have to think that if new orleans built a brand new stadium the superbowl WOULD come whereas it might not come (or as often going forward) otherwise.
This has been a debate among economists for years. There is the belief that the purported revenue generated from hosting these events is highly inflated and exaggerated. Since the infrastructure of these hosts cities are typically in-place already, there's not a boom in construction type jobs -- mostly just temporary hospitality employment and event-day employment at the venue.
The area where the economists can't agree is the monetary value of the exposure as a travel destination to a world-wide audience. The coverage of the game in the weeks leading up are basically prolonged commercials for iconic restaurants and attractions. There is a high value there, but how much and how impactful it is -- well, that's the billion dollar question. Literally.
The importance of the most recent Super Bowl wasn't in the game itself (blackout and whatnot), but in showing that the city was still a premier host site and that the amenities offered to visitors for the time leading up to the game are greater than any city can offer. It was a success.
We will get more Super Bowls without a new stadium, just not as frequently as we did 25 years ago. The Super Bowl in New York last year was done so, I believe, in a effort to open the map up for Super Bowls to be played all over the NFL landscape -- including cities that don't have teams (Los Angeles) and possibly Europe.
New Orleans is now in competition with 30+ venues.
This post was edited on 6/4 at 9:36 am