Morning Joe! Super Bowl in Buffalo?

by doctork44 on Jan 25, 2012 8:02 AM EST

As we gear up for the Super Bowl between the Giants and the Patriots, I wanted to get some input about the idea that the Super Bowl should be played at the home field of one of the participating teams. Currently, the NFL is the only league of the major sports that play their championship games at a neutral location. The NFL prefer to have the NFL in warm weather locations; major cities, and cities with domes or retractable roofs.

The last 10 Super Bowls were played in:

2012- Indianapolis
2011- Cowboys Stadium
2010- New Orleans
2009- Tampa Bay
2008- Arizona
2007- Miami
2006- Detroit (Dome)
2005- Jacksonville
2004- Houston
2003- San Diego
2002- New Orleans
2001- Tampa Bay

Discussion after the jump.

Here are some of the reasons why I heard that the Super Bowl should be played at neutral locations:

Weather- Apparently playing in a blizzard or monsoon-type rain is unappealing to watch on TV or for fans at the game. Also its been said that it takes away from all the pregame activities leading up to the Superbowl.
Infrastructure (Hotel Rooms, Transportation, Venues)- The Super Bowl attracts a lot of people and a city needs to have the infrastructure in place to support all the tourist. You need tons of hotel rooms, have a reliable transportation system, and have the necessary venues to support all the activities.
Money- the Super Bowl generates a lot of money for the NFL. From a marketing stand point; the game will be way more appealing to sponsors if it was played in sunny Miami Beach.
No fair way to determine who plays at home- both the AFC and NFC team are deserving to play at home, as they both are conference championship. Either team will feel deserving to play the Super Bowl on their home field.
Time- Once its decided which two teams would represent their conferences, it will take the home team city two weeks to get prepared to host the Super Bowl. An event of this magnitude need more time.

Now these are some really good reasons, but none of these reasons in my opinion are fair. I don't see how you can justify giving an advantage to teams and cities solely based on their geographical location. These cities and teams are able to benefit financially on and off the field. How fair would it be if the Colts was able to make it to the Super Bowl this year? That would have a created a huge home field advantage for the Colts. I think every city should have the opportunity to host a Super Bowl; giving that they win their conference and have the best overall record. Season ticket holders, Fans, and tax payers are owed this right.

So what are your thoughts? Should the Super Bowl be played at neutral locations

Poll

Should the Super Bowl be played at neutral locations?

Yes

74 votes

No

19 votes

93 votes | Poll has closed

Just another great fan opinion shared on the pages of BuffaloRumblings.com.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

A little confused by the title...

I thought you were asking if the Superbowl should/could be played in Buffalo.

But anyways, I always thought that their should be some sort of Superbowl Stadium, where its played the same place every year. It would have to be nice weather or a dome, and obviously something else would have to take place there thru-out the year, not just a Superbowl Stadium and thats it… essentially it would have to be a colleges stadium in either warm weather, or a dome in a decent-size city…

And my answer is, the LA Coliseum. Now obviously this is where USC plays, but think about it. LA is pretty nice weather in Jan-Feb. Its a pretty big stadium, seats between 90,000 – 100,000. It could obivously get upgrades because it would be bringing in so much money to the area with the Superbowl being held there every day. And maybe this could be the answer to getting an NFL team in LA. This way if no team does go there, they could still be happy that they are the “Home of the Superbowl.”

"@Katebits: At this rate Sarah Maclachlan is going to start making sad commercials about the Sabres soon."

by bflo on Jan 25, 2012 8:30 AM EST reply actions

I can okay this

What about building a stadium in Vegas for this purpose?

by doctork44 on Jan 25, 2012 8:45 AM EST up reply actions

That would seem pretty cool too.

Only problem is, thats a pretty serious place to take a Superbowl team to. With all the potential trouble that players could get into the week before they actually play. Not sure Id want my guys out there. Any city is bad, but Vegas could get a lot of players in trouble.

Plus isnt there something about games in Vegas, or Nevada in general, that you cant bet on them? That would be a major blow to the Betting Game, taking the Superbowl out of play.

"@Katebits: At this rate Sarah Maclachlan is going to start making sad commercials about the Sabres soon."

by bflo on Jan 25, 2012 9:07 AM EST up reply actions

I like that idea a lot

I think it would also solve the unfair advantage NFL teams with Domes and good weather have to create additional revenue for their teams.

by As Smart as I Look on Jan 25, 2012 3:20 PM EST up reply actions

The Superbowl's not for football fans...

The NFL wants it to be a national event that appeals to the mainstream public. I’d say a good 50% of the audience can’t name anyone on either team besides the quarterbacks. Letting one of the teams in the game host it would make it feel more like the NFL Title Game rather than the Superbowl if that makes any sense. The pomp and circumstance surrounding the game is what draws in the audience more than the game itself.

However, I do think the NFL should add some cold weather non-dome cities to the host rotation. I know they’re playing the game in East Rutherford in 2014, but they should do this every four or five years. It’ll give it a slightly different feel.

by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Jan 25, 2012 8:41 AM EST reply actions

If it was up to me, the Super Bowl would be played at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena every year from here on into eternity.

"There's only one C.J. Spiller." -Buddy Nix

by Port Royal on Jan 25, 2012 9:59 AM EST reply actions

While you are correct that

any year could be the year that the home team is in the super bowl, it would also be the first. Until that happens, I wouldn’t worry about it. I like the idea that they rotate it. The game is not just a game anymore. It is a show. From the commercials, to the guest artists, to the halftime show etc, this is no longer about football.
In order to have the hype machine working, people need to know where to go to start the hype. Now, if they made the super bowl a best of 3, one at home, one at the other team’s home, and a third game, if needed, at this neutral site, and that would be awesome too.

by suteck on Jan 25, 2012 10:09 AM EST reply actions

eh...

The best thing about the NFL playoffs is the one-and-done aspect of it, which no other sport has. I wouldn’t want to see the Superbowl as a series.

by Let's Talk About Tex Baby on Jan 25, 2012 10:36 AM EST up reply actions

While I agree, there’s no way the NFL could do a series because it’s just not like other sports. A series would be the best way to determine the superior team. Who thinks the Broncos would beat the Steelers 2 times out of 3?

Ron Paul 2012

by BuffaloBlueBlood on Jan 25, 2012 11:10 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

Yea but it becomes a corporate spectical

I wonder if there are real fans at these games…

by doctork44 on Jan 25, 2012 11:46 AM EST up reply actions

It's not an advantage

Really, where’s the “home field advantage” if the home team is in the game (which hasn’t happened)? The biggest advantage comes from the crowd, which is a neutral crowd at the Super Bowl anyway. The locker rooms are done up nice so that’s not a factor. The field is in pristine condition, so that’s not a factor. They are played in domes or nice-weather cities, so that’s not a factor. Really, there is no advantage to either team.

"Slowly all the roles we act out become our identity. And in the end we are what we pretend to be." - Jerry Cantrell.