PDA

View Full Version : This Super Bowl shouldn't be at neutral site


Kzin
01-25-2006, 12:59 PM
Super Bowl shouldn't be at neutral site

By Barry Wilner, AP Football Writer | January 25, 2006

If ever a Super Bowl was made to be played in a home stadium, Steelers-Seahawks is it.

Just think: The road warriors against the unvanquished hosts. A dominant sixth seed needing one more away victory, and needing it at the NFL's toughest venue for visitors.

How juicy that would be.

Sorry, folks, but the big game is so BIG it needs to be planned years in advance. And 2006 was reserved for Ford Field in Detroit, where thousands of Pittsburgh fans figure to drive in and paint the city black and gold.

Many, perhaps most of them, won't have tickets, though. So the Seahawks could get something of a fair shake in the stands on Feb. 5.

What the Seahawks (15-3 overall, including 10-0 at Qwest Field) won't have is the "12th man," the boisterous crowd that every player and coach credited with providing that extra impetus to get to the NFL title game. One player even claimed (mischievously and anonymously) that he expected the 12th man flag that sits atop the Seattle Space Needle to somehow fly above Ford Field on Super Sunday.

And what the Steelers (14-5) won't have is the opportunity to shatter yet another opponent's air of invincibility at home after winning at Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Denver in the playoffs.

Too bad.

Certainly Seahawks owner Paul Allen, who raised the 12th man flag at Qwest Field before the rout of Carolina for the NFC championship, wouldn't mind another home game.

"If you're a fan of NFL football, how great is it to be able to root on your team to win the Super Bowl?" he said. "It just doesn't get any better than that in football. It's incredible.

No more special than in the Steel City, which has seen its share of big NFL games. Bill Cowher has led the Steelers to six AFC championship matchups in his 14 seasons as coach. But they are a mere 1-4 at home in those games.

So another road trip wouldn't be such a big deal for a team that is 9-2 away from Heinz Field. In fact, although the Steelers technically are the home team for the Super Bowl -- it's the AFC's year to be the host -- they chose to don road whites.

"We're not playing at Heinz Field so, in my mind, it's an away game," Cowher said of his 4-point favorites.

"We've been playing well the last three weeks on the road, and this is a fourth game on the road -- I don't know if that's superstitious."

So if Cowher is so comfortable taking his team on the road, why not switch the site to Seattle and give everyone the delicious matchup the championship game deserves?

That's pure fantasy. The showdown will come in Detroit.

Still, it's been a long time since the two Super Bowl teams have had such diverse home-road characteristics. Of course, without their skills away from Pittsburgh, the wild-card Steelers would have had no shot at getting this far.

And had the Seahawks been any less dominant at home, they easily could have gone the way of the three AFC division winners who lost to Pittsburgh in the postseason.

But here they are. And there they will be, on a neutral field in Detroit. And, heck, the Seahawks were 5-3 away from Seattle, with the last loss in a meaningless game at Green Bay.

"This is just huge because this is the biggest game in the world," NFL Most Valuable Player Shaun Alexander said. "I think every little kid thinks about playing in the Super Bowl when they are little. I remember the Bengals going in '88, and all the talk about Joe Montana and how great it was, that comeback.

"I was a Bengals fan. I was crying.

"But I was thinking I would love to be in this game, and now we are."

His smile made it clear the site didn't really matter at all.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/articles/2006/01/25/super_bowl_shouldnt_be_at_neutral_site/

Nevets
01-25-2006, 01:03 PM
It should definitely be neutral.

Kzin
01-25-2006, 01:07 PM
It should definitely be neutral.
Because it's one game, I have to agree, but the Super Bowl really loses what the World Series, Stanley Cup and NBA Finals get by involving the home fans.

Nevets
01-25-2006, 01:08 PM
Because it's one game, I have to agree, but the Super Bowl really loses what the World Series, Stanley Cup and NBA Finals get by involving the home fans.

That is exactly what I was going to say, but deleted it. :lol:

Hitler Bad-Surfer Good
01-25-2006, 05:14 PM
Could always do it in Hawaii every year ;)

Cerven
01-25-2006, 05:21 PM
I think making it the best out of three games would be much better than making it all focused on one game.

Winner of Game One gets to host Game Three.

I'm with Kzin ( and I guess everyone else.. ), you lose something when you don't have the atmosphere of one team being at home, and the other team being the invading force.

Kzin
01-25-2006, 05:27 PM
I think making it the best out of three games would be much better than making it all focused on one game.

It's hard to do it with NFL football, it's such a game of attrition who'd be left by Game 3?

How about home-and-home with the winner determined on net points? You win 14-10 at home but lose 21-3 on the road, you lose.

Hitler Bad-Surfer Good
01-25-2006, 05:33 PM
I like you guys so I dont like disagreing with you but, god those are horrible ideas lol.

Cerven
01-25-2006, 07:00 PM
It's hard to do it with NFL football, it's such a game of attrition who'd be left by Game 3?

How about home-and-home with the winner determined on net points? You win 14-10 at home but lose 21-3 on the road, you lose.
I like that too, though in practice it could make for some pretty shady games..teams that are clearly ahead in the first game just end up running down the clock during the second game continuously, etc.

I dunno, I could go for it were it designed right.

Cerven
01-25-2006, 07:01 PM
Also, I think there IS something to be said for a team with endurance.. the World Series is a perfect example that your team has to have some longevity to be able to survive and win, especially in terms of a bullpen.

Kzin
01-25-2006, 07:14 PM
I like that too, though in practice it could make for some pretty shady games..teams that are clearly ahead in the first game just end up running down the clock during the second game continuously, etc.

I dunno, I could go for it were it designed right.
Yeah, but it's not like you can run a Four Corners offense in football, you have to get first downs. Everybody tries to run and kill clock when they get a lead in a game.

StarkofDoom
01-26-2006, 10:22 AM
....... What the deuce? Cerven you crazy bastard. Best of three? If they ever did that I would stop watching. Also it should always be at a neutral site. You will never truly eliminate the "12th" man factor but at least its an attempt to make sure its just the 2 football teams on the field with the fans not making that huge of a difference. That being said as a Pittsburgh fan I wish the game was being played in Seattle.

Monkey
01-26-2006, 08:42 PM
Playing 3 games would absolutely ruin it all.

Pretty much EVERYONE watches the super bowl, just because its one huge game.

I dont think I could get my whole family over to watch 3 games.

NFL would lose massive money also, since networks would get as much money on commercials.

Cerven
01-26-2006, 10:38 PM
I guess I see what everyone is saying. Still, I think you really do lose something by having such a huge game at a neutral site.