- 05/27/2012, 12:57AM ET
Marlins Fan said 05/27, 12:57 AM
No. The beauty of football is the raw, aggressive, instinctively primal nature of the game. Playing in an indoor stadium takes away from that.
When I think football, I think guts. I think of players battling against all odds to overcome their opponent. I think of players slogging through rain soaked and snow covered fields. I think of a team game comprised of many simultaneous one-on-one battles; battles between player and player, between the the participating coaches' minds, between man and the elements.
Playing in an indoor stadium takes away from all that.
Let's face it, indoor stadiums are for other sports; less manly sports where tackling is illegal and all out aggresion is frowned upon. Indoor stadiums are for swimming and ping-pong and other such "civilized" sports.
Real sports, manly sports, thrive on the added element of the outdoors. Hockey is better when it's played outside. Baseball is better when it's played outside.
Football, too, is better when it's played outdoors.
The Purple People Eaters played outdoors, and they weren't the cream puffs of the North, unlike the team right now.
Playing outdoors would help bring back their tougness.
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.
Marlins Fan said 05/27, 06:32 PM
A retractable roof is virtually the same as a dome because once it gets a bit nippy or snowy outside the first move is going to be to close up that roof.
So why should the Vikings feel obligated to leave the elements out of the game? Well they shouldn't, and here's why:
There are only two northern teams who currently play in a dome; the Vikings and Lions. A quick look at the history of the NFC North will show that these two particular teams are without question the least successful of them all. The Packers and Bears both play outside in frigid temperatures, yet they've managed to have a much more successful run than either the Vikings or Lions.
Let's look at more northern teams who manned up and decided to play outdoors:
Steelers, 6 Super Bowl wins
Giants, 4 SB wins
Packers, 4 SB wins
Patriots, 3 SB wins
Jets, 1 SB win
Bears, 1 SB win
Most cold-weather teams have manned up, played outdoors, and won Super Bowls.
The Vikings, on the other hand, have never won a SB. However they did win the final NFL Championship in 1970, which of course was before they moved to the Dome. The dome-dwelling Lions have never even qualified for the SB.
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.
Marlins Fan said 05/28, 07:14 PM
I'm not saying that an outdoor stadium always translates to Super Bowls; I'm merely presenting evidence that outdoor-based teams can not only thrive on the field, but they can thrive off the field too.
So far I've illustrated how the northern teams who play outdoors have been much more successful than the two northern teams who play indoors, in terms of winning Super Bowls. Next I will proceed to show how northern teams also can sell as many tickets (and more) than the teams with domed stadiums.
Attendance in 2011:
Eagles, Bears, Ravens, Patriots, Seahawks, Broncos - all teams with "weather issues" at home, all those teams fill a higher percentage of seats than the Vikings, a domed team
Turns out fans can handle the cold.
So to recap, I've shown that outdoor teams are more successful on the field and in the box office, but you have not shown any evidence that an indoor stadium is preferrable in any way. You merely threw out an incorrect idea about domed stadiums being more profitable, but I proved that wrong. At this point you have not presented any evidence showing why a domed/retractable stadium is a better idea.
Your move, Mr. Juan.
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.
|6||JimJ77 Can't make it up||130||53||26||68.4%|
|10||Schad - Notorious Deadbeat||71||43||9||61.4%|
- Fantasy baseball Pitching Report: Bartolo Colon's monster year
- Fantasy baseball Injury Report: Tigers ailing as Sanchez, Avila hit DL
- Fantasy baseball Stats Focus: Jackson shows room to improve
- Fantasy baseball Roundtable: Can Puig keep up his pace?
- Bryce Harper would go first in a fantasy baseball draft in '15
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia