I absolutely love the city of Minneapolis and the state of Minnesota, but if I had my way, Super Bowl 52 would be the last Super Bowl played at US Bank Stadium.

I am all for a city being rewarded with a Super Bowl for building a new stadium and that has now been done, so lets move back to the warm weather of Miami, New Orleans or Arizona.

There are many reasons for my opinion including the selfish nature of wanting a "workation" in a warm environment come January and not a place I visit all the time in a cold climate.

The other reasons include those who are really attending the game to get the best experience all week and not just for the game.

Let's be honest, most of the people standing up for Minnesota last week were those that weren't actually attending the game.

They were on Twitter or other social media sites bashing media and fans who preferred those warm cities over negative temps in Minnesota.

Of course there were locals who attended, but there is a large faction of Super Bowl attendees who are corporate america or rich folks looking for warmth, beaches, golf and football.

So let's cater to those who go almost every year or those who are spending the big bucks for a Super Bowl ticket and not just the fans who want to experience a Super Bowl week in their cold weather city on multiple occasions.

The one thing I will say that would lean me the other direction on this argument was the hosting abilities of Minneapolis and the surrounding area.

The had amazing hospitality, had no security issues and handled the weather as good as any city could.

The Mall of America and Bloomington played great hosts to the media and teams during the week.  A job truly well done.

All that said, I want to golf on Friday when I'm done with radio row, I want to hit the beach after my show at night, I prefer wearing shorts to and from our coverage of the Super Bowl and I am guessing that America's elite who choose to shell out $4000+ on a ticket would agree.

See Also:

More From KSOO-AM / ESPN Sioux Falls