The Super Bowl Wasn't Made to Be Played in Philadelphia

Brad Gagnon NFL National ColumnistMarch 19, 2013

PHILADELPHIA, PA - OCTOBER 14:  Jeffrey Lurie, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, waves from the field before the start of a game against the Detroit Lions at Lincoln Financial Field on October 14, 2012 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Rich Schultz /Getty Images)
Rich Schultz/Getty Images

I like to think that I'm progressive and have an understanding that things can change, adapt and improve. But when it comes to the Super Bowl, I'm afraid I'm in the old school. The NFL's biggest event belongs in certain cities and doesn't belong in others. And with all due respect to my friends in Philadelphia, it is not a Super Bowl city. 

Nor are New York or Indianapolis, but cold-weather cities like those were awarded the game in recent years because they helped grow the league by building new stadiums. I get that. The league makes special exceptions for cities and teams that do that, and New York is a particularly unique exception because it'll mark the first time the Super Bowl's been played outdoors in a winter climate. 

But when you have two teams and you're the media capital of the world and you have a new venue that cost $1.6 billion to construct, you're allowed to be an anomaly. 

Regardless of how well next year's game goes at MetLife Stadium, the NFL can't allow Pandora's Box to spring open. 

Suddenly, representatives from teams that play in open-air stadiums in cold-weather cities want in on the action. The latest owner to state publicly that he wants to push for the game is Jeffrey Lurie from the Eagles, who said Monday that a successful New York Super Bowl would help his cause. 

But really, the NFL would just be pushing its luck further if it were to survive next year's game and then gamble on another city and stadium of that ilk. And since the Eagles aren't building a new stadium anytime soon, the league has no incentive to take that risk in Philly.

But back to the original point, and that's that the Super Bowl is supposed to be played in a specific climate. I understand that the elements make football fun, but why let nature play a major role in deciding who gets to become world champions?

Besides, cities like New Orleans, San Diego, Miami and even Houston, Phoenix, Dallas and Atlanta were set up for Super Bowl success. People are more willing to travel to those destinations in February, making the event more enjoyable for all as well as easier to cover for the media.

So back off, Philly. And same for you, Minneapolis, Seattle, Washington, Chicago and Denver. No offense, but this game wasn't made for you.