A host city has never had it's team in the Super Bowl and it appears this year it won't be happening either with the Colts struggling after three games. But Dana Hunsinger Benbow of the Indianapolis Star reports that Roger Goodell doesn't think that is necessarily a bad thing for Indianapolis. Goodell believes Indianapolis would be better off not to have the Colts in the game based on the economic impact the game has on a city. "This is a great opportunity for you to be on the world stage." "But that doesn't mean he's rooting against the Colts," quipped Greg Aiello, an NFL spokesman. Source: The Redzone
It's never happened but you pretty much eliminate a good amount of the traveling fans if the home team were to be in it. Obviously, it would hurt the local economy as far as travel goes, but it has the potential to be one he'll of a party...lol.
[conspiration]Goodell took a cheap shot at Manning, to keep him off the field and the Colts out of the SB....[/conspiration]
Hosting cities lose me money anyway. There was a report on it years ago. Super Bowl hosts lose money and NBA All-Star hosts lose money as well.
Maybe it's a Nancy Kerrigan like situation. Difference is instead of a tire iron Rog sent a Dr there to "do surgery" on Peytons neck. Playing the game operation near an unconscious player isn't a real operation! I did some research and the Dr had a weird name. I believe it was Dr. Acula
Greece is in part bankrupt due to financing the lavish Olympics a few years back. At least the NFL doesn't have a bribe committee to determine the next host.
