Would an exclusive Superbowl Stadium work??

I had this idea last night, and it got me thinking?

What if the NFL built a stadium somewhere in the US, preferably in a state/city that didnt have an existing team/venue, that would serve exclusively for hosting the Superbowl each year?

It could obviously hold other functions throughout the year to generate money, like boxing/WWE/MMA...

It could have a retractable roof, so that if the weather was nice on Superbowl day, the roof could be open. Would this work?? I think it could really be a good addition to the league, and it could have the prestige of being "Superbowl Stadium"....

Having the SB in different locations helps pump revenue into different cities. No way the league would agree to having it at one site.

I had this idea last night, and it got me thinking?

What if the NFL built a stadium somewhere in the US, preferably in a state/city that didnt have an existing team/venue, that would serve exclusively for hosting the Superbowl each year?

It could obviously hold other functions throughout the year to generate money, like boxing/WWE/MMA...

It could have a retractable roof, so that if the weather was nice on Superbowl day, the roof could be open. Would this work?? I think it could really be a good addition to the league, and it could have the prestige of being "Superbowl Stadium"....

Creative idea, I just don't see the owners going for it. How would it be paid for? Our favorite post writer, Sally Jenkins (:) ), has a critical article today about the NFL and mentions the financing of stadiums. It's worth reading that article & thinking about your idea. Still, in theory, good idea.

They had the Super Bowl in a Non-NFL city when they use to have it at the Rose Bowl. No NFL team plays there and it is a huge stadium. But they haven't been back their in a long time. I only think of it, becuase the Skins won there with Riggins, Theisman and company back in the 82 season. But I agree with Matty, it generates revenue for different cities and that's kind of a big deal.

I say build one in Mexico City, the Drug Cartel would make millions :)

I sort of like the idea Bill Simmons brings up in his response to the second email of this mailbag column. (http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110204&sportCat=nfl)
Basically he thinks the Super Bowl should rotate between only a few cities that fit his criteria for the perfect location:
That leaves Miami, San Diego, New Orleans (even if New Orleans can get chilly, Bourbon Street makes up for it), Las Vegas (if it ever builds a stadium) and Los Angeles (hopefully breaking ground on Farmers Field soon) as our We Should Be The Super Bowl Rotation quintet in an ideal world.

Then again, there is a very slim chance that I will ever actually attend a Super Bowl, so I don't really care where they play it as long as the Skins make a few more over the years.

I say rotate between the 32 NFL team stadiums, alternate AFC/NFC each year. A Superbowl in Buffalo or New England might have to be scheduled in June though :)

Sad thing is if a city paid enough for exclusive rights the NFL would consider it, just like they do with TV packages and video games. Only problem is they would have to pay $1 or $2 billion for that exclusive right.

Why? The NFL has 32 stadiums and there are how many more big enough for the SB. Do we really need to build one more? Talking about waisting money like the government.