So the Washington Commanders announced a new domed stadium. The Bears are looking at building a done stadium as well. I know domes allows your stadium to be usable all year long. It’s more comfortable for fans in the later part of the year. For the billions they spend I guess you better. Just seems like the NFL is becoming in door football. With the exception of Green Bay and Buffalo.
OT NFL becoming indoor football?
- Thread starter scubastevefl
- Start date
Multi purpose indoor stadiums are big money makers. Lucas Oil in Indy is a fabulous facility. As a fan you can't beat it.
Oh wow, are they profitable? I bet they are. You could have a Kansas City Chiefs game, and then with a multi purpose indoor stadium, old boy's girlfriend can put on a concert that same night, and everybody's rich! And the fans love it, because of all the amenities. It's like a home away from home, or even nicer than your home!
Then again KC I think is where they had one of the coldest games in NFL history. They don't even use real grass anyway, what do you need a regular stadium for anymore, just go multi-purpose!
Depends on climate. Seems silly to spend a billion dollars on a facility that is only used maybe 2 dozen dates a year tops. Big debate here in Ohio about public funds for new facilities for the Browns and Bengals.
Isn't Kansas City, Arizona, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Cleveland, New England, and NY outdoor?
Jacksonville is revamping and adding a dome. Just seems to be a trend. I get it up north, but football without the elements doesn’t feel like football.
The domed stadium issue transcends far more than football and a lot depends upon who the owner is
Domed Stadiums with artificial turf can be used as the venue for other sporting and non-sporting events, generating significant income.
Stadiums with grass can’t withstand a good number of non-sporting events, like concerts, hence they’re limited in terms of generating additional revenue, which can be significant.
Just the parking alone is an enormous generator of revenue
20,000 cars at $ 20 per car generates $400,000 for one event, with almost no overhead.
10 events a year generates $4 million in parking revenue along
Parking revenue was one of the impediments to the sale of the Dodgers
I was at the Rose Bowl two Friday nights ago to see AC/DC in concert along with 90,000 other people.
Natural grass. No dome. And will never have a dome.
Doing just fine.
You don’t know what you’re talking about
You wouldn't see the turf damage that night for several reasons.
1. It was nighttime
2. The damage to the turf manifests itself a day or a few days after the event.
With a 16 or 18 game NFL season, it would only be eight or nine games a year
That’s why hosting other events makes sense since it generates SIGNIFICANTadditional revenue
Games in domed stadiums are very sterile. Part of home field advantage has to do with the weather. Places like Chicago, Green Bay, Buffalo and Philly just to name a few. Cold snowy, rainy and windy weather are gives a team home field advantage. It’s part of the game. Nothing like playing football in the best and worst weather. It’s what makes it great. Watching a game in an indoor stadium vs outdoor , there’s no comparison. Bud Grant would not approve. For those who know who I am referring to
You can’t ignore the financial factors as they relate to the owners of the stadium
Do you really want to sit in an open stadium while it’s pouring rain ?
Do you really want to watch a game where the talents of the players are severely limited due to the weather ?
You do realize in a lot of those grass stadiums that they cover the grass for concerts so that the turf doesn’t take a beating. And the situation with Arizona they just moved the grass outside.
You’re too stupid to understand the stadiums have multiple uses
Have somebody with a brain explain it to you
I am not saying indoor stadiums aren’t more convenient and comfortable. They absolutely are. However, my thoughts have always been, football is played in all types of weather. Teams need to adapt and overcome as Clint stated in Hearbreak Ridge. But I definitely understand why fans and players like the indoor environment. Me? I would watch a game of my favorite team in any weather. Just imagine ND going to dome stadium. How would that go over ? Heck people now do not like the fake turf. A Dome ? That would be Blasphemy. Just saying
I tend to agree that the outdoor stadium at Notre Dame adds a special fan flavor.
It’s less antiseptic.
And I don’t particularly like night games
But the NFL answers to a different master
The grass at the Rose Bowl was completely covered during the concert.
[/QUOTE]
Which causes damage
Damage that is undetected on the night of the concert
Have an agronomist explain that to you !
There should be a minimum IQ required prior to being allowed to post
Which causes damage
Damage that is undetected on the night of the concert
Have an agronomist explain that to you !
There should be a minimum IQ required prior to being allowed to post
[/QUOTE]
If that was indeed the case all of us here would have been spared from your uninformed, name calling, incessant drivel. Peacocks and pylons come to mind.
If that was indeed the case all of us here would have been spared from your uninformed, name calling, incessant drivel. Peacocks and pylons come to mind.
[/QUOTE]
Like you’re an innocent bystander
Oh, that’s right I forgot you’re the football expert on this site ……… in your own mind.
And you still haven’t explained the logic of how an object that sits out of bounds can be deemed in-bounds.
As to Peacock my opinion was prudent and logical.
You just don’t have the intellect to comprehend the concepts
Like you’re an innocent bystander
Oh, that’s right I forgot you’re the football expert on this site ……… in your own mind.
And you still haven’t explained the logic of how an object that sits out of bounds can be deemed in-bounds.
As to Peacock my opinion was prudent and logical.
You just don’t have the intellect to comprehend the concepts
[/QUOTE]
As usual bereft of any logic whatsoever. In both instances numerous posters myself included completely debunked your inane ramblings. Wrong is wrong.
As usual bereft of any logic whatsoever. In both instances numerous posters myself included completely debunked your inane ramblings. Wrong is wrong.
[/QUOTE]
You just don’t have the intellectual capital to understand the concepts.
And no one has debunked either of those issues
You just don’t have the intellectual capital to understand the concepts.
And no one has debunked either of those issues
[/QUOTE]
Sure they have. You choose not to recognize and accept rules and contract language as written. The density of your skull is of biblical proportion and matched only by your obstinate persona.
Sure they have. You choose not to recognize and accept rules and contract language as written. The density of your skull is of biblical proportion and matched only by your obstinate persona.
[/QUOTE]
No one has debunked either of those issues.
You’re so stupid that your confusing the “rule” from the concept and logic behind establishing the “rule”
I know what the rule is, I’ve always known what the rule is.
The “rule” was never the issue.
The premise and the logic behind the rule was the issue
Have somebody with a brain, explain that to you.
Have them explain the premise and the logic behind how a pylon that’s base sits out of bounds can be deemed in-bounds.
Again, because you’re a low IQ guy, I have to repeat that I know what the rule is, the “rule” itself was never the issue
As to the broadcast contract and Peacock you’re oblivious to the fact that if Peacock is financially successful in broadcasting one Notre Dame game, it won’t be long before they’ll broadcast multiple Notre Dame games, thus narrowing Notre Dame’s national exposure, which harms the brand, the fan base and recruiting
I realize that these concepts are over your head, so I suggest finding someone with a brain who can help you understand them.
No one has debunked either of those issues.
You’re so stupid that your confusing the “rule” from the concept and logic behind establishing the “rule”
I know what the rule is, I’ve always known what the rule is.
The “rule” was never the issue.
The premise and the logic behind the rule was the issue
Have somebody with a brain, explain that to you.
Have them explain the premise and the logic behind how a pylon that’s base sits out of bounds can be deemed in-bounds.
Again, because you’re a low IQ guy, I have to repeat that I know what the rule is, the “rule” itself was never the issue
As to the broadcast contract and Peacock you’re oblivious to the fact that if Peacock is financially successful in broadcasting one Notre Dame game, it won’t be long before they’ll broadcast multiple Notre Dame games, thus narrowing Notre Dame’s national exposure, which harms the brand, the fan base and recruiting
I realize that these concepts are over your head, so I suggest finding someone with a brain who can help you understand them.
[/QUOTE]
The pylon is not determined to be "inbounds" . It is an indicator of the vertical plane of the goal line. If the ball touches the pylon it's no different than the ball encroaching any other section of the goal line. It's why it's ruled a touchdown when it occurs. It appears you lack the requisite intellect to process a relatively simple understanding as to why it's positioned where it is. Your original position on the Peacock issue was 100% wrong regardless of how you try to spin it.
The pylon is not determined to be "inbounds" . It is an indicator of the vertical plane of the goal line. If the ball touches the pylon it's no different than the ball encroaching any other section of the goal line. It's why it's ruled a touchdown when it occurs. It appears you lack the requisite intellect to process a relatively simple understanding as to why it's positioned where it is. Your original position on the Peacock issue was 100% wrong regardless of how you try to spin it.
[/QUOTE]
You’re beyond stupid
The pylon is deemed to be in-bounds, ergo, the ball touching the Pylon is deemed to be a TD
If the pylon was removed and the ball carrier touched the area at the base of where the pylon used to be, would he be in-bounds or out-of-bounds
Regarding Peacock, my original position and my current position are the same, namely, that I’m going to boycott peacock because of the downstream ramifications that I enumerated
You’re just too stupid to understand that
