Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38
  1. #11
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Purplexing" wrote:
    The Ole Met December-January 'weather' gave the Vikings a bigger HF advantage than the Dumpty Dome 'noise'.
    Did you ever go to the Old Met?
    The Metrodome is a palace compared to that place.
    people seem to forget what a PoS it was.
    Yeah, it was outdoors, and yeah, we fielded some good teams there.
    But the stadium itself was horrible.
    The seats were 35 yards away from the field in some spots and part of the bleachers were condemned because the railings were falling off...

    I am all for home field advantage but not at the expense of the fan experience.
    LOL - as soon as I saw the above post, I *KNEW* you'd be in here to set him straight!
    Where's that great picture you usually post??

    =Z=
    Ask and you shall receive!
    [img width=400 height=260]http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/past/metro365.jpg[/img]

    Here is another good aerial view that shows how far away the seats were
    [img width=360 height=227]http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/past/metromain.jpg[/img]
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    999

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Purplexing" wrote:
    The Ole Met December-January 'weather' gave the Vikings a bigger HF advantage than the Dumpty Dome 'noise'.
    Did you ever go to the Old Met?
    The Metrodome is a palace compared to that place.
    people seem to forget what a PoS it was.
    Yeah, it was outdoors, and yeah, we fielded some good teams there.
    But the stadium itself was horrible.
    The seats were 35 yards away from the field in some spots and part of the bleachers were condemned because the railings were falling off...

    I am all for home field advantage but not at the expense of the fan experience.
    LOL - as soon as I saw the above post, I *KNEW* you'd be in here to set him straight!
    Where's that great picture you usually post??

    =Z=
    Obviously, it was a POS in terms of modern standards.
    It was designed for baseball.
    But the subject was/is homefield advanatage.
    It had a lot of that.
    And, I don't think that fans couldn't tolerate 3-4 hours in a lousy stadium 8-10 times a year..... as long as a replacement was on the way.

    The Met should have been replaced with an outdoor stadium.
    That's the best idea for the replacement for the Dumpty Dome.

    When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all !

  3. #13
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    "Purplexing" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Purplexing" wrote:
    The Ole Met December-January 'weather' gave the Vikings a bigger HF advantage than the Dumpty Dome 'noise'.
    Did you ever go to the Old Met?
    The Metrodome is a palace compared to that place.
    people seem to forget what a PoS it was.
    Yeah, it was outdoors, and yeah, we fielded some good teams there.
    But the stadium itself was horrible.
    The seats were 35 yards away from the field in some spots and part of the bleachers were condemned because the railings were falling off...

    I am all for home field advantage but not at the expense of the fan experience.
    LOL - as soon as I saw the above post, I *KNEW* you'd be in here to set him straight!
    Where's that great picture you usually post??

    =Z=
    Obviously, it was a POS in terms of modern standards.
    It was designed for baseball.
    But the subject was/is homefield advanatage.
    It had a lot of that.
    And, I don't think that fans couldn't tolerate 3-4 hours in a lousy stadium 8-10 times a year..... as long as a replacement was on the way.

    The Met should have been replaced with an outdoor stadium.
    That's the best idea for the replacement for the Dumpty Dome.

    It was a PoS in terms of 1970's standards too.

    As far as the new stadium, I would be OK with a retractable roof, but if I had to choose between a roofless stadium and another dome, I would choose another dome.

    What happens if we have an outdoor stadium and the team is in a rebuilding mode like they are now?
    Do you think fans will turn out in droves to watch a late December game in -20 degree weather for a 6-10 team?
    People point to Lambeau as an example, but the weather at Lambeau was rarely as bad as it was at the Old Met.

    What about the elderly or kids?
    I have two young kids who go with me to the football games.
    I can't bring them if the temp is below zero and we have no roof...
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  4. #14
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    I went to a lot of games at the old met.
    I was probably either too young at the early games or too drunk at the later games to realize the seats were bad.
    I do know that it was really fun to see teams come to Minnesota late in the year and play outdoors.
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #15
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    As far as the new stadium, I would be OK with a retractable roof, but if I had to choose between a roofless stadium and another dome, I would choose another dome.
    I'm with you on that one.
    Open-air would be great on some days and an absolute nightmare on others where many would choose not to come - especially if the team isn't doing so good.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  6. #16
    triedandtruevikesfan is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,588

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    When the dome is rocking during a Vikings game... there is no where else I'd rather be.
    Well maybe thats not QUITE true, but its a great feeling to be surrounded by Viking fans and being loud and crazy with them.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    999

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Purplexing" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Purplexing" wrote:
    The Ole Met December-January 'weather' gave the Vikings a bigger HF advantage than the Dumpty Dome 'noise'.
    Did you ever go to the Old Met?
    The Metrodome is a palace compared to that place.
    people seem to forget what a PoS it was.
    Yeah, it was outdoors, and yeah, we fielded some good teams there.
    But the stadium itself was horrible.
    The seats were 35 yards away from the field in some spots and part of the bleachers were condemned because the railings were falling off...

    I am all for home field advantage but not at the expense of the fan experience.
    LOL - as soon as I saw the above post, I *KNEW* you'd be in here to set him straight!
    Where's that great picture you usually post??

    =Z=
    Obviously, it was a POS in terms of modern standards.
    It was designed for baseball.
    But the subject was/is homefield advanatage.
    It had a lot of that.
    And, I don't think that fans couldn't tolerate 3-4 hours in a lousy stadium 8-10 times a year..... as long as a replacement was on the way.

    The Met should have been replaced with an outdoor stadium.
    That's the best idea for the replacement for the Dumpty Dome.

    It was a PoS in terms of 1970's standards too.

    As far as the new stadium, I would be OK with a retractable roof, but if I had to choose between a roofless stadium and another dome, I would choose another dome.

    What happens if we have an outdoor stadium and the team is in a rebuilding mode like they are now?
    Do you think fans will turn out in droves to watch a late December game in -20 degree weather for a 6-10 team?
    People point to Lambeau as an example, but the weather at Lambeau was rarely as bad as it was at the Old Met.

    What about the elderly or kids?
    I have two young kids who go with me to the football games.
    I can't bring them if the temp is below zero and we have no roof...
    The Vikings, hopefully, won't be rebuilding in 2011, when the new Valhalladium opens, as they are following a plan of building the roster primarily through the draft, and if not, mostly through younger players approaching the peak of their career productivity.

    For those fans who can't endure the 4 hours in cold weather for 2-3 games in cold weather in an outdoor stadium... sell your tickets to those who can, and watch at home.
    There is no requirement that a team cater to all types of fans.
    If so, GB, Chicago, Buffalo, NY, NE, etc. are all violating that requirement.

    For those players who don't want to play outdoors in MN, don't sign with GB, Chicago, NY, NE, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Denver, etc., either.
    You will limt your employment opportunities in a highly competitive field.
    When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all !

  8. #18
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    "Purplexing" wrote:
    For those fans who can't endure the 4 hours in cold weather for 2-3 games in cold weather in an outdoor stadium... sell your tickets to those who can, and watch at home.
    There is no requirement that a team cater to all types of fans.
    If so, GB, Chicago, Buffalo, NY, NE, etc. are all violating that requirement.
    Oh cripes.
    So the elderly, young, or people who just generally don't want to be frozen do not have the right to watch a Vikings game in their home stadium?
    The only true fans are healthy men in their 20-40's?
    :
    I should just sell my wife's and children's tickets because they aren't tough enough fans?

    You are right in that the team doesn't have to cater to every type of fan.
    But it shouldn't focus on just one either.
    This isn't the NFL of the 70's.
    The fan base is diverse and includes many different types of fans.
    I think the team should cater to its fan base as a whole, not just a vocal minority who wouldn't be affected either way.


    I would rather have a noise advantage anyway.
    It is selective and can be applied just against the opposing team, whereas everybody suffers in poor weather.

    Besides, the average daily temperature in Minny in December is around 11 degrees F, while in Green Bay it is around 20 degrees and Chicago can be anywhere from 20 to 34 degrees.
    The Old Met was easily the coldest stadium in the nfl.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  9. #19
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    To be honest, I think Seattle really got it right with Qwest field.
    The field is exposed to the elements and it is pretty gol 'darnit loud according to reports.
    I hope the new Vikings stadium in similar in respects, either with a partial enclosure or retractable roof so that none of the fan base is alienated.

    One other important thing to note... the NFL will not award a superbowl to a northern stadium without an enclosed stadium.
    Retractable roof would meet that requirement.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    999

    Re: Unfair homefield advantages.

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "Purplexing" wrote:
    For those fans who can't endure the 4 hours in cold weather for 2-3 games in cold weather in an outdoor stadium... sell your tickets to those who can, and watch at home.
    There is no requirement that a team cater to all types of fans.
    If so, GB, Chicago, Buffalo, NY, NE, etc. are all violating that requirement.
    Oh cripes.
    So the elderly, young, or people who just generally don't want to be frozen do not have the right to watch a Vikings game in their home stadium?
    The only true fans are healthy men in their 20-40's?
    :
    I should just sell my wife's and children's tickets because they aren't tough enough fans?

    You are right in that the team doesn't have to cater to every type of fan.
    But it shouldn't focus on just one either.
    This isn't the NFL of the 70's.
    The fan base is diverse and includes many different types of fans.
    I think the team should cater to its fan base as a whole, not just a vocal minority who wouldn't be affected either way.


    I would rather have a noise advantage anyway.
    It is selective and can be applied just against the opposing team, whereas everybody suffers in poor weather.

    Besides, the average daily temperature in Minny in December is around 11 degrees F, while in Green Bay it is around 20 degrees and Chicago can be anywhere from 20 to 34 degrees.
    The Old Met was easily the coldest stadium in the nfl.
    Yes.

    It's a great advantage being outdoors in Mpls in the winter.
    Greater than a noise advantage.
    How many Super Bowls did the Vikings reach via indoor playoff games at the Dumpty Dome?
    Hmmm Atlanta 30-27.
    How did the noise help that day?

    You avoided the point about GB, Chicago, Buffalo, NY, etc. having outdoor stadia.


    When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all !

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Top 10 Homefield Advantages: Metropolitan Stadium
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-29-2011, 04:36 AM
  2. Unfair Franchise Tags Need to Go
    By Prophet in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-20-2009, 03:28 AM
  3. Ray Edwards - Playing next to greatness has advantages
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 11:57 AM
  4. Unfair Refs?!
    By smokinthapurple in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 12:24 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •