Just curious what parks people here have been to and what they think of them.
PLEASE keep the Wrigley sucks/Miller sucks arguments out of this thread.
My personal list:
Wrigley- Yes, in some ways it sucks. But the neighborhood location/surrounding area, the ivy, the scoreboard, the sign out front....I love it.
Miller- I like it. The biggest drawbacks IMO are the ridiculous roof problems, Bernie should be sliding into beer (I don't care if he's for kids, this is Wisconsin dammit), and you never feel outdoors there. I know the roof is useful sometimes, but baseball should be outdoors. And opening the roof and the walls doesn't give you a true outdoor feel. I like the tailgating.
Metrodome- Blah. The best part is that it always reminds me of watching us play Pitt/UK there. Excited to see their new one.
Chase Field- Reminds me a lot of Miller, to the point where I lost a bet assuming they had been designed by the same people. Cheap tickets (apparently cheapest in baseball on average). Solid, but nothing spectacular.
Coors Field- Very cool. Right downtown, easy access from the interstate, bars/grills surround it--most with real good specials. Went to a Thursday afternoon game there a few weeks ago, was surprised/impressed with the amount of people out and about well before the game. Nice stadium, very open air, great sight lines everywhere, every employee we spoke with was very helpful/polite/permissive (unlike Wrigley where they are very strict about where you can go). You can see the Rockies (the real ones) beyond the LF foul pole (looking from RF).
Dodger Stadium- A classic. I love how it's built into the hills, so you climb up to your deck before entering the stadium. Interesting food. Laid-back crowd, so opposing fans are friendly to each other.
EDIT: County Stadium- Meh. Not the greatest, but most of the MLB games I saw up until age 12 were there, so I have some good memories.
Miller Park- I'm from Milwaukee, so I am biased, but I like it a lot. Every game I have been too, the view has been great, solid prices for beer and food, and tailgating is a huge plus.
Wrigley- Just went once, it was a bitter cold day, but still enjoyed it. Very old school, great neighborhood.
Fenway- I live in Boston, and the first few times were great, but over time, this stadium looses charm. Wicked expensive prices for tickets, food, and beer ($9 beers and $7 hot dogs), and a lot of the seats don't even face the field. I will go if it is nice day, and can find the occasional cheap tickets BTW, if you haven't been to www.fansnap.com it's a great site that searches a ton of online ticket retailers, kinda like kayak, but for tickets
Citi Field- Great new stadium for the Mets. Views were great, comfortable seats, they did it right IMO. I also heard the city finally seized all the chop shops that surround the stadium in flushing, and will be opening a bunch of bars and hotels
SkyDome- Forgettable
Jacobs Field- Went there when I was in middle school, but remember it as great place to see a ball game, and right in downtown which is nice
Old Yankee Stadium- one of my favorites I have been too. Went to Monument Park beforehand, very nostalgic
Metrodome- Who cares...dump for a baseball game, but weird that greatest sporting event I have ever been to was held there (2003 MU win over Kentucky)
Trop in Tampa- Worst of them all
Turner Field- Got $1 walk up tickets for bleachers, I was pretty ripped when I went there and don't remember much, but I think it was a fun place to see a game. I do remember the subway ride was more expensive than my game ticket
Nationals Park- Lots of fun, kinda in a random part of DC, but it looks like they are trying to build it up. We bought the SRO tickets for the outfield, they have all these outdoor bars, great time
Camden Yards- Another one where I imbibed a bit too much beforehand, but saw a Sox/Birds games, lots of fun, great location, right where you want to be in Baltimore
I will say, out of all these places, Miller Park was the only one that allowed tail gating. Grilling meat and drinking Miller Lites are too of my greatest talents, so I will give the nod to my hometown park on this one. ;D
Ones I want to see, Coors, Safeco, AT&T, New Yankee, and Citizens in Philly
I'll start this out by saying that I am a Brewer fan.
1. Pac Bell (or whatever it is called now) - I got to go on a warm day, I love San Francisco and the views of the Bay are gorgeous.
2. Busch Stadium - Beautiful. Wonderful site lines right downtown. I've been to one game there and I would love to return.
3. Miller Park - A little bias, but when it is near full it is a great atmosphere. But it can be a graveyard and cold when emptier. The location sucks too. Sorry, but that should have been built downtown.
4. Wrigley - Nice atmosphere, but a little overated. The newer parks listed above in SF and StL are much, much nicer.
5. Great American or whatever in Cincy - It was hot when I was there so it took away from the experience.
6. Comiskey Park. Built before Camden Yards, it is a dull place in a real crappy neighborhood.
I've also been to old Yankee Stadium (when I was nine and don't remember it much), old Busch and Riverfront (both dull and lifeless) and County Stadium of course (nice park but showed it age early and was in the same bad location that Miller Park is in.)
A friend of mine went on what we started calling THE DEATHTOUR and visited all 30 parks last season.
Here's the blog he put together for the visits. (http://carlgiannini.blogspot.com/)
Quote from: drewm88 on May 30, 2009, 03:06:57 PM
Metrodome- Blah. The best part is that it always reminds me of watching us play Pitt/UK there. Excited to see their new one.
I can't believe those idiots are building an open air stadium.
I'm going to PNC park on Thursday for the first time
Here's my list
Dodger Stadium - nice considering how old it is, but you can get stabbed for wearing an opponent's jersey
Angels Stadium - love it since it was remodeled.
Candlestick Park (old Giants stadium) - freezing in the winter
Coors Field - Downtown, good spot
Ballpark of Arlington - out of the way a bit, hot and humid during the Summer
Milwaukee County Stadium (old Brewers stadium) - great memories
Jacobs Field - Downtown location makes it great
Municipal Stadium (old Indians stadium) - the mauseleum. It was huge, I'd go to games where 5,000 people would be in that building which held about 85,000 or so. Went to the last three games every played there
Wrigley Field - Love the size of it, no bad seat in the park
New Comiskey - Not a fan at all. Poor design, upper tier feels like you could fall down the stairs and literally fall out of the stadium
Kaufmann Stadium (Royals) - nice ballpark, very underrated in my opinion
Busch Stadium (the old one) - cookie cutter stadium, very little personality but the location was great
Jack Murphy Stadium (old Padres ballpark) - never cared for it, basically a football stadium
Petco Field (new Padres park) - the left field area is cool, parking sucks (at least last time I was there)
Tropicana Field - BLOW IT UP NOW
Fulton County Stadium (old Braves park) - Glad they did blow it up
I'll just comment on Miller Park - Pshaw to the above comment that it should have been built downtown. That would have eliminated tailgating, a major reason for many to attend.
I echo the other sentiment that Miller Park doesn't feel like an outdoor park. Beside the gee-wiz feel of the amazing construction and better everything (bathrooms, concessions, etc), I much prefer the feel of watching a game at the old dump County Stadium.
Truth is, Miller Park (and all new stadiums) was constructed with one overriding concept: take more cash from fans.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 30, 2009, 07:50:00 PM
I'm going to PNC park on Thursday for the first time
Absolutely fantastic park, Chicos. Went to a game there last year as I was moving from Chicago to DC. It's too bad that team has been so bad, because the park is great. Very open and situated right on the rivers. Beautiful.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on May 30, 2009, 10:16:51 PM
I'll just comment on Miller Park - Pshaw to the above comment that it should have been built downtown. That would have eliminated tailgating, a major reason for many to attend.
I echo the other sentiment that Miller Park doesn't feel like an outdoor park. Beside the gee-wiz feel of the amazing construction and better everything (bathrooms, concessions, etc), I much prefer the feel of watching a game at the old dump County Stadium.
Truth is, Miller Park (and all new stadiums) was constructed with one overriding concept: take more cash from fans.
+1. I wouldn't trade tailgating before games for anything, it's what makes games fun in Wisconsin. Also agree that while the construction is impressive, the Park just has too much steel and often feels like being in a giant warehouse, even with the roof open.
Quote from: drewm88 on May 30, 2009, 03:06:57 PM
Just curious what parks people here have been to and what they think of them.
Miller- I like it. The biggest drawbacks IMO are the ridiculous roof problems, Bernie should be sliding into beer (I don't care if he's for kids, this is Wisconsin dammit), and you never feel outdoors there. I know the roof is useful sometimes, but baseball should be outdoors. And opening the roof and the walls doesn't give you a true outdoor feel. I like the tailgating.
Kalihari Sponsors his slide now. I really miss the old Ski Lodge slide into a beer mug
A lot of hate for Tropicana too. I was there last september and I thought from the outside it looked nice (plus parking is free for 5 people or more) problem is: It may be the worst located park in the MLB the stadium is on the southern tip of an island/pennisula in St. Petersburg -30 mins outside of downtown tampa-. Once you get there the stadium looks nice from the outside, but there is no where to tailgate in the parking lot. In the stadium there are huge sections of seats in the upper deck behind home plate that are tarped off. I will say this though: the lower level is all one tear so we got great seats along the third base line by the foul pole for rather cheap with a great view.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 30, 2009, 07:50:00 PM
Dodger Stadium - nice considering how old it is, but you can get stabbed for wearing an opponent's jersey
Interesting. I obviously had a different experience. I was there in my Cubs gear. Everyone around me was nice about it. Talked to an usher and some season ticket holders who said that the fans there don't really mind opposing fans, but I'll defer to the guy who lives there.
Also, don't know if it was a coincidence, but there were tons of opposing fans at Coors. It was about 50% Rockies gear and 50% others. We counted 15 different teams represented at a game with very low attendance.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on May 30, 2009, 10:16:51 PM
I'll just comment on Miller Park - Pshaw to the above comment that it should have been built downtown. That would have eliminated tailgating, a major reason for many to attend.
The reason cities have an incentive to build new ballparks is because of the economic activity it brings to a community. You negate that when you build it right off an interstate and have people truck in their own food. I think it would have been much, much smarter for the city to build near downtown and have the economic vitality that comes with it. And IMO, the attendance figures would have been about what they are now.
I know the timing didn't work, but it would have been perfect right where the Park East Freeway was - the stadium would have opened up to downtown.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 31, 2009, 01:18:21 PM
The reason cities have an incentive to build new ballparks is because of the economic activity it brings to a community. You negate that when you build it right off an interstate and have people truck in their own food. I think it would have been much, much smarter for the city to build near downtown and have the economic vitality that comes with it. And IMO, the attendance figures would have been about what they are now.
I know the timing didn't work, but it would have been perfect right where the Park East Freeway was - the stadium would have opened up to downtown.
If you don't let people bring in their own food at a Brewer game, a lot of people just won't go. Tailgating is a way of life for Wisconsinites and Brewer fans, for many it's the whole reason to actually go to a game. Taking that away would be a huge mistake.
Quote from: bma725 on May 31, 2009, 02:11:49 PM
If you don't let people bring in their own food at a Brewer game, a lot of people just won't go. Tailgating is a way of life for Wisconsinites and Brewer fans, for many it's the whole reason to actually go to a game. Taking that away would be a huge mistake.
There are many fans who go just for the tailgate experience and NEVER make it into the game. They just listen to the game on the radio and spend the day people watching and tailgating.
The newer parks are all beautiful. Saw a game at CitiField three weeks ago and was very impressed. Philly's park is gorgeous, probably the nicest I've been to. PNC Park is probably second, CitiField third and Progressive Field fourth.
Of the old parks, the Polo Grounds was No. 1 for me.
1. AT&T Park-Great setting, probably the best in baseball. Easy to get to in the city, very enjoyable atmosphere.Garlic fries are outsanding.
1A. PNC Park-Too difficult to choose between PNC and AT&T. A gem of a stadium in an underrated city to visit. Tickets very inexpensive compared to other ballparks, a real steal.
2. Oriole Park-Really an experience to take in. Outside of The Cell, my favorite park to just walk around and take in the game from different vantage points.
3. Comerica Park-Most underrated of the newer parks. I love this park, sightlines are very nice, lots to see outside of the game itself. Food is a bit of a downer (lots of Little Caesars), but this place is worth a visit.
4. Dodger Stadium-People mention Wrigley and Fenway as must places to visit, but I'd throw Dodger Stadium in there. Very unique, between the tiers of seating, to the hill the stadium is built into.
5. The Cell-People who underrate the place don't know how to really enjoy it. If you go, sit in the outfield and enjoy great sightlines and some of the best concession food in baseball. If you have kids, they'll love the place. The renovations have only improved the place more.
5A. Miller Park-Just a fun experience all around. Easy to get to, probably better location than if it were right downtown. Truly a Milwaukee experience, and the food/entertainment at the game make it a unique ballpark.
6. Coors Field-Nice place, maybe a tad disappointing to me. Ballpark itself is huge, settled in nicely into downtown Denver. Nothing terrible about it other than the gift shop, but after going to other new ballparks, a bit underwhelming.
7. Jacobs Field-Not a huge fan of this place. Having all the skyboxes on one side of the park throws things off. Much steeper sightlines than I had anticipated. It's not bad, just not going to blow you away.
8. Wrigley-A cool place to go once or twice. Sightlines are average at best, you're almost better in the upper deck than terrace reserved downstairs if you want to enjoy the game. Certainly is a "must" if you're a baseball fan. I'd recommend going to it now before it changes in the next 5 years.
8A. Fenway-Fun and interesting to go to once. Absolute worst seating in baseball, bar none. Better off eating out on Yawkey than inside Fenway.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 31, 2009, 01:18:21 PM
The reason cities have an incentive to build new ballparks is because of the economic activity it brings to a community. You negate that when you build it right off an interstate and have people truck in their own food. I think it would have been much, much smarter for the city to build near downtown and have the economic vitality that comes with it. And IMO, the attendance figures would have been about what they are now.
I know the timing didn't work, but it would have been perfect right where the Park East Freeway was - the stadium would have opened up to downtown.
Bottom line .. Wisconsinites are cheap. There's already a perception (and a reality) that going to a baseball game is very expensive. You remove tailgating, then make people go to bars/restaurants around a downtown stadium to spend even more? Attendance would have gone down.
Add in the fact that .. while the BC can handle 19,000 people and their cars .. where the hell would 42,000 people's cars go if a baseball park was down town? Parking cost downtown would have been 3x-5x the cost.
Blah, blah, blah. This was debated 8 whatever years ago. Guess which location won the debate?
Quote from: deep vacuum on May 31, 2009, 03:23:50 PM
There are many fans who go just for the tailgate experience and NEVER make it into the game. They just listen to the game on the radio and spend the day people watching and tailgating.
That's not a good thing.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on May 31, 2009, 04:57:36 PM
Bottom line .. Wisconsinites are cheap. There's already a perception (and a reality) that going to a baseball game is very expensive. You remove tailgating, then make people go to bars/restaurants around a downtown stadium to spend even more? Attendance would have gone down.
Add in the fact that .. while the BC can handle 19,000 people and their cars .. where the hell would 42,000 people's cars go if a baseball park was down town? Parking cost downtown would have been 3x-5x the cost.
Blah, blah, blah. This was debated 8 whatever years ago. Guess which location won the debate?
I know which location won the debate, but that IMO is more an indication of the myopic thinking that goes on in Milwaukee more than anything. Every other city that has built a new ballpark has found ways to park people and to get them to the ballpark. Most of them have used the stadium to reinvigorate neighborhoods that needed some help. Milwaukee built theirs to suit the cheap, Wisconsin tailgater.
Actually Miller Park was built in no man's land because Bud Selig wanted it there. In fact, he said it wouldn't be built if it had to be put downtown. What new development has come up around Miller Park since it opened? That's right, zero.
Tailgating didn't factor into Bud's decision, however. $$$ did. At it's present location, Selig had a captive audience for the both the purchase of parking and food and beverage. With a downtown location, fans could both park and eat elsewhere, nearby benefiting far more than the Brewers' ownership, but taking dollars out of their pockets.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 31, 2009, 05:37:20 PM
I know which location won the debate, but that IMO is more an indication of the myopic thinking that goes on in Milwaukee more than anything. Every other city that has built a new ballpark has found ways to park people and to get them to the ballpark. Most of them have used the stadium to reinvigorate neighborhoods that needed some help. Milwaukee built theirs to suit the cheap, Wisconsin tailgater.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
A) tailgating without going to the game is fun for the experience now and again. You gotta have a quality tailgate with the finest potato salads to make it really worth while. Besides, the game sometimes cuts into my drinking. I remember days of cutting out on the brewer game if it was boring to go sit and listen to the packer games on the radio and re-fire up the grill.
B) clearly you've never been around the south side of miller park. There has been a boom in development, a lot of standard strip mall like places, but it's still a vast improvement over what it was. -There is even a sonic now
C) I don't think it would matter too much if was put downtown vs where it is now. Ever been to water street/3rd after a game? there are a ton of people in brewers gear downtown. If people want to go out before/after a game they do. My only complaint about where it is, is the freeway that divides a section of parking lot.
don't forget about all the local bars that have shuttles before and after the game.
Quote from: eaglewarrior08 on May 30, 2009, 11:12:31 PM
Absolutely fantastic park, Chicos. Went to a game there last year as I was moving from Chicago to DC. It's too bad that team has been so bad, because the park is great. Very open and situated right on the rivers. Beautiful.
I'm really looking forward to it (PNC)....later that night I'm going to game 4 of the Stanley Cup. I just pray the Penguins win game 3 or that building is going to be lethargic. I want the Pens to win game 3 and crowd insane for game 4.
One of the nice little known things about Wrigley is that you can bring any wrapped food and sealed drinks into the stadium to cut down on cost. If you want to save money grab a burger or some tacos nearby and bring them in the stadium to eat.
I'd love to go see AT&T and PNC Park but until then my thoughts on some of the places I've been:
Wrigley Field - Obviously inside the corridors, the stadium is worn down due to its age but once you get inside the seating area it has to be one of the best looking parks in the majors. Again because of it's age, there are several columns in the way supporting the upper deck so your best bet is the lower rows of the upper deck or out in the bleachers. This is why they should leave the newly remodeled bleachers and tear down the grandstands for reconstruction. Outside the park you have a neighborhood feel which is great. There's even a firestation across the street which always has it's doors open.
Minute Maid Park - Minute Maid Park would be my favorite park if not for the ridiculous advertisements everywhere. The worst is the giant "Eat More Fowl" signs on the foul poles. But if you take away the ad's on almost every facade of the ballpark it is incredible. If you are going to a game on a hot summer day you might want to bring a jacket though as the AC in that place makes it pretty chilly. They usually open the roof once the sun sets though and all that money spent cooling the place fades away. A lot of people don't like the hill in center but I think its a unique quirk. Also the nachos in the place can't be topped. They are similar to the Cactus League Nachos at Miller Park but somehow 10 times greater.
Miller Park - I like Miller Park a lot but wish they would dress up the back wall that opens and closes. It's an eyesore when traveling North on 41. I'd recommend making the walls glass so you can see inside the stadium similar to Minute Maid Park. Aside from that Miller Park is a great place to watch a game as there isn't a bad seat in the house barring the Uecker seats.
Comiskey Park - The place started out just another cookie stadium but they have really done a nice job remodeling the place. I hate the White Sox but kudos to your stadium.
Old Busch Stadium - When I went to the game it was a hot summer day when they had the astroturf field. It was a pretty cool enviroment but it was just another cookie cutter stadium.
I am a season Ticket holder and that's B.S. about being stabbed at Dodger Stadium if your wearing other gear. that happened one time. We even let Giant fans leave alive.
easily 80% of fans at a Dodger game are wearing team gear. Any other parks come close?
Toronto Skydome - Yeah, it's kind of a dump. Location in downtown is nice, but I can't really compliment anything else about the ballpark. These multipurpose venues always look awkward when they're used for baseball.
Detroit Comerica Park - Nice enough stadium, but nothing particularly special. The abundance of tiger sculptures around the park is pretty neat though. Perfectly acceptable as a baseball stadium, and I'd probably go again if I was in the area. I'd give it a point for being downtown, but it's downtown Detroit.
Chicago US Cellular - Have made massive improvements in the past five years, and I commend them for that. Still, it's about average, but way better than it used to be. The centerfield area is pretty nice.
Texas Ballpark at Arlington - Pretty nice stadium, albeit it in the suburbs. But hey, Six Flags is within walking distance. Nice area for the kids in the outfield. The few times I went I got some great deals on tickets, but that's probably because they weren't very good that year. The upper deck speakers were pumping in crowd noise that made a screeching sound when it faded out, and the whole thing kinda depressed me. Like Detroit, pretty much an average stadium.
Anaheim Angel Stadium - I like this park. I can't say anything really sticks out, but it's nice and open, and hey, it's Anaheim. Although when I attended there was a pretty big fight in the lower deck because apparently some drunk guy stepped on some drunk girls shoe and her drunk boyfriend took offense to it, and it culminated in a few fairly full beers being heaved down upon the fracas from the upper deck. Couple that with the guy who got pushed down the stairs and died there this year, and I guess my only word of advice is to not start trouble.
Milwaukee Miller Park - I really like this place, sans, as other people have mentioned, the feeling that you're indoors even when the roof is open. I haven't been there this season, but the concessions (read: beer) are much cheaper than the average ballpark (regular patrons of Miller Park may find that hard to believe). Tailgating is always a good time, and the fans are pretty happy about that.
Cincinnati Great America Ballpark - Downtown, nice enough ballpark, but seems incredibly...plain. There's some sort of steamboat thing they got going on in the outfield where you can have parties or something, but it looks faker than you'd expect. Skyline Chili is real good.
Chicago Wrigley Field - This place just seems to be so dependent on the weather. Go there in early April when it's overcast and the ivy is dead...not the greatest place to be. About this time of year, however, it's great. Nothing beats coming out from the concourse and seeing that ivy and grass along with the scoreboard. Upper deck, like someone mentioned, is preferable to the terrace reserved. Important part is to be in the sun. They've tried to improve concessions, and while it is better, it's still not good. Good pre and post game scene in the neighborhood though.
Pittsburgh PNC Park - Best park in the majors, in my opinion. The Clemente bridge in the background along with the skyline are just fantastic. Fantastic concessions, friendly ushers, everything about the place is great. Well, except for the team on the field.
Houston Minute Maid Field - Pretty underrated in my opinion. Good concessions, little details are neat as a visitor (train in the outfield, hill in center). Sound of roof closing is akin to a pin dropping, or the opposite of Miller Park. On the outskirts of downtown, but parking is cheap and ample (at least when I was there four years ago).
LA Dodger Stadium - Don't get the hype about this place. It's a cookie cutter stadium in a neat location, but parking is more of a nightmare than Wrigley, and that place is in a neighborhood. At least there's public transportation in Wrigley, and that doesn't seem to be an option in LA. I even took their Dodger bus which didn't make things any quicker. Concessions are nothing special, and dodger dogs are eh. Sight line are fine. Raucous fans though, and they definitely love their team.
San Francisco AT&T Park - Probably second to PNC, but admittedly I went to a chilly night game late in the season when the half capacity crowd was dead. Even though the atmosphere was less than stellar, I still thought it was a great park. Best concessions I've had, and it's fun enough to simply wander about the park. Like Minute Maid, there's just some neat little details around the place.
San Diego Petco Park - Nice place downtown, even if tickets are overpriced. The warehouse building out in left field is a nice touch. There's a nice picnic area as well, and a fish taco is always a welcome concession item.
Arizona Chase Field - Whoa, sensory overload. From the screeching jumbotron to the flashing billboards to the abundance of advertisement, I kinda forgot I was at a baseball game. The ballpark itself is fairly nice, but I think the owners realize they're not really dealing with true baseball fans. They actually have a "nightclub" in the outfield with a bar and music. I wouldn't mind getting in that pool suite though.
Denver Coors Field - Nice stadium in a fairly vibrant downtown, and the landscaping in the outfield is pretty cool. Good concessions. Ushers seemed to take their jobs too seriously. I was able to buy Miller when I went, so kudos to them for not making me drink that Coors swill.
Quote from: elephantraker on June 01, 2009, 01:13:32 AM
I am a season Ticket holder and that's B.S. about being stabbed at Dodger Stadium if your wearing other gear. that happened one time. We even let Giant fans leave alive.
easily 80% of fans at a Dodger game are wearing team gear. Any other parks come close?
I was somewhat kidding, but not completely. More stabbings just this year.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/04/man-stabbed-after-dodger-stadium-home-opener.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef01156f254150970c
Of course there was the murder there a few years ago as well. Multiple assaults last year and the year prior, including multiple stabbings.
Where are your season tickets? Some of the nonsense going on in the bleachers and especially in the parking lot if you wear a Giants jersey has been eye opening. I find the Petco and Angel Stadium to be a lot more safe generally speaking.
Sure things happen at all stadiums (someone was killed at Angels stadium this year when he was pushed and hit his head), but the Dodger Stadium days I grew up in have changed unfortunately. Going to Dodger Stadium was always a very classy event, the fans were great, they cheered wildly for their team but were not disrespectful of the opposing team. That has really changed. Constant chants of "X sucks" (fill in Giants, Angels, Cubs), the fights in the bleachers and the parking lot, etc.
I'd rather take my kids to the ballpark where that isn't happening. Just my opinion, but that's what I see.
Do a search on Youtube with Dodger Stadium fights and do the same search for Petco stadium fight or Angel stadium fights.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=fight+dodger+stadium&aq=f
I guess I'm just getting old, but when I have to protect my kids I'll choose to take them where the crowd is respectful (like the old days of Dodger Stadium), the cars aren't vandalized for being a fan of another team, and assaults don't happen as regularly.
Remember this? I can't recall Angels or Padres ever having to do this.
http://thehaternation.blogspot.com/2005/06/two-things-about-dodger-stadium-fight.html
Quote from: Ari Gold on May 31, 2009, 09:02:08 PM
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
A) tailgating without going to the game is fun for the experience now and again. You gotta have a quality tailgate with the finest potato salads to make it really worth while. Besides, the game sometimes cuts into my drinking. I remember days of cutting out on the brewer game if it was boring to go sit and listen to the packer games on the radio and re-fire up the grill.
B) clearly you've never been around the south side of miller park. There has been a boom in development, a lot of standard strip mall like places, but it's still a vast improvement over what it was. -There is even a sonic now
C) I don't think it would matter too much if was put downtown vs where it is now. Ever been to water street/3rd after a game? there are a ton of people in brewers gear downtown. If people want to go out before/after a game they do. My only complaint about where it is, is the freeway that divides a section of parking lot.
A-I'm glad you enjoy tailgating. It just isn't really all that economically productive.
B-I know that area very well. My wife is from West Milwaukee. It was a barren wasteland due to an extension of the freeway that never went through on the west side of the road with the malting plants on the east. However, that area started to be developed in the early to mid 90s when the Village started a TIF district to encourage development of the vacant land and the replacement of the malting plants. Has the stadium helped? Sure....I guess.
C-The impact would have been even greater with the Stadium downtown.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 01, 2009, 07:54:35 AM
A-I'm glad you enjoy tailgating. It just isn't really all that economically productive.
B-I know that area very well. My wife is from West Milwaukee. It was a barren wasteland due to an extension of the freeway that never went through on the west side of the road with the malting plants on the east. However, that area started to be developed in the early to mid 90s when the Village started a TIF district to encourage development of the vacant land and the replacement of the malting plants. Has the stadium helped? Sure....I guess.
C-The impact would have been even greater with the Stadium downtown.
I completely agree that a stadium downtown definitely would have made a large economic "splash". I hope everybody knows that.
However, Milwaukee is not Chicago, NYC, or Boston. There is not a large population of fans living in the downtown area (or as large of fan base period).
This means people will be driving into downtown to see a game. This is great for bars and restaurants, right? Right!
BUT, the logistics become much more complicated for people to see a game (ie drive 45 minutes from Waukesha (traffic), park, walk to a bar for something to eat, etc.) It also complicates the traffic flow and patterns for people who live or work downtown (you think the M-change is a mess now? add 40,000 people headed downtown at 6pm)
For hardcore fans, this isn't a big deal. For casual fans, this becomes a bit of a challenge. I don't think people will have a problem overcoming the challenge when the team is good (which means a large economic splash)... but when the team is bad, I'm afraid the attendance would drop (which would mean the neighborhood could end up looking like Grand Ave. mall).
The beautiful thing about Miller Park is that not a lot of stadiums offer the easy access and large parking lots anymore. A good "game experience" for a Brewers game is pretty simple.
-Stop by the grocery store on the way to the lot and pick up what you like
-Park your car in one of the lots (easy access, can't miss it)
-Enjoy your food/beers
-Go to the game
-Drive home
- (if you don't like tailgating, you can still just park at a bar up on bluemound, have your dinner and then walk down the hill to the game... easy peasy)
The logistics for a downtown stadium would make a good "game experience" a lot tougher. Where should I park? Where should I eat before the game? What place isn't too crowded? What time do I need to get there? How long will I have to wait in traffic? etc. etc.
Certainly downtown stadiums can provide a boost for a city... but I like Miller Parks placement because of the "ease of use" and proximity to the majority of the fan base (who live west of the city).
If you want an interesting case study, look at the Metrodome... and watch the new Target Field in Minneapolis. Target field will be a hit for the first 4-5 years... but it will be interesting to see if people get frustrated with the logistics of commuting to a downtown game if/when the team is bad.
As for the Metrodome .. Twins fans have already proven (or at least the avg attendance of ~22k of them) that they will make it out to see games in downtown Minneapolis .. i.e. that many already deal with parking and pre-game dining issues. (Whether another 10-15k more will do so consistently is a better question.)
.. As for the Valley vs. Downtown issue .. you know what? Sometimes economic development isn't the the end-all/be-all goal. The taxpayers paid (and continue to pay) for most of that stadium.
A downtown stadium would have directly equated to a more expensive price-tag for going to a baseball game, whether that's paying 2-5x more for parking, or paying for food at a restaurant, not to mention the cost of the million man-hours lost from traffic for fans and downtown workers alike.
So, did the taxpayers pass up some economic development for the restaurant and parking industries? Yep. In return, they got a cheaper price-tag for going to games .. plus they got the enormous factor that many fans desire greatly: tailgating, which for many, is easily 50% of the reason they might even consider going to a game.
There was a trade-off, yes. And the citizens (and landlords) and fans who paid for the stadium maximized entertainment and value over economic development. And that's OK.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on May 30, 2009, 05:22:17 PM
I can't believe those idiots are building an open air stadium.
Not a Twins fan at all....but I am ecstatic they are building an open air stadium. I can actually go to baseball games again.
"5. The Cell-People who underrate the place don't know how to really enjoy it. If you go, sit in the outfield and enjoy great sightlines and some of the best concession food in baseball. If you have kids, they'll love the place. The renovations have only improved the place more. "
+1 Right on.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on June 01, 2009, 09:27:57 AM
As for the Metrodome .. Twins fans have already proven (or at least the avg attendance of ~22k of them) that they will make it out to see games in downtown Minneapolis .. i.e. that many already deal with parking and pre-game dining issues. (Whether another 10-15k more will do so consistently is a better question.)
When the team was bad, they rarely drew more than 15,000.
The mid-late 90's for the Twins were pretty lean.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/minnatte.shtml
Logistics obviously aren't the only factor for where to build a stadium, but I think it's one that gets overlooked.
Also, the dome is a terrible place for a game, so that has something to do with it.
A downtown Milwaukee stadium would have required additional road/infrastructure construction to accommodate the additional traffic flow (more tax $$). Also, you have to think that moving the stadium downtown could have helped that neighborhood, but hurt the bluemound bars. So really, you might not be bringing in a ton more $, just moving it downtown instead of out on Bluemound (which might die as a "neighborhood", and then you will need to build another stadium out there :-))
Quote from: 2002mualum on June 01, 2009, 09:48:32 AM
When the team was bad, they rarely drew more than 15,000.
The mid-late 90's for the Twins were pretty lean.
Also, the dome is a terrible place for a game, so that has something to do with it.
Those late 90's numbers are total tickets sold. A lot of the time there were only 4-5,000 people at those games. Sort of like the mid to late 90's when the Vikings were blacked out and could not sell out games.
Tickets are first row Loge on first base side. A number of us share four seats and love going. None have ever remarked seeing a confrontation.My son and his friends love the back and forth with Giant fans but it is respectful and they certainly get treated worse in San Fran. With crowds regularly over 45,000 there will always be a few bad apples
I agree with parking sucking except we have reserved right next to entrance. when i go with others, their parking is all over the place. One friend with field tickets has parking on exact opposit side of park.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on June 01, 2009, 09:56:17 AM
Those late 90's numbers are total tickets sold. A lot of the time there were only 4-5,000 people at those games. Sort of like the mid to late 90's when the Vikings were blacked out and could not sell out games.
Agreed.
The Saints were out-drawing the Twins for a while. It was bad.
However, for any apples to apples comparison (with other teams) I think we can really only look at the announced attendance.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on June 01, 2009, 09:46:29 AM
Not a Twins fan at all....but I am ecstatic they are building an open air stadium. I can actually go to baseball games again.
I'm looking forward to all the snowed out games coming to Miller Park.
What's crazy about the Twins is that .. while it may have been 15k attendance in the late 90s when they were bad .. the past ~9 years, the Twins have been in the playoff hunt nearly every year and only averaged 22k fans, even while marching toward a pennant. -- I blame the Metrodome and its location, frankly.
I'm thrilled the new stadium will NOT have a dome of any sort. That Metrodome has made hairy wet cats out of Minnesotans. Football especially, should be played outdoors. If it rains/snows, it rains.
(Mind you, I grew up in St. Paul, the Twins are my #2 favorite sport team (MU #1) and consider myself a Minnesotan even though I've lived in Cheeseland for (sigh) 22 years.)
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on June 01, 2009, 10:12:48 AM
What's crazy about the Twins is that .. while it may have been 15k attendance in the late 90s when they were bad .. the past ~9 years, the Twins have been in the playoff hunt nearly every year and only averaged 22k fans, even while marching toward a pennant. -- I blame the Metrodome and its location, frankly.
This is why the new stadium will be a great case study for other cities. Frankly, I'm excited about the new stadium, but I hate the location.
It's just not easy to get to, and the Twin Cities (much like Milwaukee) are full of fans in the 'burbs that drive their cars everywhere. If you don't make it easy for them to go, they won't go (see downtown shopping in both Minneapolis and Milwaukee).
I hope I'm wrong, and I hope my bias against "downtown stadiums" will go away.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on June 01, 2009, 10:07:48 AM
I'm looking forward to all the snowed out games coming to Miller Park.
The notion that MSP is like some Siberian waste land is actually quite comical. I have lived in Chicago, Milwaukee and MSP and the weather is quite similar, except here there is no lake effect.
Bud made a great decision keeping the Park in the Valley. Captive revenue is keeping the Brewers competitive. Isn't that what really matters?
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on June 01, 2009, 10:33:09 AM
The notion that MSP is like some Siberian waste land is actually quite comical. I have lived in Chicago, Milwaukee and MSP and the weather is quite similar, except here there is no lake effect.
Looking at historical averages, MSP is about 5 degrees colder than Milwaukee from November through February. Milwaukee is about 3 degrees colder than Chicago through the same time period.
I don't know if MSP is the tundra, but it's a noticeable difference in temperature over the winter months without the lake. I mean, even living in the west suburbs of MKE it's downright balmy going downtown for work during the winter.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on June 01, 2009, 10:33:09 AM
The notion that MSP is like some Siberian waste land is actually quite comical. I have lived in Chicago, Milwaukee and MSP and the weather is quite similar, except here there is no lake effect.
That's why Milwaukee built the retractible roof--beacuse we were sick of sitting in 40-degree weather and worse in April and at night in May. That's what the Twins fans have to look forward to.
After sitting in the Humptydome with that atrocious baggie for 28 years?
40 degree weather in the outdoors will be like manna from heaven.
Quote from: BrewCity on June 01, 2009, 03:52:06 PM
That's why Milwaukee built the retractible roof--beacuse we were sick of sitting in 40-degree weather and worse in April and at night in May. That's what the Twins fans have to look forward to.
40 degrees outside is better than any sterile enclosed baggie. Never been to the new County Stadium, so I cannot comment on retractable roofs. Anything is better than the metrodome, weather included.
Quote from: SaintPaulWarrior on June 02, 2009, 10:06:57 AM
40 degrees outside is better than any sterile enclosed baggie. Never been to the new County Stadium, so I cannot comment on retractable roofs. Anything is better than the metrodome, weather included.
The metrodome does suck, but I guarantee Minnesotans will regret not having a retractable roof once a bunch of games get snowed/colded (I don't think that's a word) out during April every year.
Quote from: jmayer1 on June 02, 2009, 11:07:15 AM
The metrodome does suck, but I guarantee Minnesotans will regret not having a retractable roof once a bunch of games get snowed/colded (I don't think that's a word) out during April every year.
No joke. Even the Marlins are putting in a dome. It's beyond me why Minnesota wouldn't want to avoid having to make up games at Miller Park because the weather is too bad up there.
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.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 02, 2009, 01:04:50 PM
No joke. Even the Marlins are putting in a dome. It's beyond me why Minnesota wouldn't want to avoid having to make up games at Miller Park because the weather is too bad up there.
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.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on June 02, 2009, 01:04:50 PM
No joke. Even the Marlins are putting in a dome. It's beyond me why Minnesota wouldn't want to avoid having to make up games at Miller Park because the weather is too bad up there.
I kinda of agree with you, but please realize it's not like everybody in MN had a choice and chose to go without a roof.
A retractable stadium plan was pitched about 10 years back (maybe a little more) and was voted down because politicians didn't support using tax dollars to fund a stadium. About 5 years ago the Twins were able to get a cheaper outdoor facility on the bill and it passed.
I don't think that it's an indication that "Minnesotans don't want a roof", but rather an indication of the political climate and timing. Big stadium bills are volatile topics for politicians, so trying to make sense of their voting is tough.
Either way, I think a lot of Twins fans know deep down that a retractable roof is a smarter play, but at this point they will take what they can get.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 02, 2009, 01:20:25 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: MDMU04 on June 02, 2009, 01:14:11 PM
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.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 02, 2009, 01:20:25 PM
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.
Quote from: 2002mualum on June 02, 2009, 01:32:36 PM
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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2009, 01:34:54 PM
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.
Quote from: Chili on June 02, 2009, 01:56:40 PM
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.
Quote from: 2002mualum on June 02, 2009, 02:15:57 PM
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.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41060437.html)
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/128420 (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/128420)
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.
Quote from: Chili on June 02, 2009, 02:22:26 PM
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.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41060437.html)
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/128420 (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.
Quote from: 2002mualum on June 02, 2009, 01:32:36 PM
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.
Quote from: 2002mualum on June 02, 2009, 02:15:57 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: BrewCity on June 02, 2009, 03:19:23 PM
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.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 02, 2009, 03:14:04 PM
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).
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 02, 2009, 03:10:35 PM
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.
Quote from: 2002mualum on June 02, 2009, 03:30:29 PM
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.
Quote from: 2002mualum on June 02, 2009, 03:26:43 PM
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.
Quote from: 2002mualum on June 02, 2009, 03:26:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Chili on June 02, 2009, 03:32:51 PM
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.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 02, 2009, 04:21:38 PM
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.
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).
Quote from: Chili on June 02, 2009, 01:56:40 PM
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.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on June 02, 2009, 03:14:04 PM
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.
Quote from: Chili on June 02, 2009, 03:32:51 PM
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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2009, 08:31:19 PM
I think it makes the team soft (especially in football)...
Your evidence of this is what?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2009, 08:27:46 PM
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.
Chicago is a much different market than Milwaukee or Minneapolis/St. Paul. The Indians as well - plus the Jake is a much older / newer stadium.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on June 02, 2009, 09:18:54 PM
Your evidence of this is what?
Some might argue the Minnesota Vikings. The Old Met was a tough place to play, especially in December and January. But playing a game where the weather conditions are perfect (aka a dome), equalizes it for the road team. Don't get me wrong, the Metrodome is very very loud, and that is an advantage in and of itself. But I've always felt weather was a bigger opponent than noise.
I don't think the Vikings are as tough as they used to be. In the old days they were gritty, played in a tough place and had no problem going to Chicago or Minnesota to do the same.
There's an interesting article actually at Pro Football Weekly from a few years ago that analyzes dome advantage. They compiled the data since 1982 to 2006 and determined that there is actually a "HOME DOME DISADVANTAGE". Of course, they also state that many of the teams (Falcons, Lions, etc) are awful teams and may have been just as awful if they had outdoor stadiums.
Quote from: Chili on June 02, 2009, 10:26:41 PM
Chicago is a much different market than Milwaukee or Minneapolis/St. Paul. The Indians as well - plus the Jake is a much older / newer stadium.
Understood, still think baseball was meant to be played outside, not in a mall. I don't care for the domes, never will.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2009, 11:46:57 PM
I don't think the Vikings are as tough as they used to be. In the old days they were gritty, played in a tough place and had no problem going to Chicago or Minnesota to do the same.
So you mean they aren't as good as they used to be.
Bad is not soft, bad is bad. Has very little to do with being
gritty.
If you don't like domes as a fan, fine, but keep that soft stuff outta here. There is just nothing to support it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on June 02, 2009, 11:46:57 PM
I don't think the Vikings are as tough as they used to be. In the old days they were gritty, played in a tough place and had no problem going to Chicago or Minnesota to do the same.
This is just a bad football chiche. While I do think that a dome means that you have to adjust your offensive and defenseive philosophies, such as Indianapolis' high powered attack on turf and Pittsburgh's grind it out on that crappy field they use, that doesn't equate to "tough" or "gritty."
Cosign on the Vikings went downhill with the Dome.
Pre-dome, the Vikings were the Purple People Eaters with 4 (albeit losing) trips to the Superbowl.
Post-dome, we've had great talent, got to the NFC champ game once, but otherwise, been sub-mediocre in the playoffs.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on June 03, 2009, 08:16:34 AM
Cosign on the Vikings went downhill with the Dome.
Pre-dome, the Vikings were the Purple People Eaters with 4 (albeit losing) trips to the Superbowl.
Post-dome, we've had great talent, got to the NFC champ game once, but otherwise, been sub-mediocre in the playoffs.
Of course that loss in the NFC Champonship came to another dome team. Maybe the Georgia Dome had some holes in it or something to make the Falcons better.
They have had the talent to be decent, and the coaching to be bad, nothing more. They could play on the moon and that wouldn't change.
Funny, the Packers playd at the very same Lambeau Field they play in today throughout the 70's and 80's and were beyond bad, and most assuredly not
tough or
gritty. Then during the 90's and into the 00's, they somehow became gritty and tough again, just like in the 60's. I'm sure its just coincidence that they had guys named Favre, White, Sharpe, Freeman, Butler, Holmgren...I guess those guys were just
tougher than guys named Whitehurst, Hood, Huckelby, Campbell, and Infante.
Quote from: mu_hilltopper on June 03, 2009, 08:16:34 AM
Cosign on the Vikings went downhill with the Dome.
Pre-dome, the Vikings were the Purple People Eaters with 4 (albeit losing) trips to the Superbowl.
Post-dome, we've had great talent, got to the NFC champ game once, but otherwise, been sub-mediocre in the playoffs.
Correlation without causation. They moved into the dome about the same time Bud Grant retired and was replaced by a series of coaches like Les Steckel, Dennis Green and Mike Tice.
They've lost three times in the NFC Championship game by the way since moving to the Dome.
Well excuuuuuuse me. Didn't you know we are in an era of truthiness? Stop showing me facts! ;)