I am sure that you all-knowing gurus will have the answer to my question, as you seem to have all the answers. I know that MetLife Stadium is the home of the New York Giants football team, so my question is this: If they were one of the teams playing in the Super Bowl next Sunday, how would that be handled? I thought that the idea of moving to different locations was so that no team had a Super Bowl home-field advantage, so if they had made it this far, would the game still be played there?
— Karen, Seahawks fan
Ideally, Karen, there would be no home-field advantage for either team in the Super Bowl, and that's what has happened so far (for the most part).
But there is no provision for moving the Super Bowl if the selected site is the home field of one of the teams playing. So if the Arizona Cardinals end up in next year's Super Bowl, the game would be on their home field, University of Phoenix Stadium. (Don't let the name fool you, the University of Phoenix has no football team; that's why they can brag their team has never been beaten.)
The reason the game would not be moved is financial. The site that lands the Super Bowl does so after lobbying for years and offering all kinds of incentives to attract the Big Game. Hotel sites are booked long in advance and the cities involved leverage the choice to their economic advantage any way they can. The NFL would have a riot — not to mention a giant lawsuit — on its hands if it tried to pull the game because the selected city's team made it that far.
Beyond that, it would be next to impossible to select a new site in the two weeks between the Super Bowl and the conference championship games.
The closest any team came to having home field advantage in the big game was in Super Bowl XIX, when the San Francisco 49ers played the Miami Dolphins in Palo Alto, Calif. But no team whose stadium hosted the game has ever made it into the Super Bowl.
Email questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.