Stadiums and Arenas of Canada part 2

[Franco401]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

From this angle the stadium looks like it could easily belong in the NFL. It's too bad they didn't go all the way and dome it.

Domes are the way of the past IMO. It's unnecessary and detracts from the atmosphere. It would be a waste of money.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Franco401

Domes are the way of the past IMO. It's unnecessary and detracts from the atmosphere. It would be a waste of money.

Yeah I can't think of one league that has done well with fully domed stadiums, CFL,NFL,MLB being 3 easy examples

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

Yeah I can't think of one league that has done well with fully domed stadiums, CFL,NFL,MLB being 3 easy examples

By fully domed do you mean non-retractable? If retractable roofed stadiums are so bad then why are they still being built? I'll take an AT&T Stadium any day over an open-air stadium, especially one in Canada.

[Oilkountry]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

By fully domed do you mean non-retractable? If retractable roofed stadiums are so bad then why are they still being built? I'll take an AT&T Stadium any day over an open-air stadium, especially one in Canada.

I'm definitely talking about fixed roof but in general retractable domes haven't been a big hit either. Especially In Canada, BC place,The Big O, Rogers Centre all have had problems in the past (1 lies tenantless). BC place is obviously perfect for Vancouver's climate. But North Americans generally prefer outdoor stadiums.

AT&T is nice but I would rather a CFL sized metlife honestly. Now given, times have changed since the 70s,80s obviously with translucent roof materials a fixed dome stadium doesn't have to feel like a cave and a retractable roof helps with giving you that outdoor feeling, At&T is the hybrid poster child for that, but still nothing beats a fully outdoor game. I'll take new mosiac or IGF over any domed NFL stadium. Just my personal preference. And with baseball it's a non starter because Domed/Retractable= Terrible atmosphere, But to answer your question, Retractable roof stadiums keep getting built because billionaire team owners keep roping cities into building them. If you're gonna get a stadium built on tax payers dime might as well go all out with all the bells and whistles.

Question is, do you want An IGF/Mosiac for 200M/300M or do you want a At&T for 1.4B? A fixed roof doubles+ the cost of a stadium and a retractable will run you well over a billion even in CFL form. Just food for thought. Calgary's proposal is above the half billion mark for a very unimpressive 30,000 seat fixed dome stadium. Vikings new digs well over a Billion dollar fixed roof project at 66K seats, AT&T is a 1.6Billion dollar project today. So a Domed mosaic would be upwards of an 800M stadium. Explain that to tax payers in a province of 1.2 million people.

New vikings stadium modern fixed dome
Edward jones dome (rip St Louis rams)
Arizona's retractable roof

[Prometheus]

The off-centre Argos BMO field configuration looks retarded, as expected. I think a centred field with significantly shallower endzones would have been a better result for the CFL. I think a sharp looking stage for your product is ultimately more important for the CFL than maintaining regulation endzone at every single field. Shallower endzones is something that casual viewers will not even notice, but the off centre field will definitely be noticed to the detriment of the image of the league.

Teams would just have to game plan for the uniqueness of BMO field, just as teams in other major sports leagues (e.g. MLB) often must. In fact, I think the smaller, more challenging endzones at BMO would add some spice and variety for veteran fans watching games played at BMO Field.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The off-centre Argos BMO field configuration looks retarded, as expected. I think a centred field with significantly shallower endzones would have been a better result for the CFL. I think a sharp looking stage for your product is ultimately more important for the CFL than maintaining regulation endzone at every single field. Shallower endzones is something that casual viewers will not even notice, but the off centre field will definitely be noticed to the detriment of the image of the league.

Teams would just have to game plan for the uniqueness of BMO field, just as teams in other major sports leagues (e.g. MLB) often must. In fact, I think the smaller, more challenging endzones at BMO would add some spice and variety for veteran fans watching games played at BMO Field.

Significantly smaller endzones would be the far worse result than something slightly off-centre in my opinion (I'd count as one of those veteran fans to which you are referring) and the casual fan would notice that immediately in any shot showing the endzone; whereas, it would take a certain angle of a overhead camera shot or a direct centre field to stands angle to really notice the off-centre aspect.

Also, it isn't in other major sports leagues... it is in one league... that's it; your example is the only league. You don't have varying NHL ice sizes (though international does have a different standard), or NFL football fields, or NBA courts. Yes, soccer fields are given a range of permissible dimensions, but the scoring area/net size isn't altered at all.

Smaller endzones may be more challenging for visiting offences to adjust to, but it would be less challenging for defences as they would have less area to cover. American players wouldn't feel much of a challenge though... they've played on fields with 10 yards less of an endzone all through their development.

[esquire]

^ I find the off-centredness of BMO's football field barely noticeable in the virtual venue... to the tell you the truth I didn't even notice it until Prometheus' post reminded me. Significantly shortened (e.g. 12 yard) end zones would have far more of an impact and be far more readily noticeable. I think they did it the right way.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The off-centre Argos BMO field configuration looks retarded, as expected. I think a centred field with significantly shallower endzones would have been a better result for the CFL. I think a sharp looking stage for your product is ultimately more important for the CFL than maintaining regulation endzone at every single field. Shallower endzones is something that casual viewers will not even notice, but the off centre field will definitely be noticed to the detriment of the image of the league.

Teams would just have to game plan for the uniqueness of BMO field, just as teams in other major sports leagues (e.g. MLB) often must. In fact, I think the smaller, more challenging endzones at BMO would add some spice and variety for veteran fans watching games played at BMO Field.

can't disagree more. shallower endzones would be much worse than an off centre field.

from the TV you won't even be able to tell if hte field is off centre. the shorter endzones and different field dimensions would make a mockery of the game. this isn't baseball where field dimensions can and should be played with

[esquire]

^ Yeah... shaving 3 yards off the end zone is barely noticeable... many people probably wouldn't notice unless they were specifically looking for it and the impact on gameplay will probably be quite minimal. Cutting off 8-10 yards would have far more of an effect visually and in terms of how the game is played... I just would not want to see that happening. They did it the right way at BMO.

[Berklon]

Originally Posted by king10

the shorter endzones and different field dimensions would make a mockery of the game. this isn't baseball where field dimensions can and should be played with

Not that I care, so the endzones are in fact going to be shorter at BMO... so it sounds like they don't have any issues playing with the dimensions like they do in MLB.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Berklon

Not that I care, so the endzones are in fact going to be shorter at BMO... so it sounds like they don't have any issues playing with the dimensions like they do in MLB.

Actually there is a difference... the CFL has a specific regulation field size while MLB prescribes a range which gives teams leeway to set the outfield wall wherever they want within that range.

The CFL will make exceptions where the constraints of the facility require it, most commonly seen with fields that have running tracks around them which results in the corners of the endzones being clipped.

[king10]

Originally Posted by Berklon

Not that I care, so the endzones are in fact going to be shorter at BMO... so it sounds like they don't have any issues playing with the dimensions like they do in MLB.

MLB allows for any field dimensions.

CFL only allows it if you're stuck between a rock and hard place.

[Oilkountry]

Nobody is gonna notice that the field is 6 yards off centre on TV and Honestly even in the stands, With the short stands at BMO I don't see why it's a big deal when an entire endzone will be out of the seating area in the first place. Not to mention east and west side stands are different lengths and off centre themselves.

And the NHL may not have different ice surfaces, However Barclays isn't taylor made for the islanders, that's a way worse situation as 1/3rd of the arena has obstructed views and the scoreboard is over a blue line. Commonwealth having the running track around the field is a worse situation. BMO will be a fine home for the Argos

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by Prometheus

The off-centre Argos BMO field configuration looks retarded, as expected. I think a centred field with significantly shallower endzones would have been a better result for the CFL. I think a sharp looking stage for your product is ultimately more important for the CFL than maintaining regulation endzone at every single field. Shallower endzones is something that casual viewers will not even notice, but the off centre field will definitely be noticed to the detriment of the image of the league.

Teams would just have to game plan for the uniqueness of BMO field, just as teams in other major sports leagues (e.g. MLB) often must. In fact, I think the smaller, more challenging endzones at BMO would add some spice and variety for veteran fans watching games played at BMO Field.

Its not like the Barclays Center where there is an overhead scoreboard that really shows it, like esquire said, I didn't notice on the virtual venue until you mentioned it

[Oilkountry]

Argos ticket sale update (day 3)

-14,861 remain

-12,139 Sold with 18 weeks to go.

800 give or take, sold since public sale opened. If they could keep even 50% of that pace up they would end up with around 22,000 STH's. Not bad

[FrankieFlowerpot]

Whilst 14,800 season tickets are still available - it doesn't necessarily mean they've sold the remainder. Looking at the virtual venue there are big blocks that look like they've been earmarked for flex packs etc. TFC did the same thing with the expansion last season.

Still though - the numbers are encouraging.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by Oilkountry

I'm definitely talking about fixed roof but in general retractable domes haven't been a big hit either. Especially In Canada, BC place,The Big O, Rogers Centre all have had problems in the past (1 lies tenantless). BC place is obviously perfect for Vancouver's climate. But North Americans generally prefer outdoor stadiums.

AT&T is nice but I would rather a CFL sized metlife honestly. Now given, times have changed since the 70s,80s obviously with translucent roof materials a fixed dome stadium doesn't have to feel like a cave and a retractable roof helps with giving you that outdoor feeling, At&T is the hybrid poster child for that, but still nothing beats a fully outdoor game. I'll take new mosiac or IGF over any domed NFL stadium. Just my personal preference. And with baseball it's a non starter because Domed/Retractable= Terrible atmosphere, But to answer your question, Retractable roof stadiums keep getting built because billionaire team owners keep roping cities into building them. If you're gonna get a stadium built on tax payers dime might as well go all out with all the bells and whistles.

Question is, do you want An IGF/Mosiac for 200M/300M or do you want a At&T for 1.4B? A fixed roof doubles+ the cost of a stadium and a retractable will run you well over a billion even in CFL form. Just food for thought. Calgary's proposal is above the half billion mark for a very unimpressive 30,000 seat fixed dome stadium. Vikings new digs well over a Billion dollar fixed roof project at 66K seats, AT&T is a 1.6Billion dollar project today. So a Domed mosaic would be upwards of an 800M stadium. Explain that to tax payers in a province of 1.2 million people.

New vikings stadium modern fixed dome
Edward jones dome (rip St Louis rams)
Arizona's retractable roof

Look at Arizonas design and look at IGF. Pretty much same roof structure. I was told long ago that IGF was designed to have a roof like this if the funds ever came available.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

Look at Arizonas design and look at IGF. Pretty much same roof structure. I was told long ago that IGF was designed to have a roof like this if the funds ever came available.

Doubtful at best. There's little chance that a project like this which barely came together in the first place would have spent extra money on expensive capabilities that may never be needed or realized.

If suddenly a dome becomes a necessity 20 years out, they won't build one on IGF, they'll start planning a new stadium. Not that that's likely either.

[25grapes]

Whilst 14,800 season tickets are still available - it doesn't necessarily mean they've sold the remainder. Looking at the virtual venue there are big blocks that look like they've been earmarked for flex packs etc. TFC did the same thing with the expansion last season.

Still though - the numbers are encouraging.

I thought the exact same when I looked at the virtual map, huge perfect square blocks sold and the remaining seats unsold, I don't think so. The sold seats would be scattered with most being sold seats near the stairs of each section.

Even if they hit 12K total I'm sure they would be happy. With approximately 5K season seats sold last year they still managed to attract just under 17K for their 5 games at Rogers Center. An average of 12K walk up or single game tickets sold is impressive.

[esquire]

^ Don't forget, a lot of those artificial-looking blocks include the various team/league allotments for players/families, the ones that go to sponsors, ones reserved for groups, etc. Just because it's a block of seats doesn't mean it isn't legit.

12,000 STs is a little under half of the stadium's capacity which is pretty good... it guarantees that even if the season is not a sellout, there will at the very least be good atmosphere for all the Argo games and none of the experiences of last season where the stadium was like 20% full for some games.

Even if they only end up with 15,000 STs (which is a conservative projection), that still means that every Argo game would even in a worst case scenario have over 20,000 fans a game. Not great by western standards but pretty damn good by recent Argo standards.