Jump to content

Giants/Jets new endzones


xxvnyg80

Recommended Posts

I was reading an article in the NY Daily News about the field turf at the new Meadowlands Stadium (stupid name)and it looks like the end zone strips can be removed and replaced for the Giants and the Jets.

"There are six different end zone strips: Two with the Giants logo, two with the Jets logo and two that are generic and can be painted over if a college team is hosting a game. Same for the logos at midfield. At Giants Stadium, the end zones were continually painted depending on the home team."

Any ideas on what the end zones may look like?

LINK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Giants Stadium was a stupider name as soon as the Jets started playing there. At least Meadowlands Stadium doesn't have a clear bias towards one tenant.

But Giants Stadium was built for the Giants. It was the home of the Giants alone for about 15 years. They allowed the Jets to share facilities, but it was still the Giants' home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giants Stadium was a stupider name as soon as the Jets started playing there. At least Meadowlands Stadium doesn't have a clear bias towards one tenant.

But Giants Stadium was built for the Giants. It was the home of the Giants alone for about 15 years. They allowed the Jets to share facilities, but it was still the Giants' home.

I'm sure there's an obvious answer to this that I'm overlooking, but, why are they continuing to share a venue? Is it a funding issue, a space issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F :censored: ing Dolans. :cursing:

They were worried about losing concerts to the new venue three blocks west, so they sunk a ton of money into ads opposing the project. All the whinging about "tax money being taken from fire fighters and teachers" was coming from an organization which hasn't paid any property taxes since 1982.

They should have built the West Side Stadium. But the Dolans had their way, and so the Jets were forced to look elsewhere. Seemed like a good idea to partner with the Giants on their new stadium, already in progress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giants Stadium was a stupider name as soon as the Jets started playing there. At least Meadowlands Stadium doesn't have a clear bias towards one tenant.

But Giants Stadium was built for the Giants. It was the home of the Giants alone for about 15 years. They allowed the Jets to share facilities, but it was still the Giants' home.

I'm sure there's an obvious answer to this that I'm overlooking, but, why are they continuing to share a venue? Is it a funding issue, a space issue?

Why bother building two 70,000+ Seat stadiums that will only be used 8-12 times a year, when you can build one and use it 16-24 times a year, plus concerts and other events? It makes more sense to have the two teams share one stadium in football because of how few games there are than in say baseball where the Yankees and Mets sharing a stadium would be a nightmare because of the 81 game regular season, not to mention the postseason (Imagine if BOTH had HF advantage!). It's really a great way to save money. I would say that it should be done in more places, but the only other teams close enough to make it work would be MAYBE Washington and Baltimore, and both have relatively new stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giants Stadium was a stupider name as soon as the Jets started playing there. At least Meadowlands Stadium doesn't have a clear bias towards one tenant.

But Giants Stadium was built for the Giants. It was the home of the Giants alone for about 15 years. They allowed the Jets to share facilities, but it was still the Giants' home.

I'm sure there's an obvious answer to this that I'm overlooking, but, why are they continuing to share a venue? Is it a funding issue, a space issue?

Why bother building two 70,000+ Seat stadiums that will only be used 8-12 times a year, when you can build one and use it 16-24 times a year, plus concerts and other events? It makes more sense to have the two teams share one stadium in football because of how few games there are than in say baseball where the Yankees and Mets sharing a stadium would be a nightmare because of the 81 game regular season, not to mention the postseason (Imagine if BOTH had HF advantage!). It's really a great way to save money. I would say that it should be done in more places, but the only other teams close enough to make it work would be MAYBE Washington and Baltimore, and both have relatively new stadiums.

There has also been talk of the Raiders and Forty Niners doing the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giants Stadium was a stupider name as soon as the Jets started playing there. At least Meadowlands Stadium doesn't have a clear bias towards one tenant.

But Giants Stadium was built for the Giants. It was the home of the Giants alone for about 15 years. They allowed the Jets to share facilities, but it was still the Giants' home.

I'm sure there's an obvious answer to this that I'm overlooking, but, why are they continuing to share a venue? Is it a funding issue, a space issue?

Why bother building two 70,000+ Seat stadiums that will only be used 8-12 times a year, when you can build one and use it 16-24 times a year, plus concerts and other events? It makes more sense to have the two teams share one stadium in football because of how few games there are than in say baseball where the Yankees and Mets sharing a stadium would be a nightmare because of the 81 game regular season, not to mention the postseason (Imagine if BOTH had HF advantage!). It's really a great way to save money. I would say that it should be done in more places, but the only other teams close enough to make it work would be MAYBE Washington and Baltimore, and both have relatively new stadiums.

Very true, didn't think of it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giants Stadium was a stupider name as soon as the Jets started playing there. At least Meadowlands Stadium doesn't have a clear bias towards one tenant.

Stupider? :blink::Oo::wacko::D

So what exactly are the strips made of? Are they one-time use, because I can't forsee them holding up. Made by Fathead?

I wonder if there will be adherence issues on extremely wet days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giants Stadium was a stupider name as soon as the Jets started playing there. At least Meadowlands Stadium doesn't have a clear bias towards one tenant.

But Giants Stadium was built for the Giants. It was the home of the Giants alone for about 15 years. They allowed the Jets to share facilities, but it was still the Giants' home.

Yeah, but if they didn't want to change the name and focus of the stadium, they shouldn't have accepted the Jets as tenants. I mean look at the Lakers/Clippers setup in LA - it was going to be built for just the Lakers until the Clippers, Kings, and Sparks joined on. Clearly, the Lakers are the marquee tenants with all their recent titles, but it's still called the Staples Center, not Lakers Arena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giants Stadium was a stupider name as soon as the Jets started playing there. At least Meadowlands Stadium doesn't have a clear bias towards one tenant.

Stupider? :blink::Oo::wacko::D

So what exactly are the strips made of? Are they one-time use, because I can't forsee them holding up. Made by Fathead?

I wonder if there will be adherence issues on extremely wet days.

I am thinking they will be separate "carpet" pieces that will get "zippered" in. I know at M&T Bank the colored sections are sewn in, but I think a new way of installing them has been developed now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giants Stadium was a stupider name as soon as the Jets started playing there. At least Meadowlands Stadium doesn't have a clear bias towards one tenant.

But Giants Stadium was built for the Giants. It was the home of the Giants alone for about 15 years. They allowed the Jets to share facilities, but it was still the Giants' home.

Yeah, but if they didn't want to change the name and focus of the stadium, they shouldn't have accepted the Jets as tenants. I mean look at the Lakers/Clippers setup in LA - it was going to be built for just the Lakers until the Clippers, Kings, and Sparks joined on. Clearly, the Lakers are the marquee tenants with all their recent titles, but it's still called the Staples Center, not Lakers Arena.

The Lakers and Kings were already set to share the new venue before they broke ground on the Staples Center (and the naming rights had long been sold).

Big difference between that and a second team moving in to an established venue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I'm not sure if the Giants really "accepted" the Jets as tenants, or the NJ sports authority (or whoever ran Giants Stadium) signed them up. Either way, part of the Giants lease was that they had to sign off on any name change, so since it probably wasn't their idea to share the stadium, why would they approve a change without some kind of financial compensation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I doubt we'll see them in place in 3 weeks during the Big City Classic lacrosse event (I'm guessing they might just use a lacrosse-only turf for right now with football not starting until August) but it sounds intriguing none the less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think during Jets home games it was referred to as The Meadowlands and when the Giants were playing it was referred to as Giants Stadium.

Being a long time Dolphins fan, everytime I watch them play at the Jets, the broadcast almost always begins "Live from the Meadowlands in East Rutherford, NJ"

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.