It was refreshing to learn that the NFL has finally decided that holding a Super Bowl in a "cold weather" city was acceptable, and good for the league. Of course, the league chose the nation's largest media market to do so, but the change of heart is refreshing nonetheless. For years, I have considered it grossly unfair that cities not having domed stadiums or near-perfect weather conditions were deprived of the opportunity to host this event. Consider the enormous positive economic impact on the hosting community, as thousands of visitors flock to the city's hotels restaurants, and other tourist/entertainment sites, and how some cities, Miami and New Orleans, as examples, have profited from this.

I for one would think it only fair that every NFL city, in turn, be afforded he opportunity to host this event. After all, it is the fans of the NFL in every city who support the league through ticket sales, NFL official label merchandise sales and directly or indirectly through television revenues. Why should some fans be deprived the chance to see the game live in their home city, while others, in seemingly more glamorous locations, have numerous opportunities? I am tired of hearing television reporters suggest that nobody would want to go to the game were it held in the snow, the cold or otherwise inclement weather. Of course, they are suggesting that they, themselves, would not want to attend the game in such a location, and that their desires are more important than, and should trump, those of the fans.

So here are my questions to you- regardless of whether it might ever come to pass, would you attend a Super Bowl held in Buffalo even if the Bills were not playing in it? And the corollary- do you think that just as many members of the media and other "celebrities" would attend the event regardless of where it is held?

<!--Session data-->

<!--Session data-->