Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Apparently, there's a squbble going on between the Vikings and the Minnesota state legislature.

The Purple People Eaters say they'll pay for a third of an open-air stadim, but won't pay one red cent for a roof, even if the legislature says one is required. They cite no benefit and a slew of extra costs, not the least of which is infrastructure.

I say football was made to be played outside ON GRASS. Snow football is fun. Any other opinions, particularly from those fans who are in the rough general area?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=A ... ngsstadium

They're going to L.A....look up the plans for L.A.'s stadium.

Willie wrote:They're going to L.A....look up the plans for L.A.'s stadium.

Not if the Chargers beat them to it.

I think they'll get a stadium but it will end up with a fixed roof(to allow for more use of the facility). The dome collapse really helped things, still a lot of money needed to come up with but it seems like this finally has the political momentum that it has been lacking for some time.

SuperHornet wrote:Apparently, there's a squbble going on between the Vikings and the Minnesota state legislature.

The Purple People Eaters say they'll pay for a third of an open-air stadim, but won't pay one red cent for a roof, even if the legislature says one is required. They cite no benefit and a slew of extra costs, not the least of which is infrastructure.

I say football was made to be played outside ON GRASS. Snow football is fun. Any other opinions, particularly from those fans who are in the rough general area?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=A ... ngsstadium

10 football games in an open-air stadium vs 200 events in one with a roof, state has it right.

SuperHornet wrote:The Purple People Eaters say they'll pay for a third of an open-air stadim, but won't pay one red cent for a roof, even if the legislature says one is required. They cite no benefit and a slew of extra costs, not the least of which is infrastructure.

I say football was made to be played outside ON GRASS. Snow football is fun. Any other opinions, particularly from those fans who are in the rough general area?

An outdoor stadium would be stupid in Minny. No chance of a Final Four. No chance of a Super Bowl. It would sit empty and getting beat up by the weather much of the year.

Gil Dobie wrote:10 football games in an open-air stadium vs 200 events in one with a roof, state has it right.

Beat me to it.

retractable roof similar to Indy?

clenz wrote:retractable roof similar to Indy?

That might be a good compromise. And certainly better than the "deflatable" roof they have now.

Is a retractable roof worth it though? I remember lots of complaining about that outdoor game at UofM. The people of Minny obviously aren't as tough as the people from Chicago...or Green Bay....or Buffalo...

bandl wrote:Is a retractable roof worth it though? I remember lots of complaining about that outdoor game at UofM. The people of Minny obviously aren't as tough as the people from Chicago...or Green Bay....or Buffalo...

That's kinda the point. They can close the roof.

89Hen wrote:

bandl wrote:Is a retractable roof worth it though? I remember lots of complaining about that outdoor game at UofM. The people of Minny obviously aren't as tough as the people from Chicago...or Green Bay....or Buffalo...

That's kinda the point. They can close the roof.

Then why not just do away with the retractable roof when you're going to close it for maybe half of the games because of bitter weather anyways?

I don't know the costs, but I imagine a retractable roof is much more expensive than a dome. Right?

bandl wrote:

89Hen wrote: That's kinda the point. They can close the roof.

Then why not just do away with the retractable roof when you're going to close it for maybe half of the games because of bitter weather anyways?

I don't know the costs, but I imagine a retractable roof is much more expensive than a dome. Right?

It is, which is why Target Field didn't get a retractable roof.

However it gives the best of both worlds at times.

clenz wrote:

bandl wrote: Then why not just do away with the retractable roof when you're going to close it for maybe half of the games because of bitter weather anyways?

I don't know the costs, but I imagine a retractable roof is much more expensive than a dome. Right?

It is, which is why Target Field didn't get a retractable roof.

However it gives the best of both worlds at times.

I agree with this...but I don't see them keeping the roof open when it's say, 3 degrees, windy and snowing like it is right now. I imagine some years the weather could be so bad that they close the roof for half the games, more or less. Is the extra cost for a retractable roof worth it for a handful of games?

I would think the roof would be open, depending on the type of play surface being used, unless the weather is bitterly cold or it is snowing during the game.

It isn't that they would be opposed to playing in snow/rain but having the roof closed during those games. Not that people can't handle being in those conditions, but it saves them from having to clean the stadium of the snow after the game so that it can be used for something later in the week with the roof closed.

bandl wrote:Then why not just do away with the retractable roof when you're going to close it for maybe half of the games because of bitter weather anyways?

Because it's a compromise.

89Hen wrote:

bandl wrote:Then why not just do away with the retractable roof when you're going to close it for maybe half of the games because of bitter weather anyways?

Because it's a compromise.

Compromise is a funny word coming from you...

bandl wrote:

89Hen wrote: Because it's a compromise.

Compromise is a funny word coming from you...

I'm always right, so that doesn't apply to me.

Purple Packers were gay enough just by their uniforms, then they moved into that uber-gay balloon dome and became the purple pussies that they are today.

Biqueens and Lion Cubs, both play inside, both have zero Super Bowl wins, one has never even made it that far.

Bears and Packers, six appearances in the big game, four victories.

Hmmm.

Wedgebuster wrote:Purple Packers were gay enough just by their uniforms, then they moved into that uber-gay balloon dome and became the purple pussies that they are today.

Biqueens and Lion Cubs, both play inside, both have zero Super Bowl wins, one has never even made it that far.

Bears and Packers, six appearances in the big game, four victories.

Hmmm.

And boom goes the dynamite.

Not looking good for the home team. Wilf probably would not move the team, but would sell if he can't get a stadium.
They have a perfect location selected, but the powers-that-be are f'ing it up.

Possible buyers.....................more in likely from Los Angeles.

There will be a waiting list for the Packer Fan assimilation after the move.

Gil Dobie wrote:Not looking good for the home team. Wilf probably would not move the team, but would sell if he can't get a stadium.
They have a perfect location selected, but the powers-that-be are f'ing it up.

Possible buyers.....................more in likely from Los Angeles.

There will be a waiting list for the Packer Fan assimilation after the move.

I didn't know the Vikings were still playing.

Gil Dobie wrote:Not looking good for the home team. Wilf probably would not move the team, but would sell if he can't get a stadium.
They have a perfect location selected, but the powers-that-be are f'ing it up.

Possible buyers.....................more in likely from Los Angeles.

There will be a waiting list for the Packer Fan assimilation after the move.

That location sucks...

bad roads in and out ($100+ mln in infrastructure needed)

more than that - the financing for that plan is a damn joke. the math doesn't work. as it is, one of the county commissioners backing that plan is now in deep deep shit politically for backing a plan that is DOA in St. Paul (which would bear 60% of the burden or more of the tax)

they need to find a regional solution... and I think they will - I hear rumblings about a site not yet discussed publicly that may be coming together

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:Not looking good for the home team. Wilf probably would not move the team, but would sell if he can't get a stadium.
They have a perfect location selected, but the powers-that-be are f'ing it up.

Possible buyers.....................more in likely from Los Angeles.

There will be a waiting list for the Packer Fan assimilation after the move.

That location sucks...

bad roads in and out ($100+ mln in infrastructure needed)

more than that - the financing for that plan is a damn joke. the math doesn't work. as it is, one of the county commissioners backing that plan is now in deep deep **** politically for backing a plan that is DOA in St. Paul (which would bear 60% of the burden or more of the tax)

they need to find a regional solution... and I think they will - I hear rumblings about a site not yet discussed publicly that may be coming together

It's a perfect location, plus the area will finally get cleaned up, might as well have some football played there while getting the place cleaned up. Plus the roads will get fixed in the area. The spot would be very much like the Lambeau Field or Arrowhead Stadium, big party, lots of fun for fans. The Wilfs won't put up as much money for a Minneapolis site, so IMO they would sell if they don't get their Arden Hills spot. They the state will pay twice as much 10-15 years down the road to get a team back. This isn't the spineless Twins ownership they are dealing with on this one.

SDHornet wrote:

Willie wrote:They're going to L.A....look up the plans for L.A.'s stadium.

Not if the Chargers beat them to it.

actually the NFL brass would not mind two occupants ala NY