Vikings to get new Stadium

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by VtownNinerFan:
It's really nice looking, if that were to be built I'm California it would cost a ridiculous amount, that's why our stadium is what it is.

The reason Levi's Stadium doesn't have a roof is not because of the added cost.

Its because its in Santa Clara. There is no reason to put a roof on a stadium in California.

Football should be played outside and on grass.

I don't understand why people don't like the 49ers new stadium because it looks like...you know...a STADIUM. They only seem to be happy if it looks like a spaceship, an iceburg, or Bobby Brown.

Points do go to Minn for not having a huge sphincter on the roof like one of the designs in Atlanta.

Preach brother.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by RogueStout:
Jags should get moved to LA. They never should have put an NFL franchise in that "city".

I think they end up in London.

London Redcoats. AFC east so they play the patriots 2x a year.

f**k yeah. Can you imagine the redcoats coming to boston to play the patriots?

Best rivalry in football.

Looks really trendy. I like it.

Originally posted by Marvin49:
The reason Levi's Stadium doesn't have a roof is not because of the added cost.

Its because its in Santa Clara. There is no reason to put a roof on a stadium in California.

Football should be played outside and on grass.

I don't understand why people don't like the 49ers new stadium because it looks like...you know...a STADIUM. They only seem to be happy if it looks like a spaceship, an iceburg, or Bobby Brown.

Points do go to Minn for not having a huge sphincter on the roof like one of the designs in Atlanta.

You answered the question yourslf. When the opportunity came to build a new stadium, I think most fans had great expectations. The Levi's Stadium is OK, but I think most of us expected something high-tech and spectacular looking. As for the roof, I have no problems with it as long as it can be opened up wide when the weathe ris nice. I am sure it rains in Santa Clara, it will be better for the fans plus it won't harm the field as much, thus reduces chances of injury. As much as tradition goes, even with Wimbledon in the UK, they eventually had to find money to build a roof over their Centre Court.

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by RogueStout:
Jags should get moved to LA. They never should have put an NFL franchise in that "city".

I think they end up in London.

I havent been to the UK and I know they show the super bowl over there but is american football really gaining that much popularity over there? Or would the other owners basically float the London Franchise till they know the fan base is sustainable.

I mean i know they pack the stadium for the London game, but would they fill a stadium for 16 games compared to 1. Especially since whatever franchise starts there would probably suck for awhile unless they found a good QB right off the bat.

The Oakland Raiders should move back to LA.

Originally posted by Rascal:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
The reason Levi's Stadium doesn't have a roof is not because of the added cost.

Its because its in Santa Clara. There is no reason to put a roof on a stadium in California.

Football should be played outside and on grass.

I don't understand why people don't like the 49ers new stadium because it looks like...you know...a STADIUM. They only seem to be happy if it looks like a spaceship, an iceburg, or Bobby Brown.

Points do go to Minn for not having a huge sphincter on the roof like one of the designs in Atlanta.

You answered the question yourslf. When the opportunity came to build a new stadium, I think most fans had great expectations. The Levi's Stadium is OK, but I think most of us expected something high-tech and spectacular looking. As for the roof, I have no problems with it as long as it can be opened up wide when the weathe ris nice. I am sure it rains in Santa Clara, it will be better for the fans plus it won't harm the field as much, thus reduces chances of injury. As much as tradition goes, even with Wimbledon in the UK, they eventually had to find money to build a roof over their Centre Court.

Minnesota's roof will not be retractable because it was too expensive, and this design is already 1 billion dollars(in Minnesota). There is no need of a roof in Santa Clara ever, even when its raining. You may have not noticed that football, unlike tennis, is played in the elements. They put a roof on Centre Court cause of the hours and hours of rain delays that constantly plague Wimbledon. It was disrupting scheduling so badly as of late that they were almost forced too.

Why are people so obsessed with roofs, spaceships and megachurches? Why would you put a roof on a stadium for an extra billion dollars that you would probably never really have to use.

Originally posted by Rodinxxv:

Originally posted by Rascal:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
The reason Levi's Stadium doesn't have a roof is not because of the added cost.

Its because its in Santa Clara. There is no reason to put a roof on a stadium in California.

Football should be played outside and on grass.

I don't understand why people don't like the 49ers new stadium because it looks like...you know...a STADIUM. They only seem to be happy if it looks like a spaceship, an iceburg, or Bobby Brown.

Points do go to Minn for not having a huge sphincter on the roof like one of the designs in Atlanta.

You answered the question yourslf. When the opportunity came to build a new stadium, I think most fans had great expectations. The Levi's Stadium is OK, but I think most of us expected something high-tech and spectacular looking. As for the roof, I have no problems with it as long as it can be opened up wide when the weathe ris nice. I am sure it rains in Santa Clara, it will be better for the fans plus it won't harm the field as much, thus reduces chances of injury. As much as tradition goes, even with Wimbledon in the UK, they eventually had to find money to build a roof over their Centre Court.

Minnesota's roof will not be retractable because it was too expensive, and this design is already 1 billion dollars(in Minnesota). There is no need of a roof in Santa Clara ever, even when its raining. You may have not noticed that football, unlike tennis, is played in the elements. They put a roof on Centre Court cause of the hours and hours of rain delays that constantly plague Wimbledon. It was disrupting scheduling so badly as of late that they were almost forced too.

Why are people so obsessed with roofs, spaceships and megachurches? Why would you put a roof on a stadium for an extra billion dollars that you would probably never really have to use.

Yes, football "can" be played in the elements, but the point is it doesn't have to. Is also the fans experience as well, I would hate to go to a game like last season when we played the Pats in Foxborough, it was pouring down the whole game. Granted it was a great game, but I would hate to have to stand in the rain for 3 long hours that's for sure.

Yes, one could argue may be the weather in Santa Clara is less extreme, thus there is less of a need for a roof. But, for the Vikings, it snows like crazy there in the winter. Anything is an upgrade from that tent top they had when it collapsed under the snow.

Originally posted by Rascal:

Originally posted by Rodinxxv:

Originally posted by Rascal:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
The reason Levi's Stadium doesn't have a roof is not because of the added cost.

Its because its in Santa Clara. There is no reason to put a roof on a stadium in California.

Football should be played outside and on grass.

I don't understand why people don't like the 49ers new stadium because it looks like...you know...a STADIUM. They only seem to be happy if it looks like a spaceship, an iceburg, or Bobby Brown.

Points do go to Minn for not having a huge sphincter on the roof like one of the designs in Atlanta.

You answered the question yourslf. When the opportunity came to build a new stadium, I think most fans had great expectations. The Levi's Stadium is OK, but I think most of us expected something high-tech and spectacular looking. As for the roof, I have no problems with it as long as it can be opened up wide when the weathe ris nice. I am sure it rains in Santa Clara, it will be better for the fans plus it won't harm the field as much, thus reduces chances of injury. As much as tradition goes, even with Wimbledon in the UK, they eventually had to find money to build a roof over their Centre Court.

Minnesota's roof will not be retractable because it was too expensive, and this design is already 1 billion dollars(in Minnesota). There is no need of a roof in Santa Clara ever, even when its raining. You may have not noticed that football, unlike tennis, is played in the elements. They put a roof on Centre Court cause of the hours and hours of rain delays that constantly plague Wimbledon. It was disrupting scheduling so badly as of late that they were almost forced too.

Why are people so obsessed with roofs, spaceships and megachurches? Why would you put a roof on a stadium for an extra billion dollars that you would probably never really have to use.

Yes, football "can" be played in the elements, but the point is it doesn't have to. Is also the fans experience as well, I would hate to go to a game like last season when we played the Pats in Foxborough, it was pouring down the whole game. Granted it was a great game, but I would hate to have to stand in the rain for 3 long hours that's for sure.

Yes, one could argue may be the weather in Santa Clara is less extreme, thus there is less of a need for a roof. But, for the Vikings, it snows like crazy there in the winter. Anything is an upgrade from that tent top they had when it collapsed under the snow.

Minnesota makes "some" sense for a roof and I don't have that much of a problem with it, although Packers, Bears, Bills, Giants etc, all play outdoors.
Santa Clara does not make sense however. I actually think the places where it gets really hot have more of case for roofs than the colder areas.

Originally posted by GorefullBore:

Preach brother.

I completely agree football should played outside and our stadium doesn't need a roof because of the location, I think our stadium is fantastic, I have no complaints, all I was trying to say is that something like Vikings new stadium or the falcons new one would cost a lot more to build In Santa Clara.

Originally posted by GorefullBore:

Preach brother.

I completely agree football should played outside and our stadium doesn't need a roof because of the location, I think our stadium is fantastic, I have no complaints, all I was trying to say is that something like Vikings new stadium or the falcons new one would cost a lot more to build In Santa Clara.

Originally posted by Rodinxxv:
Minnesota makes "some" sense for a roof and I don't have that much of a problem with it, although Packers, Bears, Bills, Giants etc, all play outdoors.
Santa Clara does not make sense however. I actually think the places where it gets really hot have more of case for roofs than the colder areas.

At the end of the day is all about flexibility that's all. As for teams like the Packers and Bears, my God I don't know about you, it could be extremely brutal in the winter in those places, 3 hours in -20 C weather ? Wow, not for me thanks no matter how much I love football. It can also make sense in hotter locations too like you said, remember the tropical downpour in that Panthers Vs Jags game ?! That was just plain ridiculous, you might as well play in the swimimg pool. LOL.

I looks like a giant hunk of metal and glass the the decided to build a stadium in.

Originally posted by Rascal:

Originally posted by Rodinxxv:
Minnesota makes "some" sense for a roof and I don't have that much of a problem with it, although Packers, Bears, Bills, Giants etc, all play outdoors.
Santa Clara does not make sense however. I actually think the places where it gets really hot have more of case for roofs than the colder areas.

At the end of the day is all about flexibility that's all. As for teams like the Packers and Bears, my God I don't know about you, it could be extremely brutal in the winter in those places, 3 hours in -20 C weather ? Wow, not for me thanks no matter how much I love football. It can also make sense in hotter locations too like you said, remember the tropical downpour in that Panthers Vs Jags game ?! That was just plain ridiculous, you might as well play in the swimimg pool. LOL.

At the end of the day, putting a roof on a stadium where the mean temperatures at game time fluctuate between 60 and 80 degrees is silly. Not to mention lower than average precipitation. You don't add a giant incredibly expensive retractable roof to account for that one time there may be a deluge. Other places, there are cases to be made... even though they may fly in the face of tradition, and rob us of some great moments that made the NFL what it is today.

Originally posted by Rascal:

Originally posted by Rodinxxv:
Minnesota makes "some" sense for a roof and I don't have that much of a problem with it, although Packers, Bears, Bills, Giants etc, all play outdoors.
Santa Clara does not make sense however. I actually think the places where it gets really hot have more of case for roofs than the colder areas.

At the end of the day is all about flexibility that's all. As for teams like the Packers and Bears, my God I don't know about you, it could be extremely brutal in the winter in those places, 3 hours in -20 C weather ? Wow, not for me thanks no matter how much I love football. It can also make sense in hotter locations too like you said, remember the tropical downpour in that Panthers Vs Jags game ?! That was just plain ridiculous, you might as well play in the swimimg pool. LOL.

I've been to some extremely cold Giants/Jets games as i live in NY. They are an experience, not the most comfortable, but very fun and memorable and after some tailgating you are too buzzed to care. I can tell you right now, the Packers and the Bears don't have any problem selling seats...the people there like it just fine the way it is. So essentially what I'm saying is..it's fine if you stay home.