With all the efforts into making parity in the NFL and trying to keep everything “fair”, should a team be able to host their own Superbowl at their home stadium?
Or another question: maybe the team with the better win % should automatically host the Superbowl!?!
Luck of the draw. There’s a ton of festivities associated with Superbowls, leave it as is. Makes planning easier.
Provides a ton of economic help to the areas selected. Would hate to limit that to he better teams. Can you imagine what would have been said about the Pats holding those Superbowls at home?
As I’ve seen it, it’s creating equal financial opportunity for owners, equal PR of the teams, equal fun for the fans, etc.
Moving it around randomly is best, IMO. It’s one of the things that makes the NFL cool, IMO.
Think of all of the SBs that would have been played in Patriots snowy-ass stadium. Maybe Buffalo, coming up?
Give me a dome. LOL. I don’t want home team getting SB.
A lot of times they give it to a city that builds a new stadium…but look at it from the Visitor’s point of view. What if the Lions made it to the Superbowl and had to play a team that was playing at home like the Rams are doing, I just don’t think it’s fair to the Bengals to have to play an “away” game in the Superbowl, it should be played at a neutral site.
It’s not fair. You are right. Also, it’s happened only twice in the history of the game.
By that logic, any home game is not fair, and home field advantage throughout the playoffs is not fair either…it is absolutely NOT fair…that’s why it’s called home field advantage.
maybe they just do it on a rotating basis, and it is what it is?
The money is on warm weather towns or domes, I would think.
Probably no perfect answer, but some answers are better than others.
I think there should be a drawing to select the field, can be in ANY city…that way a bowl game would be played in each stadium done by machine no human favoritism or meddling with results.
The crowd will be full of the same executives and celebrities that are there every year. There isn’t much of a home field advantage… other than not having to fly and stay in a hotel.
I’m not sure how anyone would feel about watching a Superbowl at Gillette Stadium in the middle of a Nor’easter. 1 1/2” per hour or more.
Or with the temps down to -20*F. 30 mph winds.
Fun to watch during the regular season, sure. The Super Bowl???
I do agree with the sentiment though. Every team should have an equal shot at hosting.
The problem is all the marketing and preparation required for the SB. You cant do that in a few weeks. You have to know the venue well before you know the teams. Rotating is the fairest way to do it. If you are good and lucky you end up with the home field edge. But that really is rare as Natty pointed out.
This is it in a nutshell. The championship games were on 1/30. The Superbowl is on 2/13. The logistics involved in JUST the singular act of moving the game from the Rams stadium to another stadium would be impossible.
That doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the logistics involved in activities in the area, reservations that have been made for months, travel, vendors, TV, radio, the NFL itself, the city of Los Angeles, law enforcement, medical, so forth so on.
SoFi got the game, then the Rams went out this season and made it to the game. Good for them. No way to change it in the amount of time allotted.
Ideally you are right, but when do you pull the trigger? When 8 teams are vying for it? Or once the two teams are known. Can you imagine 100K people trying to get new flights and room reservations to said neutral site within 2 weeks? What that city would have to do to prepare for that level of surprise guests? The logistics of the SB is just way too big to be remotely flexible. About the best chance you’d have to mitigate the chance of this happening, is only picking from cities that were among say the worst 10 teams the year before. But then… you’d have people bitching because Detroit got 4 of the past 8 SB’s, etc.
Pick a city that doesn’t have an NFL team, and have the SB there every year? Then you get into logistics, what teams are nearest, is there ever reeeeaaally a neutral city, if it’s closer to one franchise than the other, etc.
I’m all about leaving it how it is.
Also…Go Rams!!!
I think it’s a great idea, but it’s probably impractical. Too much money and too little time.
Just Do It!!!
There’s no way to do anything different
Preparation time is probably 6-9 months or more
Cities invest big $$$ to look their best for the SB
LA playing in their stadium is a fluke and not all that important
Non issue and one that cannot be perfected
The SB has become an opportunity to spread the money around. It’s close to an ideal set up at this point.
It’s the superbowl. There is no home field advantage.
If you’re the Packers, Cowboys or Steelers, you’re going to have a good following no matter where you play.
If you’re any other team, your fans sold the seats to Packer, Cowboy and Steelers fans.
Or, in the case of LA/Sofi, simply the highest bidder.
I mean in 60 years how many times has it worked out that way???
Two?
Three?
the league is worth billions. it should build a centrally located stadium just for the superbowl that can be also used like a stadium normally would be, bowl games, etc. Put it on a mountaintop with the only way to reach it is helipads and ski gondolas because tickets are 5k and up anyway, might as well quit trying to hide it’s for ‘everyone’.
You might be on to something there.
What shall we name it?
Actually, we wouldn’t name it, rather it could be branded something different each bowl.
“the pinnacle” or “the high horse” 