Randall Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I hear what everyone is saying about "man law" which sounds tough, but it's lame. Got to change with the times and quit living in the past. Really. While warm weather teams suffer in the cold cold weather teams suffer in high heat and humidity. When do we get to play in air conditioned comfort in FL and Arizona in summer? It's part of home field advantage. Individual teams will decide on their own how they will deal with it. I wouldn't expect a dome in New England, Pittsburgh, Green Bay or Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 Really. While warm weather teams suffer in the cold cold weather teams suffer in high heat and humidity. When do we get to play in air conditioned comfort in FL and Arizona in summer? Good point, but I think both teams suffer in either conditions thus the dome stadiums for Championship games. By the way, don't think anyone will consider it suffering in high heat and humidity in Miami. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Give it another generation and see what happens. My guess is that their kids will want the best of both worlds like most kids. Unless they were born men, then they will want to watch football where it was meant to be played: outside in harsh weather conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Are you telling me that playing on turf, if you are a team built to play on turf, isnt an advantage?! You build your team to your environment. That just part of home field advantage. Why do you think teams that bunt well slope the baselines to hold bunts in play. Why do slower teams let the grass grow longer against faster teams. Why are dome teams typically faster at the skill positions and more offensively oreiented?I'm not saying that the home team shouldn't be able to groom the field to their advantage. I just don't like it when the home team grooms the field to the other team's disadvantage. This doesnt have anything to do with dome teams outdoor playoff record does it?No. I honestly didn't think anything about that until you mentioned it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Isn't your new stadium to be shared with UM supposed to be open air? The U of M stadium is not shared with the Vikings. If or when the stadium is built, the Dome will most likely be torn down. The new plan calls for the dome to be torn down and the new stadium to be built in its place. That means that the Vikings will have to play in the Gophers open air stadium for up to 3 years. Question: The ownership wants an open air stadium. The city and state want a retractable roof for other activities. Can the team keep the roof open for all football games, even if it is below zero in order to get homefield advantage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 Unless they were born men, then they will want to watch football where it was meant to be played: outside in harsh weather conditions. +1 Got to wonder how many of those young men will also elect to play on golf course you walk & dodge animal sh1t like the way golf was meant to be played. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 +1 Got to wonder how many of those young men will also elect to play on golf course you walk & dodge animal sh1t like the way golf was meant to be played. If they were born men? 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 The U of M stadium is not shared with the Vikings. If or when the stadium is built, the Dome will most likely be torn down. The new plan calls for the dome to be torn down and the new stadium to be built in its place. That means that the Vikings will have to play in the Gophers open air stadium for up to 3 years. Question: The ownership wants an open air stadium. The city and state want a retractable roof for other activities. Can the team keep the roof open for all football games, even if it is below zero in order to get homefield advantage? What are the rules for retractable roof stadiums? Can a team leave the roof open to try to slow down a visiting opponent's offense if the weather is forecasted to be bad? --Paul Smith, Aquadilla, Puerto Rico An hour and 30 minutes before each game played in a stadium with a retractable roof, the home team announces whether or not the roof will be open or closed. A team could leave the roof open during inclement weather in order to slow down an opponent. However, there is a special ruling that allows the game referee to order the roof closed under extreme weather conditions. Once the roof is closed, either before the game or during the game, it cannot be opened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) I hear what everyone is saying about "man law" which sounds tough, but it's lame. Got to change with the times and quit living in the past. Football like all sports is constantly changing. What changes in the actual play of the game have been made in the past 2-3 decades in football that makes you think they have made it a better game? Sissyfied rules on hitting the QB so that D players are actually letting go of QBs in play because they are worried about unecessary roughness? Rules protecting WRs so that they have free reign beyond 5 yds of the LoS to run unimpeded, and then to allow for phantom 40+ yd pass intereference calls? Unecessary roughness calls because a Safety looked at a TE really mean when the TE goes across the middle & catches a ball? My fondest memory of attending any football game was in Green Bay on a day when about 18 inches to 2 feet of snow fell during the course of the game (and game against Tampa Bay, no less). The game wasn't competitive & GB creamed TB, but watching the players slip & slide in the snow was a gas. 4 of the Packers actually came back onto the field after the game and were doing belly whoppers to the roars of the crowd. I love watching a game played in a down poar on a muddy slop pit a hell of a lot more than watching guys running on turf (and catching their feet with turf toes or exploding their ACLs) in 70 degrees of creature comfort. If you like the mamby-pamby perfect setting of the game type of football, that's your perrogative. To to many of us, football is still one of the ultimate man-sports. It's predicated of inflicting violence as the basic premise of the game, and a lot of us enjoy the natural elements as we watch players delievr mayhem upon each other for 60 minutes each week. It was made to be watched in any weather, fair or foul. It goes with beers, brats, chicken wings, & cigars - and not with a glass of zinfindel, finger sandwiches, & sorbet. Oh - and it will be a cold day in Hell before CHI or GB goes the way of the pansies in DET or MIN. You'll never see domed stadiums in those cities for NFL play. Edited January 19, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Don't misunderstand me, I'm actually against dome stadiums with no retractable roof. You won't find me attending many Saints games in October. The point of the thread is to debate whether or not games of this importance should be played in less than ideal playing conditions. well, here's problem #1 with your argument. first, every game throughout the nfl season is significant. every single game. wins get you into playoffs and even on week 17 when 2 non-playoff teams are fighting it out, it can affect every other team because of SOS. so if i take your theory and my theory, then your "dome but with a retractable roof" idea is BS because all of those "significant" games should be played in the exact same environment whether it's in september or november. if you want to go to the extreme of your argument, we should have all stadiums exactly alike, with the same amount of fans, with 50% of them rooting for one team and 50% rooting for the other. Got to think that has alot to do with playing the Super Bowl either indoor or in a warm climate. this is because of money Got to change with the times and quit living in the past. Football like all sports is constantly changing. When we find a better way to play the game whether it be equipment wise (gloves) or even the use of instant replay we accept it. what "times" are you referring to? you know, the technology of steroids is advancing beyond the ability of medical tests to keep up with it. we should probably "change with the times" and just realize we'll never catch everyone taking steroids. just let everyone do it so nobody has an advantage over the other in all of these "games of significance". i mean we want everyone to be on the exact same level right? i realize this is a ridiculous statement and i don't feel this is true, but i feel it drives a point that every advance in technology is not embraced or necessarily a "better way to play the game". My guess is that Chicago will have a dome stadium sometime in the near future. my guess is you're wrong. overall, i'm just not sure what you are getting at or why this is a valid argument. isn't having a home game fun? don't you like doing the cheers for your teams in your stadium? also, don't you feel like a true champion wins games no matter what? i would personally recommend that you starting embracing the AFL since all those games are played indoors in the finest of conditions. your argument is obviously not embraced by 95% of the football fans here so i would hardly say that your thoughts are with "the times" and personally, i think you're trying to create this picture that the nfl is a dinosaur instead of one of the biggest sports draws in the world. the day you start getting 95% of the fans here on your side is the day you can use the argument that the nfl needs to "quit living in the past". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 What changes in the actual play of the game have been made in the past 2-3 decades in football that makes you think they have made it a better game? ...everythign you typed +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) Unless they were born men, then they will want to watch football where it was meant to be played: outside in harsh weather conditions. Remember attending a White Sox game as a guest of a business associate. We arrived at the stadium a couple of hours before the game. He took me to a place inside the stadium that had this unbelievabe spread of fancy food. Guess he was trying to treat me right. Anyway, I remember how much his eyes lit up when I suggested (if he wouldn't mind), that we go back to our seats watch a little BP and get a couple of hotdogs with some brewskis. Needless to say, we ended up doing business together. Edited January 19, 2007 by Rockerbraves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) My fondest memory of attending any football game was in Green Bay on a day when about 18 inches to 2 feet of snow fell during the course of the game (and game against Tampa Bay, no less). The game wasn't competitive & GB creamed TB, but watching the players slip & slide in the snow was a gas. 4 of the Packers actually came back onto the field after the game and were doing belly whoppers to the roars of the crowd. I love watching a game played in a down poar on a muddy slop pit a hell of a lot more than watching guys running on turf (and catching their feet with turf toes or exploding their ACLs) in 70 degrees of creature comfort. December 1, 1985. GB 21 - TB 0. Snow was closer to 12", but high winds had it in blizzard conditions. And Steve Young was the Bucs QB that game. Edited January 19, 2007 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 The U of M stadium is not shared with the Vikings. If or when the stadium is built, the Dome will most likely be torn down. The new plan calls for the dome to be torn down and the new stadium to be built in its place. That means that the Vikings will have to play in the Gophers open air stadium for up to 3 years. Question: The ownership wants an open air stadium. The city and state want a retractable roof for other activities. Can the team keep the roof open for all football games, even if it is below zero in order to get homefield advantage? Sure why not? It's their home. Story on potential new stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) What changes in the actual play of the game have been made in the past 2-3 decades in football that makes you think they have made it a better game? Oh - and it will be a cold day in Hell before CHI or GB goes the way of the pansies in DET or MIN. You'll never see domed stadiums in those cities for NFL play. 2 point conversion to start with. Kicking off from some place other than the 40 yd line isn't bad either since the kickers now days would boot em out of the endzone everytime. Also think banning stick em was a good thing as well. Not crazy about those gloves either. Not sure but didn't they change the rule for holding to 10 vs. 15 yds? Sure some others in here could come up with some other changes that are beneficial to the game. Edited January 19, 2007 by Rockerbraves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 December 1, 1985. GB 21 - TB 0. Snow was closer to 12", but high winds had it in blizzard conditions. And Steve Young was the Bucs QB that game. Thanks. I guess the snow kind of grew the way my first hooked fish did over the years. Even though it was only a foot of snow, it was still easily the fondest memory I have of attending a football game (not many memories from WIS games due to alcohol induced amnesia). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 overall, i'm just not sure what you are getting at or why this is a valid argument. isn't having a home game fun? don't you like doing the cheers for your teams in your stadium? also, don't you feel like a true champion wins games no matter what? your argument is obviously not embraced by 95% of the football fans here so i would hardly say that your thoughts are with "the times" and personally, i think you're trying to create this picture that the nfl is a dinosaur instead of one of the biggest sports draws in the world. the day you start getting 95% of the fans here on your side is the day you can use the argument that the nfl needs to "quit living in the past". I know all about home field advantage. Not trying to take that away from Chicago. Not sure why everyone keeps thinking bad weather and playing conditions favors the bears or how a dome favors the Colts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Not sure why everyone keeps thinking bad weather and playing conditions favors the bears or how a dome favors the Colts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 I know all about home field advantage. Not trying to take that away from Chicago. Not sure why everyone keeps thinking bad weather and playing conditions favors the bears or how a dome favors the Colts. not sure i mentioned anything about the bears or colts in my post. my main point was that every game is significant so putting that idea with your idea would require all of football to play in the exact same condition. and that the thought of that is so outlandish to a large majority of fans, that the "change with the times" argument holds zero weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 not sure i mentioned anything about the bears or colts in my post. my main point was that every game is significant so putting that idea with your idea would require all of football to play in the exact same condition. and that the thought of that is so outlandish to a large majority of fans, that the "change with the times" argument holds zero weight. IMO Cardinals and Cowboys are on the cutting edge when in comes to NFL stadiums. Better get use to it unless you don't plan on being around another 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhippens Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 IMO Cardinals and Cowboys are on the cutting edge when in comes to NFL stadiums. Better get use to it unless you don't plan on being around another 20 years. so your point is actually that stadiums with retractable roofs are the best type? i have cardinals season tickets. you don't have to tell me they are on the cutting edge and i completely agree with you. but what do i have to get used to again if i plan on being around another 20 years? and what does this have to do with playing conference championships in domes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 so your point is actually that stadiums with retractable roofs are the best type? i have cardinals season tickets. you don't have to tell me they are on the cutting edge and i completely agree with you. but what do i have to get used to again if i plan on being around another 20 years? and what does this have to do with playing conference championships in domes? +1 Retractable roofs are the only way to go for new NFL stadiums. Would love to see every team have one. That way we wouldn't have to worry as much that a fluke play caused by poor playing conditions would influence the final outcome of any game much less the Conference Championships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 +1 Retractable roofs are the only way to go for new NFL stadiums. Would love to see every team have one. That way we wouldn't have to worry as much that a fluke play caused by poor playing conditions would influence the final outcome of any game much less the Conference Championships. Fluke plays have created most of th eNFL's greatest moments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 Fluke plays have created most of th eNFL's greatest moments. Hope you're kiddin. That would be sad for the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Vatican Hitsquad Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 And why SHOULDN'T weathe rinfluence an outcome of an NFL playoff game? Bart Starr sneakign in o the endzone against Dallas in the Ice Bowl is one of the greatest moments of all time. That game was HEAVILY influence by the weather. Should the NFL not have moments like that any longer so the fans can feel warm as they sip on thei moccacino in their plush suite overlooking the 50? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.