Super Bowl Suggestion - Would Anyone be Opposed to This Idea?

LasVegas.com - The Premier Source for Hotels, Shows, Deals & More

I was just watching Cold Pizza as they discussed Detroit, Jacksonville and Miami, the sites of the last two and the next SuperBowls. And really, the main things you need to host the NFL Championship game effectively are good infrastructure, a lot of hotel rooms, a city where there is something for people to do during the buildup to the game, and either a dome or a good shot at great weather in late January or early February. And it dawned on me.

Las Vegas. There are about a billion hotel rooms there, so no problems that way. Good infrastructure. People who can cater to a larger than life event. Great football weather in late January. A place where everyone naturally wants to go. A ton of junk for people to do, even those who don't gamble.

So, I'm suggesting that we move the SuperBowl to Las Vegas. Permanently. What NFL player is going to have a problem with this? Isn't the Superbowl supposed to be at a neutral site? Wouldn't this be a great jewel in the crown of the Super Bowl. And wouldn't it help with the operational efficiency of the SuperBowl? Certainly more than the current rotational scheme.

There will be the complaints from the various municipalities that do host a SuperBowl from time to time, like Miami, Pasadena, Arizona, New Orleans (I guess we don't need to worry so much about that one anymore), etc. But really, since they all (with the exception of Los Angeles (or maybe New Orleans after the Saints move to LA) have the NFL already, wouldn't this be a great way to expand the franchise (The NFL, not any particular franchise) to one of the fastest growing big markets that will never (and I do mean NEVER) get an NFL team?

This should be the next commissioner of the NFL's first item of business (after whatever labor trouble will be going on). I think we should all work for this.