Should the NFL Revisit Neutral-Site Conference Championships? Sunday’s Weather May Have Reopened the Door
Three years ago, Damar Hamlin’s on-field cardiac arrest forced the NFL into an unprecedented decision: cancel the Bills-Bengals game and adjust the playoff structure to account for the competitive imbalance. That led to a contingency plan - if the Bills had advanced past the Bengals in the divisional round, the AFC Championship between Buffalo and Kansas City would’ve been played at a neutral site. Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium was the chosen venue, and fans responded fast - 50,000 tickets were sold in just 24 hours, all for a game that never happened.
The Bengals had other plans, knocking off the Bills and keeping the conference title game in Kansas City. But the neutral-site idea didn’t disappear. In fact, it sparked real conversation in league circles about whether the NFL should consider moving all conference championship games to neutral venues - much like the Super Bowl.
It wasn’t a new idea. Chiefs founder Lamar Hunt had been championing it for years, but it never gained traction.
Owners weren’t sold. Steelers owner Art Rooney II flat-out said, “I hate the idea.”
Even Falcons owner Arthur Blank - whose dome would likely be a frequent host - wasn’t on board. And just like that, the concept fizzled out.
But fast forward to Sunday’s AFC Championship, and suddenly, the idea doesn’t feel so far-fetched.
Here’s the crux of the debate: Should the team with the better record and higher seed be rewarded with home-field advantage, or should the NFL prioritize playing its biggest games in controlled environments, where weather doesn’t dictate the outcome?
The Super Bowl has always been neutral-site - and for good reason. It’s a marquee event, and the league wants it played in pristine conditions.
Weather is rarely a factor. The NFL got lucky in 2014 with the only cold-weather, open-air Super Bowl in New Jersey.
But in 2007, a downpour in Miami between the Colts and Bears turned the game into a soggy mess.
And while more teams are trending toward domed stadiums - the Chiefs, Browns, Broncos, and Bears are reportedly eyeing fully-covered venues - plenty of franchises still play outdoors in cities where January means snow, ice, and wind chills that feel like punishment. Think Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Green Bay, Foxborough, Philly, and Seattle. These are proud football towns, but they’re also places where a playoff game can turn into a battle against the elements just as much as the opponent.
As the league inches toward a longer regular season - and pushes the playoffs deeper into winter - the chances of weather impacting a conference championship only go up.
Sunday’s game was a case in point. Late in the fourth quarter, with snow swirling and visibility dropping, the conditions became a real factor.
The Broncos had a shot to tie it up late, but a field goal attempt was tipped at the line. If that kick had gone through, we might’ve been headed for overtime in a blizzard - and possibly waiting for a fluke play to decide who goes to the Super Bowl.
Is that the kind of drama fans want? Maybe.
There’s a certain charm to playoff football in the snow - the frozen breath, the crunch of cleats on ice, the visual of a quarterback shaking snow off his helmet before calling the next play. It’s part of the sport’s mythology.
But there’s also a legitimate argument that the NFL’s biggest games should be decided by players, not precipitation. If one team builds its roster around speed and precision and suddenly has to slog through a snowstorm, is that a fair fight? And if a game becomes “unwatchable” - or worse, “unplayable” - because of the weather, is that really the product the league wants to showcase?
Of course, plenty of fans will push back. The idea of neutral-site conference championships feels like a step toward sanitizing the game, stripping away the home-field advantage that teams fight all season to earn.
But let’s be honest - if the NFL made the switch, fans would still show up in droves. Tickets would sell.
TV ratings would soar. Just like they do for the Super Bowl.
So here we are again, circling back to a question that’s been lingering for years: Is it time to give Lamar Hunt’s idea a second look?
Because when weather becomes the storyline - when snow, wind, and ice take center stage over the players - maybe it’s worth asking whether the game deserves a stage that lets the best team win, not the team best equipped to survive the storm.