Skip to content

3-Wide: Where would you most like to see the Super Bowl played?

LUDOVIC MARIN / AFP / Getty

3-Wide is a weekly feature in which theScore's NFL editors debate the hot topics around the league. Grab a cold towel and brace for hot takes.

Where would you most like to see the Super Bowl played?

Mitch Sanderson: Green Bay has gone by the nickname "Titletown" since the Packers won nine NFL championships before the AFL-NFL merger in 1966. The Super Bowl trophy is named after the Packers' legendary coach Vince Lombardi. It only seems fitting that the big game should be played at Lambeau Field. So what if it's a little chilly on game day? Football players are supposed to be tough, right?

David P. Woods: It's hardly fair that half a dozen warm-weather cities switch off hosting the Super Bowl ever year, but the game is too important to risk deciding the champion in a heavy blizzard. Why not take the idea of a neutral site a little further and take the game international? Time zones would be a hurdle to overcome, but a Super Bowl played in London, Paris, Beijing, or Sydney would be a welcome change and would really help grow the NFL's market overseas.

Joe Thomson: I, like most fans, do not care where the Super Bowl is played, so let me suggest a completely unreasonable option: aboard a Nimitz class aircraft carrier! There would be very little room for a live audience but the T.V. numbers would be off the charts. Those in attendance would also likely break the record for "USA" chants, which is fun.

Should NFL teams be able to police beat reporters' coverage?

Thomson: With the Buffalo Bills implementing a strange media policy that limits reporters from doing things like reporting any interceptions thrown at OTAs, the NFL's culture of secrecy is in the news again. The Bills attempting to restrict what kind of sensitive information gets out is understandable, but it's clear this particular policy goes way too far. That's why these types of policies shouldn't exist. Where the line gets drawn is far too arbitrary to leave up to individual teams and should be dealt with league-wide.

Woods: To an extent, yes. It's a delicate balance between teams and the media, and teams should retain some power to protect strategic secrets such as trick plays they are practicing, etc. Some restrictions are acceptable, but the Bills went way too far.

Sanderson: No. Not until teams can prove to their fans that they're not up to any shady business. While the league has clearly kept secrets from players and fans about the serious relationship between football and concussions, it's insulting to place even more restrictions on what the media can report on in the NFL.

Which team should sign Arian Foster?

Woods: The Patriots are thin at running back with LeGarrette Blount and Dion Lewis both returning from season-ending injuries. Bill Belichick loves signing cerebral veterans and knows how to get the most out of them, even if that means turning them into role players. Foster would be a great addition.

Sanderson: The Colts already have one running back on their roster over 30, but that's pretty much it. Frank Gore failed to reach 1,000 yards for the first time in his career last season and it's unlikely he'll get back to that mark at age 33. Foster and Gore together could form a passable backfield, and it might be handy for the Colts to have a former division rival among their ranks.

Thomson: The Broncos could use a veteran presence in a backfield filled with unreliable options. While it's hard to know exactly what the Broncos' offense will look like in 2016, the addition of a legitimate receiving threat would be a huge addition. We know the Super Bowl champs are going to run the ball a lot so Foster could be used sparingly while getting a chance to reunite with former coach Gary Kubiak and perhaps win a ring. It makes sense for all parties.

Daily Newsletter

Get the latest trending sports news daily in your inbox