New stadium

**Paulbedy59** · 05-26-2005, 06:21 PM

The vikes new owner is pushing for an open air stadium.I like the idea,but hell I like the idea of open air hockey.Which do you prefer?

**vikesfan** · 05-26-2005, 06:24 PM

I voted domed stadium for the Vikes because we're basically a speed team, both on offense and defense, and if we played all our home games outside (many of them in the cold, snowy weather) I think that would take away from the speed advantage that we have at many positions.

**V4L** · 05-26-2005, 06:25 PM

Dome.. i love the dome.. although the old met was cool I think we would play better in a dome..

**Articnv** · 05-26-2005, 06:28 PM

I did open air - to a extent u draft players depending on if your a indoor or outdoors. Nothign beats the adavantage of outdoors in a cold mserable weather

**ultravikingfan** · 05-26-2005, 08:57 PM

"Vikez4Lyfe" wrote:

Dome.. i love the dome.. although the old met was cool I think we would play better in a dome..

Really nothing to compare that too except our lousy outdoor road games. :twisted:

You remember the Met? :lol:

**cc21** · 05-26-2005, 08:59 PM

i voted dome. with the dome we really have home field advantage. we arent good playing in the cold or on grass.

**ultravikingfan** · 05-26-2005, 09:08 PM

"coreychavous21" wrote:

i voted dome. with the dome we really have home field advantage. we arent good playing in the cold or on grass.

Not yet. We can get accustomed and then have some advantages over warm climate teams.

**cajunvike** · 05-26-2005, 09:10 PM

Retractable roof...best of BOTH worlds!!!

**josdin00** · 05-26-2005, 09:23 PM

I voted open air, but I would prefer a retractable roof. I know Minnesota can get damn cold at times, which is why I'd like to have the option of the roof. I think football should be played out in the rain, and snow, and cold, but when it gets past cold, and into the damn colds, having a roof is better for all involved.