Yesterday, I wrote that I thought that a Super Bowl in London was a bad idea. Today, I'm taking a little different approach.
London in February.
The NFL likes to have the Super Bowl in warm-weathered cities or domed stadiums. Places like Miami, New Orleans, Houston, Glendale, Atlanta, San Diego, Detroit, Tampa and soon Dallas and Indianapolis. So wouldn't placing a Super Bowl in London be against this practice? I read somewhere that the average high in London during February is 47 degrees and a ton of rain.
If you want 47 degrees with a good chance of rain in February, we can just have the Super Bowl in Seattle (their average is 49 degrees).
The average February high in Charlotte is 56 degrees. The average in Nashville is 52 degrees. Washington DC is 47. Kansas City is 44 degrees. New York is 41 degrees. None of those cities have a shot at getting a Super Bowl because the weather is unpredictable. Yet London can get the game?
By the way ... it's been quite a long time since Los Angeles hosted a Super Bowl. Maybe because the NFL said they don't feel comfortable putting the game in a city that doesn't have a team. Um, when do the London Monarchs start back up?
The point I am making is that it is completely unfair that London can get the game but various American cities have no shot due to the very same rules that the NFL would be breaking by putting the game over there.
Where's Charlotte's Super Bowl? Where's Nashville's? Where's New York City's?