Jump to content

Super Bowl XLV


broncoempire

Recommended Posts

The new stadium will be in Arlington. Currently, the Cowboys play in Irving.

AH, Arlington, isn't that where the Rangers play? That must be why I assumed the Cowboys were in Arlington.

In terms of driving, how far is that from downtown Dallas? And is there any public transport out to that region?

It is, and strangely enough, the originally intended name for the NFL's 1960 Dallas franchise was... the Texas Rangers.

Most Texans don't worry about driving distance. My uncle, a transplant from Ohio, tells me that its nothing for people to drive 100 miles for relatively mundane events like... dinner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The new stadium will be in Arlington. Currently, the Cowboys play in Irving.

AH, Arlington, isn't that where the Rangers play? That must be why I assumed the Cowboys were in Arlington.

In terms of driving, how far is that from downtown Dallas? And is there any public transport out to that region?

From dallascowboys.com today:

new_stadium9_070207_360.jpg

shows the proximity of the stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. I still wish the stadium was downtown.

I'm not a big fan of downtown football stadiums, either. There's the aforementioned parking/tailgating issue. There's also the factor, from the city's point of view, that an NFL venue hold about 10 event days per year. The other 355 days you have a gigantic structure looming around unused. I guess I would make exceptions for stadiums like the Edward Jones Dome, as ugly as it is, since (I think) St Louis uses it as a main convention center and it is thus in use year-round. For that same reason, I think arenas should always be downtown when possible (with 40-120 major event dates, plus concerts, circuses, etc., virtually every day), and baseball stadiums (with 81 event dates) can really go either way (though my preference is for the unrealistic option of having all ballparks in urban residential areas like Wrigleyville).

That's going to be one mammoth joint. Also the Cotton Bowl game moves their in 2010 hoping to join the BCS.

And the NCAA just couldn't say no to a stadium that sits over 100,000 paying folks....

I've always thought that the Cotton Bowl deserved BCS status, for its historical importance (even above the Fiesta and Sugar Bowls).

Also, I'd be pretty happy if NFL stadiums started trending upwards in seating capacity. In a league where most every ticket is sold for entire seasons at a time, it doesn't make sense to play in stadiums with 58,000 seats (I'm looking at you, RCA Dome...). Would anyone rather watch a game with 60,000 other people than with 100,000 people?

Plus, there's the added ticket revenue, but I'll let the owners fend for themselves there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would anyone rather watch a game with 60,000 other people than with 100,000 people?

I would, particularly if I'm the one driving home in the traffic created by 60,000 vs. 100,000.

Plus, Id rather be in the last row of a 60,000 seat stadium than the 100,000 seat stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. I still wish the stadium was downtown.

I'm not a big fan of downtown football stadiums, either. There's the aforementioned parking/tailgating issue. There's also the factor, from the city's point of view, that an NFL venue hold about 10 event days per year. The other 355 days you have a gigantic structure looming around unused. I guess I would make exceptions for stadiums like the Edward Jones Dome, as ugly as it is, since (I think) St Louis uses it as a main convention center and it is thus in use year-round. For that same reason, I think arenas should always be downtown when possible (with 40-120 major event dates, plus concerts, circuses, etc., virtually every day), and baseball stadiums (with 81 event dates) can really go either way (though my preference is for the unrealistic option of having all ballparks in urban residential areas like Wrigleyville).

That's going to be one mammoth joint. Also the Cotton Bowl game moves their in 2010 hoping to join the BCS.

And the NCAA just couldn't say no to a stadium that sits over 100,000 paying folks....

I've always thought that the Cotton Bowl deserved BCS status, for its historical importance (even above the Fiesta and Sugar Bowls).

(snip)

The Cotton Bowl could have been in the BCS, in my mind, if not for two things:

1) The obvious one, the demise of the SWC as a college power and its folding into the Big 12. If the SWC were the one to expand instead of the Big 12, the Cotton Bowl would have remained a major bowl.

2) Any year in which the two best teams were not part of the old college/bowl arrangement, the only place a 1-2 game could be held was the Fiesta Bowl, as was the case when Miami and Penn State played (Testaverde's senior season??). That game made the Fiesta Bowl a major player because it could host the matchups that the other bowls couldn't (Back then, if No. 3 was a conference's runner-up and No. 2 was an independent, they could meet in the Fiesta Bowl because those two teams wouldn't have been tied in somewhere else).

Just a theory. Nothing else. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.