dollars to basically lend to his buddies (who fortunately repaid him). Which means she's OK with this kind of activity, and she's OK with him taking from her in order to treat his buddies.

So it's only a matter of time before it happens again.

[nereo]

One of the other articles I read indicates that she happily forgave him for not only spending about $8k on himself but for spending more than twenty thousand dollars to basically lend to his buddies (who fortunately repaid him). Which means she's OK with this kind of activity, and she's OK with him taking from her in order to treat his buddies.

So it's only a matter of time before it happens again.

I gotta make friends with this guy...