Monday’s question: What is the best host city for the Super Bowl?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
Reporters from around the Tribune family answer the question of the day, then you get a chance to chime in and tell them why they are wrong.
Dan Pompei, Chicago Tribune
What makes the ideal Super Bowl city? It has to be someplace where you can count on really nice weather. It has to be a city that can handle crowds in terms of its roads, airport, restaurants and bars. It has to be someplace where there is a big central area where people can congregate and party. And it helps if it has a modern stadium with all the amenities. The closest city to filling all of those qualifications is Miami. Sun Life Stadium isn’t the best, but it’s better than many. Coming to Miami just makes people feel good. Many people may say New Orleans is better, but you can’t count on golf weather there in February. Tampa isn’t bad, nor is Phoenix. And San Diego would be best of all if the city had a decent stadium.
Mike Berardino, South Florida Sun Sentinel
I’m tempted here to say New Orleans, which has hosted the Super Bowl nine times (second on the all-time list) and, even post-Katrina, still does big events like no other town. There is, after all, only one Bourbon Street. Just ask John Matuszak and the old-school Oakland Raiders.
Once-sleepy Arizona is coming on strong as a game site, thanks to that gorgeous new stadium in Glendale, and Tampa Bay is certainly deserving of a fifth crack at the big game. San Diego has the best weather, but the stadium is a dump.
In the end, the answer is obvious.
When you take all factors into account – location, weather, convenience, nightlife, infrastructure and, yes, facililty (sorry, Roger Goodell) – how can any place compete with South Florida?