Baseball Stadiums

[LON]

This is going to sound like sacrilege, but as a Cubs fan, I hate Wrigley Field.

The location of Wrigley Field has to be the most consistently overrated item in stadium ratings.  Granted, there is absolutely a great deal of fun to be had in Wrigleyville.  If you're a visitor/tourist it has to be an awesome place to visit.  The abundance of bars in the area can make for a great time before and after the game...and even through the rest of the non-baseball season part of the year.

But it's impossible to get to Wrigley Field. Want to drive there?  You are insane.  Parking is an expensive nightmare and traffic is worse.  Mass transit is a little more convenient, but if you come in from the suburbs for a night game you have to leave before the end of the game to catch the Metra train heading home.  Also the Red Line from downtown on a 90 degree summer afternoon can be a far less than pleasant experience packed in one of those cattle cars with your face jammed in someone's armpit to fit everyone on the train.

More than anything, the location of Wrigley Field attracts all the jerks that go to the ball game just to be seen on TV waving to their friends while on their cellphone/wear their popped collar polo shirts and hit on the drunk chicks in the bleachers/stack the mai-tai cups as high as possible and throw up on themselves while being carried out of the ballpark...etc.  These people aren't Cub fans, they're an annoyance.  They're not there to watch the game or participate in anything but a summer party.

Compare a trip to The Cell with a trip to Wrigley.  I'm one of the biggest Cub fans you'll ever meet, and I would so much rather go to a game at US Cellular Field than a Cubs game.  The ballpark is actually a really nice place, the sightlines are awesome, and the best part?  The food is really good.  It's actually a nice atmosphere to go to a game in comparison to all the nonsense that goes on at a Cubs game.  You can tailgate in the parking lot before the game there too, something unheard of around Wrigley Field.

I'm sure I will be berated for my feelings on this topic.  But I know for a fact that I'm not alone here.

You forgot the abundance of Fukodome headbands.

Yes, I know I have seen idiots wearing the BK crowns for Prince; but come on, who doesn't love a sweet BK crown every now and again.  Pure. Nostalgia.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It's because it's Minnesota.  I always thought it was amusing that Wisconsin had three facilities (Miller Park, Lambeau Field and Camp Randall) better than the one place Minnesota used for all three.  Next year at this time, Wisconsin will have three facilties better than Minnesota's three facilities.

I disagree, baseball is meant to be played outside.  Cleveland has an outdoor park.  Chicago has two outdoor parks.  Milwaukee did for years.  New York.  Boston.

Playing indoors makes teams hairy wet cats in my opinion.  It killed the Vikings.

I LOVE that Minnesota is building an outdoor stadium for the Twins.  The University of Minnesota has a stadium coming up too, and that stadium will help their football program immensely.

[LON]

Not to nitpick, but the Gophers stadium and Twins stadium haven't even opened yet.

How do we know that Wisconsin's stadiums are already better? Nobody has even seen the new stadiums yet.

I was just at the U of Minn the other weekend for my brother's graduation.  I have to say, the new stadium looks AWESOME.  Every screen is HD, you can see multiple screens from the streets, location is great, they have a bunch of open-air sight lines from within the stadium that you'll be able to catch the action as you walk by.  So far (without actually being in it) I give it an A.

[Chili]

I disagree, baseball is meant to be played outside.  Cleveland has an outdoor park.  Chicago has two outdoor parks.  Milwaukee did for years.  New York.  Boston.

Playing indoors makes teams hairy wet cats in my opinion.  It killed the Vikings.

I LOVE that Minnesota is building an outdoor stadium for the Twins.  The University of Minnesota has a stadium coming up too, and that stadium will help their football program immensely.

Here is the issue Chico and you of all people should know this. 40% of Twins fans live outside the of the Minneapolis / St. Paul metro area and travel distances to come to games. Many of these fans are in the Rochester, Sioux Falls, Fargo / Moorehead areas. By not having a roof of any kind you are telling these fans that travel often on weekends that there might not be baseball due to weather risk.

To contrast, the Brewers fan base has grown tremendously in the markets an hour and half plus from Milwaukee with many bus trips planned. The Stevens Point, Wausau, La Crosse areas have been a boom for the Brewers and expanded where they can market their product as when people travel to Milwaukee for a game they know there is going to be baseball.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Here is the issue Chico and you of all people should know this. 40% of Twins fans live outside the of the Minneapolis / St. Paul metro area and travel distances to come to games. Many of these fans are in the Rochester, Sioux Falls, Fargo / Moorehead areas. By not having a roof of any kind you are telling these fans that travel often on weekends that there might not be baseball due to weather risk.

To contrast, the Brewers fan base has grown tremendously in the markets an hour and half plus from Milwaukee with many bus trips planned. The Stevens Point, Wausau, La Crosse areas have been a boom for the Brewers and expanded where they can market their product as when people travel to Milwaukee for a game they know there is going to be baseball.

Anecdotally, I'll agree with you and your premise... but is there anything out there that proves this?

Is there a larger percentage of Wausau fans coming now than before? Or have the numbers increased at the same rate as everybody else's (ie there are just more people going to Brewer games now).

Is there a study that proves this? (there certainly could be).

Also, I'm willing to bet the Twins would have loved a retractable roof, but again, I think they were willing to take what they could get. They'll say that they "love not having a roof", but realistically I bet they would like one.

[Chili]

Anecdotally, I'll agree with you and your premise... but is there anything out there that proves this?

Is there a larger percentage of Wausau fans coming now than before? Or have the numbers increased at the same rate as everybody else's (ie there are just more people going to Brewer games now).

Is there a study that proves this? (there certainly could be).

Also, I'm willing to bet the Twins would have loved a retractable roof, but again, I think they were willing to take what they could get. They'll say that they "love not having a roof", but realistically I bet they would like one.

Yes there are studies to the Brewers. And the Twins fan base has also been studied.

Articles re. Miller Park

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41060437.html

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/128420

[NavinRJohnson]

For anyone to suggest that the roof on Miller Park was anything but a good idea is ridiculous. Look at their attendance, look at the corresponding revenue, the corresponding payroll, the corresponding results on the field, which brings us right back to the corresponding attendance.

None of that happens if they are playing in front of dozens of fans on 38 degree nights in April or May (or June). For the Brewers to be where they are attendance-wise is nothing short of remarkable. They are right in the midst of team like the Yankees, Mets, Dogers, Angles, Cardinals, and Cubs...in Milwaukee, WI...one of the smallest markets with possibly the worst weather. I personally have been to 4 games this season prior to June 1st. I assure you if there was no roof that number would be much closer to zero. Suite sales, corporate sales, etc., etc. simply would not be where they are if not for that roof.

As others have pointed out, the Twins wanted a retractable roof, but simply couldn't get the money approved. One thing bus Selig did right as an owner was hold firm on the necessity of the roof.

[GGGG]

Yes there are studies to the Brewers. And the Twins fan base has also been studied.

Articles re. Miller Park

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41060437.html

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/128420

Not to be picky here, but this study isn't really valid because it doesn't compare pre-roof and post-roof.  While I do think it is a factor, I think another big factor is that they are winning now.  People from Madison, Green Bay, Wausau, etc. are more apt to go to a game if they think the atmosphere is exciting and the team is winning.  Take away the winning and the fun of going to a game drops dramatically.

But as Navin says, the roof was absolutely the right thing to do and has definately helped their attendance.

[GGGG]

Not to nitpick, but the Gophers stadium and Twins stadium haven't even opened yet.

How do we know that Wisconsin's stadiums are already better? Nobody has even seen the new stadiums yet.

Camp Randall has 80,000 capacity, TCF Bank Stadium has 50,000.  In college football, the bigger, the louder, the better.

[NavinRJohnson]

They'll say that they "love not having a roof", but realistically I bet they would like one.

They will seemingly always be pretty good, so their attendance a few years down the line when the novelty wears off should speak for itself.

[BrewCity83]

Don't forget, Miller Park's roof is retractible.  Yes, baseball is meant to be played outside, but it is really meant to be played.  When we have summerlike weather, in June, July and August, the games are played in the open air.  When it's cold and crappy out, like most of April and May, we have protection from the crappy weather.  It's like insurance.

Football, on the other hand, should always be played outdoors, no matter the weather.  That's why the Vikings are hairy wet cats.  There should be a distinction between baseball and football, since baseball is a fair weather game subject to rainouts.

[Hards Alumni]

imagine driving from southern IL only to find that the cubs game you have tickets for is rained out. 

imagine driving from northern WI and being positive that the brewers game you had tickets for cannot be rained out.

[NavinRJohnson]

Football, on the other hand, should always be played outdoors, no matter the weather.  That's why the Vikings are hairy wet cats.  There should be a distinction between baseball and football, since baseball is a fair weather game subject to rainouts.

Correct. 8 games vs. 81.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Camp Randall has 80,000 capacity, TCF Bank Stadium has 50,000.  In college football, the bigger, the louder, the better.

Yea, I get it... but if TCF was 81,000, would you be saying, "uh oh, it's better than Camp Randall" without even seeing it?

I know bigger is probably better, but I think it would be prudent to actually see the stadium before proclaiming that Camp Randall is better (which is certainly possible).

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Not to be picky here, but this study isn't really valid because it doesn't compare pre-roof and post-roof.  While I do think it is a factor, I think another big factor is that they are winning now.  People from Madison, Green Bay, Wausau, etc. are more apt to go to a game if they think the atmosphere is exciting and the team is winning.  Take away the winning and the fun of going to a game drops dramatically.

But as Navin says, the roof was absolutely the right thing to do and has definately helped their attendance.

Agree completely, and that's what I'm getting at.

I'm sure there are more people taking road trips now... but I'm not sure you can boil that down into "there's a roof, so now they are coming".

The roof is probably a factor, but might not be the major driver of silver bullet that people are looking for. A winning team with a fun environment* with no roof will draw people on road trips. A losing team and a crappy environment* and a roof will probably not draw people on road trips.

* To be fair, weather is certainly something to be considered when talking about a "fun game environment". Watching a game in the rain defiantly reduces the fun.

[Chili]

Agree completely, and that's what I'm getting at.

I'm sure there are more people taking road trips now... but I'm not sure you can boil that down into "there's a roof, so now they are coming".

The roof is probably a factor, but might not be the major driver of silver bullet that people are looking for. A winning team with a fun environment* with no roof will draw people on road trips. A losing team and a crappy environment* and a roof will probably not draw people on road trips.

* To be fair, weather is certainly something to be considered when talking about a "fun game environment". Watching a game in the rain defiantly reduces the fun.

I did a lot of work with the Brewers as a strategic partner in a previous life and was specifically in charge of North Central and Northwest Wisconsin. It is a much bigger driver than you are giving it credit for. Trust me - the ability to plan travel is a huge bonus for the Brewers. But the Brewers even found upticks in these areas before the winning.

[LON]

Yea, I get it... but if TCF was 81,000, would you be saying, "uh oh, it's better than Camp Randall" without even seeing it?

I know bigger is probably better, but I think it would be prudent to actually see the stadium before proclaiming that Camp Randall is better (which is certainly possible).

I'll agree that bigger would be better, but comparing it aesthetically (even though TCF is still under construction) I gotta give the nod to TCF on this one.

[GGGG]

Yea, I get it... but if TCF was 81,000, would you be saying, "uh oh, it's better than Camp Randall" without even seeing it?

I know bigger is probably better, but I think it would be prudent to actually see the stadium before proclaiming that Camp Randall is better (which is certainly possible).

Baseball stadiums are about aesthetics and such.  Football is more about atmosphere, especially college football.  It has to be big and it has to be loud.  Camp Randall is most definately that.  TCF is probably going to be like UConn's Reschler Field or Rutgers Field - nice and new but smallish.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I did a lot of work with the Brewers as a strategic partner in a previous life and was specifically in charge of North Central and Northwest Wisconsin. It is a much bigger driver than you are giving it credit for. Trust me - the ability to plan travel is a huge bonus for the Brewers. But the Brewers even found upticks in these areas before the winning.

Fair enough... you certainly could be right. I really don't have proof either way... just bringing up the question.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Baseball stadiums are about aesthetics and such.  Football is more about atmosphere, especially college football.  It has to be big and it has to be loud.  Camp Randall is most definately that.  TCF is probably going to be like UConn's Reschler Field or Rutgers Field - nice and new but smallish.

Yea, but by that logic, the Metrodome is better than TCF field because it's bigger and louder.

I agree that size is a major factor for college football, but again, you probably need to actually see it in person before declaring that it's "worse that Camp Randall".

Also, Miller Park is very nice, but Target Field might be great. Too early to tell on that one as well. I like Miller Park a lot, but it's not like it's the mecca of pro baseball. Target Field could certainly match or surpass Miller Park for viewing experience. Again, it's too early to know. 

[muwarrior69]

I'm dating myself....

Ebbits Field-no greater fans than old Brooklyn Dodger fans. They had a band that played before the game and in between innings. Dodger players would throw signed base baseballs into the crowd during batting practice. I saw Jackie Robinson, Duke Snyder, Reese and all the Dodger greats play as a kid.

Polo Grounds- center field (475 ft.), left field was only 250, but you had to hit it into the upper deck for a home run which over hanged about 15 ft.

The Old Yankee Stadium up until 1973 when they closed it for remodeling. Nothing more exciting than an inside the park home run to left center (457 ft) or center field behind  the monuments (461 ft).

[ChicosBailBonds]

Here is the issue Chico and you of all people should know this. 40% of Twins fans live outside the of the Minneapolis / St. Paul metro area and travel distances to come to games. Many of these fans are in the Rochester, Sioux Falls, Fargo / Moorehead areas. By not having a roof of any kind you are telling these fans that travel often on weekends that there might not be baseball due to weather risk.

To contrast, the Brewers fan base has grown tremendously in the markets an hour and half plus from Milwaukee with many bus trips planned. The Stevens Point, Wausau, La Crosse areas have been a boom for the Brewers and expanded where they can market their product as when people travel to Milwaukee for a game they know there is going to be baseball.

No different then White Sox fans or Cubs fans having to travel, or Indians fans in Columbus.   I get what you're saying, but I love that they are building an outdoor stadium.  Those fans will just have to make their trips in May through September instead of April.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Camp Randall has 80,000 capacity, TCF Bank Stadium has 50,000.  In college football, the bigger, the louder, the better.

You need to go to Autzen Stadium then, I'll bet it changes your mind.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I did a lot of work with the Brewers as a strategic partner in a previous life and was specifically in charge of North Central and Northwest Wisconsin. It is a much bigger driver than you are giving it credit for. Trust me - the ability to plan travel is a huge bonus for the Brewers. But the Brewers even found upticks in these areas before the winning.

I totally get why they did it, I just don't like domed stadiums.  I think it makes the team soft (especially in football), makes the fans soft and generally is just wrong to play baseball inside.  But I definitely understand why they did it.

[NavinRJohnson]

I think it makes the team soft (especially in football)...

Your evidence of this is what?