I'm with you, J.

I'd take it even further though. I think the Super Bowl should be played in damn near perfect conditions all the time.

I know it's a ludicrous idea, but I think they should build a neutral "Super Bowl Stadium" in some amazing climate (like AZ or LA) with a grass field and retractable roof, all the fixins. and just host the SB there every single year.

I kind of think LA would be perfect, especially if they never got another NFL team. Obviously, this would be a proximal homefield for SF, SD, Oakland, AZ and (gasp) even Seattle a little bit but what the heck!

If they built it properly, maybe it could house other concerts and events throughout the year.

Anyway, there's my harebrained idea for the day.

_________________

Las Vegas? venue could be used year round for large concerts/events, plenty of hotels, and the state would benefit from the gambling revenue. plus, go to vegas to watch your team in the super bowl? sign me up!!

_________________

I like the Idea of a Site specific Superbowl arena that would be really cool, and vegas would be Ideal.


But......This is football, why does the "best game of football all year" have to be in perfect conditions, when EVERY OTHER game is in whatever ever conditions it happens to be? And more times than not the Conference Championships are played in Terrible weather!

By the way Here in Denver they are talking about the exact same thing, getting a Superbowl. In early February the conditions here are probably more sunny than Seattle but it's definitely colder!

Also I think New York is a Spectacular place to have a Superbowl, because it is awesome there. It one of my favorite places ive been in the US.

_________________

not only did we host final 4, but we hosted the Baseball allstar game, and that event was a thing of beauty.... if seattle wanted it bad enough they could make it happen... i prefer the warmer climates, but i hate it being played in domes...

_________________
On to the Next Episode

The final four here was awesome. I'm too young to remember but my dad told me there was a single guy (more or less) that was responsible for putting together those bids that got us the Final Four in '87 and '93, and I think a first round in '97ish.

Where is this mystery guy now?

_________________

The game will never be hosted at a neutral site. The people that make these decisions are the owners, and the owners would never give up a chance to have the bowl at their stadium. The revenue for the city and the stadium is just to much to give up.

I think when looking at hotel/event capacity, you have to look at the Greater Seattle Area, rather than just Seattle proper. Cowboys Stadium is in Arlington, TX, but you can bet they were including hotels from all of DFW (which is massive!) for their Superbowl bid. If you look at the capacities of Seattle, Bellevue, SeaTac and Tacoma/Puyallup, at least, I think the number definitely gets there. The Seattle area also has a number of facilities for events to be held. The real question is location and the experiment in the Meadowlands with an outdoor northern Superbowl.

I kinda like the idea of having perfrct conditions for the championship game. It takes away an excuse for losing. As it is now, you can't blame losing on home field advantage as it's a neutral site and a two week break in between gives lots of time to overcome travel/jet lag. Ensuring perfect conditions takes away the excuse of a fair weather team losing due to the weather.

The championship should be all about the best team winning, not about who overcomes the adversity the best. Making a dedicated "Super Bowl Stadium" in Las Vegas would guarantee a neutral site and near perfect conditions (actual perfect if it's retractable roof). Vegas isn't exactly centrally located, so there is likely to be a little discrepency in the travel distance for teams, but it's a helluva lot better than travelling to the south east where it's usually held.

Vegas with it's transient/tourist population would never be able to support an actual NFL team because nobody would stick around long enough to become a fan, but making it "home of the super bowl" would bring it into the NFL fold. Vegas could handle the influx of people that the Super Bowl brings and not even bat an eye. and think of all the gambling! The city of Las Vegas would pay the NFL for the priviledge of hosting the game.

It's a cool idea...

_________________
Papaki douchebag love turtle long time

When the Thunder play the Grizzlies, I'll be cheering for a tornado.

Never been to a Superbowl, but would think the current drinking laws would hamper the appeal of having a Superbowl week here. If there was NBA and NHL that could offer some other activities. I guess going non-alcohol after 2:00 a.m. isn't that big a deal?

_________________

"Pray to the LORD now...Seattle are a bunch of heathen atheist Canadians."
NFL GM: "How do you stop a Seahawk? Take away his doctor's prescription pad."”

I couldn't have said it better!

The whole reason we all accept and / or like weather games in the playoffs is because it's that particular teams HOME FIELD. Like saying - okay now, you have to beat us in OUR element - whatever that is.

The Super Bowl is meant to be played on a neutral field, so I wouldn't want one team having an advantage over another. And just like CAN said, to me, when it comes to the Super Bowl in particular, I want the teams to decide the games, not the elements.

And finally, and this is probably the least popular opinion of all: I don't think "weather games" are nearly as fun as we think they are. I think we as football fans have this romantic notion of "how football is meant to be played, in the snow, the muck, etc.", but in reality those weather games are usually not that fun to watch, or more accurately, the football being played is significantly worse than that of a typical game.

_________________