Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

16 Nov 2005

NFL Awards Super Bowl to K.C.

Posted by: P. Ryan Wilson on 16 Nov 2005

42 comments, Last at 18 Nov 2005, 1:56am by SJM


by Neil (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 8:06pm

A £100m sliding roof to keep the cold out? Havent they heard of climate change? By 2014 they'll be holding the Pro Bowl in KC never mind the Super Bowl.

by David S. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 8:11pm

So, what, deep pocketed corporate customers can't afford parkas? Why do they need to put a roof on Arrowhead for one game?

by DavidH (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 8:22pm

Noooo! I am a KC fan, and I love the idea of hosting the Super Bowl there, but I really don't like the idea of putting a roof on Arrowhead.

by Basilicus (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 8:41pm

Who cares if the gorram Super Bowl is played outside in the snow? I'd love to see that. What football fan wouldn't (I know, the Super Bowl is designed for the non-football fan because we'll all watch whatever the case.)

Everyone who is about to say a snowy Super Bowl would give an unfair advantage to Northern, outdoor teams doesn't realize that an indoor Super Bowl gives an unfair advantage to indoor teams.

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 8:45pm

While I would love to see a Super Bowl in a Northern, outdoor stadium, I hope they can't get the funding for this one. I don't want to see another covered stadium.

by Nate (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 8:52pm

I don't get the reasoning behind the warm weather/dome requirement. Can anyone enlighten me?

by Vash (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:05pm

Tony Dungy is paying off the league to keep Super Bowls indoors or in warm weather.

by Jerry F. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:15pm

The requirement is all about money. It's possible (though unlikely) that they couldn't sell seats for as much if the weather was poor, but it also would mean those terrible, terrible, multi-sponsored halftime shows would be put in jeopardy, not to mention pregame BS.

by james (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:21pm

Keep the superbowl in warm weather cities please. I think it should only ever be played in San Diego and Miami. Who the hell wants to visit Kansas City? Who the hell wants to visit Kansas City in January?

Weren't the Houston and Jacksonville super bowls enough of a problem?

by David/DeadTeddy8 (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 9:25pm

After the Super Bowl XVI debacle, when 16 degrees and snow in Pontiac, Michigan, caused massive traffic jams and a miserable experience for so many people, the league hasn't sent the game to a cold-weather site until this year when it's back in Detroit. Silly thought I've had bouncing around my head for a while... Give a group of sites the Super Bowl Stamp of Approval and put them into a lottery every year to determine where the game goes. Do NOT pay attention to weather. Pay attention to accomodations, stadium viability and whatnot. Lambeau and Ralph Willson would be out, but Oakland, Foxboro, Pittsburgh, and Indy, places that normally wouldn't get the game, are in the lottery. Places with subpar stadiums would be out (SF, I'm looking at you). God knows how they'd determine subpar, but I'm just rambling. Hell, why not add some "creative" sites, too? Pasadena? Honolulu? San Antonio?

by Kibbles (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 10:04pm

Re #6: It's more of a tourism thing. The cold weather isn't so much a hindrance to the teams playing the game as it is to the hundreds of thousands of people flocking to the city to watch it.

by RowdyRoddyPiper (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 10:07pm

Inre: #10

That idea makes far too much sense for the league to ever have any chance of adopting it. It's simple, it's fair, it's brilliant, hence no one will take it seriously. I mean could anything be better than a championship game, in
New England or Pittsburgh?

by Travis (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 10:17pm

Re #10:

The last cold-weather Super Bowl was XXVI, held in Minneapolis.

by pcs (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 10:18pm

#10: ... the league hasn’t sent the game to a cold-weather site until this year when it’s back in Detroit.

SB XXVI (1992) was in Minneapolis.

by Dan (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 10:36pm

#10 and #12

As a Pats fan, I love the idea of a Superbowl in Foxboro, or any other outdoor cold weather venue for that matter, simply to help competitive balance. However, I'd like to see the requirement for a cold weather stadium to change from a matter of having a roof to one of local infrastructure. Rt 1 is awful enough during a Revolution game, let alone for something as huge as a Superbowl. That way the NFL could suck on the teat of public money just as they like to, but this time it is more than just the team itself that could benefit.

Maybe not everyone wins this way, but nobody loses, and no teams can rightly complain.

by Ryan (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 10:41pm

San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, Arizona, Miami, Jacksonville, and Tampa Bay should never host another Super Bowl.
The same goes for all the dome (and psuedo-dome) teams: St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, Atlanta, Indy, Detroit, and Minnesota.

I want to see the best two teams playing in late January/early February outdoors, at night, in places like: Buffalo, NY/NJ, Foxboro, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Washington, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Green Bay, Chicago, or Denver.

Wouldn't you love to see the Colts trying to pass, and the Falcons trying to run, in a windy blizzard on a negative-4-degree night in Chicago? I sure would.

I would settle for a place like Seattle, Kansas City, Carolina, or Tennessee - places that have the potential to be cold that time of year.

Really, I'm tired of seeing them play in domes, and warm weather cities.

by Jay B. (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 11:25pm

NFL Awards Super Bowl to K.C.

I remember when they used to play games to determine this. The new system kind of eliminates the suspense, I think.

by Charles (not verified) :: Wed, 11/16/2005 - 11:27pm

How about a permanent site?

Canton, Ohio, at the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

by Zac (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 1:08am

Wha? "Lambeau is out, but Foxboro is in"? Lambeau Field is the Fenway Park of the NFL. If any cold weather site deserves a Super Bowl, it's Lambeau Field.

by andrew (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 1:19am

Canton? don't be ridiculous. This is all about revenue generation for cities and the extravaganza a host site can throw.

San Diego is the most commonly mentioned candidate for a permanent site, with Miami being a close second. With New Orleans out of the picture, it pretty much is a rotation between them and a handful other warm site sprinkled in every now and then, especially when it can be used as a carrot to get a stadium (or in this case a roof) built.

by Basilicus (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 1:39am

Really, they need to have one in Chicago. It's Chicago, for crying out loud, and it's got a brand new stadium only a few years old.

by Meat Lockyard (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 3:40am

In Madden, I take pride in reloacting teams to rural National Park aress. Who's for the Acadia Bowl in Bangor? Or the Money Bowl in Vegas?

by Al (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 8:59am

I hate this NFL awarding a super bowl as long as you do X crap. They pulled it to try to get the Jets the West SIde stadium in NYC and now they're doing it to get KC a dome they don't need. Next they'll award the 2020 Super Bowl to Las Vegas on the condition that they outlaw gambling on pro football and build a 100,000 person stadium with a retractable roof, personal tvs on every seat, and their own Cirque de Soleil troupe for halftime shows.

by MCS (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 9:36am

Seriously, David (Comment 10), what made you eliminate Lambeau and Ralph Wilson as potential SB venues. In particular, why not Lambeau?

by Scott de B. (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 10:32am

Who the hell wants to visit Kansas City? Who the hell wants to visit Kansas City in January?

Nobody needs to visit. KC fans are the best in the game, and they'll turn out, no matter the weather.

by ajn (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 10:32am

i don't get the people-only-want-to-visit-warm-cities-in-the-winter business. i live in nashville, where the weather is often above sixty degrees in january and february, and i would rather visit denver or chicago than some non-football-weather city like miami. there is a football game played during super bowl week, right?

by Parker (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 11:36am

I think Lambert Field is out because there would be nothing to do during the week or two before the Super Bowl. Where will everyone spend their money? Where will they stay? Could that area of Wisconsin handle 100,000 visitors?

Plus, I doubt many people want to sit in a seat that a Packer fan urinated and vomited on as little as two weeks earlier.

by noahpoah (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 11:42am

The Superb Owl should be in the stadium of whichever conference champion has the better record.

Or in Las Vegas every year.

by Jay B. (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 11:46am

"The Superb Owl?"

Please tell me that was intentional.

by ToxikFetus (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 12:07pm

Vegas Baby! Vegas!

sorry... couldn't help myself.

by Russell Levine :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 12:16pm

I love the cold-weather Super Bowl debate, but it's never going to happen. Sure, the NFL will throw some Northern city a bone once a decade or so in exchange for ponying up public funds to build a new stadium, or in this case, cover an old one.

But, as unfortunate as it is, the Super Bowl has very little to do with the 60 minutes of football played on Sunday. It has much more to do with the week of parties and the chance for the NFL to take its seven- eight- and nine-figure sponsors golfing on exlcusive courses.

They could play the Super Bowl in Greenland and sell out a Stadium, but the game is the league's chance to reward all the sponsors who make the league go. And those people like to be able to walk around in shorts and golf shirts, see Hawaiian Tropic girls and cheerleaders in bikinis, and hit the local TPC. Most of the owners want nothing to do with cold-weather Super Bowls because they like the parties as well.

by White Rose Duelist (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 12:26pm

Basilicus is jen duh sh tyen tsai.

by CrazyBoB (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 12:26pm

There is another ticking time bomb issue with superbowl site selection. Sooner or later one of these warm weather cities is going to host their home team for the superbowl. In my opinion this will be what causes the site selection process to really become scrutinized. Its an unfair advantage that wamr weather and dome teams could potentially play all their playoff games at home, while cold weather cities have no chance. And I know that the crowd wouldn't be your typical home crowd, but just being at home in comfortable surroundings would give that team an edge. Until this happens though its going to be San Diego, Miami, New Orleans, Tampa, and repeat.

by Parker (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 12:39pm


Play in Arizona every year. Problem solved.

by Michael David Smith :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 12:49pm

I don't think everyone understands how little the fans have to do with this and how much the sponsors have to do with this. Even Detroit getting the Super Bowl only happened because the taxpayers built the Lions a stadium, AND if you watch the NFL you'll notice that there are a lot of Ford and GM ads. If it weren't for both the stadium and the major sponsors wanting it in their town, Detroit never would have had a chance. And even with both of those factors, I seriously doubt there will ever be another one at Ford Field.

I love the idea of seeing a Super Bowl in the snow, but it'll never happen. Then again, maybe I should want them all to be in domes, since that would give the Lions an advantage just as soon as they get to the Super Bowl.

by zlionsfan (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 12:53pm

Re #17: I suppose you mean conference/league championship games. The Super Bowl has always been held at a predetermined site.

Parker, it wouldn't have to be just Arizona. In fact, I think this year's Super Bowl site qualifies as well ...

... and I'd be happy if Indy never hosts a Super Bowl. Just another week where the price of everything soars and there are tens of thousands of visitors who don't know where they're going.

Oh, wait. I forgot. It's a boost for the local economy.

by MCS (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 1:01pm

So MDS. You would want the Lions to play the Colts in a dome? :-)

by Jay B. (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 1:54pm


It was a joke. I was intentionally misinterpreting the title of this thread to say that the NFL had preemptively awarded the Super Bowl title to KC.

by Jen (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 2:04pm

It would be ironic that if KC does build their rolling (not retractable) roof and they do have the Super Bowl there, it turns out to be during a week when they're having one of their freak 60+ degree winter warmups.

by Sophandros (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 2:15pm

I wouldn't write off NOLA if I were you guys. I also wouldn't listen to the national media for status reports of my birth city.

by elhondo (not verified) :: Thu, 11/17/2005 - 3:40pm

My vote is to play it in Dick Cheney's Undisclosed Location. Just as long as they televise it, I really don't see any reason to have a crowd there.

by SJM (not verified) :: Fri, 11/18/2005 - 1:56am

The really ridiculous thing is that for the kind of money they are talking about for a rolling roof and stadium improvements for Arrowead (around $500 million total), they could build a brand new retractable-roof stadium.

Cue the flames from die-hard Chiefs fans who love Arrowhead.

Have fun throwing good money after bad, guys.

BTW, I heard on Dan Patrick's radio show that Superb Owl (see #28-29) revenues average only $400 million. Am I missing something here?