Title: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: Dave Gray on January 17, 2014, 01:56:40 pm I'm just spit-balling, but I just don't see value in going to games regularly. Uncomfortable, arguably dangerous, insanely expensive, lengthy, etc.
Sure, you have tailgaters and all that, but all of my hardcore Phins fan friends don't go to games. The friends that do go to games are fans, but they're also in it to party...boozing, flirt, etc. And the NFL seems to be more interested in the TV contracts and all that anyway. So, I look at the huge Cowboys stadium and I think that I can't ever see that many people going to a game here. So, if they are ever to build a new stadium, do you guys see a trend going the other direction? Or perhaps prices for tickets coming down until these stadiums are full? Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: MikeO on January 17, 2014, 03:14:29 pm No. Because NFL stadiums are only used for the NFL 10 times a year counting preseason. These stadiums are multi-purpose now. They want college bowl games, they want Final Fours (if its a Dome or has a roof), soccer is growing in this country and they host soccer events, Boxing/UFC mega events are moving from Vegas more and into large stadiums. So, stadiums will keep getting bigger and bigger for the events they hold not just the NFL
Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: MyGodWearsAHoodie on January 17, 2014, 04:55:42 pm No. Not unless, public financing is completely banned nationally.
Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: masterfins on January 18, 2014, 06:44:11 pm I think it depends on your definition of "smaller". I don't think the mega stadiums will be built where there is not enough population to support it.
Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: MikeO on January 18, 2014, 08:18:10 pm I think it depends on your definition of "smaller". I don't think the mega stadiums will be built where there is not enough population to support it. Exactly. Like WHEN the Dolphins build a new stadium in the next decade it will most likely be bigger than JRS to accommodate soccer and such. The Vikings new stadium will hold 10,000 more than the Metrodome did. Levi Stadium is slightly bigger than Candlestick park. And on the other hand (non-NFL) it came out this week that Syracuse wants to tear down the Carrier Dome and build a new slightly smaller dome modernized that can be more multi-purpose. Of course in Syracuse there is no need for a gigantic stadium so going slightly smaller makes sense. Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: MaineDolFan on January 23, 2014, 11:14:52 am Let me tell you why I LOVE going to Boston Bruin games. This would also apply to the Celtics (if I enjoyed the NBA):
The train literally runs into the Garden. I don't even have to wear a jacket. I hop off the train and walk upstairs. Not a bad seat in the house. It's warm. The longest I have ever waited for a bathroom is maybe :90 seconds. Beer lines are short. One of the reasons? Even for a sold out game (which 99% of all Bruin games are), the Garden is set up correctly - all levels. Rarely, if ever, do I see issues in the Garden - even when people wear other team sweaters. Security jumps on things quickly. The game ends and it takes maybe :05 - :10 to get downstairs and on to the train, that's weeding through 18,000 other people. $50, round trip. I would pay about $40 in parking alone. Here is why I generally hate going to Patriot and Red Sox games: 1: Driving into the venue. Trying to find parking at Fenway is a nightmare. Parking at Gillette is easier, but expensive (at least $30 for a lot about a mile away, more expensive the closer you get). 2: Leaving the venue after the game. Bruins game ends at 10:00. Train departs at 10:30, hits Portland at 12:30, I'm home by 1:00. I've left Red Sox games at 10:00 and gotten home well after 2:00. I've gone to Patriot night games and didn't make it home until almost 4am. If you get caught up trying to get on 1, you're screwed. 3: Fenway and Gillette themselves. Old, cramped, uncomfortable. Limited bathrooms. Limited concession stands. Gillette is worse with the bathrooms. 4: The conditions of the stadiums, I feel, play into the mood of the people. You're buzzed. Then you stand in line for 13 minutes to go pee, being cut off six times in the process. On your way back, you wait in line for :08 minutes for a beer. Then :07 minutes for a hotdog. In the process you heard the crowd roar three times, meaning you missed big plays. On your way back to your seat, people give you a hard time about moving so you can sit back down. If you're at a Pats game and happen to be wearing a Bills jersey...otherwise even keeled people might get a little hot under the collar. When I'm home, there are no lines to one of my bathrooms. My beer is reasonable priced and usually sitting right next to me in a bucket of ice. I have the best seat in the house, with a 60" mounted over my fireplace and a fuzzy beagle laying in my lap. Great sound system. Why would I ever leave that for the mess that is Fenway or Gillette (or any other stadium), unless it's really easy and comfortable?, smaller vensue or not? Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: Phishfan on January 23, 2014, 11:58:54 am Exactly. Like WHEN the Dolphins build a new stadium in the next decade it will most likely be bigger than JRS to accommodate soccer and such. One of the major complaints right now is that stadium was already built to house a soccer field which puts the stands too far away from the field. Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: Phishfan on January 23, 2014, 12:02:41 pm The game ends and it takes maybe :05 - :10 to get downstairs and on to the train, that's weeding through 18,000 other people. Am I reading this wrong? There is no way I believe it take 10 seconds max to walk down the stairs and get to the train. You can't even get off your row in that time unless you have the isle seats in any stadium I've been in (and that has nothing to do with design, it has to do with people). Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: Tenshot13 on January 23, 2014, 12:25:55 pm Am I reading this wrong? There is no way I believe it take 10 seconds max to walk down the stairs and get to the train. You can't even get off your row in that time unless you have the isle seats in any stadium I've been in (and that has nothing to do with design, it has to do with people). I'm guessing that's 5-10 minutes?Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: Phishfan on January 23, 2014, 12:52:48 pm ^^^ I thought that but he used :90 when talking about seconds so I assumed :10 meant seconds also.
Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: MaineDolFan on January 23, 2014, 01:29:30 pm Minutes. I am usually sitting very comfortably in my train seat within :10 minutes - and that is wading through 18,000 people exiting the building.
Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: CF DolFan on January 23, 2014, 01:53:51 pm I went to a game at Camden Yards once. Took the train to the game and returned on the train. It really made the whole experience much better for me although I would miss the tailgate of the football game if I did this.
Ironically we are getting a train here in Orlando that will take us to Magic games and the new MLS Orlando City games but I probably won't use it. It's actually pretty easy to park downtown. Well maybe for a basketball game but we tailgate at the soccer events and I wouldn't want to give that up. Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: Fau Teixeira on January 23, 2014, 01:58:36 pm When i was a kid, we used to drive to the soccer games (FC Porto) we'd have to park a mile from the stadium and walk with the crowds.
they've since added in a pretty extensive subway system, so now almost no-one that lives in the city (Porto) drives to the games, everyone takes the subway. When Dave, a few others and I shared heat season tickets, we looked into taking the TriRail down to miami to catch the metro-rail to get to the heat games. Unfortunately while the metro-rail runs pretty often and lets you get around miami, the tri-rail that'll take us up the coast to palm beach county. stops running before the heat games are over, so it's worthless. Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: Dave Gray on January 23, 2014, 02:23:26 pm The best public transportation experience I've ever had here locally was the old Miami Arena. The train stopped at the arena....like AT THE ARENA. ...closer than the parking lot. Now, it's still pretty close, but you have to walk a few blocks. I always thought it would be cool to have a train run to a stadium and have it be part of the look of the stadium. ....like a train runs through during games and stuff.
Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: masterfins on January 23, 2014, 02:44:57 pm I always thought it would be cool to have a train run to a stadium and have it be part of the look of the stadium. ....like a train runs through during games and stuff. Like in Brewster's Millions. Title: Re: Are smaller, more intimate stadiums the future of sports? Post by: BigDaddyFin on January 25, 2014, 03:33:42 am I always thought it would be cool to have a train run to a stadium and have it be part of the look of the stadium. You'd think that would be cool, but it's more annoying than anything else. Silver Stadium/Red Wing Stadium/whatever the assholes in city council are calling it this week we actually have a spot in Right Field where the train comes running along. It looks cool the first time you see it, but then you'll be watching the game and all of a sudden hear the noise consistent with that of a running freight train, followed by that stupid ass graphic on our cheap scoreboard ("THE BASEBALL WANTS TO CATCH A TRAIN!!") And this nonsense is forced on you three or four times over the course of a game, you get tired of it real quick. |