San Francisco appears to be in the driver's seat to play host to Super Bowl L, according to our own Bert Breer. And it's a pretty good choice. San Francisco has deserved a chance to play host to the Super Bowl and the city would no doubt be an excellent host for America's biggest sporting event.
And before you even mention it, I'm going to eliminate one city you will no doubt think of for the obvious reasons: Las Vegas. I love Sam Boyd Stadium as much as the next guy, but there's no way you can play a Super Bowl in that stadium. It's just not happening. Let's just leave it at that.
And without further ado ...
Arrowhead Stadium has been recently upgraded and it's been long regarded as one of the best atmospheres to watch a football game. Plus, there's barbeque.
Of all of the cities to be listed here, it seems to me that London will have the best chance to play host to a Super Bowl. I know it would be a risk but going with an outdoor Super Bowl in New York is a risk, too. My only reservation is that a London Super Bowl would need a midnight local start.
If New York gets a Super Bowl, then it only stands to reason Washington D.C. will be next. Of course, the biggest problem will be the stadium. Or more to the point, the grass (painted dirt) at FedExField.
Yes, Seattle has the reputation of being all rainy and such. However, did you know New York gets more rainfall than Seattle each year and Seattle's average temperature in February is 10 degrees warmer? Plus, if you've ever been to a game in Seattle, you know it deserves a Super Bowl.
I like the idea of a Green Bay Super Bowl. It just seems to make sense. The trophy was named after Green Bay's coach after all! But the lack of infrastructure means this is a long shot. But dare to dream, right?