Hosting a Super Bowl does not mean your team can't make the big game
As the Philadelphia Eagles prepare to upgrade Lincoln Financial Field to make a push at hosting the Super Bowl, there is likely a divide among fans as to whether they should host the biggest game in the world. Typically, the "big game" brings plenty of financial success to the hosting area, but history shows that the hometown team is never a benefactor. Since the Super Bowl's inception in 1967, a hometown team has never played in the actual game.
However, while there has never been a hometown host, there is nothing that indicates that fact is not a by-product of circumstance. For instance, the Super Bowl has been mostly hosted by dome-stadium and warm weather teams. If you consider that only 4 of the last 15 Super Bowl winners were of that distinction, it is a clear indicator of why the hosting teams have not made the game. In recent history, the cold-weather teams have dominated the NFL's most important contest.
Largely hosted in New Orleans (10), Miami (10), Los Angeles (7), and Tampa Bay (4), the hosting team has been limited by its overall hosting locations. When you consider that the Saints were not a successful team prior to the mid-2000's, the Dolphins have been unsuccessful for the last 15 years and that Los Angeles has not had a team for 20 years, it is easy to see that the statistic is overblown but obvious. Of those teams that have have hosted the last 15 years, only the Saints, Colts and Buccaneers have won a Super Bowl.
|Super Bowl (Year)||Matchup||Host||Winner|
|XLVII (2012)||Baltimore Ravens vs. San Francisco 49ers||New Orleans||Baltimore Ravens|
|XLVI (2011)||New York Giants vs. New England Patriots||Indianapolis||New York Giants|
|XLV (2010)||Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Green Bay Packers||Dallas||Green Bay Packers|
|XLIV (2009)||New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts||Miami||New Orleans Saints|
|XLIII (2008)||Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Arizona Cardinals||Tampa Bay||Pittsburgh Steelers|
|XLII (2007)||New York Giants vs. New England Patriots||Arizona||New York Giants|
|XLI (2006)||Indianapolis Colts vs. Chicago Bears||Miami||Indianapolis Colts|
|XL (2005)||Seattle Seahawks vs. Pittsburgh Steelers||Detroit||Pittsburgh Steelers|
|XXXIX (2004)||New England Patriots vs. Philadelphia Eagles||Jacksonville||New England Patriots|
|XXXVIII (2003)||Carolina Panthers vs. New England Patriots||Houston||New England Patriots|
|XXXVII (2002)||Oakland Raiders vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers||San Diego||Tampa Bay Buccaneers|
|XXXVI (2001)||St. Louis Rams vs. New England Patriots||New Orleans||New England Patriots|
|XXXV (2000)||Baltimore Ravens vs. New York Giants||Tampa Bay||Baltimore Ravens|
|XXXIV (1999)||St. Louis Rams vs. Tennessee Titans||Atlanta||St. Louis Rams|
|XXXIII (1998)||Denver Broncos vs. Atlanta Falcons||Miami||Denver Broncos|
As you can clearly see, the northeast is prominently represented in the Super Bowls that have taken place over the last 15 years. While the setting of a Super Bowl technically cannot have any bearing on the success of a team; the success of a team can impact its Super Bowl chances. That fact implies that a team's success and their record are the only things that hold them back from a Super Bowl trip in their hometown. So basically, if your team is bad and your city is picked to host a Super Bowl, the chances of your team getting to the game are scarce to being with. That is why hosting a Super Bowl should not give a team the excuse of losing out on the "big game."
Given what we now can infer about the hosting of a Super Bowl, how do you feel about Philadelphia hosting a Super Bowl?
This article originally appeared on SBNation.Click here for the full article »