Originally Posted by Fourputt
That's easy... until now, no team north of the Mason-Dixon line ever had it's field chosen to host a Super Bowl, aside from a couple of domes. That greatly reduced the chances of it happening. Of course, that was before the league management lost their marbles.
If a storm like hurricane Sandy blew in on Super Bowl Sunday, would you all still say "Let the game go on"?
Well, that's a silly, hyperbolic thing to say. What does the lack of a dome on the field have to do with them playing a football game in a hurricane? Of course they wouldn't play it, but they wouldn't play it in New Orleans or Miami in a hurricane either.
Originally Posted by phan52
Teams earn those Conference Championship games as a reward for good play during the season and they deserve to have an advantage when trying to advance in the postseason. But the Super Bowl has always been in a neutral site and, in the end, the whole endeavor is supposed to be for the fans, right? I mean, without the fans, there is no NFL. And I think they should be accommodating the fans first and foremost in the Super Bowl. Nice place to visit in the dead of winter would be my idea of accommodating. Having it outdoors in the swamps of North NJ in February is not my idea of accommodating.
Methinks the almighty dollar has won out again. No surprise there.
The Super Bowl has rarely "technically" been at a neutral site, as far as I'm concerned. They held it at the Rose Bowl a few times, and at Stanford Stadium as well, but the vast majority of Super Bowl sites (especially in recent years) are at NFL stadiums chosen well in advance of the season (they are already planned out through 2017). And as far as I know, they don't try to take into account the quality of the potential home team when they make that choice, nor do they (again, as far as I know) have a contingent stadium to move the game to, were the home team to be successful in qualifying.
So, although it's worked out to be a "neutral site" at every Super Bowl so far, they are certainly taking the chance that one day there will be a home team. And when that happens, don't you think that they'd have at least as much, if not quite a lot more, of an advantage in that game than a Buffalo or Chicago or Philadelphia would have over a warm weather team in a New York Super Bowl? Further, wouldn't it be fair to say, that just from a mathematical standpoint, that the chances of a team like Arizona making the Super Bowl next year, or the Niners the following year, are as good, or even greater than the chances of there being a blizzard in New York on February 2nd?
So how come nobody is up in arms at the idea that they hold the Super Bowl in NFL stadiums every year??
But your last paragraph I agree with. When has the NFL ever NOT been about making money?? ;)