Comments on: BEST TEAM should host Super Bowl

By: City

City — Wed, 26 May 2010 20:00:55 +0000

I think this is a HORRIBLE decision. I love the Bears, and I love the fact that we play old school, outdoors football (and I will never forget watching Walter Payton’s final NFL game at Soldier’s Field – loss to Redskins in -20 degree freeze), but Super Bowl’s are generally boring enough without two offenses plodding in the middle of the field unable to move the ball because nobody can hang onto it.

Two issues with home field advantage though: 1) It’s possible that two teams could be tied without a reasonable tie-breaker and 2) it could “coerce” teams to build domes (which I hate!).

Having said that, I do wish Chicago had built one of those stadiums that could be opened up or closed into a dome.

By: Windy Cynic

Windy Cynic — Wed, 26 May 2010 00:58:14 +0000

I was going to argue that the Super Bowl should be played somewhere immune to adverse weather in an attempt to make the playing field consistent, but Jim has it right.

Shall we now introduce the 2 billion dollar VEGAS Bowl! One event a year should cover the mainainence costs and we’ll just get the Nevada Taxpayers to pony up the stadium construction. Maybe claim emminent domain over a poor section of the city, gentrify the surrounding neighborhoods with casinos and strip clubs and add a Lear Jet airfield to allow corporate exec’s private access.

In all seriousness, the Rose Bowl will do. Since LA is a nuetral site, might make sense.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 25 May 2010 23:53:47 +0000

The Superbowl should not give a team ‘homefield’. What America needs is a set venue to play the Superbowl in, a specific national stadium for the purpose. Like Wembley is in England.