HOUSTON - Reliant Stadium (71,054)

[JJG]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Like you know anything about what a proper scoreboard is.

Is there even a such thing?

I mean, as long as you can see it and it tells ya the score, it's proper scoreboard, right?

[Archbishop]

Originally Posted by weava

a proper retractable roof???? No NFL stadium should have any kind of roof

Are you serious? A stadium in Houston has to have a roof. That's how they got the Super Bowl and Final Fours. It would be stupid to not make a retractable roof.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by Archbishop

Are you serious? A stadium in Houston has to have a roof. That's how they got the Super Bowl and Final Fours. It would be stupid to not make a retractable roof.

With the way the weather is in Houston, who would argue against that?

[weava]

Originally Posted by Archbishop

Are you serious? A stadium in Houston has to have a roof. That's how they got the Super Bowl and Final Fours. It would be stupid to not make a retractable roof.

The super bowl is played outdoors many years so that means nothing. And does hosting one basketball game once every 5-10 years really justify building a $hundred million+ roof?

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by weava

The super bowl is played outdoors many years so that means nothing. And does hosting one basketball game once every 5-10 years really justify building a $hundred million+ roof?

Even if your assessment of the events that take place there was correct, you've already justified the roof. But your assessment of use is far off. I don't even live in Houston and I know that non-football season events outnumber football games. And they play more than 1 basketball game their each year. This 1 basketball game stuff is wrong. The Final Four = 3 games of 70,000+ attendance in 1 weekend. That's 210,000 at the games themselves. Not to mention the residual traffic from such events which is usually about 3x the actual game attendance.

Take all of that out of the equation and if the economic experts are correct, even a minimal tax revenue windfall from just ONE Superbowl and ONE Final Four easily justifies the price of the roof using even the most conservative revenue modeling. In reality, just one Superbowl would easily justify the roof.

[weava]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Even if your assessment of the events that take place there was correct, you've already justified the roof. But your assessment of use is far off. I don't even live in Houston and I know that non-football season events outnumber football games. And they play more than 1 basketball game their each year. This 1 basketball game stuff is wrong. The Final Four = 3 games of 70,000+ attendance in 1 weekend. That's 210,000 at the games themselves. Not to mention the residual traffic from such events which is usually about 3x the actual game attendance.

Take all of that out of the equation and if the economic experts are correct, even a minimal tax revenue windfall from just ONE Superbowl and ONE Final Four easily justifies the price of the roof using even the most conservative revenue modeling. In reality, just one Superbowl would easily justify the roof.

So you missed the point on the super bowl, you can host without a roof and boom, look at all that extra profit not spent on the roof.
And you are way off with that 210,00, the tickets are sold together its only 2 sesions and those will pretty much be the same people both days as the tickets are sold as a pair so you are not getting 210,000 individual people paying for hotel rooms and such. I've been to a final four before, so yea. (and yes thats why I HATE basketball in a dome)

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by JJG

With the way the weather is in Houston, who would argue against that?

[Bobby3]

Originally Posted by weava

So you missed the point on the super bowl, you can host without a roof and boom, look at all that extra profit not spent on the roof.
And you are way off with that 210,00, the tickets are sold together its only 2 sesions and those will pretty much be the same people both days as the tickets are sold as a pair so you are not getting 210,000 individual people paying for hotel rooms and such. I've been to a final four before, so yea. (and yes thats why I HATE basketball in a dome)

Shush, you only dismiss roofs because you think it makes you look cool in contrast to the people who demand them on everything.

Did you stop and take time to notice that this isn't Houston's first roofed stadium? In fact it has three of them. Houston is hot. Very hot. Not mild, not warm. Hot. The sun beating down on you in 100 degree heat is not solidity with your boys, it's torture. As a municipal venue the stadium has to provide a constant stream of revenues in order to justify the price spent on it, the roof allows it to generate those revenues between April and September when A) The Texans aren't playing, and B) The Houston heat makes it difficult to have events outdoors.

Basketball here may suck but that's because it isn't a basketball stadium. By all accounts it receives nothing but rave reviews from the fans of the two football codes it hosts, rodeo fans adore it as well. I write about soccer, and as such I hear opinions from a lot of American soccer fans. Some of them want THIS to host the final if we get the World Cup because of how good it is.

It isn't some horrible affront to all things American for the NFL to play in a stadium with a roof, it's good business.

[rantanamo]

Originally Posted by weava

So you missed the point on the super bowl, you can host without a roof and boom, look at all that extra profit not spent on the roof.
And you are way off with that 210,00, the tickets are sold together its only 2 sesions and those will pretty much be the same people both days as the tickets are sold as a pair so you are not getting 210,000 individual people paying for hotel rooms and such. I've been to a final four before, so yea. (and yes thats why I HATE basketball in a dome)

The 210,000 I mentioned were visitors to the city. They rent hotels, cars, etc and eat at restaurants, frequent stores, etc. This is common at any large sporting event, and even award shows like the Grammys. Sounds like you haven't been to the final four if you don't realize this.

Also you're putting your personal hate for something vs successful event. The roof paid for itself already. Don't know what you're so worried about.

[massp88]

Originally Posted by Archbishop

Are you serious? A stadium in Houston has to have a roof. That's how they got the Super Bowl and Final Fours. It would be stupid to not make a retractable roof.

Heck, every NFL team should put a roof on their stadium so they can host the Super Bowl and Final Four.

[massp88]

Originally Posted by weava

So you missed the point on the super bowl, you can host without a roof and boom, look at all that extra profit not spent on the roof.
And you are way off with that 210,00, the tickets are sold together its only 2 sesions and those will pretty much be the same people both days as the tickets are sold as a pair so you are not getting 210,000 individual people paying for hotel rooms and such. I've been to a final four before, so yea. (and yes thats why I HATE basketball in a dome)

I too hate basketball in a dome.

But is this day and age, the NCAA can sell 60-70,000 tickets to the Final Four games and they need a dome. It's all about money. It makes sense on the part of the NCAA and the cities that put roofs on their stadiums. So now, the NCAA has a small handful of cities that can host the games, Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Minneapolis, Glendale and Indianapolis. I believe San Antonio and Tampa (both previous hosts) are out because they can't fit the new minimum. It's a shame because great cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, LA, etc. all can never host.

[en1044]

Originally Posted by massp88

I too hate basketball in a dome.

But is this day and age, the NCAA can sell 60-70,000 tickets to the Final Four games and they need a dome. It's all about money. It makes sense on the part of the NCAA and the cities that put roofs on their stadiums. So now, the NCAA has a small handful of cities that can host the games, Atlanta, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Minneapolis, Glendale and Indianapolis. I believe San Antonio and Tampa (both previous hosts) are out because they can't fit the new minimum. It's a shame because great cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, San Francisco, LA, etc. all can never host.

Is San Antonio out of it now? I don't see why they couldn't use the midfield court setup like everyone else.

[slipperydog]

Originally Posted by en1044

Is San Antonio out of it now? I don't see why they couldn't use the midfield court setup like everyone else.

It's not about capacity. San Antonio is out because of the condition of their stadium. When the NCAA decides to have the Final Four in Texas, they will only choose between Dallas and Houston. They are not even considering SA anymore.

[rantanamo]

Don't see why the Alamodome couldn't host again. They have the same turf system Cowboys Stadium has, and the lower deck is retractable, so they could cleanly ad bleachers in the middle of the field. I think the newer venues are just more exotic right now. If UTSA football ever gets big, That roof would make a nice retractable. It looked great during construction before they put the flat part of the roof on top.

[massp88]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Don't see why the Alamodome couldn't host again. They have the same turf system Cowboys Stadium has, and the lower deck is retractable, so they could cleanly ad bleachers in the middle of the field. I think the newer venues are just more exotic right now. If UTSA football ever gets big, That roof would make a nice retractable. It looked great during construction before they put the flat part of the roof on top.

UTSA football is never getting big. Not when you have Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU and Texas to compete with. Not to mention a school like Baylor and North Texas.

[JJG]

Originally Posted by massp88

UTSA football is never getting big. Not when you have Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU and Texas to compete with. Not to mention a school like Baylor and North Texas.

Never say never..... It may take a couple decades, but UTSA could move up to FBS one day.

Still don't know about the Alamodome, although I'd like to seem them renovate it.

[slipperydog]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Don't see why the Alamodome couldn't host again.

The Alamodome is capable from a logistical standpoint, but the NCAA is still not interested. They have already said they feel Houston and Dallas have more amenities and aren't going back to SA anytime soon.

[FastFerrari]

Originally Posted by massp88

UTSA football is never getting big. Not when you have Texas Tech, Texas A&M, TCU and Texas to compete with. Not to mention a school like Baylor and North Texas.

Did make the move to FBS!! In the WAC conf in the '12 season while the '11 season will be in the Southland conf. Utsa is a fairly large school with over 31,000 students. Only second to UT-Austin in the UT school systems.

NCAA will bring Final Four back to SA with this development.

[JJG]

And in a way, I stand corrected.

I said it may take a couple decades for UTSA to move up.....


They're bringing Texas State with them. So that brings a count of 12 FBS schools in Texas.
(This state could form its own damn conference again...)

[RaiderATO]

Originally Posted by FastFerrari

NCAA will bring Final Four back to SA with this development.

That has nothing to do with football, and everything to do with the ability of the Alamodome to host 70K.