Okay.. i was thinking about this the other day:

The Super Bowl is supposed to be in a neutral setting.. but yet it is decided WHERE the super bowl actual is YEARS before knowing who is going to be in it...

My question is.. lets just say Arizona gets really good, and makes it to the super bowl in 2008(far stretch but bear with me)... The 2008 Super Bowl is going to be held IN ARIZONA... that kind of defeats the "neutral setting" factor...

Would the NFL change venues? or would the super bowl be a home game for the Cardinals?

Luck of the game.

It has never been fair, and it's my belief that the NFL has goofed big time with this over the years.

Baseball rewards its loyal fans by having games played in the teams' own ballparks. This way the fans can actually watch the games--those who have loyally follwed their teams for many many years.

The NFL, OTOH, makes fans travel sometimes thousands of miles to watch the Super Bowl, and have to spend hundreds (prob thousands ) more on hotel rooms, food, etc.

Not fair.The NFL can really suck sometimes.

I'm in no way saying it's the right way to do things, but the Super Bowl really is an economic plum for whichever city lands it. That's the way the NFL chooses to do things and we put up with it. Unlike the World Series, the SB is but one game. Be kinda interesting to see them play for the best out of 7 on consecutive days. The third game would be a real hoot. Might not be a fourth, let alone making it to 7.

that's true...it's an economic windfall...wonder why the NFL doesn't have the SB hosted by a city that could really use the money...why is it always Miami, LA, New Orleans (NO needs it now, I know).....

Would like to see more fairness in this but it'll never happen--cities like Indy ( stadium too small), Cleveland ( ha, it is to laugh), or Soldier Field or even Lambeau.

Make those overpaid fatties get out there and play this game in real football weather--- snow, cold, ice, wind. Maybe tickets wouldn't be so outrageously expensive either.

The cities that could really benefit from a SB can't afford it. They may not have the hotel and partying space required for that size crowd, they may not have the regulation NFL certified playing field, little things like that.

Would the NFL change venues? or would the super bowl be a home game for the Cardinals?

I don't remember how the NFL determines which team is the home team, but I don't think it would automatically be the Cardinals.

Make those overpaid fatties get out there and play this game in real football weather--- snow, cold, ice, wind. Maybe tickets wouldn't be so outrageously expensive either.

It's not the overpriced fatties that would complain - it's all of the corporate sponsors that buy all of the seats so that no one else can get in that would complain.

Don't they have an alternative site in place, should something like that happen? I know it would be a lot of work to suddenly get word that the primary site can't be used for some odd reason, but there should be something in place for that. If not then it should be considered...or just get your tickets before the home team buys 'em out.

I just thought the Super Bowl was supposed to be in a neutral setting...

but the NFL is actually using a good defense against this occurance..

last year was in detroit
this year is in Miami LOL
2008 is in Arizona LOL
2009 is in Tampa

All those teams suck... so problem solved... right?

Notice the SB has never been held in Buffalo, which is home to one of the oldest teams in the league, and has made the trip to the SB 4 times. So the question is - who in their right mind would want to visit Buffalo in January?

It has never been held in Green Bay either, and the Packers have been in the league a lot longer than Buffalo. I think the "Ice Bowl" against the Dallas Cowboys for the NFL Championship just before the merger with the AFL permanently convinced the NFL never to hold a Super Bowl in Green Bay.

I knew a fellow who was a corporate pilot for one of the NFL teams, and he knew Paul Tagliabue personally. Here is the deal;

The venue would not change.

The die is cast on which city is going to host the Big Show a few years in advance, and if by chance the 'home team' goes to the SuperBowl, then they simply get to take advantage of being the home team.

As far as the '12th Man' advantage, I don't imagine there would be much there to consider. Season ticket holders do NOT automatically get tickets to the playoffs and the SuperBowl. Those folks have to stand in line like everybody else. And because of all the major corporations who have pre-purchased blocks of tickets, (and all the promotional ticket contests and give-aways) the 'home-crowd' showing is going to be quite thin. The average Joe in Arizona would find the ticket selection pretty sparse, even if he could afford the price of that ticket.

Sad, but that's how it is.

It would be just luck if Arizona got there.

It has never been held in Green Bay either, and the Packers have been in the league a lot longer than Buffalo. I think the "Ice Bowl" against the Dallas Cowboys for the NFL Championship just before the merger with the AFL permanently convinced the NFL never to hold a Super Bowl in Green Bay.
I think it is a shame they don't hold Super Bowls in cold weather locations. Sure Lambeau couldn't hold as many people and there is a good chance there could be snow but its history alone should be enough to allow it to play host.

To make it so this isn't a thread hijack I will also note that it is the luck of the draw. I would suggest however, that the NFL might consider holding the Super Bowl in the same location every year and have that location be truly neutral. I would have to suggest Las Vegas. Most major sports leagues won't allow a team to play out of Vegas due to the whole gambling issue but wouldn't one game a year be ok? Besides, everyone knows that everyone bets on the Super Bowl.

If they want a truly neutral regular location, maybe they could use Honolulu. No team anywhere close, and good weather.