Throwdowns > Closed

williewilliejuan said 05/27, 10:35 AM
With all due respect, Marlins Fan, you've focused on the wrong constituency in your first argument. The decision whether to build an outdoor or indoor stadium will not hinge on the players. It will hinge upon fans and what will make them the most comfortable and make them the most willing to give up their hard-earned dollars to attend games.

I don't know if you've heard this, but it gets cold in MN. Real cold. The mean temp in Minneapolis in December is 20 degrees F. The record low temp in Dec. is 39 degrees below zero, which means it could warm up 70 degrees and still be freezing!.

The average non-premium ticket in the NFL runs a little over $77. If they shell out big bucks for a new stadium, Minnesota is going to want to be on the happy side of that avg. Even at the average, it will cost a family of four over $300 just to walk in the door. I don't know about your wife, but mine would frown on spending that kind of money just to sit and freeze outside.

The best bet for MN is to build a retractable-roof stadium like Lucas Oil Field in Indy. They can leave it open during the warm weather months at the beginning of the season and close it when it gets nasty.

williewilliejuan said 05/28, 10:04 AM
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

That's Latin for "with this, therefore because of this." It's a logical fallacy wherein someone argues that the fact that two items occur together means one must be the cause of the other. You've just done it here.

The fact that two dome teams have failed to win a Superbowl does not mean that dome teams cannot win one. The Rams, Colts and Saints all play their home games in domed stadiums and have all won the Superbowl in the past 15 years.

While it is true that the Vikings have lost 4 Superbowls and won none, that record is tied with the Buffalo Bills, who play their games outdoors in the cold. Playing in a dome no more prevents a team from winning than playing outdoors guarantees it. They're unrelated concepts.

At the end of the day, running a football team is a business. The team should design its stadium in such a way to make its customers happy. They should design it in a way that encourages people to come often and stay late. A retractable dome stadium would do just that. It would help attract more fans, even in the harshest conditions. It would help to maximize revenue, which can be put back toward fielding a winning team.

williewilliejuan said 05/28, 08:22 PM
You didn't prove that playing outside makes teams more successful. You showed that two teams that play in domed stadiums haven't won a Superbowl. I showed you three that have. Let me also show you the Bills, Browns and Bengals. All play outside in places it gets cold and none have won a Superbowl. What does it prove? Nothing.

You also haven't proven that playing outside is more profitable. You merely showed that several teams that play outside sold a higher % of tickets last year than the Vikings. Three of the teams in the top five in attendance % played in retractable-roofed stadiums (Dallas, Indy and Houston). In any case, by focusing only on % of ticket sales and not the price people are willing to pay for those tickets, you miss a big piece of the profitability puzzle.

However, the biggest problem with your solution is you are thinking too small. You are thinking only about the 8 days per year the Vikings host home football games. A domed stadium could open up other revenue possibilities like hosting Superbowls, concerts and other winter events people would rather enjoy at 72 degrees instead of freezing. An open air stadium doesn't provide the same opportunities.