The Snoopy.

Because he is asking to much. It needs to be called Tom Landry Field

THAT, or just name it Texas Stadium (II). If the Yankees can name their bigger, more modern version of their old stadium, why can't the Cowboys do the same for their bigger, more modern version of their old stadium?

The only reason I would want naming rights is for the fact that there would be a slightly larger chance that Jerry would lower ticket prices since he would have a fat check coming in annually.

However, I am more in line with "Tom Landry Field at Cowboys Stadium"

He will never do that, though. Sorry, didn't mean to hijack this thread.

The Snoopy.

Alternatively- "The Snoop"


However, I am more in line with "Tom Landry Field at Cowboys Stadium"

I prefer "Southwest Stadium".:lol:

I prefer "Southwest Stadium".:lol:

I said that back when the stadium was halfway finished.

See? And "The Met" is just a larger, more modern version of old Giants Stadium.

Seriously, just look at the two...

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/20375_1250428754284_1636466644_636775_3924408_n.jpg

People get attached to names and identities. So it really doesn't matter...

That picture is a great example of a waste of $1. 5 billion....

Yeah, I guess I don't know all the details, but it seems like a $500 million overhaul of Giants stadium would have gotten them at least as much venue as what they ended up with at three times that. And less ugly one would imagine.

Why can't the Jets buyout the other one, that way they don't have to share anymore?

Giants Stadium is gone now.

Why can't the Jets buyout the other one, that way they don't have to share anymore?


not possible now, but that really is what they should have done. the jets could have fixed it up and had their own stadium. I wonder if the offer was ever made?

^^^^ Think they both wanted a new stadium. Wish the Olympic Stadium design happened for the Jets but I like the fact London got it.

Big Blue in Big Grey.



Is the New GIANTS Stadium worth the money- not in my view.

The toilets are basic, small, and relatively numerous. Queuing, as ever, time-consuming, a nightmare. I don't mind waiting for a squirt, but not this amount of time, and in a new stadium.

The most ridiculous anomaly is the lack of protection from the elements when queuing for food. View lines from my experiences are good.

Whilst it looks great when compared to the old GIANTS Stadium, up close it's not that impressive, IMHuO.

Decked out for a U2 concert

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6122/5960164994_d2a8b12bfc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrissun/5960164994/)
NYC 2011 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrissun/5960164994/) by chrissun888 (http://www.flickr.com/people/chrissun/), on Flickr


http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6025/5959597621_e0d3c1692b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrissun/5959597621/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrissun/5959597621/) by chrissun888 (http://www.flickr.com/people/chrissun/), on Flickr

Jets Cowboys Sept 11

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6174/6140359732_1be73cdb0f_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffbpictures/6140359732/)
Cowboys vs Jets - Sept 11, 2011 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffbpictures/6140359732/) by Jeff_B. (http://www.flickr.com/people/jeffbpictures/), on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6208/6143919088_846d993f98_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffbpictures/6143919088/)
Cowboys vs Jets Sept 11th Halftime Tribute (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffbpictures/6143919088/) by Jeff_B. (http://www.flickr.com/people/jeffbpictures/), on Flickr

Great stadium! It may cost a lot (The Most Expensive Stadium In The World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5FOKnqfKI0)), but totally worth it!

I had a drunk Jet fan try and tell me that the Jets were still going to build their own stadium down the road on a layover in Denver. I told him he was high.

they (the jets) should have just taken over old Giants Stadium and renovated the hell out of it. there was nothing wrong with that stadium.

Oh well, one can dream. Loved this design:

http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/2221/stadium650a32604b.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/408/stadium650a32604b.jpg/)

Some other team should borrow that design, I love it too.

I like it also it would of been great

Would only fit in an urban, downtown setting, IMO. It'd fit in few places outside of Manhattan.

$1.5billion and they cant even throw a roof over the thing? someone got well and truly ripped off.

$1.5billion and they cant even throw a roof over the thing? someone got well and truly ripped off.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxkk4xACbR1qhmfkuo1_400.gif

they (the jets) should have just taken over old Giants Stadium and renovated the hell out of it. there was nothing wrong with that stadium.

Why should the Jets have taken over Giants stadium and the Giants get the New Stadium?

$1.5billion and they cant even throw a roof over the thing? someone got well and truly ripped off.

Buying that land from the mob and then paying all the useless unions is why the cost was so high and no roof. It's 1.4 Billion competitor in Dallas with a roof didn't have to pay allot for land and didn't have to pay off unions to bring in workers.

$1.5billion and they cant even throw a roof over the thing? someone got well and truly ripped off.

http://www.annaguirre.com/wp-content/uploads/can-o-worms.gif

Buying that land from the mob and then paying all the useless unions is why the cost was so high and no roof. It's 1.4 Billion competitor in Dallas with a roof didn't have to pay allot for land and didn't have to pay off unions to bring in workers.
Wow, first answer which really answered without mocking how the Europeans are stupid to ask about the roof. Thanks!

As far as I recall Rantanamo said this stadium was so expensive due to really extensive corporate facilities and such stuff, but they have also done quite a lot in that matter in Dallas so the difference still sounded a lot...

Wow, first answer which really answered without mocking how the Europeans are stupid to ask about the roof. Thanks!

As far as I recall Rantanamo said this stadium was so expensive due to really extensive corporate facilities and such stuff, but they have also done quite a lot in that matter in Dallas so the difference still sounded a lot...

Building a stadium in Texas will be cheaper than pretty much anywhere in the US and probably anywhere in the post industrial world. Land is really cheap. The state of Texas is also a serial user of emminent domain laws. Most of the building materials are manufactured locally. Texas is a right to work state, so union prices are not paid to construction workers. Its not slave rates, but its far less than one would pay in a union state. Work is also allowed overnight, hastening construction. Summers are long and dry, so work can go undisturbed for month. Cowboys Stadium would probably have been close to $2 billion if built in NY, California or say London.

Wow, first answer which really answered without mocking how the Europeans are stupid to ask about the roof. Thanks!


Yeah, but you know the thought is still there...

I will say, there was actually a chance to see a New York stadium with a roof had the Jets gone ahead with their stadium plan.

That wont happen, though.

Building a stadium in Texas will be cheaper than pretty much anywhere in the US and probably anywhere in the post industrial world. Land is really cheap. The state of Texas is also a serial user of emminent domain laws. Most of the building materials are manufactured locally. Texas is a right to work state, so union prices are not paid to construction workers. Its not slave rates, but its far less than one would pay in a union state. Work is also allowed overnight, hastening construction. Summers are long and dry, so work can go undisturbed for month. Cowboys Stadium would probably have been close to $2 billion if built in NY, California or say London.
Thanks for that!

not roof for that price is just an escroquery sorry

whatever reasons it's not normal

Building a stadium in Texas will be cheaper than pretty much anywhere in the US and probably anywhere in the post industrial world. Land is really cheap. The state of Texas is also a serial user of emminent domain laws. Most of the building materials are manufactured locally. Texas is a right to work state, so union prices are not paid to construction workers. Its not slave rates, but its far less than one would pay in a union state. Work is also allowed overnight, hastening construction. Summers are long and dry, so work can go undisturbed for month. Cowboys Stadium would probably have been close to $2 billion if built in NY, California or say London.

Some fellas explained me that, americans love football when the weather is cold and snow orrain so i accept that.

It's just the whole stadium, it looks soulless and neutral. Probably because Giants and Jets share it. But probably it's still great when it's packed

'soulless' is the right word.

I've rarely seen a so weak level of identity in a sport structure.

Building a stadium in Texas will be cheaper than pretty much anywhere in the US and probably anywhere in the post industrial world. Land is really cheap. The state of Texas is also a serial user of emminent domain laws. Most of the building materials are manufactured locally. Texas is a right to work state, so union prices are not paid to construction workers. Its not slave rates, but its far less than one would pay in a union state. Work is also allowed overnight, hastening construction. Summers are long and dry, so work can go undisturbed for month. Cowboys Stadium would probably have been close to $2 billion if built in NY, California or say London.
Just pray that you are not inside of a Texas building if an earthquake hits. And Texas definitely gets quakes. Not many, but a few.

Just pray that you are not inside of a Texas building if an earthquake hits. And Texas definitely gets quakes. Not many, but a few.

And I would hate to be inside of any building during a quake. Especially a stadium with a roof.

this is the worst justifiaction to not build a roof :lol:

Japan which is far more concerned by this problem has beautiful roofed stadiums!!

:rofl:

not roof for that price is just an escroquery sorry


Labor unions are an escroquery.

this is the worst justifiaction to not build a roof :lol:

Japan which is far more concerned by this problem has beautiful roofed stadiums!!

:rofl:
they're gonna build a roofed stadium in L.A. too

http://www.annaguirre.com/wp-content/uploads/can-o-worms.gif

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ! Don't open them. The roof will blow off :lol:

Ugh, I don't wanna see that.

I just rage quit Earthworm Jim. :bash:

I love this stadium, in my oppinion is the best in the world even without a roof :drool:

I love this stadium, in my oppinion is the best in the world even without a roof :drool:

ESPECIALLY without a roof.

We don't need any muthaf*ckin' roofs, people!

Yeah, but you know the thought is still there...

I will say, there was actually a chance to see a New York stadium with a roof had the Jets gone ahead with their stadium plan.

That wont happen, though.

IIRC part of New York's 2012 Olympic bid included a retractable roof Olympic stadium in Manhattan that would've been converted into an NFL stadium for the Jets and Giants.

IIRC part of New York's 2012 Olympic bid included a retractable roof Olympic stadium in Manhattan that would've been converted into an NFL stadium for the Jets and Giants.

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

As far as i know the teams did not want a roof, because of the "wind" which was "classic" at the Giant stadiums?!?!?!

So roof / not roof is quite important for American Football and the play / team strategy.

Hey guys. I don't know if you peeps have caught wind of this yet.

But there are strong rumors that WWE will be bringing Wrestlemania 29 to Metlife Stadium.

According to reports, wrestler Triple H met with Meadowlands officials in East Rutherford last week in order to work out the possibility of the stadium hosting Wrestlemania in 2013.

Triple H visited the New York Giants’ practice [Wednesday] as they were preparing for their playoff game against the Green Bay Packers this Sunday. From a very reliable source, word coming out of the Giants organization [Wednesday] was that Triple H was in town with WWE Officials to finalize a deal to bring WrestleMania 29 (or possibly 30) to MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, NJ.

http://wrestling.insidepulse.com/2012/01/16/update-on-possible-locations-for-wwe-wrestlemania-29-and-wrestlemania-30/

If this deal is indeed hammered out, it will be the coldest Wrestlemania in WWE history.

It would also be a financial hit for WWE, as there's no way a Wrestlemania could sell out an 80,000+ stadium.

Plus, why doesn't Vince McMahon book future Wrestlemanias at Soldier Field or Gillette Stadium while he's at it.:nuts:

It would also be a financial hit for WWE, as there's no way a Wrestlemania could sell out an 80,000+ stadium.

Rubbish! They so wouldn't have an issue selling that place out. The recent attendances for Wrestlemania says it all:

WM 23: Ford Field; Detroit, MI - 80,109
WM 24: Citrus Bowl; Orlando, FL - 74,635
WM 25: Reliant Stadium; Houston, TX - 72,744
WM 26: University of Phoenix Stadium; Glendale, AZ - 72,219
WM 27: Georgia Dome; Atlanta, GA - 71,617

Rubbish! They so wouldn't have an issue selling that place out. The recent attendances for Wrestlemania says it all:

WM 23: Ford Field; Detroit, MI - 80,109
WM 24: Citrus Bowl; Orlando, FL - 74,635
WM 25: Reliant Stadium; Houston, TX - 72,744
WM 26: University of Phoenix Stadium; Glendale, AZ - 72,219
WM 27: Georgia Dome; Atlanta, GA - 71,617
Indoor
Warm
Indoor
Indoor
Indoor

80k will be tough to get outdoors in early April in NY/NJ. I won't say it can't happen though.

But WM XXX in "NY" makes sense.

But WM XXX in "NY" makes sense.

You would think that MW XXX would be held at MSG (located IN NYC), since it was the actual birthplace of WM.

You would think that MW XXX would be held at MSG (located IN NYC), since it was the actual birthplace of WM.

More than likely, it will be.

I understand what they're tryin' to do, but it just makes more sense to have it in MSG.

I hate when a stadium thread gets take over by the "Professional" Wrestling people "Wrestlemania would be awesome!" ya...awesome at taking away a date for a real event. If you wanna scream at men in tights, move to San Francisco or watch it with the door to your house locked and blinds shut.

wow. grown men talking about wrestling :/

As far as i know the teams did not want a roof, because of the "wind" which was "classic" at the Giant stadiums?!?!?!

So roof / not roof is quite important for American Football and the play / team strategy.

I don't think so. Americans don't have to have a reason to not have a roof on a stadium. We just don't put them on. We don't see roofs as "completing" a stadium.

Yeah, the wind is cool and all, but I doubt it was the reason it was left without a roof.

Ok, if you don't like wrestling, fine.

But can ya not be a dick about it?

Like it or not, they're big money making events held at these stadiums just like football, basketball, concerts, motorcross, or whatever.

Deal with it.

I don't think so. Americans don't have to have a reason to not have a roof on a stadium. We just don't put them on. We don't see roofs as "completing" a stadium.

Yeah, the wind is cool and all, but I doubt it was the reason it was left without a roof.

If you remember, when the Jets/Giants first talked about doing this together, they were talking about plazas and such and not changing the character of the Meadowlands "played" even if it meant not getting Final Four's or Superbowls. Wonder what happened to that original brick rendering, which I thought was pretty cool looking.

wow. grown men talking about wrestling :/

How do you know they are grown men? I see many many posts here that were obviously made by 12 year olds.

If you remember, when the Jets/Giants first talked about doing this together, they were talking about plazas and such and not changing the character of the Meadowlands "played" even if it meant not getting Final Four's or Superbowls. Wonder what happened to that original brick rendering, which I thought was pretty cool looking.

Perhaps, but I was speaking more to the idea that there has to be a reason why American stadiums don't have roofs. To people not from North America, it seems that every stadium must have some sort of excuse for not having a roof (money, weather, etc...), when the reality is that usually we don't even think about putting a roof on in the first place.

That's more of what I was saying, but I see your point too.

With all the roof talk here, I think some should really check out some of the stadium threads over at baseball fever. Tons of old photographs of stadiums from all over the world. Looking at them, you notice something. Back in the early part of the 20th Century, most stadiums in the world had no roofs on them...............except for baseball parks. Why was this? One could easily take a look at the crowds and see that the crowds sitting in the infield seats were very nicely dressed, in heavy suits and nice proper lady dresses. Those in the uncovered outfields were the common folk in their work clothes or just more regular everyday dress. Obviously, these roofs were sun shields for the wealthier fans as baseball is not played in the rain . In the late 50s and 60s a new generation of concrete behemoths were being built. The difference with these were, they had a new invention, the luxury suite. No longer did there need to be a roof over the whole infield. You also had many of these that doubled as football stadiums. A sport that didn't traditional have roofs anyway, as it was a college game for the most part AND it was a sport with a limited number of games played during a season with the least precipitation for many areas of the US. You also now had many convertible stand sections which couldn't be covered anyway. With the late 60s/70s came the domed stadiums. The builders of these stadiums had far more on their mind than just one sport or even two sports, but rather all kinds of events that were safe to all elements. I think this is where the seperation came in in the US. With suites, the "sun shaded" seats weren't needed. And now in places that wanted to do it, a complete dome could be built for owners that simply wanted more events. You now have a situation where no one cares if a partial roof is built except for rainier areas like Seattle thanks to the above history.

The history speaks of discovered practicallity. Football was a sport of few games, played in climates that dry and cold for most if not all of the season. Basically a roof would be purely cosmetic. Baseball now had suites for the wealthy and was beginning to be populated by stadiums with convertible sections to accomodate the growing sport of professional football. Not to mention this being a time of growing upward mobility and changing styles. Far more casual dress and far more "common folk" coming to games.

If you look at the history of world stadiums outside of Great Britain, you generally find that the partial roof is new to much of the world. Even when looking back at many of the historical British venues, there was an absence of roofs at many. I don't know what the earmark in history was that inspired the roofed movement in the UK, but I believe the 1998 World Cup and even more recent, the 2006 World Cup were the events that led to many in the world gaining roofs or even much more roof than they ever had since FIFA was making a formal suggestion and many wanted to host events. You simply don't have that decree effecting the US all that much since soccer isn't our driving influence in sports, but rather our own history.

wow. grown men talking about wrestling :/
Wrestling is no different than movies or TV shows, ridiculous how people who dont understand it make fun of it.

Even when looking back at many of the historical British venues, there was an absence of roofs at many. I don't know what the earmark in history was that inspired the roofed movement in the UK, but I believe the 1998 World Cup and even more recent, the 2006 World Cup were the events that led to many in the world gaining roofs or even much more roof than they ever had since FIFA was making a formal suggestion and many wanted to host events.

It was going all-seater in the early 1990s. Uncovered seats are regarded as unacceptable, although there was a greater tolerance for uncovered standing areas.

Coventry City's coversion to all seater in the early 1980s, where uncovered seats replaced open stading areas, was hugely unpopular, and crowds nosedived.

You almost never see uncovered seats anywhere, and where they do exist, hardly anyone uses them (even in good weather).

It probably dates back 100 years, when new grounds were built with a "grandstand" on one side, and open terracing on the other three sides. Over time covers got added to the terracing too. The fact that clubs here have to pay for their stadium developments while maintaining a competitive team leads to somewhat piecemeal development over the years.

Southern European grounds have always tended to be open, on the other hand.


I'm not sure if the idea of baseball grounds being covered to keep the sun off entirely explains it. Those old roofs cover a large proportion of the fans at many venues - far more than would seem likely if just covering the premium seats.

My guess is that they used New York's Polo Grounds etc as a template for how stadiums should look. That had fully covered "grandstands" from its early days, continuing in that mode as it expanded the grandstands round the sides. People building new stadiums will invariably draw from what already exists. Smaller covered baseball stadiums had existed before then along similar lines. Ebbets Field, for example.

It was also a multi-sport venue, including winter sports, which might have influenced design. Many older baseball grounds also hosted NFL games as well, which might have been a factor.

Older stadiums in LA, such as the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum, had no cover at all, and you'd think cover the need for shade would be greater there than in the northern US cities that had roofed stadiums.

I'm not sure if the idea of baseball grounds being covered to keep the sun off entirely explains it. Those old roofs cover a large proportion of the fans at many venues - far more than would seem likely if just covering the premium seats.

My guess is that they used New York's Polo Grounds etc as a template for how stadiums should look. That had fully covered "grandstands" from its early days, continuing in that mode as it expanded the grandstands round the sides. People building new stadiums will invariably draw from what already exists. Smaller covered baseball stadiums had existed before then along similar lines. Ebbets Field, for example.


You can't think of economics in the terms you do today. People that could afford to go to a ballgame were generally well to do and well dressed. Far more of them than there were guys in the cheap seats. The concept of the true middle class that could afford luxuries is a post WWII invention. One must also recognize that New York City was a place of wealth and influence. Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds having large covered grandstands would not be a surprise. Yes, baseball was a common man's game to play, but actually going to games was very much an upper class thing.


It was also a multi-sport venue, including winter sports, which might have influenced design. Many older baseball grounds also hosted NFL games as well, which might have been a factor.

Older stadiums in LA, such as the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum, had no cover at all, and you'd think cover the need for shade would be greater there than in the northern US cities that had roofed stadiums.

You have to make another distinction. These baseball stadiums for the most part hosted Professional Football, which was a much smaller sport than baseball AND College Football. The professional football teams of the day were at the mercy of the venue they played in, not the other way around. Dedicated college stadiums like Ohio Stadium, Michigan Stadium, The Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl, etc were huge in comparison to most baseball parks in the day(which many were 'band boxes' built into city blocks, hence the strange shapes). They didn't have roofs. Perhaps engineering of the day, couldn't produce these roofs, which still require a decent engineering challenge. Whether tradition or engineering, the next generation of football stadiums, did NOT have roofs, and neither did the next, with the exception of those wanting to host multiple events like the Astrodome, Superdome and Kingdome. The baseball roof was also lost in translation in this same era. Same era that produced the true luxury suite.

Weather: You're not talking about areas with a ton of rain + baseball is not played in the rain. Any rain coverings would be purely for audiences as sustained heat was not a problem yet for baseball, as it had not migrated south yet. Also, a roof, especially those back then could do nothing for cold. Your last reason for covering is sun shade. Back then, staying pale meant that you didn't work outside. Now, a good tan is a sign of health, and even wealth if its a good even tan(Not Jersey Shore level). And Speaking of Southern California, its not a hot place. Its not even an intense sun. Very pleasant to be in.

So you had:

- Growing middle class from those who had traditional sat in the outfield or listened on the radio
- Growing NFL/AFL to the point that stadiums were being built to host not just baseball, but football, a sport that grew popular at Universities in large open air stadium.
- Sports moving south to areas that had even less cold and more precipitation-less days, yet are too hot and wind'less for a roof to matter unless it was a real roof. Poof, you get retractables in these areas(Arizona, Texas, Florida)

Wrestling is no different than movies or TV shows, ridiculous how people who dont understand it make fun of it.

Because grown men are not wearing tights, standing in a ring and staring at each other in movies i watch.

You can't think of economics in the terms you do today. People that could afford to go to a ballgame were generally well to do and well dressed. Far more of them than there were guys in the cheap seats. The concept of the true middle class that could afford luxuries is a post WWII invention. One must also recognize that New York City was a place of wealth and influence. Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds having large covered grandstands would not be a surprise. Yes, baseball was a common man's game to play, but actually going to games was very much an upper class thing.

digging about and looking for the really old baseball stadiums, those that opened at the turn of the 20th century (if not earlier) they actually seemed to follow the British stadium format quite closely, with a covered grandstand occupying a prime portion of the site, and the rest of the stadium being open.

Probably at least 80% of fans at British sporting events of that era were blue collar workers, and it's unlikely they had considerably greater disposable income than their American counterparts, so I'd consider it unlikely that the well off were the only people who could afford to go.

They wouldn't have been likely, however, to go in the "Grandstand". They'd have taken bleacher places in the US, and stood on terraces in the UK.

Cricket stands in England from that era are also covered, and cricket isn't played in the rain either. They do delay the game in the event of rainfall, as I believe also happens in the US with baseball, if the rain is hard enough.

The grandstand was the home of the "well-to-do" and I would suggest the idea of the roof was to protect them from the elements rather than one exclusively.

The grandstand would then be the architectural template for building bigger spectator accomodation. When building a double-decker stand, which those old stadiums did due to space constraints, adding a roof was just what you did. The fans in the elevated deck would regard that as the norm.


It's certainly true that luxury suites exist now, and came into prominence when stadiums were being knocked down in the latter half of the 20th century, but the proportion of fans in those top deck seats is far higher than the number who use luxury suites these days. I'd estimate around a quarter of the fans, if not more sit in the upper deck of those old stadiums. Wrigley's upper deck seems to hold around 10,000 fans. You'd need a heck of a lot of suites to account for a quarter of the crowd.


My guess, and again it's only a guess, is that in a modernist environment of the 60s and later, a roof was just another thing dismissed as ornamental frippery. You didn't need double decker stands any more when stadiums were build in huge lots, with loads of room. You didn't need brickwork outside when concrete would do. You didn't need a roof if those upper deck seats were now the cheap seats, rather then the expensive ones, and those fans no longer think it necessary.

Having no roof was also much cheaper, especially as you'd probably need to cantilever it if it's not a double-decker. Stick a roof on and you could probably add 50% to the construction cost.

Modern architecture wasn't so much about no longer conforming to the old ways of building, but pretty much about throwing the old away and starting afresh. What was deemed unnecessary was thrown away, and that includes a roof for baseball stadiums.


You have to make another distinction. These baseball stadiums for the most part hosted Professional Football, which was a much smaller sport than baseball AND College Football. The professional football teams of the day were at the mercy of the venue they played in, not the other way around. Dedicated college stadiums like Ohio Stadium, Michigan Stadium, The Cotton Bowl, Rose Bowl, etc were huge in comparison to most baseball parks in the day(which many were 'band boxes' built into city blocks, hence the strange shapes). They didn't have roofs. Perhaps engineering of the day, couldn't produce these roofs, which still require a decent engineering challenge. Whether tradition or engineering, the next generation of football stadiums, did NOT have roofs, and neither did the next, with the exception of those wanting to host multiple events like the Astrodome, Superdome and Kingdome. The baseball roof was also lost in translation in this same era. Same era that produced the true luxury suite.

Weather: You're not talking about areas with a ton of rain + baseball is not played in the rain. Any rain coverings would be purely for audiences as sustained heat was not a problem yet for baseball, as it had not migrated south yet. Also, a roof, especially those back then could do nothing for cold. Your last reason for covering is sun shade. Back then, staying pale meant that you didn't work outside. Now, a good tan is a sign of health, and even wealth if its a good even tan(Not Jersey Shore level). And Speaking of Southern California, its not a hot place. Its not even an intense sun. Very pleasant to be in.

So you had:

- Growing middle class from those who had traditional sat in the outfield or listened on the radio
- Growing NFL/AFL to the point that stadiums were being built to host not just baseball, but football, a sport that grew popular at Universities in large open air stadium.
- Sports moving south to areas that had even less cold and more precipitation-less days, yet are too hot and wind'less for a roof to matter unless it was a real roof. Poof, you get retractables in these areas(Arizona, Texas, Florida)
It's interesting, but you still do get uncovered stadiums in hot places. Arlington isn't exactly cool and mild in the summer, yet is mainly uncovered.

It also doesn't really account from going from stadiums where perhaps two thirds of fans were under cover, to today, where maybe 10% are. It's not as if the poor are squeezing out the rich.


The NFL/college football angle is interesting, purely for the number of completely uncovered stadiums that have never had cover. Texas Memorial Stadium was built in 1924, and that's another place where you'd think shade would be desirable.


Overall, I don't think there's any one answer, more that it's a number of factors. I just think architectural trends are too easy to overlook. Even when baseball stadiums went for the "retro" look, most were still more angular versions of 60s/70s stadiums with brickwork outside. The uncovered stadium had become the American norm.

Back in the early part of the 20th Century, most stadiums in the world had no roofs on them...............except for baseball parks. Why was this? One could easily take a look at the crowds and see that the crowds sitting in the infield seats were very nicely dressed, in heavy suits and nice proper lady dresses. Those in the uncovered outfields were the common folk in their work clothes or just more regular everyday dress. Obviously, these roofs were sun shields for the wealthier fans

You answered your own question. Back in the day all baseball games were played in the daytime and mainly in the hot summer months. Roofs were to protect the higher priced seats from being exposed to the stifling sun baking down on them for the whole game.

By the 1950s and 60s most games were played at night--lessening the need for large roofs.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd51/Jericho-79/AlvQ0RFCAAAgXGP.jpg

http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/28/wrestlemania-29-metlife-stadium

East Rutherford, N.J.’s MetLife Stadium has played host to the NFL Playoffs, two NCAA college tournaments, five international team soccer games, and historic concerts from the likes of U2, The Eagles and Bon Jovi. And now, it’s getting its first WrestleMania.

For the first time, The Show of Shows is headed to New Jersey, as MetLife Stadium, home to the Super Bowl XLVI Champion New York Giants, as well as the New York Jets, will host WrestleMania XXIX on Sunday, April 7, 2013.

The traditional WrestleMania Week activities, including WrestleMania Axxess, the 2013 WWE Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony, and Monday Night Raw will take place across the New York/New Jersey area in the days leading up to the show.

An official press conference will be held tomorrow, February 16, at 11:00AM at MetLife Stadium, where WWE Chairman & CEO Vince McMahon will be joined by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, New York Giants President & CEO John Mara, New York Jets Owner & CEO Woody Johnson, and a host of WWE Superstars, including John Cena, Triple H and Sheamus to officially announce the event. There will also be a special appearance by John Cena’s WrestleMania XXVIII opponent, Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson.

The press conference is not open to the public, but WWE.com will be posting video and photo updates about the event throughout the day.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd51/Jericho-79/AlvQ0RFCAAAgXGP.jpg

http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/28/wrestlemania-29-metlife-stadium

*Cue the "WRESTLING SUCKS/IS FAKE/IS GAY and doesn't deserve to be mentioned here!" crowd....

Nice logo. And I think they should have waited until XXX.

WRESTLING SUCKS/IS FAKE/IS GAY and doesn't deserve to be mentioned here!

Hey a major event is a major event. Money is money.

Who cares if its wrestling?

Because grown men are not wearing tights, standing in a ring and staring at each other in movies i watch.

:ohno::bash:

WRESTLING SUCKS/IS FAKE/IS GAY and doesn't deserve to be mentioned here!

That wasn't really an invite to do so.

(Seriously, I do NOT understand the hate for pro wrestling. Every single thing I hear against it is just bullshit opinion.)

That wasn't really an invite to do so.

(Seriously, I do NOT understand the hate for pro wrestling. Every single thing I hear against it is just bullshit opinion.)

from my point of view its just absolutely ridiculous. the acting is terrible, the "characters" are far fetched, i dont have an affliction for oiled men in speedo's, fans of it tell you how amazing it is and how the wrestlers go "through so much pain" as if im meant to care considering most of them are on 6-7 figure annual contracts and last, but not least, although it requires a high level of fitness it is definitely not a sport and i wish i could go a day without going past a sports channel and seeing it on. oh, and the steroids thing, which a lot of fans will tell you is a myth but that a lot of ex-pro's have admitted to having done. but thats just my opinion... id rather waste my money on other forms of entertainment.

I went to a WWE Show once in newcastle it was fun but paying £40 for a ticket was not good but hitch hiking home was more fun, but thats another story. So what if people wanna go and watch wrestling why should anyone else care. its another better than watching darts,snooker or pool.

That wasn't really an invite to do so.

(Seriously, I do NOT understand the hate for pro wrestling. Every single thing I hear against it is just bullshit opinion.)

Terrible acting.

Predictable storylines.

Excessively flamboyant outfits.

There's literally no point for it to exist. If I wanted to watch a fictional story, I'd watch TV instead, where the stories might be a little better and the actors are trained.

from my point of view its just absolutely ridiculous. the acting is terrible, the "characters" are far fetched, i dont have an affliction for oiled men in speedo's, fans of it tell you how amazing it is and how the wrestlers go "through so much pain" as if im meant to care considering most of them are on 6-7 figure annual contracts and last, but not least, although it requires a high level of fitness it is definitely not a sport and i wish i could go a day without going past a sports channel and seeing it on. oh, and the steroids thing, which a lot of fans will tell you is a myth but that a lot of ex-pro's have admitted to having done. but thats just my opinion... id rather waste my money on other forms of entertainment.


Terrible acting.

Predictable storylines.

Excessively flamboyant outfits.

There's literally no point for it to exist. If I wanted to watch a fictional story, I'd watch TV instead, where the stories might be a little better and the actors are trained.


So basically like several other shows on tv?

If you hate wrestling, that's fine. But what gives with the downgrading of people who watch it?

I hate Tyler Perry movies but I don't call people who like them idiots. Just don't get it. It seems with wrestling, no matter how fake it is, seems to take the most shit for just being another type of entertainment. And I don't get the sudden need for people who don't like wrestling to be assholes about it. One of the usual insults thrown out is "What grown man watches wrestling?" Which I find ironic since a lot of the anti-wrestling people seem to act more like 5 year olds than anything about this.

I just hate the gripes and unwarranted disrespect twoards wrestling and the fans, but whatever.

^^Rather than worry about the wrestling haters, I think we should be more concerned about how the wrestlers (who perform practically naked) will protect themselves from the cold.

For the Super Bowl, at least the NFL players get to dress warm when they do their jobs.


I haven't been to the NYC metro area in quite a while, but I'd imagine that the weather is still questionable in early April.

MetLife Stadium is impressive.
But I don't like (it's a problem with much NFL Stadiums) where it is.

A Stadium should be in Downtown, or in Centre-Ville (like the froggies like me says when they didn't know how to say that in English and who thinks that's cool to say in french with an english accent).
A Stadium placed as a cow dung like that in the middle of a parking...

^^^^ It costs way to much money to build on the island of manhatten plus the old Giants Stadium over the road to the new building.

MetLife Stadium is impressive.
But I don't like (it's a problem with much NFL Stadiums) where it is.

A Stadium should be in Downtown, or in Centre-Ville (like the froggies like me says when they didn't know how to say that in English and who thinks that's cool to say in french with an english accent).
A Stadium placed as a cow dung like that in the middle of a parking...

.... not really THAT much room in Manhattan.

Maybe Brooklyn, Queens, and The Bronx would be better, but I doubt they have any room in the real "downtown" of New York City.

Unless they tried to go off of the Jets original stadium plans, maybe.

What about the West Side Stadium, the 2012 olympic project ?
Why not a Stadium in Flushing Meadows Park ?

MetLife Stadium is impressive.
But I don't like (it's a problem with much NFL Stadiums) where it is.

A Stadium should be in Downtown, or in Centre-Ville (like the froggies like me says when they didn't know how to say that in English and who thinks that's cool to say in french with an english accent).
A Stadium placed as a cow dung like that in the middle of a parking...
Several problems with that. A stadium in the heart of town would cost roughly twice as much. And the lack of parking would be a hindrance to the majority of fans who do not live in the heart of town. Most Americans are not urban dwellers, but sub-urban.

What about the West Side Stadium, the 2012 olympic project ?
Why not a Stadium in Flushing Meadows Park ?
The West Side Stadium died because it cost too much, and there were too many regulatory hurdles. And Flushing Meadows Park is required by law to remain a park. There was a severe backlash against the efforts to host a Formula One event there in the early 80s.

from my point of view its just absolutely ridiculous. the acting is terrible, the "characters" are far fetched, i dont have an affliction for oiled men in speedo's, fans of it tell you how amazing it is and how the wrestlers go "through so much pain" as if im meant to care considering most of them are on 6-7 figure annual contracts and last, but not least, although it requires a high level of fitness it is definitely not a sport and i wish i could go a day without going past a sports channel and seeing it on. oh, and the steroids thing, which a lot of fans will tell you is a myth but that a lot of ex-pro's have admitted to having done. but thats just my opinion... id rather waste my money on other forms of entertainment.

Wrestlers make the least amount of money compared to NBA, NHL, MLB and NFL. On top of that, they also have no offseason . I would say wrestlers take more physical pain than any athlete.

..

MetLife Stadium is impressive.
But I don't like (it's a problem with much NFL Stadiums) where it is.

A Stadium should be in Downtown, or in Centre-Ville (like the froggies like me says when they didn't know how to say that in English and who thinks that's cool to say in french with an english accent).
A Stadium placed as a cow dung like that in the middle of a parking...

Your opinion is uninformed regarding NFL stadiums. They work in the suburbs because they are easier to get to, and cheaper. Most are only used 10 times a year for NFL games, and sporadically for other events. This topic has been beaten to death here, same thing with every idiot that claims they would be better with roofs. It takes me 10 minutes to get to Ralph Wilson Stadium and park, it is 8 miles away. It takes me 20 minutes to get to First Niagara Center, it is 4 miles away.

Your opinion is uninformed regarding NFL stadiums. They work in the suburbs because they are easier to get to, and cheaper. Most are only used 10 times a year for NFL games, and sporadically for other events. This topic has been beaten to death here, same thing with every idiot that claims they would be better with roofs. It takes me 10 minutes to get to Ralph Wilson Stadium and park, it is 8 miles away. It takes me 20 minutes to get to First Niagara Center, it is 4 miles away.

Tell that to AEG. Farmers Field would be right smack in downtown Los Angeles.

Your opinion is uninformed regarding NFL stadiums. They work in the suburbs because they are easier to get to, and cheaper. Most are only used 10 times a year for NFL games, and sporadically for other events. This topic has been beaten to death here, same thing with every idiot that claims they would be better with roofs. It takes me 10 minutes to get to Ralph Wilson Stadium and park, it is 8 miles away. It takes me 20 minutes to get to First Niagara Center, it is 4 miles away.

I have to Disagree For New York City it would have been better if MetLife Stadium was buit in range of MTA since most people who life in NYC don't drive or tailgate. We take the train and we "pre-game" at a bar. For New Yorkers (mostly middle income New Yorkers) who don't drive, it's a bitch and a half to get to and very out of the way. It's why I and most of my friends don't go. For Big cities it's a bad idea NOT to have a downtown Stadium.

Tell that to AEG. Farmers Field would be right smack in downtown Los Angeles.

Because I said something on the internet, one may feel the need to apply it to every scenerio, it does not apply to every scenerio. AEG would work better out in the suburbs, if such a thing exists in LA. It's one huge concrete mess.

I have to Disagree For New York City it would have been better if MetLife Stadium was buit in range of MTA since most people who life in NYC don't drive or tailgate. We take the train and we "pre-game" at a bar. For New Yorkers (mostly middle income New Yorkers) who don't drive, it's a bitch and a half to get to and very out of the way. It's why I and most of my friends don't go. For Big cities it's a bad idea NOT to have a downtown Stadium.

Because I said something on the internet, one may feel the need to apply it to every scenerio, it does not apply to every scenerio.

Because I said something on the internet, one may feel the need to apply it to every scenerio, it does not apply to every scenerio.

Yes but because you said it talking to new yorkers about a stadium for New York City fans, I used New York as the example in the scenerio. I would hope you see why.

Because I said something on the internet, one may feel the need to apply it to every scenerio, it does not apply to every scenerio. AEG would work better out in the suburbs, if such a thing exists in LA. It's one huge concrete mess.

NYC is one enormous concrete mess as well. There's really no place in any of the five boroughs to build a massive NFL stadium.

NYC is one enormous concrete mess as well. There's really no place in any of the five boroughs to build a massive NFL stadium.

Queens by Citi field where shea used to be, the unused train yards in mid town manhatten. There is no room for big parking lots but a stadium lie farmers field that relied mostly on Mass Transit and MTA with a ver area's to park would work. That how ALL the stadium in New York are. Hell you could even built it in Brooklyn. Hunts point junks yards chould have worked.

Queens by Citi field where shea used to be, the unused train yards in mid town manhatten. There is no room for big parking lots but a stadium lie farmers field that relied mostly on Mass Transit and MTA with a ver area's to park would work. That how ALL the stadium in New York are. Hell you could even built it in Brooklyn. Hunts point junks yards chould have worked.

No, the rail yards are too valuable for development of commercial and residential space to waste on a stadium that may be used a dozen or so times a year.

Queens would be too congested and would cut off many fans.

My idea: Extend the 7 line to Secaucus like they are thinking, then continue to the stadium with another extension.

Or just suck it up and take the train to the stadium from Penn station.

No, the rail yards are too valuable for development of commercial and residential space to waste on a stadium that may be used a dozen or so times a year.

Queens would be too congested and would cut off many fans.

My idea: Extend the 7 line to Secaucus like they are thinking, then continue to the stadium with another extension.

Or just suck it up and take the train to the stadium from Penn station.

Most Fans would still be going there onthe 7 line. Like they do for the mets or like they do for the US open.

NYC is one enormous concrete mess as well. There's really no place in any of the five boroughs to build a massive NFL stadium.

This is why it's only a few miles from Manhattan...In New Jersey.

So basically like several other shows on tv?

If you hate wrestling, that's fine. But what gives with the downgrading of people who watch it?



A bad TV show isn't worth watching either.

^^Rather than worry about the wrestling haters, I think we should be more concerned about how the wrestlers (who perform practically naked) will protect themselves from the cold.

For the Super Bowl, at least the NFL players get to dress warm when they do their jobs.


I haven't been to the NYC metro area in quite a while, but I'd imagine that the weather is still questionable in early April.
Maybe the stage and the ring will be heated.

Well this isn't YOUR thing so all I'm askin' is to lay off the insults.

Here is some more info on the temperature on April 7

http://blogs.thescore.com/wwe/2012/02/20/wrestlemania-29-too-cold-for-tights/

The West Side Stadium died because it cost too much, and there were too many regulatory hurdles. And Flushing Meadows Park is required by law to remain a park. There was a severe backlash against the efforts to host a Formula One event there in the early 80s.

Indycar was trying to get a race in Flushing Meadows Park in the 90's as well.

Because I said something on the internet, one may feel the need to apply it to every scenerio, it does not apply to every scenerio. AEG would work better out in the suburbs, if such a thing exists in LA. It's one huge concrete mess.

absolutely not. Downtown LA is the ideal location. its in the middle of the city with 4 rail lines within a couple blocks, union Station 2 stops away that connects to numerous other rail lines and downtown is also the center where all the freeways converge. its the most convenient location for all Angelenos who will attend, whether by rail or car.

It bares mentioning that in the US, almost all "downtown" NFL stadiums are not situated downtown proper, per se. These stadiums are built on the edge of a city's CBD/downtown core. These stadiums are separated from the congested blocks of tall buildings and skyscrapers by highways, rivers, parking lots, smaller establishments, etc.

I think Ford Field is one of the only exceptions.

Even Farmers Field would located south of the busy financial district of Los Angeles.

It bares mentioning that in the US, almost all "downtown" NFL stadiums are not situated downtown proper, per se. These stadiums are built on the edge of a city's CBD/downtown core. These stadiums are separated from the congested blocks of tall buildings and skyscrapers by highways, rivers, parking lots, smaller establishments, etc.

I think Ford Field is one of the only exceptions.


I'm guessing (and all of these are pretty much on the EDGE of downtown:

- BoA Stadium
- Browns Stadium
- CenturyLink
- Edward Jones Dome
- Gerogia Dome
- M&T Bank
- LP Field
- Paul Brown
- Tripple H Metrodome
- Lucas Oil
- Soldier Field.


Strange. You'd think if they could get baseball parks IN downtown, they could do the same for football. Unless, cost is the reason....?

Football stadiums, unless doubling as convention space, are a waste of valuable downtown land. 355 days out of the year, the stadium is empty with little activity except the couple hundred people who work there. It doesn't generate foot traffic or business around it either.

Compare that to a baseball stadium that is in use more than 80 times a year or an arena that can be in use as many as 250 or 300 days a year. All of those days you have activity around the stadium that help the surrounding, valuable, downtown area, whereas football is 10 days a year. That is why you see baseball stadiums and arenas downtown, but not football stadiums.

Football stadiums, unless doubling as convention space, are a waste of valuable downtown land. 355 days out of the year, the stadium is empty with little activity except the couple hundred people who work there. It doesn't generate foot traffic or business around it either.

Compare that to a baseball stadium that is in use more than 80 times a year or an arena that can be in use as many as 250 or 300 days a year. All of those days you have activity around the stadium that help the surrounding, valuable, downtown area, whereas football is 10 days a year. That is why you see baseball stadiums and arenas downtown, but not football stadiums.

Makes sense.

Cant say that im that fussed with wrestling but if they fill this place out that would be impressive.

Does anyone have an idea what attendance they will be expecting when the stadium is configured for wrestling ??

I'm guessing (and all of these are pretty much on the EDGE of downtown:

- BoA Stadium
- Browns Stadium
- CenturyLink
- Edward Jones Dome
- Gerogia Dome
- M&T Bank
- LP Field
- Paul Brown
- Tripple H Metrodome
- Lucas Oil
- Soldier Field.

Like I said, these NFL stadiums are located in the downtown vicinity. However, they're separated from the CBD/DT core, where all the tall buildings are clustered together. EJD and the Georgia Dome are exceptions.

Football stadiums, unless doubling as convention space, are a waste of valuable downtown land. 355 days out of the year, the stadium is empty with little activity except the couple hundred people who work there. It doesn't generate foot traffic or business around it either.


You make a good point. EJD and Georgia Dome, I guess, double as additional convention space, as both stadiums are attached to downtown convention centers.

Farmers Field would have similar status as well.

Football stadiums, unless doubling as convention space, are a waste of valuable downtown land. 355 days out of the year, the stadium is empty with little activity except the couple hundred people who work there. It doesn't generate foot traffic or business around it either.

Compare that to a baseball stadium that is in use more than 80 times a year or an arena that can be in use as many as 250 or 300 days a year. All of those days you have activity around the stadium that help the surrounding, valuable, downtown area, whereas football is 10 days a year. That is why you see baseball stadiums and arenas downtown, but not football stadiums.

Also, most baseball stadiums have the crowds concentrated toward the front of the stadium, while the back is typically open-air without much seating. That's much better to host a myriad of events such as concerts and other events where you don't want to stare at the backside of someone throughout the performance.

AND baseball stadiums tend to take up less space, so they're easier to find space for, and they have a lower capacity so parking is easier to create as well.

AND baseball stadiums tend to take up less space, so they're easier to find space for, and they have a lower capacity so parking is easier to create as well.

In that case, do you think Dodger Stadium or Angel Stadium could be squeezed in on a city block in downtown Los Angeles?

In that case, do you think Dodger Stadium or Angel Stadium could be squeezed in on a city block in downtown Los Angeles?

Depends on what you mean by city block. The Coliseum is downtown and is bigger than Dodger Stadium. Personally, I would like them to build a new Dodgers stadium where the LA Sports Arena is. But that's another conversation.

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Glazer-family-planning-to-move-Manchester-United-to-New-York-article885127.html

So I watched Wrestlemania 28 on pay-per-view last night. And while WWE was hyping next year's Wrestlemania 29, they showed nighttime footage of the Manhattan skyline, Times Square, the NY Stock Exchange, Rockefeller Plaza, etc.

During the video package, WWE made this announcement: "Next year, Wrestlemania comes to New York City!"

Why can't WWE just say that Wrestlemania 29 will take place in New Jersey? Why is WWE lying to their audience regarding the actual location of Wrestlemania 29?

After all, the Wrestlemania 29 logo has "NY/NJ" in it.

:ohno:

So I watched Wrestlemania 28 on pay-per-view last night. And while WWE was hyping next year's Wrestlemania 29, they showed nighttime footage of the Manhattan skyline, Times Square, the NY Stock Exchange, Rockefeller Plaza, etc.

During the video package, WWE made this announcement: "Next year, Wrestlemania comes to New York City!"

Why can't WWE just say that Wrestlemania 29 will take place in New Jersey? Why is WWE lying to their audience regarding the actual location of Wrestlemania 29?

After all, the Wrestlemania 29 logo has "NY/NJ" in it.

:ohno:

Anyone have a quick link for a free-source "Not this shit again" picture?

Anyone have a quick link for a free-source "Not this shit again" picture?

http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/96/3d/humor,meme-963dea32569c125b8d944af872e2e77b_m.jpg

^^I'm not trying to start anything.

I just think it's supid that WWE won't just come out and say that Wrestlemania 29 will be emanating from New Jersey.

For every other pay-per-view that WWE does at the Meadowlands, they acknowledge that the event is taking place in Jersey.

You guys bitching about someone mentioning wrestling again?

If we're talking about stadiums, we mention the events that take place at those stadiums as well. If you're gonna talk about and post pictures of the Super Bowl, Kickoff Weekend, and any concert at MetLife Stadium, then I think people have the right to mention Wrestlemania.

Get over already and quit with this snobby ass attitiude twoards it.

^^I'm not trying to start anything.

I just think it's supid that WWE won't just come out and say that Wrestlemania 29 will be emanating from New Jersey.

For every other pay-per-view that WWE does at the Meadowlands, they acknowledge that the event is taking place in Jersey.

If Wrestlemania took place at FedEx Field, would you expect them to say that it was in Maryland or DC? I would hope they would say DC, because without DC, Maryland doesn't have a stadium. It's in Maryland ONLY because of DC.

You guys bitching about someone mentioning wrestling again?

If we're talking about stadiums, we mention the events that take place at those stadiums as well. If you're gonna talk about and post pictures of the Super Bowl, Kickoff Weekend, and any concert at MetLife Stadium, then I think people have the right to mention Wrestlemania.

Get over already and quit with this snobby ass attitiude twoards it.

i was under the assumption the "not this shit again" statement had more to do with the new jersey/new york issue than wrestling.

i was under the assumption the "not this shit again" statement had more to do with the new jersey/new york issue than wrestling.

welll... both.... But mainly the New Jersey thing

http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Glazer-family-planning-to-move-Manchester-United-to-New-York-article885127.html
APRIL FOOLS!

welll... both.... But mainly the New Jersey thing

Well then I stick to my rant.

APRIL FOOLS!

Yes it was :banana:

The New York- New jersey thing is always going to be a issuse, even the NFL are selling the game has NY/NJ

Hey guys. I'm sure you've seen this beautiful photo of MetLife Stadium.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd51/Jericho-79/MetlifeStadium.jpg

Is this an actual photo? Or is this some type of artistic portrait?

Hey guys. I'm sure you've seen this beautiful photo of MetLife Stadium.

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd51/Jericho-79/MetlifeStadium.jpg

Is this an actual photo? Or is this some type of artistic portrait?

I don't think it's purely an actual photo...it might be a hybrid. But the interior of that stadium definitely does not look real