National Gridiron Stadium

[Scottishbengal]

Okay, still some time to pass til the footie season kicks off so just thought I'd open this up for debate. Do you think it's time to consider building a National american football stadium? And if so where should it be located?

The sport is increasing becoming global - regular season games having/will occur in Mexico and the UK, and no doubt Germany will host one within the next year or two. Some years ago Ireland hosted an Army - Navy match and back in the 80's the "American Bowl" (pre-season match) was regularly held at Wembley Stadium in London. How long before a proper international match takes place between the USA and A N Other country - 10 years? 20 years?

OK back to the point, is it time to have a facility that can cope with the demand? Imagine a Superbowl where football fans of each team can take a large allocation rather than the stadium being filled mainly by corporate hospitality - a stadium that can hold say 200,000? Now the argument against will that be the lack of use of such a facility, but apart from the Superbowl and the Pro Bowl think how many other matches could be played there. Championship games, college bowls, as previously stated USA matches, Army-Navy matches etc etc. The relocation of the Hall of Fame could be incorporated to amke it a year round attraction and a true shrine in terms of world sports.

Onto the second point, where should such a stadium be located? The superbowl is usually held in the southern areas for climatic reasons but there's an opportunity to start with a fresh canvas here - Washington DC because it's the capital? New York because it's a truely international city? Cleveland because it needs something??

As I said, just filling a bit of time, and giving folks an opporunity to think outside of the box on this one.

[HoosierCat]

If the NFL were to do something like that, Los Angeles is the obvious answer. They've wanted a team there forever. Florio over at PFT has suggested incorporating an LA facility into the league's 17th-overseas-game idea, with LA being one of the "overseas" locations.

[cincy90]

How about forget all of this overseas bs. The more the NFL tries to spread its influence and move games out of the country, the weaker it will become here. There is nothing wrong with it... don't screw it up. At some point the league has to put its players and fans before their greed for making more money than they already make, which is already an obscene amount.

[HoosierCat]

How about forget all of this overseas bs. The more the NFL tries to spread its influence and move games out of the country, the weaker it will become here.

How do you figure that? What would fans in the U.S. lose if the league added a 17th game and played it overseas? Nothing, right?

[Stripes]

How about forget all of this overseas bs. The more the NFL tries to spread its influence and move games out of the country, the weaker it will become here.

How do you figure that? What would fans in the U.S. lose if the league added a 17th game and played it overseas? Nothing, right?

Agreed. The league can't "spread itself too thin" when it's actions only serve to enlarge its global fanbase. The fans here won't stop going to games and rooting on their teams.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

If the NFL were to do something like that, Los Angeles is the obvious answer. They've wanted a team there forever. Florio over at PFT has suggested incorporating an LA facility into the league's 17th-overseas-game idea, with LA being one of the "overseas" locations.

The NFL would never do it....but Vegas, baby! If they had a stadium, they have the weather and hotel rooms. Can you imagine the Super Bowl in Vegas every year? Awesome!

[Kazkal]

Hawaii Vegas or even Reno would be sweet

[HoosierCat]

The NFL wouldn't do Vegas because of the gambling connection. We're all squeaky clean now, remember? But yeah, a Vegas SB would be a blast.

[jjakq27]

Interesting concept. The stadium in Canton holds around 20,000 and the NFL really loves that place. They pumped a lot of money in there for upgrades over the last few years. But obviously the weather, location and size would preclude it from being a national/year-round type of facility. I think McKinley HS and maybe Timken HS play their games there as well so there is some additional usage beside the Hall-of-Fame game.

As much as people would hate to hear this, I think Dallas would be a good location. It is relatively centrally located in the US and they have a great fan base there. However I think they are opening a new 80,000 seat stadium there in a couple of years. So it would probably have to be in a spot that doesn't have a team like Vegas or LA.

One main issue would be funding. I think the NFL has mandated that each of the teams contribute to the new $800M stadium in New Jersey and I know our local owner was not too happy. After all we all know about the complaining around here with the additional sales/stadium tax that funded PBS. I can't see team owners agreeing to pay for something that might exceed $1B to build.

[Dawg BpG]

My vote is Cleveland

[HairOnFire]

My vote is Cleveland

Not a bad idea. In fact, I'm guessing the only way that city will ever get a sniff of the Super Bowl is if it hosts a championship game featuring two teams that don't call Cleveland home.

That said, my vote would be Hawaii. I've been to the islands several times, including late December and early January, and the weather is fantastic. Besides, if you're talking about a permanent site for the championship game then the location of the game should be it's own reward.

[Scottishbengal]

I really like the Vegas idea, I think that would be an absolute hoot but I take on board the "squeaky clean" image the NFL wants to portray.

Therefore the best shout so far I think is Dallas. A big city capable of accommodating all the needs of this hypothetical national stadium, easily accessible from all areas and climatically suitable. Same could be said for Houston.

But for all those with an anti-Dallas/Cowboys viewpoint how about Memphis? New Orleans? Oklahoma City? Santa Fe? Phoenix? Not sure of the geography too much or if the local weather conditions would be conducive. Just more food for thought.

[Dawg BpG]

My vote is Cleveland

Not a bad idea. In fact, I'm guessing the only way that city will ever get a sniff of the Super Bowl is if it hosts a championship game featuring two teams that don't call Cleveland home.

No, I think the only way we ever get a SuperBowl is if we build a dome....not gonna happen

[HairOnFire]

My vote is Cleveland

Not a bad idea. In fact, I'm guessing the only way that city will ever get a sniff of the Super Bowl is if it hosts a championship game featuring two teams that don't call Cleveland home.

No, I think the only way we ever get a SuperBowl is if we build a dome....not gonna happen

I don't think it would matter.

I'm betting we've already seen the last championship game played in a northern climate, and if you want you can blame the Super Bowl game hosted by Detroit in the late 80's. The NFL has spent a staggering amount of time and money building the Super Bowl into an event that far surpasses a mere championship game. It's a one or two week happening that attracts dedicated and casual fans alike in part because warm weather locations like Miami and Phoenix are attractive vacation destinations for fans, celebrities, and perhaps most importantly....the vast hordes of media members and their families. And that's why I think Hawaii would be the most logical permanent site. To be fair, Vegas could also be considered for many of the same reasons, but something tells me that the recent NBA All-Star Game provided a hard lesson the NFL won't ignore.

[redsbengalsbucks]

Didnt Detroit just host the SB 2 years ago?

[jjakq27]

Didnt Detroit just host the SB 2 years ago?

Yes and the 1980's game was in 1982. A team with stripes played there.

[Dawg BpG]

Hawaii??

The Pro-Bowl is a DUD. Just sayin....

I also think it is crap that the media and celebrities dictate where the superbowls are held. I guess this is the way of the world, but a real football fan could handle it.

Hand/Feet warmers, a hat and gloves...now it's Air conditioning and three peice suits.

[derekshank]

The NFL wouldn't do Vegas because of the gambling connection. We're all squeaky clean now, remember? But yeah, a Vegas SB would be a blast.

Actually, if the NFL is worried about maintaining their "squeaky cleanness" there's no better place than Vegas to do it. The gambling there is so organized and kept on the up and up... it's the best place to avoid all the illegal influences.

[HairOnFire]

Hawaii??

The Pro-Bowl is a DUD. Just sayin....

The Pro Bowl is going to be a dud regardless of where it's played. In fact, there's almost as much support for dropping the game altogether as there is for playing it elsewhere. But the NFL does have a long history of playing a high profile event in Hawaii and it's a site uniquely capable of satisfying the NFL's desire for panache and style. In short, the destination itself becomes part of the reward for producing a championship effort. Meanwhile, sites like Canton may appeal to NFL historians, but who amongst us wants to visit Ohio in January?

To be fair Las Vegas, Miami, and to a lesser degree Los Angeles also boast the same type of verve as Hawaii, but you'll never convince me that a championship game being played in Las Vegas isn't an idea that wouldn't be dead on arrival.

Didnt Detroit just host the SB 2 years ago?

True, and that suprising return to the great frozen north was widely believed to be the result of the staggering amount of advertising dollars spent by the Ford Motor Company.

[HairOnFire]

I was just listening to this very subject being discussed on ESPNRadio and there was one thing mentioned that I found very interesting. That being, the Super Bowl has become a corporate event to such a degree that only 25% of people visiting a host city actually attend the game. The rest come for corporate meetings, the chance to network with others who work in their respective professions, or for the mega parties.

For whatever it's worth...