Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's incredibly sad to me...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's incredibly sad to me...

    Apparently, (and this may be old news to you) KC has been selected as an SB site somewhere between 2012 and 2022. Now, I don't really see any problem with the SB in KC. In fact I'm ecstatic for any SB not in Miami, New Orleans, or SD. My problem is that one of the conditions is that KC build a climate controlled dome over Arrowhead. KC is going to sell out and do it. In fact, their idea is to dome an entire area, not just the stadium. Football, as it was meant to be played, is going away. Weather, like it or not, is part of the game. Wind, rain, sleet, snow, fog, and ice are sometimes the conditions of war and war is what football models. Weather is part of the game, one of the unknowns, equally hindering or helping both sides.

    I've been told that the SB is played in domes or in warm climates because people don't want to go sit in the cold and snow to watch a game. I say that those people are merely football watchers and will never know what it means to be a part of the football experience, a true fan. Do they think there is some danger of a SB played anywhere not selling out? Perhaps that was true at one time but I can assure you that a SB between SD and Miami played at Lambaugh Field at 40 below would sell out now, even if it was same day ticket sales. And there'd even be a heck of a tailgate party. If a dome is required to host a SB then I hope the SB NEVER comes to Denver where the real game of football is played.

    What next? You may laugh, but the future of football is grim. How long will it be before teams don't actually travel to play their opponents? I mean, everyone plays in an ambient temperature windless stadium so why even be in the same place? Each team would be holographically produced on their opponents field and a computer would decide when the ball is down or the ball carrier is tackled. I can see the NFL jumping on that idea. Next to no injuries and they get to sell tickets to 2 stadiums for each game. Boy, won't that be exciting. I can see the highlight films now. Tear down the domes, plant some grass and play football for God's sake.

  • #2
    I know what you mean. I love the element of risk brought on by the weather. Football was meant to be played outdoors in any kind of weather. I think most fans know and appreciate that and would be just fine going to a freezing, snowy game.

    I also feel the Chiefs should just leave Arrowhead alone. Don't screw with a great football stadium. (I still miss the old Mile High.)
    "You can't take the sky from me..."
    ------
    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding"

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe it's just me...but I don't care if the two best teams in the NFL are playing, when I see a game on turf or INSIDE it is boring...unless I'm watching my own team. I think it is an absolute SHAME that KC is getting a "dome". Football is an outdoor event that is supposed to be played in the elements. Might as well watch arena football.
      Props to Pat Bowlen who stated something in the effect that hosting a SB is not worth building a dome! Finally, someone who shares the sentiments with all of the other football lovers.

      Bright side: Maybe if every team in the NFL plays in a dome...we will have the best home field advantage!!! Absolutely ridiculous! I can't believe they are making Arrowhead a dome. I'm hoping it is temporary. Remember when KC played that game a few years back and the field was like one big lake? I forget who they were playing but THAT was fun to watch!

      Sorry...but this is the kind of stuff that pisses me off about the NFL....GREED, GREED, GREED!

      Comment


      • #4
        What you are forgetting is ALLL the stuff that goes on the ENTIRE week DURING the SUper Bowl that relies on nice weather. If they can't have it in nice weather, then they must have a domed stadium in order to hold the activities. Super Bowl week is an incredibly lucrative week..but NOT if the TRAVELING fans that go to watch the Super Bowl can't get outdoors due to the weather.

        I LOVE great outdoor games. I love them in the Mud, in the fog, and in the Snow. But personally. I love the SUPER BOWL in nice weather. I dont want the weather to be a component of the game during the SUper Bowl. I want THAT game to between the teams...combating each other and not the elements.

        Comment


        • #5
          It will be a LOT easier to play in Kansas City under a dome. It is probably the most miserable place to play in the winter. It's a toss up between it and Lambeau I guess. It gets MUCH colder and more miserable in KC than it does in Denver.

          Comment


          • #6
            Actually. The Dome that is proposed to go over Arrowhead isn't over an "area".. but a ROLLING stadium room that could actually roll over the top of the baseball stadium as well (since the are both right next to one another and owned by the same guy. They have proposed this since I was a teenager, 20 years ago. So BASICALLY... the NFL wants to "award" Lamar Hunt a Super Bowl at his home town. Then they help him out by suggesting KC won't get the SUper Bowl unless they upgrade their stadium by 500 MILLION dollars (the fixes and the rolling roof). Then they suggest that if KC DOESN'T improve the stadium, not ONLY will they NOT get the SUper Bowl, but then its a possibility that KC lose their team.

            To be honest, this seems a lil odd, and a lil wrong. Dan Patrick was discussing this today on ESPN Radio. He felt it was extortion. I can't say I don't agree with him.

            The funny thing is, that the Super Bowl is supposed to bring in 400 Million in revenue....yet the stadium upgrade is going to cost 500 Million. SO they are basically going INTO the deal with a proposed 100 Million dollar loss to possibly get the SUper Bowl in 11+ years from now.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Ravage!!!
              What you are forgetting is ALLL the stuff that goes on the ENTIRE week DURING the SUper Bowl that relies on nice weather. If they can't have it in nice weather, then they must have a domed stadium in order to hold the activities. Super Bowl week is an incredibly lucrative week..but NOT if the TRAVELING fans that go to watch the Super Bowl can't get outdoors due to the weather.

              I LOVE great outdoor games. I love them in the Mud, in the fog, and in the Snow. But personally. I love the SUPER BOWL in nice weather. I dont want the weather to be a component of the game during the SUper Bowl. I want THAT game to between the teams...combating each other and not the elements.
              Exactly...GREED! Who gives a crap about nice weather and all the extras..yadda, yadda, yadda!!! BS..play the game how it is meant to be played. If we go by your theory of "I want THAT game to between the teams...combating each other and not the elements." Then...you might as well have all teams in the exact same elements(dome) during the entire year to determine the two "best" teams playing each other in the SB. Because, by your theory/statement we are not going to see the two "best" teams in the NFL in the SB due to "elements" deciding games.

              Sorry...I know what you mean in terms of not wanting elements in the SB..but I completly disagree!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                its unfortunate yeah, i love hostile climate games
                its going with the flow of the nfl though, speed has become the most precious comodity, and speed hates the elements.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Perry1977
                  It will be a LOT easier to play in Kansas City under a dome. It is probably the most miserable place to play in the winter. It's a toss up between it and Lambeau I guess. It gets MUCH colder and more miserable in KC than it does in Denver.
                  Not all of the time! The weather here in Denver has been much colder and/or has had worse weather conditions than KC before-several times in the past.
                  Oh, The Color of Orange! Ah!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Steedstampede
                    Exactly...GREED! Who gives a crap about nice weather and all the extras..yadda, yadda, yadda!!! BS..play the game how it is meant to be played. If we go by your theory of "I want THAT game to between the teams...combating each other and not the elements." Then...you might as well have all teams in the exact same elements(dome) during the entire year to determine the two "best" teams playing each other in the SB. Because, by your theory/statement we are not going to see the two "best" teams in the NFL in the SB due to "elements" deciding games.

                    Sorry...I know what you mean in terms of not wanting elements in the SB..but I completly disagree!!!

                    no.. the difference is that the regular season has HOME FIELD advantage. Lambeau... Denver's thin Air... Buffalo... or the Miami heat. Those are fine during the regular season.. but during the Super Bowl... thats not what I want to see.

                    You say the Super Bowl week is Greed???? DOn't think about the money MADE. Think about the THOUSANDS of people that travel THOUSANDS of miles to be involved and ENJOY the Super Bowl WEEK. If they don't do something to accomodate that enjoyment, the people WON'T travel to see the Super Bowl during th week. That loses the HOSTING city around 400 MILLION dollars in revenue for the people that work and LIVE in that city. You want to take THAT away simply because you want to see a game in the rain or snow???? I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with THAT kind of thinking!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Ravage!!!
                      no.. the difference is that the regular season has HOME FIELD advantage. Lambeau... Denver's thin Air... Buffalo... or the Miami heat. Those are fine during the regular season.. but during the Super Bowl... thats not what I want to see.

                      You say the Super Bowl week is Greed???? DOn't think about the money MADE. Think about the THOUSANDS of people that travel THOUSANDS of miles to be involved and ENJOY the Super Bowl WEEK. If they don't do something to accomodate that enjoyment, the people WON'T travel to see the Super Bowl during th week. That loses the HOSTING city around 400 MILLION dollars in revenue for the people that work and LIVE in that city. You want to take THAT away simply because you want to see a game in the rain or snow???? I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with THAT kind of thinking!

                      Well...THAT kind of thinking is coming from a FAN...not a businessman. I never said I don't understand why they do what they do...I said I disagree with it and would rather see a game played in the elements. BTW..most of the people who buy the tickets to the super bowl aren't even fans...they work at corporations and such which bought the tickets to the game. So...I don't give a damn about them making it to the game or not. Corporations and greed are ruining the tradition of the game.

                      BUT then again...you were probably one of those people that favors "Invesco field" at Mile High instead of Mile High. I sure most people would have been just fine keeping the old mile high instead of what we have now.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ravage!!!
                        no.. the difference is that the regular season has HOME FIELD advantage. Lambeau... Denver's thin Air... Buffalo... or the Miami heat. Those are fine during the regular season.. but during the Super Bowl... thats not what I want to see.

                        You say the Super Bowl week is Greed???? DOn't think about the money MADE. Think about the THOUSANDS of people that travel THOUSANDS of miles to be involved and ENJOY the Super Bowl WEEK. If they don't do something to accomodate that enjoyment, the people WON'T travel to see the Super Bowl during th week. That loses the HOSTING city around 400 MILLION dollars in revenue for the people that work and LIVE in that city. You want to take THAT away simply because you want to see a game in the rain or snow???? I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with THAT kind of thinking!
                        What????? People, or should I say fans, will come to the SB regardless of the weather. That's a given. Perhaps more fans will come to a game in Miami than in Denver or Green Bay. But the stadium will fill. If the weather is bad and the host city loses some of its 400 Mil, who do they have to blame? God? They still stand to make much more than they would have with out the bowl. Your logic falls on the floor.


                        I think the location of the game should be decided by the game itself. The city winning the SB should host the SB 4 or 5 years later. Then the city could reap the rewards of supporting its team.
                        Last edited by SkyFlash1; 11-17-2005, 11:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Steedstampede

                          Well...THAT kind of thinking is coming from a FAN...not a businessman. I never said I don't understand why they do what they do...I said I disagree with it and would rather see a game played in the elements. BTW..most of the people who buy the tickets to the super bowl aren't even fans...they work at corporations and such which bought the tickets to the game. So...I don't give a damn about them making it to the game or not. Corporations and greed are ruining the tradition of the game.

                          BUT then again...you were probably one of those people that favors "Invesco field" at Mile High instead of Mile High. I sure most people would have been just fine keeping the old mile high instead of what we have now.

                          No. I wasn't in favor of the name change.

                          However I know for a FACT that the largest portion of those tickets aren't sold to "corporations"..but a % certainly is. Those tickets are then given out to employees, or big clients... who THEN take their kids to the Super Bowl. Then THOSE kids grow up being bigger fans of the game because they went to a SB with their Mom and Dad when they were young.

                          THe Super Bowl is more than just a "game." Its an EVENT. Its a HUGE media event. Because football, and ALL sports, is ENTERTAINMENT. See.. thats the thing. Its not fake, but its STILL entertainment.. just a different form of entertainment than a MOVIE. The NFL has made the GAME of football attractive to ALL ages AND genders during the WEEK of the SUper BOwl. WHY? Because they continue to work HARD at growing their fan base. To do that, you make the entertainment factor attractive to EVERYONE. If people are traveling Thousands of miles to see the game.. whether they are season fans, or just Super Bowl fans, they MUST have a good time while there. THey are there for the ENTERTAINMENT of the Super Bowl, and the entire week of the event that is the Super Bowl. Its not RUINING the game. Its just being sure that the Stadium is comfortable for the fans to enjoy the game. SO that the weather is good for the Huge Pre-game show. So that the weather is good for the HUGE Half-Time show. The Super Bowl is spending MILLIONS for this. It wouldn't work well for Janet's boob to be shown through a snow coat.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by SkyFlash1
                            What????? People, or should I say fans, will come to the SB regardless of the weather. That's a given. Perhaps more fans will come to a game in Miami than in Denver or Green Bay. But the stadium will fill. If the weather is bad and the host city loses some of its 400 Mil, who do they have to blame? God? They still stand to make much more than they would have with out the bowl. Your logic falls on the floor.


                            I think the location of the game should be decided by the game itself. The city winning the SB should host the SB 4 or 5 years later. Then the city could reap the rewards of supporting its team.
                            Thank you SkyFlash...I kind of like your idea about the winning team hosting the SB a few years later. Personally...I always thought that every city should get the oppourtunity to host a super bowl.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SkyFlash1
                              What????? People, or should I say fans, will come to the SB regardless of the weather. That's a given. Perhaps more fans will come to a game in Miami than in Denver or Green Bay. But the stadium will fill. If the weather is bad and the host city loses some of its 400 Mil, who do they have to blame? God? They still stand to make much more than they would have with out the bowl. Your logic falls on the floor.


                              I think the location of the game should be decided by the game itself. The city winning the SB should host the SB 4 or 5 years later. Then the city could reap the rewards of supporting its team.

                              No. My LOGIC isn't based on theory. Its the facts. There are tooo many things going on during Super Bowl week to just THROW to outdoor stadiums and winter elements. If you think I'm wrong, why do you th ink that all the Super Bowls are being held in nice weather locations or in domes? The Super Bowl is MORE than just the GAME that we watch on the TV screen. They still make more than if they didn't have the Bowl? They put MILLIONS into the city to be PREPARED for the INCREDIBLE large crowds during SUper Bowl week. LOSING MILLIONS and MILLIONS because of "mother nature" or "god" just isn't worth the risk. Not when you are putting THAT kind of money OUT to host the Bowl game. I'm sorry, but YOUR reasoning is wrong.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X