Browns getting a dome

How many of these threats to move to the suburbs...actually result in a move to the suburbs (Vikings to Arden Hills, Bears to Arlington Heights, etc). Sounds like some posturing to me for a better deal in Cleveland.

I always think of the NE as open air football....But I used to think of the Vikings that way too.

I hate seeing more domes to be honest.

That said, there is no way in hell I'd sit out on a cold rainy night in Oct/November to watch a game anymore. I had my days at the Met.

purplefaithful wrote:
I always think of the NE as open air football....But I used to think of the Vikings that way too.

I hate seeing more domes to be honest.

That said, there is no way in hell I'd sit out on a cold rainy night in Oct/November to watch a game anymore. I had my days at the Met.

The cost of building a new NFL stadium these days pretty much mandates a multi-use, multi-season facility, that is weather-proof.

The NFL plays into January, Super Bowl in February.  An 18th game "might" extend the season into mid-February (unless they start the season in August by eliminating one preseason game, but nobody has said for sure.  Plus with an 18th game, there is talk about a second bye week).

Weather-proofing ticketed events is pretty much mandated these days, particularly in any Northern climate (or should I say also Southern climate, i.e. Phoenix, Miami, Las Vegas, Dallas et al, that are either prone to intense heat or intense rainstorms.

With the Bills building a new stadium, in that location it was dumb to not put a dome on it or at least a partial dome to cover the stands.

Greylock wrote:
With the Bills building a new stadium, in that location it was dumb to not put a dome on it or at least a partial dome to cover the stands.

As a NY resident, I totally agree. My wife is a Bills fan & she agrees that the stadium should've been covered.

Greylock wrote:
With the Bills building a new stadium, in that location it was dumb to not put a dome on it or at least a partial dome to cover the stands.

100%  Last year 12 people had amputations of the toes and fingers due to frost bite during the KC playoff game. The 2027 Super Bowl is going to be on Valentine Day.  You can't just be adding extra weeks to the season and keep pushing out the season without making the necessary adjustments for cold weather cites. The NFL should have a mandate that if the weather is below a certain wind chill that the game has to be moved.  Then you will see cities like Buffalo make sure there is a roof on their stadium.  It is beyond irresponsible for the Bills owners and the city of Buffalo to spend all that money and not have a roof.

Or....people learn to dress for the weather? Up north we own clothing that allows us to be out in frigid weather for a few hours without losing appendages, fans just have to be smarter...now the players and refs on the other hand, they are the ones I would be more concerned for. I guess if the fans quit showing up for those games a roof will become more of a acceptable cost to the ownership groups, until then, why would the. However no team without a roof should be awarded a superbowl IMO, just to big an event to be left to the chance of inclement weather, even in the south.

badgervike wrote:
How many of these threats to move to the suburbs...actually result in a move to the suburbs (Vikings to Arden Hills, Bears to Arlington Heights, etc).  Sounds like some posturing to me for a better deal in Cleveland.

Sounds like this one is pretty much decided. Despite all the recent success stories of cities building their sports facilities downtown (Mpls, Denver, Detroit, etc) the Haslams decided to go back to the 80s and build their stadium way the hell out in the boonies, which benefits no one except the Haslams.

MaroonBells wrote:

Sounds like this one is pretty much decided. Despite all the recent success stories of cities building their sports facilities downtown (Mpls, Denver, Detroit, etc) the Haslams decided to go back to the 80s and build their stadium way the hell out in the boonies, which benefits no one except the Haslams.

Stadium location means nothing if you have a good product, look at arrowhead, always a hard ticket to get, and really nothing around it. I dont think you need a stadium downtown for a successful franchise in a football market. But we are talking the browns here.

The beautiful thing about Arrowhead is what Jimmy said, there is nothing around it but parking.

That means tailgating, which is awesome for fans.

These stadiums in the inner cities usually dont provide anything like it - in fact they ripped up a bunch of pavement for what is now downtown east in Mpls.

Better for Mpls? Absolutely!

Better for the fan experience? I think thats arguable, even though inside USB is pretty universally applauded since it opened.

purplefaithful wrote:
The beautiful thing about Arrowhead is what Jimmy said, there is nothing around it but parking.

That means tailgating, which is awesome for fans.

These stadiums in the inner cities usually dont provide anything like it - in fact they ripped up a bunch of pavement for what is now downtown east in Mpls.

Better for Mpls? Absolutely!

Better for the fan experience? I think thats arguable, even though inside USB is pretty universally applauded since it opened.

I would take the tailgating experience over the stadium clubs and bars anyday.