i do
2007-01-30 02:17:23 · 20 answers · asked by tj m 1 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
neutral site is better..
2007-02-03 01:10:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so, because a team's record can depend on the strength of opponents. A team in a weak division shouldn't be rewarded for playing a weaker schedule. I think playing at a neutral site is perfect. It takes home field advantage away from both teams, so that the BEST team on that night actually wins the game. One thing that I would change is that I would not determine the Super Bowl site until after the Conference Championships. I would play the game in the NFL city that is about the same distance from both cities, yet close enough for fans to make the trip. In this year's game, Cleveland would have been a prime location for the game, being less that 350 miles from Indy and Chicago. I know that the NFL wold never go for playing the Super Bowl outdoors in a cold weather city, but fans of these two teams would sit through a freaking blizzard if it meant getting a chance to see the Super Bowl in person without traveling halfway across the country.
2007-01-30 12:14:37 · answer #2 · answered by rob 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do, too. That way the real fans of the team can see the game, instead of the random people/celebrities that go to the game now. There's be so much more emotion and passion during the game because the crowd would be into it so much more.
And how cool would it be to see a Super Bowl played in the snow? But it will never happen, because of all of the other entertainment (half time show, etc.) at the Super Bowl. They need nice warm weather for all of that.
2007-01-30 10:27:18 · answer #3 · answered by dennisjohns23 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How could you prepare for a event like that in just 2 week. What if the home team stadium is all ready booked for another event.
Every team is the NFL is give tickets so most of the people who go are not from the host city. If fact the NFL spend a whole year or more preparing for the game. it is almost like an Olympic game.
Other sports is best of seven. most cities could not handle that on less than 2 week notice.
2007-02-03 00:45:11 · answer #4 · answered by raynard20010 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the sideshow around the game would lose a lot if they didn't know where to hold it until two weeks before it happens.
Football-wise, it would be nice, but once a year football fans have to be reminded that the superbowl is bigger than the game.
That said, it would be nice to see some other cities host a superbowl. We shouldn't be so afraid of snow--why can't Chicago, New England, Washington, New York, or Seattle host the game?
2007-01-30 11:45:31 · answer #5 · answered by wayfaroutthere 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the Super Bowl should be played at the home field of the team with the best record. The Super Bowl brings in a lot of money to the location where it is played and the team with the best record going into the SB should be able to reward their fans and their city.
2007-01-30 11:42:13 · answer #6 · answered by DallasOrioles 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That was discussed in the very beggining. The reason it was held in L.A. and Miami originally was the weather concern. But, with the dome stadium it opened it up. Secondly, the Superbowl is a revenue sharing tool for the League, so a team like SF gets its share, even it never hosts one. Also, there is no standard stadium configuration. KC is locked at 68,000, while GB is much smaller. so Nuetral sites work better.
2007-01-30 12:19:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It will never happen. The Super Bowl is a big party. It should be a celebration for the successful teams to make the game even more important than just a regular game. Up to and counting Super Bowl XLI, no team has ever played in a Super Bowl in their home stadium. Teams in LA and San Fran have played in their area, but not in their stadium.
2007-01-30 11:24:43 · answer #8 · answered by astrobull21 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if they somehow factor in conference strength.
The Bears had a great record mainly because they played in an incredibly weak conference. They beat the Jets and Bills, but they also lost to the Pats and got crushed by Miami, giving them only a 2-2 record against the AFC. Indy went 3-1 against the NFC, and had to spend their season playing actual good teams.
I don't see a fair way to do it unless they go to a balanced schedule.
2007-01-30 11:56:31 · answer #9 · answered by Craig S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be played on a neutral field. Just a personal opinion. But I hate the weather issue. Football is played in snow and cold for the other playoff games, let it happen in the Super Bowl. That's football.
2007-01-30 10:54:30 · answer #10 · answered by rainier 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely positively not. A Super Bowl in Chicago...... how lame would that be? You must be a Bears fan. Because you and I both know that the only reason Chicago is even in the Super Bowl is because they had mother nature on their side in the NFC Championship game. And the only way that the Bears could possibly win the Super Bowl is if Peyton Manning chokes or the game is played in below zero, windy, snowy, rainy conditions just like how they beat the Saints. Yeah yeah, just chalk this up as the Bears not getting any respect. Wah wah wah.
2007-01-30 10:51:58 · answer #11 · answered by JUICE_0032 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋