It was announced last week that Indianapolis is one of three cities still in the running to host the Super Bowl three seasons from now.
Besides Indy, the other two are New Orleans and Minneapolis. That should automatically make the Hoosier state capital the front-runner.
New Orleans has already hosted the Super Bowl 10 times. That means it will hardly be its turn again even in three years. The last time the city hosted the biggest football game on the planet, it couldn’t even keep the lights on for the entire game.
Much will be made of the fact that New Orleans will be celebrating its 300th birthday that year. That should actually work against that effort. The Super Bowl need not share the spotlight with any other major events.
Minneapolis poses the biggest threat. The city is building a new stadium for the team in two years. The price tag for the structure is $975 million. Plus the city has the added attraction that the field would be truly neutral as there is no current reason to expect that the Vikings will be a viable candidate as one of the participants that year. It has also been 1992 since Minneapolis hosted.
But that city has some major drawbacks as well. the worst of these is the weather. Early February the average high temperature barely nudges above freezing, while Indianapolis is, on average, seven degrees warmer. The average snowfall is nearly two inches more in Minnesota than Indiana in that month.
Yet the best reason for returning the Super Bowl to Indianapolis is the city itself and the reaction to the only time it hosted the event — in 2012.
Reviews by fans from New York and New England were almost universally positive. The same could be said of what was written by the media from around the world that converged on the city to report on the Super Bowl.