USA - Stadium and Arena Development News

[TalB]

Originally Posted by NovaWolverine

Yeah, MLS is definitely finding it's place in the US, it's going to take a while though, but what Americans on the large scale need to do is appreciate the skill that's involved on the little things, not just goal scoring, I think once that's accepted more, like how it is in hockey people will like it, I actually think hockey is very similar and MLS could become like the NHL someday. I know in the DC area soccer and lacrosse are two more obscure sports that there is a ton of following for.

It's interesting to hear about that, b/c many people would have thought that the MLS would have died after its first few seasons, but it didn't. Unfortunately, it is liked as much as it is around the world. Maybe if the MLS managed to get Ronaldo, more would end up watching like they would in the UEFA leagues. On a sidenote, the WNBA will probably be nexting in finding its place.

[Aquarius]

Real Sant Lake? The United States is not a monarchy, that name is stupid..

In Spain many clubs have crown in their shield...

Real Betis Balompie in Sevilla



Real club Deportivo de La Coruña



Real Club Deportivo Espanyol de Barcelona



Real sociedad de Fútbol



Real Zaragoza



..........and more...

[Martuh]

Originally Posted by AcesHigh

The Astrodome cant be used because its a completely closed stadium, where natural grass dont receive sunlight and cant grow. And FIFA FORBIDS professional football games of being played on artificial grass.

It sucks for a team to simply change city! Thats what happens when a team is a franchise instead of a CLUB, like in all large football nations.

Nonsense. In The Netherlands, we have three professional teams (one in the Eredivisie) who play on artificial grass, they all meet the highest standards. Although artificial grass sucks and real grass kicks ass

[DnH]

How come only rich kids and middleclass youths play soccer in U.S?
In other countries its the other way around most of the time.

[XCRunner]

Originally Posted by bubomb

Some of the best games i've ever seen have been 0-0's.

I totally agree with you on this one. It may be hard to comprehend why this is if you're not from America (you are Scottish, correct?), but for some reason sports fans in the U.S. don't like ties. Steve Rushin just wrote an article about this in Sports Illustrated, about how the tie has dissapeared from North American sports.

In 1932 the Chicago Bears tied six games. There has only been one tie in the last six NFL seasons. The NHL just got rid of the tie. He goes on to mention how the tie is cherished is soccer (or football, whatever the hell one wants to call it). And how he thinks it should have a place in U.S. sports. I agree with him, but sadly, I think most here would disagree. They would maybe be okay with a tie if it had some goals, but not a 0-0 tie.

Soccer has a reputation here of being "boring" because there isn't enough scoring. I don't see how it's that much different from American Football. A 3-2 game is the same as 21-14 game. And even if there is less scoring (which there is). what's wrong with that? Americans don't like it for some reason, and I don't know why. Basketball is just the opposite. Scoring is so routine, it happens at about every other posession. This sometimes bores me, so I don't see why people don't have a problem with this but they have a problem with soccer. I'm not slaming basketball here, i like it as much as soccer.

So that's why a 0-0 draw in the final is a bad advertisement for MLS.

[XCRunner]

Originally Posted by DnH

How come only rich kids and middleclass youths play soccer in U.S?
In other countries its the other way around most of the time.

That's not true. What about Eddie Johnson (I mean the Eddie Johnson who plays for FC Dallas, not the one on loan to Crewe Alexandra)?

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by DnH

How come only rich kids and middleclass youths play soccer in U.S?
In other countries its the other way around most of the time.

Because overprotective parents don't want their kids playing tougher sports like baseball (a line drive to the head with a baseball to an 8 year old can be pretty serious stuff), ice hocky, or American football. The rules are also relativley straight forward and makes kids run around the most and become tired (which most parents can appreciate). Plus it is rather inexpensive to play and run a league.

[StuckInOklahoma]

Poor quality? Yea, this definitely screams poor quality:

Oklahoma Memorial Stadium: University of Oklahoma


















What bleachers? Approximately 10-15k of the 82,000 seats are chairback.

[BaylorGuy314]

First of all, BuBomb, I don't think you understand the college game very well.

Most college stadiums are 50+ years old and hold lots of tradition. Many have existed since the 1920s, when the average attendnace was a couple of hundred spectators. No one wants to tear these old stadiums down and build state of the art, NFL-like stadiums. It costs a lot of money and you have to do it over and over again, something that most universities simply cannot afford. The average fan doesn't want to throw away the history and tradition for a chairback, armrests, air conditioning, a roof, or nice concessions.

In most college stadiums, most of the crowd stands for the entire game and never sits, except at halftime. Tailgating before and after the game is done whether it's -17C or 48C outside. Many tailgaters bring their own generators and large tents so they can watch TV, use stereos, etc, outdoors. I know when I tailgate, we usually get out there at about 9am for a 2pm game and stay for several hours afterwards.

The reason there aren't roofs on most college stadiums is because it's stupid. Most colleges play 5-6 home games a year. The chances of absolutely horrid weather on one of those days is minimal, especially when you consider that Fall is not the rainy season in the US. If it does rain during a game, it usually only happens on one game per year.

Teams in the northeast (the rainiest part of the US) have roofs, but they are the only ones that experience that much rainfall.

The biggest reason roofs aren't on college stadiums is that there is an accepted feeling that if you can't stand through the rain, sleet, snow, hail, or 50C heat, then you aren't a true fan. If the team plays in it, then the fans should sit or stand through it. I agree.

Sounds like you are expected collegiate stadiums to be NFL quality. If you need seatbacks, luxury concessions, a roof, A/C, and WANT to be indoor before a game, then you aren't cut out to be a college football fan.

[BaylorGuy314]

No sport should allow a tie or draw. That's just dumb.

How can you walk away with a winner in some games and not others?

BuBomb, ADD stands for Attention Deficit Disorder.

Basketball and football are played by the "lower class" here in the US and it has been that way for quite sometime now. Don't know why, it just has.

People say that Americans just need to learn about the smaller things, other than just scoring, such as the matchups between players. That's the same thing we've been telling Europeans about baseball for years, but for some reason, it hasn't caught on.

It's just two different cultures.

Personally, I think baseball is the greatest sport in the world. Why hasn't Europe caught on to that yet?

[MoreOrLess]

Originally Posted by BaylorGuy314

First of all, BuBomb, I don't think you understand the college game very well.

Most college stadiums are 50+ years old and hold lots of tradition. Many have existed since the 1920s, when the average attendnace was a couple of hundred spectators. No one wants to tear these old stadiums down and build state of the art, NFL-like stadiums. It costs a lot of money and you have to do it over and over again, something that most universities simply cannot afford. The average fan doesn't want to throw away the history and tradition for a chairback, armrests, air conditioning, a roof, or nice concessions.

In that respect college stadiums are much more like British football grounds than NFL ones are. In both cases the club is inextricably linked to its location(Wimbledon moving to Milton Keeyes being a very unpopoular exception) and without the garenteed revenue of the NFL(clubs can be religated or fail to quality for the Champions League thus reducing their income).Even the new Wembley is being built on the site of the old stadium not because its an espeically good location but out of tradision. Whats causing a few clubs to build new stadiums in different locations recently is the fact that all seater grounds were introduced 15 years ago after the Hillsborough disaster thus reducing capacitys of grounds that don't have any room to redevolp due to being in the middle of towns/cities. I'd say that has effected the use of roofs aswell since many of those old standing room stands were uncovered, it is afterall much more unpleasent to sit in the rain than it is to stand in it.

I don't have anything agenst grounds having benchs/standing room its just that with such room you can obviously fit more people in a physically smaller stadium. Most British fans would I'd guess welcome the return of well designed standing areas as used in germany right now whether they preffer to stand or not now that holiganism has been largely removed from the game as they'd likely boost capacities, help atmosphere and reduce ticket prices. With the greater level of public interest in football compaired to the 80's I wouldnt be supprized if the likes of Man Utd could pull in monster attendances similar to collage teams if that happened.

[XCRunner]

How is it dumb to have a draw? You seem like you like sports, which means you would enjoy Sports Illustrated. Read Steve Rushin's article that I talked about in my other posts.

And what's more exciting: A win that's a total blowout, or a nail-biter that goes down to the very, bitter end? So what if it ends in a draw. No matter who you are, or what your favorite sport is, everyone has to admit that a hard-fought, blood, seat, and tears, down-to-the-wire game is better than a lopsided, run-up-the-score victory. What's wrong with having two equal teams?

[Kampflamm]

I can't believe that there's actually a team called "Real Salt Lake". That city has the most inappropriate team names (see Utah Jazz).

[Kampflamm]

At least Chivas USA has a decent logo

[BaylorGuy314]

Originally Posted by XCRunner

And what's more exciting: A win that's a total blowout, or a nail-biter that goes down to the very, bitter end? So what if it ends in a draw. No matter who you are, or what your favorite sport is, everyone has to admit that a hard-fought, blood, seat, and tears, down-to-the-wire game is better than a lopsided, run-up-the-score victory. What's wrong with having two equal teams?

Sure, I love close, hard fought games. That's the best kind- a down to the wire type game like the Baylor-OU game that ended in double overtime in Norman this year. I was on the edge of my seat for the last hour. OU ended up winning, but that's ok. I would've been pissed off to no end if they would've declared the game a tie though.

No one wants to see a blowout, but everyone loves to see games in overtime or extra innings. One of the greatest games I've ever watched was the 6 hour long, 18 inning Houston-Atlanta baseball game earlier this year. Of course, I'm biased towards Houston, but I would've been incredibly upset had that game ended in a hard fought "draw." The crowd goes to see a win or loss, not a tie. It's why they took it out of college football years ago.

[BaylorGuy314]

Exactly. Collegiate stadiums are built on the college campus. Here's a picture of Notre Dame's grounds:



The stadium has been there for generations. It would be extremely difficult and costly to build a new state of the art stadium there. It would also be throwing away nearly 100 years of tradition.

Instead, college stadiums have been adding and expanding the press box area of stadiums. It is in these press boxes that the luxury amenities are located, such as suites, restaurants, bars, A/C, heat, etc, etc. Prices for these areas are at a premium though and the average fan cannot afford these seats.

There is simply a lot of tradition in many stadiums in the US that people wouldn't trade for the upgrades. It's the same reason that Wrigley Field in Chicago, Fenway Park in Boston, Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence, and more haven't built new facilities.

I would rather watch my teams play a game sitting on a bleacher in the boiling heat than to sit in the A/C in a suite. The latter type of atmosphere takes away from the experience.

[johnz88]

Thats changing now, the image of the "soccer mom" is fading, those kids were rich and just played for fun but now its turning into playing it because you love it and there is somewhere you can get with it.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Iain1974

The college stadiums really aren't a lot different in quality to the old ones in Britain of not so long ago before the Taylor report changed everything.

Many people, a definate majority in my opinion, preferred the old style stadiums with huge terraces. I'm sure bubomb can remember paying 3 quid to watch Rangers in the 80's.

These days the British stadiums are much more similar to NFL stadiums in quality (and ticket price). Most are smaller of course but with places like Majdeski or Pride Park they're best described as the lower tier of an NFL ground (with the obligitary roof).

Let us non-UK folk in on what the Taylor reports were if you don't mind? I am pretty intrigued.

[NovaWolverine]

Basically, let's just acknowledge that there's no way in which people that have never been to a college football game and live in another continent and don't even really follow american football will understand what we're talking about.

It's similar to soccer I don't know why it's hard to understand. And Americans are supposed to be the materialistic ones. It's about having up to 100k fans, many of them rowdy especially the students, yelling and screaming for your team, your yelling every defensive play to distract the opposing team, and not worrying about your stupid cup holder, put it on the damn floor. It's about the bands and pageantry, the tailgating, the talking trash.

And no, it's not too early for it to snow in michigan, the last game is in the third week of november, and it has snowed numerous times for this last game.

All you foreign people are fixated on is the attendance and comparing it to euro stadia, it's not the big a deal, it's about the atmosphere and tradition and quality of team and program before the attendance. Attendance is important to the ones that are big like michigan, penn state, osu, tennessee, etc, but a lot of it is the experience.

And this idea of a roof, it's nice but not necessary, having the experience of being in sub freezing temperature with snow, being bundled up, and still yelling your ass off, that is definitely a part of the experience, sorry if soccer people can't understand and I love soccer btw.

And the other 100k plus people in the stadium doing the same, that's what it's all about. Standing and seating room, sure that's great, but it's about getting off your ass and rooting for your team creating an exciting and memorable experience, even handicapped, grandmas, I want everyone yelling.

Michigan Stadium is planning the new renovation, it's gonna had better bathrooms and handicap access along with more room per person, hopefully not compromising the attendance, which we love to be at the top with. It's being debated whether to add luxury boxes, because the stadium hasn't discriminated in the past with seating, it's symbolic, but the added revenue would be great, there aren't any advertisements at all in michigan stadium.

[XCRunner]

Originally Posted by Kampflamm

I can't believe that there's actually a team called "Real Salt Lake". That city has the most inappropriate team names (see Utah Jazz).

Real Salt Lake is a really, really boring, uncreative, and above all else out-of-place name for that team; indeed, any America team. As for the Jazz, they used to be in New Orleans, so that explains it.