Couldn't L.A. have hosted, or even still host a SuperBowl? That Miami hosted ProBowl a few years ago could've been played in L.A. instead! And/or play some pre-season games in L.A. as well! If there won't be a team coming to L.A. as yet, these are things the league could do to maintain a tangible relationship with L.A.
Five Super Bowls have been played at the Rose Bowl, the last one being #27 in 1993. That was back when the Rams and, later, the Raiders were there, though. These days one of the requirements for hosting one is that the city or surrounding region must have an NFL team.
The NFL's SuperBowl location rule probably applies to the ProBowl as well. But playing exhibition games in L.A. shouldn't be a problem.
With the exception of the 2009 game, the Pro Bowl has been played in Hawaii since 1980, where there are no NFL teams.
Yeah, but nobody cares about the Pro Bowl. The Rose Bowl, on the other hand, that's like the premier college football place. That's going to be kept up to spec just as sure as if it were an NFL stadium, and if it isn't well the prestige might make up for not having a modern number of seats. I dunno, I'm just spitballing here. I suspect I have part of the puzzle, though. It can't be cheap to just have a Super Bowl-caliber, football-oriented stadium lying around, getting used for a Super Bowl once every few decades. Unless you're holding superstar concerts there pretty regularly, I doubt you can maintain it commercially to the point that the NFL is willing to use it for their yearly $howca$e.
Yeah, nobody does at all. I kinda liked having it around when it was played after the Superbowl, though. I've referred to it as "football methadone", not the real thing, but something to help wean us off the good stuff before settling into the offseason.
I have never once watched the pro-bowl, and sometimes wonder if it even exists. It couldn't be less relevant.
@ Larry - VInce was good...but not on the level with those guys. Pat, Haden, Deiter Brock, James Harris....Jim Everett? Lol...
