Pffft... of course not. Never going to happen. But now that XLVIII has be awarded to New Jersey, the last valid argument against having a Super Bowl in Seattle has vanished. Long time fans may remember the NFL has teased the Pacific Northwest with the possibility of hosting the roman numeral game before: XXVI was nearly awarded to Seattle, but instead was held at the Metrodome in Minneapolis. Additionally, the league made vague promises to site the championship game in Seattle back in 1997 to entice voter support for Referendum 48. So what are the main arguments against having, say, XLIX at Qwest Field?
1. Seattle is too small
Bullshit. Seattle is the 14th biggest metro area in the US, and is bigger than future Super Bowl host Indianapolis, and previous hosts Minneapolis, New Orleans, San Diego, Tampa-St. Petersburg, and Jacksonville.
2. Seattle is too remote
If the NFL is willing to put the big game in L.A., San Diego, Palo Alto, or Phoenix, there's no geographical reason to deny Seattle the big game. If you're coming from the East Coast or the midwest, it's a plane ride anyway.
3. Seattle's weather is too crappy
New York City in February? Average high of 40 F, average low of 27 F, with an average of 3 inches of precipitation.
Seattle? Average high of 49 F, low of 36 F, and 4 inches of rain.
Worried about the Seattle rain? I'm sure Paul Allen would spring for some sort of canopy to be strung over the playing surface.
The biggest argument that Seattle deserves a Super Bowl? The league has held the Super Bowl in FUCKING DETROIT. TWICE! Last time I checked, the Emerald City isn't a rotting death gauntlet.
What do y'all think?
Don't forget to sneak a peek at my home blog: Dave Krieg's Strike Beard.