Earlier, one of BFTB's most handsome writers produced this lovely little sentence:
I've always been in that group of people that believe the Super Bowl should only be played in cities that get snow once every two or three decades (for an hour) to avoid situations like this, because now the entire city of Arlington is like a guy who put all of his money on the team that's down by 30 points at halftime.
Now, logically, this should be cities in Florida, Southern California, Arizona and maybe New Orleans. Heck, maybe even build a giant stadium in Las Vegas and have the Super Bowl there every year.
I'm not saying picking Dallas was a bonehead move, they're typically known for decent weather, but New York and Indianapolis in the next three years is just asking for trouble. San Diego seems like the perfect venue for this type of event. Unlike New York, Los Angeles, Las Vegas or even Miami....there's not as much trouble to find in San Diego. Whether or not some people get offended by this, it's a little seaside town that's painted up to be one of the country's largest cities.
This begs the question: In the 43 years since "The Murph" opened, how many times has the Super Bowl been held in San Diego? Also, how do they rank against other mild-weather cities?
Super Bowl Hosting Cities:
Miami - 10 (half at Orange Bowl, half at Dolphin Stadium)
New Orleans - 9 (Getting their 10th in 2013)
Pasadena - 5 (Rose Bowl)
Tampa Bay - 4
San Diego - 3
Los Angeles - 2 (Coliseum)
Detroit - 2 (yes, really)
So, if I'm reading this list right (and I'd like to believe that I am), San Diego's 70 degree weather (with no rain) in January/February.....paired with a nice downtown area and hundreds of tourist attractions, not to mention plenty of hotels suites to handle an influx of 100,000 people....is not quite as suitable for the Super Bowl crowd as the bustling cities of Pasadena and Tampa Bay. It is only slightly better than Detroit, which has probably the country's worst combination of weather, crime and poverty.
Please. Somebody, anybody, explain to me how New Orleans and Miami have three times as many Super Bowls as San Diego when San Diego typically has better weather than both locations during this part of the year. And don't say it's because of Qualcomm. It took the league more than two decades to get a Super Bowl here after the Q was opened. It took Dolphins Stadium two years and the Superdome a whole three years before they got to host their first Super Bowls.
Is it an east coast bias? The proximity to Mexico? I don't know what it is, and I know now they're saying "San Diego needs to build a new stadium." However, wouldn't the city be in a better position, and more willing to toss some money towards a stadium, if they thought they might get more than 3 Super Bowls here in the next 43 years? Of course they would.