Vikings considering open-air stadium

[quantum]

Of course, no roof kills any shot of being a Super Bowl site.

[brinkeguthrie]

I'm far from a Vikings fan, but have always felt that cold-weather teams that play in domes at home are losing an incredible advantage. Had Cincinnati played indoors, I think the Chargers would have pasted them in that frigid AFC Championship in January 1982. That, and the tie to the past, is a great argument for an open-air stadium. Compliments to the new owner, sounds like he has a good head on his shoulders.

Yeah, Bud Grant and no heaters on the sidelines was waay hard core. And the linemen with no sleeves.

That said, I was at the Bengals/SD game in 82. 70 below wind chill.

Insane.

It was like the surface of the moon.

I got OUTTA there.

[no97]

Minneapolis isn't much further north than Green Bay, plus Green bay is close to Lake Michigan which, from experience, makes it much much colder than inland.

Actually, the opposite happens. Temps are more moderate with water. Cooler in summer, warmer in winter.

However, due to winter weather patterns, Minneapolis tends to get slammed with blizzard conditions more often.

I lived on (I could throw a rock into the lake from my dorm) Lake Michigan for 4 years.

It was always felt colder in the winter by the lake than inland. It was mostly cause of the wind of course. I should have specified "felt" colder.

Anyway, I wouldn't want to be the Lions if all 3 division teams were outdoors. Chicago to a lesser extent, but you've got the crazy wind there.

After having lived in Marquette, Michigan, and now Bemidji, Minnesota (negligably further north, but not by Lake Superior), I can say for certianty that large bodies of water do two things; 1) generate large quantities of snow (280 inches the last winter I was in Mqt.) and; 2) keep winters relativly mild.

Marquette is 3 hours north of Green Bay. Bemidji is three and a half hours north of Minneapolis (only because there is no direct route). Looking at a map just now, GB and Mpls. are a near push. So, the difference is negligable. Just for arguements sake, here are some of the Average temps I was able to track down:

Nov. 1 High Low

Green Bay 50 31

Minneapolis 41 25

Dec. 1 High Low

Green Bay 35 19

Minneapolis 26 11

Jan. 1 High Low

Green Bay 25 8

Minneapolis 22 4

You can see that by Nov. 1, Mpls. is a good 10 degrees colder than Green Bay... By the end of the season, it's a moot point.

Moose

[BlueSky]

The Vikings had an open-air stadium before. It was called Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, Minnesota. The Mall of America now sits where the Met once stood.

Naw, really? And here I thought the Metrodome had been around since 1961!

Just pulling your chain...I mean no offense at all but anyone who knows 60's/70's NFL football knows about Metropolitan Stadium.

Sure didn't know that the MOA was built on the old MS site though. Thanks for the tidbit.

[no97]

The Vikings had an open-air stadium before. It was called Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, Minnesota. The Mall of America now sits where the Met once stood.

Naw, really? And here I thought the Metrodome had been around since 1961!

Just pulling your chain...I mean no offense at all but anyone who knows 60's/70's NFL football knows about Metropolitan Stadium.

Sure didn't know that the MOA was built on the old MS site though. Thanks for the tidbit.

And who here thinks that even if Met Stadium was still standing, the Vikes would be content to play in that out-dated piece of junk?

If your arguement is that they gave up a perfectly good outdoor stadium for the Dome, then your wrong (The Met was a baseball stadium they also happened to use for football, and had no luxury boxes). If I've mistaken your comment, then please clarify...

Moose

[paynomind]

I like the open air stadium. Cold should not be a reason to dome, only insufferable, life-threatening heat.

Though: I dont see a home field advantage to playing in a cold stadium. The players are there for 4 hours, one day a week, 8 times a year, as opposed to their opponants who are there 1 or two times a year. No one gets used to cold, and plays better, in that short amount of time.

Outdoor football is the way it should be, but I vote that the home field advantage is nothing just beacuse of the cold. The crowd and noise are the only advantages.

[Sec19Row53]

Though: I dont see a home field advantage to playing in a cold stadium. The players are there for 4 hours, one day a week, 8 times a year, as opposed to their opponants who are there 1 or two times a year. No one gets used to cold, and plays better, in that short amount of time.

Oh, I strongly disagree with that. The Packers aren't here just 4 hours a day, 8 times per year. They live here during the season. It's not that it suddenly drops from 70 to 30 one night, it gets cold gradually. When you don't get that gradual drop (flying in from somewhere warm), the cold chills you to the bone.

Case in point -- my next door neighbor is a lifelong Wisconsinite who is in his second year attending Arizona State. His first Christmas break back here (last year), he couldn't adjust to the weather.

This isn't to say that cold weather teams like the cold weather. Brett Favre is on record many times as saying he hates the weather, he just knows how to deal with it.

[gosioux76]

The crowd and noise are the only advantages.

This brings up an interesting point.

If crowd noise is the most significant factor in determining home field advantage, then the Vikings arguably would be better off in a domed stadium. I can't count the number of times I've heard other teams complain about the noise in the Metrodome. The place gets defeaning.

But would that be lost in a cold outdoor venue?

[jkrdevil]

I like the open air stadium. Cold should not be a reason to dome, only insufferable, life-threatening heat.

Though: I dont see a home field advantage to playing in a cold stadium. The players are there for 4 hours, one day a week, 8 times a year, as opposed to their opponants who are there 1 or two times a year. No one gets used to cold, and plays better, in that short amount of time.

Outdoor football is the way it should be, but I vote that the home field advantage is nothing just beacuse of the cold. The crowd and noise are the only advantages.

I have to agree is Sec19row53 on the cold. It definitely is a factor. I grew up in Northern New Jersey and moved to Florida this past summer. When the temperature dropped to 70 here people were wearing heavy jackets and wool caps while I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt. When the football team went up to play Uconn this past weekend it was 30 degrees there and the football team couldn't handle the cold because they weren't used to it and to them 60 degrees was cold and they had never been in 30-degree weather. The Uconn players had been used to it and while they were still cold there were better suited to play in it.

Cold is a huge factor. And likewise heat is equally a factor for early in the season. That's why the Dolphins a few years ago when they were good would get off to fast starts because of the heat their. However when it got late and the season and they had to travel north they faded.

[OnWis97]

Cold is obviously a big factor.

How many sub- 40 degree games did Tampa lose before winning their first? I wanna say like 35.

I am sure someone knows a stat on the Packers record in sub 40 or sub 30 degree temps. It took Favre a long time to lose one...

[paynomind]

I hear ya. Though, for the sake of interesting discussion, lets talk more about it...

I think cold is a FACTOR, but I dont think it is an ADVANTAGE for the home team.

Say Green Bay plays AT atlanta, in a temp-controlled dome, in a warm weather state. Then, their next game, they are at home, outside, in the cold. Somehow, these guys are supposed to be more used to it than Carolina, who played at Chicago, in the cold, then at Buffalo, in the cold, the last two weeks?

Its not like they live outside, or even in Green Bay! They sit inside, at 72 degrees for 90% of the time, and practice outside (or even in an indoor practice field.) The 4 hours of game time in the temperature is the same disadvantage to both teams.

Even if one team plays 6 games outside in the cold, vs another who plays two, i dont think the individuals who are playing their fourth 4 hour game outside are so vastly more used to it than the guys playing their second 4 hour game in the same conditions.

Most of the players are form Florida, Texas, or California anyway.

(How was that? am i making any points? )

[pcgd]

Well JR, another issue is style of play.

How many northern teams are successful throwing the ball? Brett Farve sure, but I think you'll find his passes are controlled short passes. That and he's always had a successful running game.

Put the colts in Green Bay or Chicago every week and I think you'll find their offensive game plan would change. Mainly in those cities, you'll have cold, windy, un-passer friendly weather. So having a game plan that's already accounted for that could be an advantage over a team like the Colts that passes the ball so much.

Its not the rule...but it happens. You have the Falcons beating Green Bay every now and then. But that was rare.

You do have good points. Nobody wants to play in the cold. But the weather rarely effects the cold weather teams and its the visiting teams that have to adjust.

[paynomind]

You brought up the Falcons.. Seems like the best rushing team in the league, and a good rushing D would be great in cold weather... well, i'm talking about the Falcons here... so doesnt that go against the cold-weather-team style of play arguement?

[no97]

Perhaps the players are inside 90% of the time, and conditions inside are the same no matter where you are. However, you do have to leave your house, practice field, etc. sometime, and no matter where you are from, your body aclimates to the colder weather. Running erands to the store. Dropping kids off at school. Getting gas for your H2. That additional exposure to the cold is a historical proven advantage to the cold weater team. The specifics mentioned should be enough (Green Bay's domination in sub-40 degree temps, Tamps's struggles sub-40 degrees, whatever team went to UConn this past weekend...) to prove my point.

Moose

[jkrdevil]

I hear ya. Though, for the sake of interesting discussion, lets talk more about it...

I think cold is a FACTOR, but I dont think it is an ADVANTAGE for the home team.

Say Green Bay plays AT atlanta, in a temp-controlled dome, in a warm weather state. Then, their next game, they are at home, outside, in the cold. Somehow, these guys are supposed to be more used to it than Carolina, who played at Chicago, in the cold, then at Buffalo, in the cold, the last two weeks?

Its not like they live outside, or even in Green Bay! They sit inside, at 72 degrees for 90% of the time, and practice outside (or even in an indoor practice field.) The 4 hours of game time in the temperature is the same disadvantage to both teams.

Even if one team plays 6 games outside in the cold, vs another who plays two, i dont think the individuals who are playing their fourth 4 hour game outside are so vastly more used to it than the guys playing their second 4 hour game in the same conditions.

Most of the players are form Florida, Texas, or California anyway.

(How was that? am i making any points?    )

However most of the time the northern teams will practice outside that week. Where Carolina in you example plays at Chicag0 then goes home to Carolina then goes plays at Buffalo then comes back home where they can't simulate the cold. Also, the Green Bay players live in Wisconsin during the season, and I'm sure come winter time they don't lock themsleves inside. Again that gives them a little more acclaimation. So even though while Carolina has played 2 cold weather games in a row going into the game agains the packers, Green Bay still has more time in the cold.

Also, you only need to live in area for just a little bit of time (like a year) to acclaimate yourself to the weather.

(Green Bay's domination in sub-40 degree temps, Tamps's struggles sub-40 degrees, whatever team went to UConn this past weekend...) to prove my point.

That would be the University of South Florida which is in Tampa.

Getting gas for your H2. That additional exposure to the cold is a historical proven advantage to the cold weater team.

That is unless you play for the Jets, Giants and even Eagles in which you probably live in New Jersey where you don't have to get out of your car to get gas. Although you have to go outisde to get in your car in the first place.

[RickV]

1961 -1981 Vikings played at the Met, had about a dozen Divsion championships, 4 NFC Titles, and 4 Super Bowl appearances

Since 1982 at the RollerDome - 0 NFC championships, 0 SuperBowl appearances.

Coincidence?

[BlueSky]

The Vikings had an open-air stadium before. It was called Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington, Minnesota. The Mall of America now sits where the Met once stood.

Naw, really? And here I thought the Metrodome had been around since 1961!

Just pulling your chain...I mean no offense at all but anyone who knows 60's/70's NFL football knows about Metropolitan Stadium.

Sure didn't know that the MOA was built on the old MS site though. Thanks for the tidbit.

And who here thinks that even if Met Stadium was still standing, the Vikes would be content to play in that out-dated piece of junk?

If your arguement is that they gave up a perfectly good outdoor stadium for the Dome, then your wrong (The Met was a baseball stadium they also happened to use for football, and had no luxury boxes). If I've mistaken your comment, then please clarify...

Moose

No, I understand they needed a replacement for Metropolitan Stadium, and I'm sure the Metrodome was one of the "multi-use" facilities that were the trend back then (the Superdome is another). I was only saying that most people know they used to play outside.

[VitaminD]

Of course, no roof kills any shot of being a Super Bowl site.

How many Super Bowls are the Twin Cities getting these days anyway? I doubt Detroit will be getting many more in spite of having a dome on Ford Field, since these cities aren't as fun as Miami or San Diego, dome or no dome.

[quantum]

Of course, no roof kills any shot of being a Super Bowl site.

How many Super Bowls are the Twin Cities getting these days anyway? I doubt Detroit will be getting many more in spite of having a dome on Ford Field, since these cities aren't as fun as Miami or San Diego, dome or no dome.

True. However, the opportunity to inject revenue into the economy is hard to give up. Kansas City isn't exactly a vacation haven in winter, yet is looking to get the Super Bowl.

An open-air stadium is all well and good. However, governments need to recoup the tax money spent on these stadiums through means other than 8 home contests per season.