RotoWire Partners
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar

Super Bowl Host conspiracy or curse?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Gillymo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 27 Apr 2007
Posts: 136
  Quote Gillymo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Super Bowl Host conspiracy or curse?
    Posted: 21 Mar 2012 at 3:13pm
Hey guys,
    I wrote this article and posted it on my twitter account and a few other places. It seems it has gotten picked up by the national media.
......................................................................

Over the years I have wondered what would happen if a Super Bowl host city had it's own team as the home team in a Super Bowl. The home field advantage on a neutral site would be enormous.The visiting team would protest. The NFL would have some serious egg on their face. This was never really and issue since the game was always hosted in a city where their team really had no chance. (Like Detroit or New Orleans in the 90's) Recently the selected host has been home to cities with a good chance of being in the big game. What would the league do? You can't change the venue on such short notice. What does the league do to prevent this from happening? Is there a plan in place? I think there may be......Exhibit A -2010 Cowboy Stadium. The boys had to be a solid contender for the game. They had jettisoned most of their "character baggage" and were predicted by most to be a 11-5 kind of team. Then Romo goes down and the Cowboys go on to have a losing season. Exhibit B-2011 Lucas Oil Stadium. The Colts, a perennial threat to challenge for the Lombardi trophy lose their leader,their icon ,their hope when Peyton Manning misses the entire season insuring the Colts will not sniff the playoffs. Exhibit C- 2012 Super dome. The Saints one of the NFL's top five teams look poised to put the curse on ice. What happens ? The league takes away draft choices and suspends the Head coach for the entire season.
Is this just an odd coincidence? Is there something in the hosts contract that says they must tank the season to save the league from other teams crying foul? Are there other measures the league will do to save face? I want to know...What will happen in 2013? Will Eli and Sanchez both get hurt in a surfing accident?
I can be reached with questions or comments at: Gillymo@gmail.com
Back to Top
ryanthemagi View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 Aug 2008
Posts: 177
  Quote ryanthemagi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 12:11pm
Just because the team in the host city did not play in the Superbowl does not mean there is some conspiracy to prevent them. Are you seriously suggesting that the NFL somehow knew that Peyton Manning would have neck surgery when they picked the 2011 host site years ago? Or that they somehow intentionally sabotaged his neck? That's insane.

And your theory also assumes that every team's city has an equal chance of hosting the Superbowl. That is false. It is only hosted in warm weather or dome cities (with the upcoming exception of 2014 in New Jersey). Prior to this year, the only states to host a Superbowl are TX, FL,AZ, MI, GA (once) , CA, MN (once), and LA. That means only 15 of the possible 32 teams could even possibly play in the Superbowl STATE of the host. That doesn't even include the same stadium; if you consider that the Superbowl was only played once in Georgia, then you can eliminate the Falcons as well. When less than 50% of all NFL teams can even possibly host the Superbowl on a given year compounded with the fact that making the Superbowl in itself is extremely difficult, there is probably way less than a 5% chance of it happening in any given year (not a scientific number although I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for a statistician to figure out).

Also, consider: why WOULDN'T the NFL want the host city's team to play in the Superbowl? If that happened, think about how much MORE money would be generated from an already ridiculous cash cow.

Your "theory" has no scientific merit. In the scientific community, correlation does not prove causation. You provide no empirical evidence for your claim; only anecdotal evidence.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

  Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.070 seconds.