Super Bowl Needs One Change
| 15
|
by user AWeiner18
Super Bowl Sunday — or in my abbreviated dictionary, SBS —is the most celebrated unofficial holiday across the world. There is a reason why the National Basketball Association has three games in the afternoon: not a single soul on this Earth would watch the game if it was played at 6:00 PM. Even the we-are-special-but-no-one-notices-because-we-are-not-on-a-popular-television-network National Hockey League pushed their games up as well to make room for the entire nation to turn their television sets to CBS.
The host of this great holiday this year will be Miami, Florida whereas last year, my hometown, Detroit, Michigan, hosted the game.
I should be comparing the two cities to determine the best city that is qualified to host a Super Bowl. But there is no comparison.
Miami is in fact a better city to host visitors across the world—their night clubs, restaurants, cars, celebrities make Detroit look like a city that should host a minor league championship instead.
And I agree—even though I was born and raised in Michigan. Miami is more qualified to host this event and, most importantly, the city provides everything a visitor could possibly ask for.
But, because the Miami Dolphins are not playing on SBS, Miami is not qualified to host this game. Chicago is.
If Dan Patrick were reading this, he would be happy and delighted to see those two words. Chicago should be the host of the 41st Super Bowl—not Miami or Jacksonville or Houston or even Detroit.
The NFL should eliminate hand-giving cities the Super Bowl. They should give the Super Bowl to the participant with the best overall record during the regular season.
Last year, the Pittsburgh Steelers came into Detroit to face the Seattle Seahawks. Compared to Detroit geography, Pittsburgh was like that runner in first place and Seattle was the runner who occupied 14th place—Pittsburgh was very close to the finish (Detroit). Critics at the time argued that Pittsburgh had an unfair advantage because it was easier for fans to travel to Detroit compared to Seattle.
This year is different—obviously. Both teams come from the Midwest (Indiana and Illinois) and Florida is in the South, meaning home-field advantage is not an issue.
I just wish it could be an issue—for the visiting team.
The Super Bowl cities have been selected years before the actual game is played and the cities themselves compete in a selection bidding process. Now, according to the anyone-no-matter-how-smart-or-dumb-you-are-can-write-anything-about-anything Wikipedia, the host of the SBS “must meet these qualifications in order to be a Super Bowl host:
• Temperature: “Average high temperature of at least 50 degrees Fahrenheit in February, unless the game is being played in an indoor arena”
• Venue: “Stadium with 65,000 seats or more”
• Overall space for media: “Space for 10 photo trailers and 40 television trucks”
• Overall space for fans: “600,000 square feet of exhibit space for fan events”
• Hotel Part I: “Large, high-end hotel for teams and NFL”
• More space for media: “50,000 square feet of space for news media ("Radio Row")”
• Hotels Part II: “Enough "quality" hotel rooms within a one-hour drive for 35% of the stadium's capacity”
• Practice fields: “Separate practice facilities for each team”
Let’s put our imaginary caps on boys and girls and let’s pretend if the Super Bowl had been selected to be played in Chicago and use the qualifications of Wikipedia on a Pass/Fail/No Idea grade for comparison:
• Temperature: FAIL WITHOUT A DOUBT
• Venue: PASS (holds over 70,000)
• Overall space for media: PASS
• Overall space for fans: PASS (Soldier Field is gigantic)
• Hotel part I: PASS (it would be in Chicago baby!)
• More space for media: NO IDEA
• Hotels Part II: PASS
• Practice Fields: PASS
The biggest factor of them all—temperature—is the lone failure of Chicago’s qualifications to host the SBS. Temperature alone would have resulted in a Super Bowl hosting rejection. But who cares about the temperature, even if we are currently freezing our butts off in Michigan! No matter what the temperature is, the team with the best overall record is qualified and deserves to host the game.
If Green Bay headed to the Super Bowl and had the best overall record out of the two teams, journalists and visitors would be forced to freeze their buns off and stay in the hotel if they are not at Media Day. But so what! The players who earned the right to play in the Super Bowl earned half of their record playing in that same temperature. The colder cities such as Green Bay, Detroit, Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia, and New England would be able to show who’s truly the champion of the world (or just a downright boss) on their own turf, not some “neutral” field.
You might argue that this would hurt the NFL because visitors would not want to stay in a hotel in Green Bay—they would rather walk around and shop in Miami. You might argue that the NFL would lose business because businessmen would not want to travel to a cold city.
The Super Bowl is in reality a two-week event with non-stop partying. Many people would argue that the game itself is secondary to the partying. Miami is a great entertainment city—the colder cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit and New England are as well. Just because these cities have cold weather does not mean the partying will not happen. Despite the cold and bitter weather last year, Detroit entertained their guests with fun parties that took place in many different places, including indoor facilities.
Every city in the National Football League, except perhaps Green Bay, have venues that can entertain their guests. By eliminating the selection process, NFL owners have the opportunity to host the biggest game in football and host the parties as well, which is an extra incentive for them to develop winning teams. Even though Miami is a great city, shouldn’t one of the teams playing in the game be given the opportunity to host the game itself?
Why does Miami deserve all the national attention when the two teams playing in the game are from Chicago and Indianapolis? If the NFL announced that the city with the team with the best record would claim the home field for the Super Bowl, it would attract so much attention to the team that is actually qualified to host the big game.
Yes I know this is a crazy idea, but what true fan would not want an opportunity to see their team at home?
It’s shouldn’t be Miami, Florida hosting this year’s unofficial holiday. It should be Chicago, Illinois.
Why? Because the team with the best record playing in the championship game is qualified and deserves the opportunity.
"Yes I know this is a crazy idea..."
If they changed the format, I am sure cities can plan over the course of a mounth. Remember, this would only apply to playoff teams.
What if each team designated a party comittee like the one on The Office?