The College Football Title Game: The 9 Worst Cities That Could Host It

Carl StineCorrespondent IJuly 8, 2012

The College Football Title Game: The 9 Worst Cities That Could Host It

0 of 9

    It's easy to pick random cities as bad sites for a championship game.

    Worst, in my book: Ames, Iowa; Boise, Idaho and Barrow, Alaska.

    But really, none of those are realistic.

    The nine cities on this list are some of the many that have already publicly stated that they will pursue a bid to host the national title game.

    There are several requirements to think a venue has a shot, such as warm weather or roof and plenty of seating.

    The cities/venues on this list meet at least one of the standards, but fall short in some way.

9. Arlington, Texas

1 of 9

    Jerry World's size is its main claim to fame, but also its downfall.

    Any seats above the first few decks have a terrible view, and it's impossible to stop watching the game on the ginormous Jumbotron instead of enjoying the live action.

    The city itself is fantastic, the weather amenable to the event, and the atmosphere would no doubt more than live up to expectations.

    However, the limitations in the ultra-modern stadium are such that it's better to watch the games played here from your easy chair if you cannot afford the lower deck seating.

8. St. Louis, Missouri

2 of 9

    The great city of St. Louis is actually a wonderful city in which to locate the college football title game.

    The weather that time of year doesn't matter, with the Edward Jones Dome holding the game, and the town is a much more fascinating place than outsiders imagine.

    That said, until the Dome is updated (translation: more suites), this option is a stretch.

    The facilities have to be there, as this is the biggest event in the college football universe.

    Although, judging by ESPN's coverage, national signing day isn't far behind.

7. Minneapolis, Minnesota

3 of 9

    Yes, the Vikings are building a new facility.

    However, the fact that the ceiling fell in on the Metrodome from the weight of the snow back in 2010 makes me a little leery of spending a few days in the Twin Cities in early January.

    Have you been there that time of year?

    We are talking about 0 degrees or lower temperatures, and the potential for enough snow to bury your method of transportation permanently.

    Sounds fun.

6. San Diego, California

4 of 9

    San Diego seems to fit the bill as well, but there would be concerns.

    Mainly, the stadium drastically needs an update.

    There is no roof, but that's not an issue with a climate such as San Diego's.

    Although, back in 2010, we were reminded that no city is safe from Mother Nature, and, as you can see in the slide, Qualcomm was flooded.

    It was a freak storm, I know, but that's why the game should be held somewhere with a roof.

5. Los Angeles, California

5 of 9

    Los Angeles is the perfect city for the title game.

    Perfect climate, infrastructure in place, plenty to do.

    The Coliseum would make a good venue, if you like antiques.

    The place needs to be updated before it falls apart, as most of it is completely obsolete.

    With some renovations, this venue wold join the Rose Bowl as a perfect place to hold the game.

    With all that said, having the Rose Bowl in Pasadena should be enough to omit L.A. from this list, but the condition of the Coliseum could not be overlooked.

4. San Antonio, Texas

6 of 9

    On the surface, it seems to meet all the required needs.

    Warm climate?

    Check.

    Dome?

    Check.

    The town is incredible, and the people of San Antonio cannot be beat for kindness and hospitality, at least not at any of the other venues discussed here.

    The problem is that the Alamodome has not hosted so much as a major bowl game in recent seasons.

    There will be plenty of questions about a bid for San Antonio, especially since the stadium has not hosted an event of this magnitude.

3. Detroit, Michigan

7 of 9

    Ford Field is a great facility, and its location within the Big Ten's conference footprint would be sure to make advocates of that conference happy, if only one of the teams could actually get to the game.

    But it's Detroit.

    As much as most of us feel for the state of Michigan and area surrounding Detroit in these really difficult economic times, and as much as holding this event there would provide a huge boost to the local economy, it's Detroit, in January.

    That means it's frigid.

    As in, spit and it freezes cold.

    Not fun.

2. Jacksonville, Florida

8 of 9

    The issues with Jacksonville hosting big sporting events have already been well-documented.

    Take a look at the comments in this piece regarding all the problems.

    So why on earth should the city be allowed to try and improve on that disaster?

    Was the Super Bowl practice, with a college football title game the second effort?

    I have nothing against Jacksonville, but the city's performance in the days surrounding the Super Bowl has eliminated it from any consideration for major sporting events in the future.

1. New York

9 of 9

    MetLife Stadium is going to be hosting the Super Bowl in 2014, which is quite a departure from the usual warm weather venues at which the big game takes place.

    With its status as a member of the Super Bowl host club, and the largest city in the nation, New York(New Jersey) should get a glance as a site for the title game; but that's it, no second looks.

    It's outdoors, and nobody wants to be outdoors in January in that part of the country.

    As if last season's edition of the title game wasn't boring enough, imagine shelling out the cash to go, then seeing that game in 10 degree weather.

    Who in their right mind thinks that's a good idea?

    Anybody?