Los Angeles Is Going After Super Bowl L Despite Not Having a Team

The NFL left Los Angeles in 1995 and hasn't been back. That could change in the next decade.

After years of being a bargaining chip for franchises to get new stadiums built in their cities, Los Angeles is close to bringing the NFL back for at least one game: Super Bowl L (that's 50 to you and me).

Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay, a member of the league's Super Bowl committee, raised the possibility of L.A. playing host to that landmark game.

"In L.A., it's there for the taking," Irsay, who spends a lot of time here and is a member of Riviera Country Club, said in a telephone interview.

"People there are going to have to make it happen, make it work. But I know right now people are ready to put their time and effort into making this work."

There is some historical significance to hold the 50th Super Bowl in L.A. After all, the first Super Bowl was played in Los Angeles Coliseum in 1967. Since then, the Colisem hosted another Super Bowl while Pasadena's Rose Bowl has played host to five more games.

If the Super Bowl did come back to the City of Angels, it would most likely be played at the Rose Bowl. The Coliseum is a possibilty, while a new stadium seems to be a longshot.

The NFL has never placed the Super Bowl in an area that doesn't have a team in the league. The only stadiums to host a Super Bowl but not an NFL team at the time are the Rose Bowl, Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto and Rice Stadium in Houston.

The NBA played its All Star Game in Las Vegas a few years ago while the Final Four is routinely held in places that don't have elite programs nearby.

The key, as always, is local business owners backing the proposal. With the economy the way it is right now, that isn't a given.

If they can get it done, I don't see why the NFL shouldn't award the game to the Rose Bowl even if the area doesn't have football. The area is very attractive for visitors, the venue is certainly big enough and there is the historic factor.