This might go down like a ton of bricks but...

[ENGCowboy]

with all this talk of Superbowl host cities I was thinking as an outsider wouldnt it be easier on everyone if it was based in one city every year.Now before you go off at me heres my arguement.

The City: LA

The Reasons:

Its the 2nd biggest media market in America.

They dont have a franchise and cant seem to keep hold of one, my guess is the markets to volitile and competitive to support an NFL franchise that only provides games for 19 weeks of the year, including preseason.

It would stop the pressure on struggling franchises to move to LA.

The NFL could keep interest in the NFL from the LA region without the hassle of adding a franchise.

Let the hate begin....

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LA doesnt have the stadium to pull it off.

 

[Zaxor]

LA doesnt have the stadium to pull it off.

that really is the crux of the problem and also why the raiders didn't stay

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

The NFL would never go for it because it is short-run sighted and therefore would make no economic sense. The cty of LA would benefit every year at the expense of other cities that do have NFL teams. And in the long run, the FL would lose revenue-sharing dollras, because by having the Super Bowl in a singel sity, there would be no effort, and lost opportunity, to increase demand for the sport - and thus revenue - in the long run.

NFL cities, over time, will always need new stadiums and the best and only way to justify tax dollars for building them is to provide the promise of hosting a Super Bowl in that city because of that stadium. New stadiums also generate higher demand for the NFL which brings in more revenue money for an NFL team and city - and for the NFL to share - and that revenue can accrue over time and therefore total much more than the revenue from a sinle Super Bowl in LA.

**

 

[CrazyCowboy]

I like it to be in different cities.......keeps it fresh for the fans each year.

 

[ZeroClub]

LA doesn't have anything that can compete with JerryLand.

 

[Wimbo]