Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
maybe it doesn't. though comparing canadian football fans to american football fans or canadian hockey fans is not the same.
Football is played outdoors, which is awesome in the summer....but not so much in the fall in northern climates. football is not as big in Canada as hockey, so it would have more of an impact. hockey fans in Canada will endure more to watch live - as seen by ticket prices. they are also spending less time in the building than in football (2.25 hours vs 3 hours). of course people stay home from the saddledome because there is no room in the concourse etc also.
college stadiums in the US are similar to mcmahon...I have not been to any but americans love football and will endure anything to watch (like our hockey fans).
McMahon is not that bad....it has terrific sightlines. it's concourse is too small when over 30,000, the benches in the far corners are freezing in evenings and in the winter, the concession stands are stuck in the 80s. also the noise bylaws in the area prevent it from being used for big concerts, but that is an area issue, not the building itself. it really isn't that bad, but is the saddledome really that bad? no. neither needs to be replaced, except to line the owners pockets a bit.
new stadiums would be exciting (hockey and football/soccer)...but I don't want to pay for them haha
|
The bolded part really hits the nail on the head, so if ownership thinks a new stadium will make them more money then more power to them. I just find it funny to hear people talk about how bad McMahon is when it's not that far behind stadiums that people talk about as being some of the greatest in college football. Notre Dame Stadium and Michigan Stadium are obviously much bigger, but outside of some recent renovations (the kind McMahon could use) the spectator amenities are about the same. The bathrooms are old and kind of dingy, the concessions are almost identical and the seats are freezing cold metal.