I think we can play the game anywhere. I don't see any reason why any region with an adequate stadium (in terms of capacity, really) and an NFL team cannot host the game. Cold, inclement weather can intervene in any other game during the season or playoffs, but not in this one? It simply doesn't make sense. The game settles the championship, sure, but that does not make it fundamentally different from any other playoff game, all of which are single elimination.
Sometimes I wonder if the neutral site itself has outlived its usefulness. I'm speculating, but I assume that in large the early Super Bowls were played at neutral locations so as to prevent either, independent league (though soon to be merged into one league) from having home field. The idea of the 'bowl' is clearly derived from the language of the college game, but the schedules just aren't the same. Teams basically wait a month between the end of their regular season and playing in their bowl games, giving fans plenty of time to make travel arrangements and so on. Returning to the original point, though, now that everyone is in the same league and subject to the same scheduling rules, I don't particularly see the need for a neutral site, other than to pump economic stimulus into a small group of cities (thirty of forty-seven Super Bowls hosted by New Orleans, Miami, and greater Los Angeles/San Diego, with only four of the remaining seventeen being held in what is conventionally considered a northern city with a dome) and to provide football writers with a reliable vacation spot in late January and early February (I'm not trying to say anything bad about Detroit, but I'm sure there was no end to the grumbling by the press when the game was played there recently). Personally, I would have no problem with the ultimate championship being played in the stadium of the team with the best record remaining and giving the season ticket holders an opportunity to purchase their seats. I don't really expect this to be a popular opinion, but I would have no problem with Lambeau Field, for instance, hosting the game.
I can understand why we would keep a neutral site because it has been traditionally played at one, but I don't see any reason why we should limit the pool of acceptable venues to exclude half of the NFL's cities and franchises. I understand that the NFL wants to sell a total entertainment package, but the Super Bowl, first and foremost, is a football game. I don't really care about the city's ability to lavish entertainments upon tourists or provide good weather. Most large cities, in fact, have things to do anyway, and football may be played under any weather conditions except (barring extraordinary situations such as hurricanes and tornadoes) lightning. Everything else around the game will take care of itself.
Look, man, I know a lot about whatever it is you're talking about.