sent from a Android device

I'm always on!
Moderator: Moderators
Kansas Viking wrote:Hallelujah! After all these years the Vikings will now finally get their new home. I can now go to my grave knowing the Vikings will still be in Minnesota. Trust me, I 'aint living another 30 years.
Overall, I strongly prefer the outdoor environment but when it gets really cold then frankly, it's more fun to watch the games indoors. The outdoor environment just feels right to me. Growing up, we played football outdoors, in fall and winter weather, so psychologically, that's part of the football experience for me. In September, October and November, outdoor football just can't be beat. October is the best. On a nice October day, with a cool crispness in the air, there's nothing better than being at a football game! I think a retractable roof would offer Vikes fans the best of both worlds so I hope the teams goes that route. For the most part, it's much more fun to watch football outside than in the "canned air" of a dome.dead_poet wrote: I'm a huge supporter of the retractable roof, HOWEVER I don't believe it will have a significant outcome on the game. During super cold game days it would likely be closed anyway to attract more fans and sell more tickets. Even if it was open, it's not as if Vikings players will have a significant advantage unless they commit themselves to practicing outdoors like the days of yore. I'd stay, as it stands, the Vikings being in a dome is a disadvantage when we have to go play in Lambeau or at Soldier Field in December. Not exactly "in our element." As far as "home fields" go, I think sheer volume and the ability to disrupt communications, cause false-starts, etc. plays as as much (or greater) factor for us, at least as it currently stands. YMMV. I know I'd LOVE to go to a brisk home game in October or November. Never have. I can't imagine there's much like it. Jim, you're a Soldier Field guy, what's your take? How do you like the dome vs. outdoor environment?
It's really a formality at this point. It's a done deal. Praise Purple Jeebus!HardcoreVikesFan wrote:Maybe I missed it, but did Governor Dayton already sign the bill?
Because @1500ESPN_Reusse and others want to read more Vikings/stadium stuff, I caught up w Wilfs this a.m. Couple takeaways... (Cont.)
Kevin Seifert on TwitterThey are hopeful of bidding for the 2017 Super Bowl. They are trying to limit move to TCF Bank to 1 year, in 2015. And I really think Zygi wants a retractable roof. He'll have to pay for it, but he loves idea of cold weather games.
I completely agree with this. I'm a season ticket holder for outdoor football (that second flag in my signature). My favorite has always been a sunny fall day in the 50s. Can't beat it. But a cold rainy day in November? Miserable. Freezing in December/January? Ugh. I remember a particular game against Iowa my junior year (1995). We were in the midst of a 10-1 run to the Rose Bowl, last home game and it was freezing. ESPN Gameday (Chris Fowler, Lee Corso and Craig James at the time) was there, but had to move inside the lobby of our basketball stadium because their set blew down overnight. I know we won, but I couldn't come close to telling the final score. I just remember the cold.Mothman wrote:Overall, I strongly prefer the outdoor environment but when it gets really cold then frankly, it's more fun to watch the games indoors. The outdoor environment just feels right to me. Growing up, we played football outdoors, in fall and winter weather, so psychologically, that's part of the football experience for me. In September, October and November, outdoor football just can't be beat. October is the best. On a nice October day, with a cool crispness in the air, there's nothing better than being at a football game! I think a retractable roof would offer Vikes fans the best of both worlds so I hope the teams goes that route. For the most part, it's much more fun to watch football outside than in the "canned air" of a dome.
In December and January, it depends on just how cold it gets. I've been to plenty of December games here in Chicago and only one or two of them were so cold that it was actually distracting and negatively impacted my enjoyment of the game. I can imagine that late December or January football in Minnesota would often be cold enough to diminish the fun though, especially at night.
One more caveat regarding outdoor football: the biggest downside is rain. You can prepare for the cold but sitting through a game in the rain, even in rain gear, is just a miserable experience.
Well, forget all that. That was under the assumption that the stadium could have been built more to the east, where little of the new stadium's footprint would overlap the current one. It would have been an ideal solution to rebuilding at essentially the same location. They couldn't, however, secure the necessary land and buildings.Eli wrote:Here's an article discussed previously in this thread, published February 5th of this year:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/sta ... 21284.html
I'm not positive, but I think this is still the current plan, where part of the new stadium's footprint overlaps the existing stadium. They'd begin demolition of the Metrodome immediately after the 2015 season ends, then scramble to finish it and open in the early part of the 2016 season. They'd only play a few games in TCF, which would mean that while it may need some upgrades, it wouldn't need to be winterized.
Domes are not cold weather proofed, that would raise the costs. A typical retractable stadium would be closed at 40 or below.dead_poet wrote:Interesting.
@espn_nfcnblog: Just read thru offiical NFL rules on retractable roofs. Nothing about temperature requirements. Ref has option to close for precip./hazards.