At this writing, "Denver Deserves Shot as Host of Super Bowl," the February 2 Open Mic column by the Rocky Mountain News' Sam Adams (pictured), has yet to make its online debut. (Update, 11:50 a.m.: As pointed out by a commenter, the column is now available on the Rocky's website. Read it here.) I'm sure that has nothing to do with the content of his argument. Yet he's living in Fantasy Land if he thinks the Mile High City has a reasonable shot at being chosen as the location for the big game under present circumstances.
Not that Adams' points are all dubious. As he correctly points out, the weather in Denver in early February isn't always stormy; it can be wonderfully mild, as it was yesterday (despite predictions of snow in the days preceding it). He's also right that Denver can handle big events, as was proven definitively by last August's Democratic National Convention.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
But none of that matters when it comes to Super Bowls. Peruse the list of cities and stadiums that have hosted past games -- and are scheduled to do so in the near-future -- on Wikipedia's Super Bowl page and you'll be reminded of the NFL's bias toward warm-weather climates. Of the 43 games staged to date, only three have been held in what most of us would describe as cold-weather-in-winter cities: one in Minneapolis and two in Detroit. But in each instance, the stadiums there had either permanent or retractable roofs -- and that's also the case at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, where the 2012 Super Bowl will take place.
Sure, every sports fan in Denver would love for the Super Bowl to come to town. But unless Broncos owner Pat Bowlen can convince taxpayers to put a roof on Invesco Field at Mile High -- or, God forbid, to build a new, indoor stadium -- it ain't happening. Sorry, Sam.