In being rewarded the 2012 Super Bowl, the city of Indianapolis becomes the fourth cold-weather city to host the Big Game. What do Indianapolis and the three other cold-weather Super Bowl cities (1982 and 2006 in Detroit and 1992 in Minneapolis) have in common? They all play indoors, which means Browns fans will not see a Super Bowl in Cleveland until, well, it could be 2095 for all we know. Personally, I think it is a shame that the NFL’s championship game cannot be susceptible to the elements. After all, that’s what makes some games reach a much higher level of excitement. I’m not saying put the game in a cold-weather city every year, but a Super Bowl played in a blinding blizzard every once in a while sounds like a great idea to me.
As we all know, Cleveland Browns Stadium is an open stadium, effectively murdering our chances of hosting the Super Bowl. My question is, what would you rather have – the chance to host a Super Bowl or the chance to see a game like the Browns’ 8-0 Blizzard Bowl win over the Buffalo Bills last season?