MNF @ TCF

Donate To GopherHole


Solutions for the turf:

I don't understand why the field isn't heated. Being on the field for the Iowa game sucked and must have been worse to get tackled on it. Not to mention workers pulled pieces of turf apart trying to chip ice off the field.

Steal a play from the Lambeau Field ground keepers. Once the snow is cleared, drape a tarp over the field and blow hot air under the tarp making a bubble. Any remaining ice melts, and drains. Remove the tarp and make sure there is no condensation otherwise it becomes the Ice Bowl.

They do this at Lambeau so the field doesn't freeze to the tarp and get uprooted once the tarp is removed. One of many reasons Lambeau has been voted the best playing surface in the NFL.
 


GoAUpher said:
It does if we ever want the state to host a Final Four ever again. Or a SuperBowl.
Click to expand...

+1. MSP is the largest metro area within a very large radius. To not have anything larger then the X for hosting large events would be foolish. The Vikings can take the stance of 'we don't need a roof, you pay' but then the state/county is justified in saying 'your stadium is useless to anyone else without a roof, pay for it yourself.' To spend $700 million for a first-class open air stadium that will only get used 15-20 times a year when you could have a much-needed first class indoor venue for an extra $100-150 million would be foolish for both sides. That part of the debate needs to be put to bed. The Vikings may already have thier stadium if they hadn't thrown Anoka County under the bus in 2006 when the suddenly ripped the roof off the proposal at the last second.
 



howeda7 said:
+1. MSP is the largest metro area within a very large radius. To not have anything larger then the X for hosting large events would be foolish. The Vikings can take the stance of 'we don't need a roof, you pay' but then the state/county is justified in saying 'your stadium is useless to anyone else without a roof, pay for it yourself.' To spend $700 million for a first-class open air stadium that will only get used 15-20 times a year when you could have a much-needed first class indoor venue for an extra $100-150 million would be foolish for both sides. That part of the debate needs to be put to bed. The Vikings may already have thier stadium if they hadn't thrown Anoka County under the bus in 2006 when the suddenly ripped the roof off the proposal at the last second.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the new stadium should have a fixed roof with plenty of windows like Ford Field.
 

howeda7 said:
The Vikings may already have thier stadium if they hadn't thrown Anoka County under the bus in 2006 when the suddenly ripped the roof off the proposal at the last second.
Click to expand...

And this is why I've been anti- stadium ever since. New York billionaires trying to spend my money when they don't have the common decency to not look a gift horse in the mouth?
 

ruralgopher said:
And this is why I've been anti- stadium ever since. New York billionaires trying to spend my money when they don't have the common decency to not look a gift horse in the mouth?
Click to expand...

It was foolish on the part of the Vikings, but I dont' think it was greed per se. Just Ziggy being naive to how politics works in Minnesota. It wasn't passing in 2006. They should have realized that. 3 stadiums was too much for nervous legislators. But it would have passed in 2007. There was zero reason to stop Anoka County from doing the exact same thing that Hennipen County was being allowed to do. But instead, they panicked in effort to 'save' it in 2006 and acted foolishly.


I dare say if the Twins had changed ownership part way through they still might not have Target Field. With the Minnesota Legislature you have to start asking for your stadium about 10 years before you want it, and then show up every year for 10 years for your annual beating before the get tired of it and actually take you seriously. The only exception was the X and that was only thanks to a lot of guts by Norm Coleman and Gov. Carlson.
 



At the Metrodome, the air pressure supported roof also supported the speakers and lights. That seems like an awful lot of stress to put on a roof. Do other air supported domes do the same thing, or do they support the speakers and lights from solid mountings? Putting the speakers and lights on the roof also means you have to spend more energy inflating the roof, as the air has to not only hold up the roof itself, but the heavy equipment hanging off of it.
 

GoAUpher said:
It does if we ever want the state to host a Final Four ever again. Or a SuperBowl.
Click to expand...

I don't. The imaginary economic impact of hosting these events is nothing but a ruse to dupe rubes out of tax dollars.

Denver, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Boston have done this correctly over the last ten years. Lets not be like Detroit.
 

13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
I don't. The imaginary economic impact of hosting these events is nothing but a ruse to dupe rubes out of tax dollars.

Denver, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Boston have done this correctly over the last ten years. Lets not be like Detroit.
Click to expand...

Denver, Pittsburgh, Boston and quite possibly Philly have more loyal fans then the Vikings. Despite all the fond memories of Bud Grant being able to see his own breath, the Vikings didn't sell out every game at the Met. What is the reason for wanting it outdoors beyond that misguided memory of the 'good old days'?

The magnitute of the impact of Super Bowls and Final Fours can be disputed, but it is not imaginary, and it is well worth the 15% increase in the cost of the facility.
 

13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
The imaginary economic impact of hosting these events is nothing but a ruse to dupe rubes out of tax dollars.
Click to expand...

Oh, so people don't come to the Twin Cities for these events and:

- Eat at restaurants

- Buy merchandise/clothing/random sundries

- Rent hotel rooms

- Buy gas

Huh, that's weird. I guess they must all hitchhike in, wear the same set of clothes the entire weekend, panhandle for food money on the side of the road, sleep in homeless shelters, and hitchhike back home? That's pretty strange of them to do that. Thanks for informing us, though!
 



13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
I don't. The imaginary economic impact of hosting these events is nothing but a ruse to dupe rubes out of tax dollars.

Denver, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Boston have done this correctly over the last ten years. Lets not be like Detroit.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been downtown when a round of the NCAA tournament is in town? Try finding a hotel or bar to get a drink after work. Is the impact dollar for dollar compared to what is spent to build the venue necessary? That is hard to say, but the exposure is worth it in my opinion.

I would guess that if the Boston stadium wasn't in the middle of nowhere it would have a roof.

Just because those cities didn't get a roof on their stadium doesn't make it the correct decision for the cities.
 

OmahaGopher said:
My apologies on this... I haven't been to a game since the USD battle and I could've sworn there were still calculators at that game. Maybe the registers were installed after that game??? Nonetheless, I remember the lines for concessions being a long wait during that game.
Click to expand...

Not all of the spots have them yet. They only converted some. My guess is they are doing a test to see if they reduce errors, speed up sales, etc. before they buy all of them. I'm still to this day baffled that they don't have them if nothing else to reduce theft...
 

13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
I don't. The imaginary economic impact of hosting these events is nothing but a ruse to dupe rubes out of tax dollars.

Denver, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Boston have done this correctly over the last ten years. Lets not be like Detroit.
Click to expand...

I didn't make any claims about the economic benefits of those events. It's just a simple fact. If we ever want the state to host either of those events (or anything similar to them again) there has to be a roof of some kind.

Economic arguments aside, I like the idea of the TC getting to host those events. But I'm not a MN taxpayer so the impact to me is minimal beyond the enjoyment of that sort of event and the user fees I incur when I stay in the TC metro area for Gopher games.
 

13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
I don't. The imaginary economic impact of hosting these events is nothing but a ruse to dupe rubes out of tax dollars.

Denver, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Boston have done this correctly over the last ten years. Lets not be like Detroit.
Click to expand...

John Marty is that you?
 


goldengophers said:
Can we get an official stickied thread titled "Josh087's Official Anti-Vikings Thread", where Josh087 can go vent every time he wants to bring up the topic of how much better Gopher football would be without the Vikings? Right now his comments on the Vikings kill threads and turn them into a circular debate.
Click to expand...

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
No, it really doesn't.
Click to expand...

The vikings in general need the roof because they play into december and potentially later. No way would I want to freeze my arse watching a crappy team in sub zero temps. It is fine for the gophers and twins since they see warmer temps.
 

CentralGopher said:
The vikings in general need the roof because they play into december and potentially later. No way would I want to freeze my arse watching a crappy team in sub zero temps. It is fine for the gophers and twins since they see warmer temps.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I want my baseball and college football outside and my NFL indoors.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom