Atlanta doesn’t deserve Super Bowls

By Terence Moore | Monday, May 19, 2008, 05:29 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Barring all 32 NFL owners getting trapped on Georgia 400 along their way to their meeting today at the Ritz-Carlton in Buckhead, they’ll do the predictable. It’ll also be the unfathomable. They’ll give the 2012 Super Bowl to a cold-weather site, and it won’t be Atlanta.

The winner is …

It’s Indianapolis.

My parents live there, so trust me when I say this. In February, it’s a little colder in Indiana than Georgia. Which makes you wonder why NFL decision-makers made that big deal three years ago about not giving Atlanta the 2009 Super Bowl for fear of an ice storm. You know, like the one that paralyzed the last Super Bowl in Atlanta eight years ago.

Trust me on this, too. They get ice, sleet, snow and everything else in Indianapolis during February. It sort of makes you wonder if there was another reason why all of those owners spent that May 2005 meeting in Washington giving Tampa next year’s Super Bowl over Atlanta. Are they allergic to our pollen? Would they prefer that the Varsity serve quiche lorraine instead of slaw dogs?

I mean, should Falcons owner Arthur Blank take this personally, especially since that weather excuse against an Atlanta Super Bowl is about an Indianapolis vote on Tuesday from going the way of leather helmets?

“No, no. If Indianapolis is chosen, I don’t think it would be any reflection on me or the Falcons,” said Blank on Monday, before joining his peers for the opening day of the meetings. “A lot of people love Atlanta, and they have good feelings toward the city. If it is Indianapolis — and that’s conjecture at this point, since there are two other cities [Phoenix and Houston] involved — but if it is Indianapolis, it would be because Indianapolis is having a brand-new stadium built, and also because 95 percent of it is paid for by the public.”

Maybe. The 16-year-old Georgia Dome is ancient by NFL standards, and more than half of the league’s teams have stadiums newer than that of the Falcons. You’ve also had the high-tech remodeling of Lambeau and Soldier fields. As a result, Blank wished to use those Washington meetings to build state support for the renovation of the Dome by trying to host the 2009 or 2010 Super Bowl. He was the only owner to bring along his governor (Sonny Perdue) and his mayor (Shirley Franklin), but it didn’t matter. The owners gave those Super Bowls to Tampa and Miami, respectively, because the owners supposedly hadn’t stopped shivering from Atlanta’s ice storm.

Whatever the reasons for such a snub, Atlanta shouldn’t get another Super Bowl anyway. The same goes for Detroit, Minneapolis and Jacksonville, Fla., essentially south Georgia.

The Super Bowl should rotate between cities with overwhelming warmth in the winter and a resort mentality at all times. That’s because the Super Bowl isn’t about a day. It’s about a week. Folks often plan their vacations around the event, and the majority of those, ranging from corporate sponsors to casual fans, would rather spend that time trying to stay cool than warm.

So we’re back to this Indianapolis thing, and Indianapolis is expected to smoke its competition this time around on the first ballot. It nearly won the 2011 Super Bowl, but Jerry Jones kept yanking pennies from his pockets to convince others to give the game to the new stadium for his Dallas Cowboys. Even so, Indianapolis lost by only two votes back then, and nothing against Indianapolis. It’s a wonderful place to live (ask my parents), and the Final Four is a regular hit within its city limits. Plus, you have that 500-mile race each May on the city’s west side. It’s just that you can’t give a Super Bowl to Indianapolis if you won’t give another one to Atlanta.

Not that either place deserves it. Not unless they relocate to California, Texas, Louisiana or Florida.

i wonder that myself when detroit or indy or someone gets a superbowl. one ice storm and atlanta is a horrible city.