Agree with the indoor stadium fans for the Stamps. I'm a season ticket holder and would love an indoor stadium. There's only a few games where the weather is so perfect that I'd rather be outside. Sometimes it's too windy. At risk of being flamed, sometimes too hot ( I face west and the sun can be blinding and burning). I'd trade the odd beautiful day for no parka in October and playoffs. Maybe I'm getting soft in my mid 40's.
Soft. That's 100%
__________________
I hate just about everyone and just about everything.
I'll own this. But, I'm also indicative of a large demographic of stamps fans. No matter what happens, MacMahon is a dump that needs to be replaced or ticket sales are going to continue dropping.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chedder For This Useful Post:
I'll own this. But, I'm also indicative of a large demographic of stamps fans. No matter what happens, MacMahon is a dump that needs to be replaced or ticket sales are going to continue dropping.
i think any northern city would prefer an enclosed stadium... but 'want' has never been what the stadium debates have centered on...
Who pays is the biggest question.
the fact that Regina went away from an enclosed stadium tells you everything you need to know: its too expensive. Even the most rabid fan base in the CFL could not afford it, and that's without the added specter of public money for a new NHL arena.
US Bank arena came in at just under 1 Billion dollars US while Mosaic Stadium was 278 M cdn... I mention that cost simply to note that the scales of economies are much different between the leagues and between Regina and Minneapolis.
Sadly, for Stamps fans, if you think trying to get money for an NHL rink hasn't been going well, imagine trying to get money for a new stamps stadium... the idea of it being enclosed on top of that? Not a chance.
Another factor to think about regarding the CFL/Stamps - the coaches need ideal conditions during training camp to do a proper evaluation of the players. Often it rains throughout training camp making things very difficult; an indoor stadium would alleviate this issue.
I'd argue that, when 80-90% of your stadiums are outdoor, players/teams better get use to outdoor conditions.
__________________
The Delhi police have announced the formation of a crack team dedicated to nabbing the elusive 'Monkey Man' and offered a reward for his -- or its -- capture.
If the CFL wants more fans, particularly in the fall, they should maybe consider condensing their schedule a bit and finish in September. I just checked the Stamps schedule, and sometimes they go 2 weeks without playing. Play more than one game a week. It would be easy to finish up while the weather is still typically nice.
If the CFL wants more fans, particularly in the fall, they should maybe consider condensing their schedule a bit and finish in September. I just checked the Stamps schedule, and sometimes they go 2 weeks without playing. Play more than one game a week. It would be easy to finish up while the weather is still typically nice.
Unlikely they will choose fan comfort over the health of their players.
If Calgary gets the Olympics, a modern world class indoor stadium should be mandatory with any successful bid. It's the perfect time given you get money from the Feds and Province.
If Calgary gets the Olympics, a modern world class indoor stadium should be mandatory with any successful bid. It's the perfect time given you get money from the Feds and Province.
Does playing 2 times a week have a negative affect on their health? Honest question,as I don't watch football. Do US teams only play once a week?
Yeah the NFL only plays once a week. That is the norm for football at all levels. Ofcourse the CFL doesn't have to play an 18 game regular season. A 16 game season with 2 pre season games finishes 2 weeks earlier. There are some challenges to starting season earlier but not impossible.
The Following User Says Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
If the CFL wants more fans, particularly in the fall, they should maybe consider condensing their schedule a bit and finish in September. I just checked the Stamps schedule, and sometimes they go 2 weeks without playing. Play more than one game a week. It would be easy to finish up while the weather is still typically nice.
In my opinion, it would be better to start the season 2 or 3 weeks earlier and wrap things up in October when the weather is still usually pretty good. I don't think they need to go with a 20 week schedule. 16 to 18 would be much better.
The Following User Says Thank You to calgarygeologist For This Useful Post:
CFL's problem with scheduling is a team has to have a bye every week because of the odd number of teams. Now ideally you'd just get rid of the Argos and their Coyotes-esque attendance, but like the Coyotes eliminating that TV market is unacceptable to the league. Assuming you could revert to an 8 team league a schedule like so could work well. 17 game season, play your division teams three times each and other division twice each. Season starts June 1, there's a shared bye week after week 9, same playoff format as now, and the Grey Cup is played in the third week of October instead the third week in November.
Indoor stadiums are terrible though. Take it from someone who watched the expansion Als go from likely total failure to being saved by going outside. That scheduling conflict for that BC playoff game in I wanna say 97 was a godsend for the Als. I don't think going inside would help Stamps attendance at all, not when tickets would be more expensive, and especially since CalgaryNEXT reeks of a second rate amateur facility (which, I mean it's kinda supposed to be right?).
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
CalgaryNEXT reeks of a second rate amateur facility (which, I mean it's kinda supposed to be right?).
Ok, this is a comment that grinds my gears. How can you claim it's a 'second rate amateur facility'? Are you talking about the design? If so, did you see the floor plans / sections / elevations? I take it you haven't. Calling this a 'second rate facility' is incredibly short-sighted given the information released to date on it and an insult to the American and Canadian designers that have built up careers designing sports facilities.
You can hate CalgaryNEXT and the presentation of it all you want, you can hate the renderings, you can hate how it was executed by the Flames... but calling it a 'second rate amateur facility' is incredibly disrespectful because CalgaryNEXT pushed the boundaries of new sports design / construction innovation. It is a conjoined facility acting as an anchor for a new city district, and it is unlike anything proposed in the world. You haven't even seen the floor plans, to the proposed amenities in greater detail.
I'd like you to explain your comment if you can. 'Second rate' is such a weird comment to make and I'd like to know how the facility design itself garnered a comment like that. I take it you are an architect and know how to design a better one?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Muta For This Useful Post:
Ok, this is a comment that grinds my gears. How can you claim it's a 'second rate amateur facility'? Are you talking about the design? If so, did you see the floor plans / sections / elevations? I take it you haven't. Calling this a 'second rate facility' is incredibly short-sighted given the information released to date on it and an insult to the American and Canadian designers that have built up careers designing sports facilities.
You can hate CalgaryNEXT and the presentation of it all you want, you can hate the renderings, you can hate how it was executed by the Flames... but calling it a 'second rate amateur facility' is incredibly disrespectful because CalgaryNEXT pushed the boundaries of new sports design / construction innovation. It is a conjoined facility acting as an anchor for a new city district, and it is unlike anything proposed in the world. You haven't even seen the floor plans, to the proposed amenities in greater detail.
I'd like you to explain your comment if you can. 'Second rate' is such a weird comment to make and I'd like to know how the facility design itself garnered a comment like that. I take it you are an architect and know how to design a better one?
Not to crush your belief that this is revolutionary, but it basically sounds like a nicer version of the Kibbie Dome.
For real, you're acting like this is one of the most staggeringly beautiful, incredibly proposed facilities on earth. Which, if I were selling a lemon, is exactly how I'd refer to it. The amateur comment is spot on though, it's supposed to an amateur field house, and it hosts a second rate pro sports team. Expecting something akin to what the Vikings have is beyond ludicrous, and would ultimately be a catastrophic waste of money. The absolute most that should be spent on any new CFL stadium is $175-200 million. Hamilton made it work for $145 million, so can we.
And for the record, you have been overhyping this thing to death for a long time, and in the end you kind of looked foolish for doing so once we actually saw the end product. You continued to promise us we'd be blown away, instead we mostly concluded it blew. Sorry you don't like that most people have been severely underwhelmed by it, but that's just how it is.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following User Says Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
For real, you're acting like this is one of the most staggeringly beautiful, incredibly proposed facilities on earth. Which, if I were selling a lemon, is exactly how I'd refer to it. The amateur comment is spot on though, it's supposed to an amateur field house, and it hosts a second rate pro sports team. Expecting something akin to what the Vikings have is beyond ludicrous, and would ultimately be a catastrophic waste of money. The absolute most that should be spent on any new CFL stadium is $175-200 million. Hamilton made it work for $145 million, so can we.
And for the record, you have been overhyping this thing to death for a long time, and in the end you kind of looked foolish for doing so once we actually saw the end product. You continued to promise us we'd be blown away, instead we mostly concluded it blew. Sorry you don't like that most people have been severely underwhelmed by it, but that's just how it is.
LOL, firstly that link you provided is hardly what CalgaryNEXT was. A multi-sports stadium (albeit old and outdated as sin), sure, that's where it stops. Secondly no one is expecting a stadium like US Bank Stadium, we don't have an NFL team here - I used that as an example of a roofed stadium in a northern climate, and that's where it stopped. So quit putting words in my mouth.
Secondly, whether you want to believe it or not, CalgaryNEXT was a revolutionary idea. If you don't think a conjoined sports facility for stadia sports and an arena, supplemented with an amateur fieldhouse, was an innovative idea.... you're nuts. Again, have you seen the floor plans? Are you a sports facility architect? You not answering this tells me all I need to know.
I have always said I wasn't a fan of the way CalgaryNEXT was presented and the renderings weren't terrific; I had nothing to do with that side. So, nice of you to cherry pick there too.
Id say it was beaten to the punch as a revolutionary idea, as this was the first place brought up when word got out they were looking at a joined venue
LOL, firstly that link you provided is hardly what CalgaryNEXT was. A multi-sports stadium (albeit old and outdated as sin), sure, that's where it stops. Secondly no one is expecting a stadium like US Bank Stadium, we don't have an NFL team here - I used that as an example of a roofed stadium in a northern climate, and that's where it stopped. So quit putting words in my mouth.
Secondly, whether you want to believe it or not, CalgaryNEXT was a revolutionary idea. If you don't think a conjoined sports facility for stadia sports and an arena, supplemented with an amateur fieldhouse, was an innovative idea.... you're nuts. Again, have you seen the floor plans? Are you a sports facility architect? You not answering this tells me all I need to know.
I have always said I wasn't a fan of the way CalgaryNEXT was presented and the renderings weren't terrific; I had nothing to do with that side. So, nice of you to cherry pick there too.
My man, no one sold this thing harder than you did. And not just a little, every chance you had between 2013 and 2015, you told us we'd be blown away. That this was a world class facility. That we'd be basically begging for it to happen, that we'd be so proud of this facility in Calgary. And then....a turd came out instead. Claiming to not be a fan of the renderings is nice and all, but the idea itself is weak and fatally flawed to boot.
Indoor football will probably be a net neutral and probably a loss in the end. You're choosing to believe declining attendance can be rectified simply with a roof, when really it's that sports across the board are seeing live attendance declines. Sports are simply too expensive relative to the much cheaper, more comfortable, less stressful alternative. And live football is arguably the worst live sport to watch. You spend 3 hours in your seat for amounts to 15 or so minutes of actual game action. It's just not a good live sport, not when it's a minimum of $50 to have a decent experience, versus $20 or less to stay home. And staying home makes even more sense when you're talking about watching a game inside. CFL chooses to play its schedule entirely in spring, summer and fall. There's simply no need for an indoor stadium, not when moving up the schedule can eliminate the possible 2-3 games that might be affected by weather.
As to combining the arena and stadium together, the only difference between this and many other American arena areas that have two or even three facilities within walking distance of each other is this one would be directly attached. That's hardly something to fall over yourself as a revolutionary item. In fact if that's one of your big selling points, that's a problem. It's not a particularly compelling selling point.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Senator Clay Davis For This Useful Post:
My man, no one sold this thing harder than you did. And not just a little, every chance you had between 2013 and 2015, you told us we'd be blown away. That this was a world class facility. That we'd be basically begging for it to happen, that we'd be so proud of this facility in Calgary. And then....a turd came out instead. Claiming to not be a fan of the renderings is nice and all, but the idea itself is weak and fatally flawed to boot.
My man, the idea was just fine. It still is, and know many people still that believe that as well. The only thing wrong with CalgaryNEXT was it's execution, not the design itself. The design (conceptual, which is what it was), the location... all worked just fine. The presentation was another ballgame, and one that I won't comment on anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Indoor football will probably be a net neutral and probably a loss in the end. You're choosing to believe declining attendance can be rectified simply with a roof, when really it's that sports across the board are seeing live attendance declines. Sports are simply too expensive relative to the much cheaper, more comfortable, less stressful alternative. And live football is arguably the worst live sport to watch. You spend 3 hours in your seat for amounts to 15 or so minutes of actual game action. It's just not a good live sport, not when it's a minimum of $50 to have a decent experience, versus $20 or less to stay home. And staying home makes even more sense when you're talking about watching a game inside. CFL chooses to play its schedule entirely in spring, summer and fall. There's simply no need for an indoor stadium, not when moving up the schedule can eliminate the possible 2-3 games that might be affected by weather.
I'm not saying all the Stamps problems would be rectified by simply having a roofed stadium. I'm saying it would help attract the casual fan, and several posts have already been made in this thread indicating as such.
And if you think live football is the worst sports to watch, the most profitable league in the world and millions and millions of fans would disagree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
As to combining the arena and stadium together, the only difference between this and many other American arena areas that have two or even three facilities within walking distance of each other is this one would be directly attached. That's hardly something to fall over yourself as a revolutionary item. In fact if that's one of your big selling points, that's a problem. It's not a particularly compelling selling point.
Sorry, but it is revolutionary in the design world. Rarely are these facilities built that close together, let alone at the same time.
