(shocking and true)- 3,767
[i]"I would be all for a brand new venue to spur more development and excitement about the Rams, but where was all this "the Dome sucks" talk when the Rams were the greatest show on turf. To me it is no coincidence that now that the team has been mediocre for a while there is more of a reason to be disgruntled as there is less to "get excited about" making for a more drab atmosphere. I was at the game on Sunday and while I have not been to any other NFL stadiums, I don't find it all that bad. If they were 2-0 right now with a high flying offense, I think all this negativity would be curtailed by quite a bit." [/i]
Please see my "Edward Jones dungeon thread"
I thought the atmosphere was bad the first time I stepped into the dome. It is dark, plain and needs major improvement. I think a transparent roof is the answer. It will naturally brighten up the place, at a lower cost than a new stadium or retractable roof. I remember when the Football Cardinals played a Busch. Everyone complained about the cold weather and how nice a dome would be. Now everyone wants the opposite. That may be because our winters are much less harsh, versus 20+ years ago. I would love to have an outdoor stadium, but it is not likely anytime in the next 20 years. Another advantage of a new transparent roof would be energy savings. Less money spent on lighting during daytime events could be motivation to consider this. I don't know what is spent on lighting the place, but I would assume that the roof may eventually pay for itself, in part. Indianapolis and Detroit, I believe, have a transparent roof. Just a thought.
Please see my "Edward Jones dungeon thread"
I thought the atmosphere was bad the first time I stepped into the dome. It is dark, plain and needs major improvement. I think a transparent roof is the answer. It will naturally brighten up the place, at a lower cost than a new stadium or retractable roof. I remember when the Football Cardinals played a Busch. Everyone complained about the cold weather and how nice a dome would be. Now everyone wants the opposite. That may be because our winters are much less harsh, versus 20+ years ago. I would love to have an outdoor stadium, but it is not likely anytime in the next 20 years. Another advantage of a new transparent roof would be energy savings. Less money spent on lighting during daytime events could be motivation to consider this. I don't know what is spent on lighting the place, but I would assume that the roof may eventually pay for itself, in part. Indianapolis and Detroit, I believe, have a transparent roof. Just a thought.
Here is some more info on the roof I would suggest they look into for the ED:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Field
"Unlike most indoor stadiums, Ford Field allows a large amount of natural light to reach the playing field, thanks to immense skylights and large glass windows at the open corners. Ford Field allows natural light to penetrate through gray translucent roof panels. The southwest corner provides the seating bowl and concourse with sunlight year-round and also offers fans a view of downtown Detroit. To prevent the stadium from becoming an overly imposing presence in the Detroit skyline"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Field
"Unlike most indoor stadiums, Ford Field allows a large amount of natural light to reach the playing field, thanks to immense skylights and large glass windows at the open corners. Ford Field allows natural light to penetrate through gray translucent roof panels. The southwest corner provides the seating bowl and concourse with sunlight year-round and also offers fans a view of downtown Detroit. To prevent the stadium from becoming an overly imposing presence in the Detroit skyline"
On paper, this seems like a fantastic idea. But how much would it cost to retro-fit the EDJ to support this type of lighting?
- 3,767
"How much would it cost?"
Significantly less than a new stadium.
Significantly less than a new stadium.
- 264
more examples
![]()
this has retractable section of roof. I would skip that to keep down cost & clean up look of ceiling.
![]()
the transparent ceiling is viable, and i agree a huge improvement... I haven't read this whole thread, but I don't see ownership ponying up any money. didn't they move here in the 1st place because they were cheapasses?
this has retractable section of roof. I would skip that to keep down cost & clean up look of ceiling.
the transparent ceiling is viable, and i agree a huge improvement... I haven't read this whole thread, but I don't see ownership ponying up any money. didn't they move here in the 1st place because they were cheapasses?
member public eye said it best:
reality is:
You may want to continue more discussion here:
http://www.stlouissportsforum.com/forums/index.php
reality is:
Nowhere, for at least another 10 years. RSA and Rams announced agreement for upgrades last week, satisfying lease terms.
You may want to continue more discussion here:
http://www.stlouissportsforum.com/forums/index.php
The thread is fine with me as long as you are not making pointless posts and eating up bandwidth.
My point exactly.
As for the record, none of the moderators or administrators on these sites have any affiliations with The St. Louis Rams, St. Louis City or Count - etc...
Please discuss sports. By all means - of course we do.
It is the "hypethetical" aspects of so many of the threads that are just posted on these boards instead of actual developments and statistics.
I am stating a great STL sports site/boards that may have more interest in the subject of a new Rams stadium in the future.... and also staing that this will not happen in the near future with Rams contract at the Ed Jones Dome.
For the record, I too - hate that place!
Thanks.
If anyone wished to discuss any boards topics with me or any of the mods/admins, please IM or email us directly so we can discuss the issue/problem or topic contents with you.
Thanks.
As for the record, none of the moderators or administrators on these sites have any affiliations with The St. Louis Rams, St. Louis City or Count - etc...
Please discuss sports. By all means - of course we do.
It is the "hypethetical" aspects of so many of the threads that are just posted on these boards instead of actual developments and statistics.
I am stating a great STL sports site/boards that may have more interest in the subject of a new Rams stadium in the future.... and also staing that this will not happen in the near future with Rams contract at the Ed Jones Dome.
For the record, I too - hate that place!
Thanks.
If anyone wished to discuss any boards topics with me or any of the mods/admins, please IM or email us directly so we can discuss the issue/problem or topic contents with you.
Thanks.
I say we cut the top off the Dome and leave it off,Then everyone would be happy,,,but wait you can't satify everyone , there always someone who is gonna b*tch about something. 
Tonystl wrote:I say we cut the top off the Dome and leave it off,Then everyone would be happy,,,but wait you can't satify everyone , there always someone who is gonna b*tch about something.
You know... that might be the best idea...
Football is suppose to played outside. Plus it adds that atmosphere.
If football is to be played outside, why are the majority of superbowls indoors? Call me a baby, but between the Pittsburgh/Miami debacle a couple of weeks ago, and today's game vs. Cincinnati, I'll take a temperate, dry place to watch any day rather than sit in the rain and freeze my a@@ off watching two teams struggle to gain any yards. And based on the attendance in CIN, I don't think I'm alone in that claim. I'm just as much a sports purist as the next guy, but I'll go back to it every time....with a handful of exceptions, 'atmosphere' is usually dependent on the success of the team. If the Rams were playing Patroits-style football, these discussions would be few and far between.
^Right, I don't think we got these complaints back in 1999 when there was no better place for a home team.
- 923
Blzhrpmd2 wrote:If football is to be played outside, why are the majority of superbowls indoors? Call me a baby, but between the Pittsburgh/Miami debacle a couple of weeks ago, and today's game vs. Cincinnati, I'll take a temperate, dry place to watch any day rather than sit in the rain and freeze my a@@ off watching two teams struggle to gain any yards. And based on the attendance in CIN, I don't think I'm alone in that claim. I'm just as much a sports purist as the next guy, but I'll go back to it every time....with a handful of exceptions, 'atmosphere' is usually dependent on the success of the team. If the Rams were playing Patroits-style football, these discussions would be few and far between.
No, people still complained, they just kept going anyways. And you don't think the losing record is a big reason people in Cincy didn't go to that game? Lets see, bad team, worse weather, even worse opponent. Yeah, I'm gonna stay in for this one.
Super Bowls are played in warm weather climates because they don't want the game affected by weather, but on the merits of the players (see Pit/Miami game earlier this year). It has nothing to do with the fans. They could hold the game in the seventh circle of hell (New Jersey) and people would still turn up in droves to watch the game. Why? BECAUSE IT'S THE FREAKING SUPER BOWL. You'd booze up and put on 17 layers if you had to if your team got in.
And also, as someone who's been to one (Atlanta '00), I can say that an indoor superbowl, even the best one ever, sucks compared to a good outdoor game. Don't know why, but it does.
Exactly. If the superbowl should not be affected by the weather but on the merits of the players, than why shouldn't all the games that determine the superbowl fall subject to the same guideline?
Also, I just hate when people rag on STL as bad football fans. Our team sucks right now and some people don't stay the whole game. Apparently "we're not as rowdy during the game." Why? There's little to get rowdy about. Does that mean we hate them, hate football, or just don't care? Probably not. It means we pay attention and know that especially this yeat, we know what's coming...mediocre football. I haven't heard of much Bengal fan bashing, yet as you indicated above; bad team+ bad opponent+bad weather= poor attendance. Could be indifference in some cases, could be human nature, and we're all prone to it. This stuff goes on all over the league yet in cities with a more potent tradition (seen plenty of half empty stadiums in the second half of games in Buffalo, Pitt, Detroit. etc. this year) it gets passed on as okay. It happens in STL and "we're non-passionate fans. That doesn't seem right.
Also, I just hate when people rag on STL as bad football fans. Our team sucks right now and some people don't stay the whole game. Apparently "we're not as rowdy during the game." Why? There's little to get rowdy about. Does that mean we hate them, hate football, or just don't care? Probably not. It means we pay attention and know that especially this yeat, we know what's coming...mediocre football. I haven't heard of much Bengal fan bashing, yet as you indicated above; bad team+ bad opponent+bad weather= poor attendance. Could be indifference in some cases, could be human nature, and we're all prone to it. This stuff goes on all over the league yet in cities with a more potent tradition (seen plenty of half empty stadiums in the second half of games in Buffalo, Pitt, Detroit. etc. this year) it gets passed on as okay. It happens in STL and "we're non-passionate fans. That doesn't seem right.
- 29
Blzhrpmd2 wrote: I'll take a temperate, dry place to watch any day rather than sit in the rain and freeze my a@@ off watching two teams struggle to gain any yards. And based on the attendance in CIN, I don't think I'm alone in that claim.
Cincinnati has either been at 100-100.7% capacity for the past 4 years. With an average of almost 66K people per game for '07.
- 3,433
Cincinnatus wrote:Blzhrpmd2 wrote: I'll take a temperate, dry place to watch any day rather than sit in the rain and freeze my a@@ off watching two teams struggle to gain any yards. And based on the attendance in CIN, I don't think I'm alone in that claim.
Cincinnati has either been at 100-100.7% capacity for the past 4 years. With an average of almost 66K people per game for '07.
I'd like to have both. Outdoor stadium in the early season, and then switch to the dome for late season games. The Packers used to split their games between Green Bay and Milwaukee a few years ago. It can be done.
I think an outdoor stadium on the East side riverfront, like the one in Nashville, would look pretty nice. We just need Illinois to build it.
- 10K
Afftonguy78 wrote:I say we just send them back to LA.
Come on, now. That's ridiculous. Every team is going to have good years and bad years. Don't bail on the Rams just because they haven't made the playoffs in a few seasons.
I hear Afftonguy78 had been an ardent Cub fan but left the flock after the 1909 season.DeBaliviere wrote:Afftonguy78 wrote:I say we just send them back to LA.
Come on, now. That's ridiculous. Every team is going to have good years and bad years. Don't bail on the Rams just because they haven't made the playoffs in a few seasons.
- 1,364
I don't understand everyone saying St. Louis is a bad football town.
I've heard that the Rams have sold out all but 4 games the last few years.
Doesn't sound so bad to me.
I've heard that the Rams have sold out all but 4 games the last few years.
Doesn't sound so bad to me.
St. Louis isn't green bay or dallas, but it is a good football town. The Rams had a hell of a sellout streak and with a couple of wins will be selling out again.
It is funny to me because most people would say STL is more of a hockey town, but the Blues aren't selling out many games.
The reality is that it is NFL football, one of the biggest stages in sports, it is still a big deal here. Now having said that, I think when a new stadium deal is done, it will most likely be in STL county, probably earth city. I know STL County will aggressively go after it. While I would rather it be downtown the reality is that the economic benefit from football is the least of the 3 sports here because there are only 8 home games.
I just doubt the City will be able to do a deal to compete with the County
It is funny to me because most people would say STL is more of a hockey town, but the Blues aren't selling out many games.
The reality is that it is NFL football, one of the biggest stages in sports, it is still a big deal here. Now having said that, I think when a new stadium deal is done, it will most likely be in STL county, probably earth city. I know STL County will aggressively go after it. While I would rather it be downtown the reality is that the economic benefit from football is the least of the 3 sports here because there are only 8 home games.
I just doubt the City will be able to do a deal to compete with the County
mophipsi wrote: I know STL County will aggressively go after it.
How do you know this? Your next sentence alludes to the minimal return on investment, so why would they jump at the chance to lose money or just break even? They aren't exactly flush with cash either.
mophipsi wrote:While I would rather it be downtown the reality is that the economic benefit from football is the least of the 3 sports here because there are only 8 home games.
Long time ago, but Cincinnatus, I wasn't implying that Cincy doesn't sellout games routinely, just that in non down-to-the-wire games with little implication and bad weather a stadium can empty out early anywhere.
Back to the discussion at hand.
Back to the discussion at hand.
Looks like Indianapolis didn't do the greatest job with the $750,000,000 almost totally publicly financed Lucas Oil Field
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... ckcomments
Lots of negative stuff in the comments.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a ... ckcomments
Lots of negative stuff in the comments.