So how would you like having a Ford Field in downtown Buffalo?

[Big Gun]

There is this misconception that playing in the elements gives the Bills an advantage over opponents. Do you want to know what gives the home team an advantage? Having better overall talent and good qb play. For me watching a game with high winds swirling around that kills the chance for a meaningful passing game is dreadful. I want to see talent perform on the field and not have the arctic elements suffocate the exhibition of talent on the field.

 

If playing inside limits the fat drunken slobs with exposed droopy man breasts to the disgusted viewers then I'm all for it. I'm also tired of the mustached unruly girls fighting in the stands and acting like white trash hillbillies. If playing inside elevates the caliber of clientele then I'm for it. This notion that it is acceptable to go to an event for the purpose of drinking oneself into a stuper has got to stop.

 

I simply don't want to pay money to be around thses piggish caste of characters. If I did I would hang around the local cell block and associate with the under class criminals. When I go to an event I want the event to be the focus of my attention not ducking punches, thrown beer and listening to a foul mouth ignoramus sitting near me. An indoor facility would not eliminate boorish behavior but it would curb it.

 

Well said. In the end, IMO is that the majority want a stadium with a roof.

[The Dean]

http://www.documentc...ml#document/p36

 

The nfl requirements for a city to submit bids

 

Buffalo would need 27,000 hotel rooms within an hours drive of the stadium. Downtown buffalo has like 1,800 last I saw- not sure what's in an hours radius of the stadium

 

Well, Niagara Falls Ontario probably falls within the "hours drive" criterion on a typical day. It can easily take much longer. A decision will need to be made as to whether the bulk of accommodations can be in another country.

 

Go to a game in New Orleans and then to New England or Miami and report back on the atmosphere. It isn't about the construction of the stadium that creates the environment it is the people that are there.

 

I'd say my worst NFL game day experiences were in the Superdome, the old Kingdome. the old Metrodome and in Milwaukee County Stadium (when the Packers played there). Some other terrible venues where I have also watched NFL games include the LA Coliseum, Candlestick Park and Oakland Coliseum---but the game day experience was far better for theses games.

[eball]

There is this misconception that playing in the elements gives the Bills an advantage over opponents. Do you want to know what gives the home team an advantage? Having better overall talent and good qb play. For me watching a game with high winds swirling around that kills the chance for a meaningful passing game is dreadful. I want to see talent perform on the field and not have the arctic elements suffocate the exhibition of talent on the field.

 

If playing inside limits the fat drunken slobs with exposed droopy man breasts to the disgusted viewers then I'm all for it. I'm also tired of the mustached unruly girls fighting in the stands and acting like white trash hillbillies. If playing inside elevates the caliber of clientele then I'm for it. This notion that it is acceptable to go to an event for the purpose of drinking oneself into a stuper has got to stop.

 

I simply don't want to pay money to be around thses piggish caste of characters. If I did I would hang around the local cell block and associate with the under class criminals. When I go to an event I want the event to be the focus of my attention not ducking punches, thrown beer and listening to a foul mouth ignoramus sitting near me. An indoor facility would not eliminate boorish behavior but it would curb it.

 

This is a wonderfully crafted post. Kudos.

[BillnutinHouston]

Not sure why you think that, as just about everyone with any real connection to the situation has said a covered stadium is pretty much a done deal, While I prefer an open air stadium, the info on the Bills sale should have taught everyone here one lesson. Kirby and Bandit have a very good handle on what is going on. Unless you have some super special source, I think you should believe what they have to say,

 

I stated that I thought we'd get an open air facility because I misread HopefulFuture's post a few pages back.

 

I'm somewhat ambivalent about a roofed facility, but as I retire and get into my later years when I'll get to attend more games (hopefully), I'll probably think of a roof as a blessing.

 

There is this misconception that playing in the elements gives the Bills an advantage over opponents. Do you want to know what gives the home team an advantage? Having better overall talent and good qb play. For me watching a game with high winds swirling around that kills the chance for a meaningful passing game is dreadful. I want to see talent perform on the field and not have the arctic elements suffocate the exhibition of talent on the field.

 

If playing inside limits the fat drunken slobs with exposed droopy man breasts to the disgusted viewers then I'm all for it. I'm also tired of the mustached unruly girls fighting in the stands and acting like white trash hillbillies. If playing inside elevates the caliber of clientele then I'm for it. This notion that it is acceptable to go to an event for the purpose of drinking oneself into a stuper has got to stop.

 

I simply don't want to pay money to be around thses piggish caste of characters. If I did I would hang around the local cell block and associate with the under class criminals. When I go to an event I want the event to be the focus of my attention not ducking punches, thrown beer and listening to a foul mouth ignoramus sitting near me. An indoor facility would not eliminate boorish behavior but it would curb it.

Well stated sir.

[The Dean]

There is this misconception that playing in the elements gives the Bills an advantage over opponents.

 

Just so we're clear here, the team as currently constructed probably gets little advantage playing in the elements. But certainly a team CAN be constructed to have an advantage in bad elements. Of course the quality of the players matters, but so does the style of the offense and the skill players. The Steelers have, for years, built a team wonderfully suited to play in crappy weather. That's not so much the case these days, but it was for a long time.

 

BADOBILLS made a fairly compelling argument explaining how the style of play in the NFL has evolved to minimize the degree to which the elements give a team an advantage. I'd say he is mostly right with his analysis. But don't think for a minute, when a team like the Bills starts putting a whopping on a team used to playing indoors and/or in warm weather, the cold doesn't start to sap their will more than it does the Bills' players. I've seen it happen too many times to believe that isn't a factor. Just as Miami (for example) gets a small advantage when the temps top 90 degrees and the humidity is stifling.

 

It's silly to think weather plays an overwhelming part in the outcome of any game. But it is equally silly to think that it can never play ANY part in it.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Just so we're clear here, the team as currently constructed probably gets little advantage playing in the elements. But certainly a team CAN be constructed to have an advantage in bad elements. Of course the quality of the players matters, but so does the style of the offense and the skill players. The Steelers have, for years, built a team wonderfully suited to play in crappy weather. That's not so much the case these days, but it was for a long time.

 

BADOBILLS made a fairly compelling argument explaining how the style of play in the NFL has evolved to minimize the degree to which the elements give a team an advantage. I'd say he is mostly right with his analysis. But don't think for a minute, when a team like the Bills starts putting a whopping on a team used to playing indoors and/or in warm weather, the cold doesn't start to sap their will more than it does the Bills' players. I've seen it happen too many times to believe that isn't a factor. Just as Miami (for example) gets a small advantage when the temps top 90 degrees and the humidity is stifling.

 

It's silly to think weather plays an overwhelming part in the outcome of any game. But it is equally silly to think that it can never play ANY part in it.

 

i was going to reference similar sentiment to what it sounds like BADOL put together regarding the changes in the game. additionally, thing is - miami can count on those games and condition for it all camp long. if we get a 15 degree and snowing game in december every couple years - im not sure our players are that much more prepped for it, and its worth constructing a roster geared towards. maybe in subtle ways (a qb with extra arm, but who doesnt want that for instance).

[JohnC]

Just so we're clear here, the team as currently constructed probably gets little advantage playing in the elements. But certainly a team CAN be constructed to have an advantage in bad elements. Of course the quality of the players matters, but so does the style of the offense and the skill players. The Steelers have, for years, built a team wonderfully suited to play in crappy weather. That's not so much the case these days, but it was for a long time.

 

BADOBILLS made a fairly compelling argument explaining how the style of play in the NFL has evolved to minimize the degree to which the elements give a team an advantage. I'd say he is mostly right with his analysis. But don't think for a minute, when a team like the Bills starts putting a whopping on a team used to playing indoors and/or in warm weather, the cold doesn't start to sap their will more than it does the Bills' players. I've seen it happen too many times to believe that isn't a factor. Just as Miami (for example) gets a small advantage when the temps top 90 degrees and the humidity is stifling.

 

It's silly to think weather plays an overwhelming part in the outcome of any game. But it is equally silly to think that it can never play ANY part in it.

 

You gave a very thoughful response.

 

The problem with trying to construct a team for the cold weather is that most games are played in comfortable weather. The emphasis should be on building the best roster you can regardless of the elements you play in. A good OL is simply a good OL in good and bad weather. A very good qb is impactful regardless of the weather.

 

It is agreed that weather is a factor in a few games. But overall it is over-rated and it is a mistake (my opinion) to try to construct a roster to take advantage of the challenging conditions that happens a few times a year.

 

Regardless of how the weather affects the game as a customer I would rather sit in a climate controlled environment rather than freeze my arse off in a game played in an arctic blast. Some people find it manly but I don't. I prefer to not wanting to pay good money for being uncomfortable in miserable conditions.

[Augie]

I'm beyond the point of reveling in the nasty weather (as a kid survival skills were often part of the game), but some teams are more finesse and some teams are more power oriented. This can be helpful in brutal weather, but it doesn't make a bad team a good team.

[reddogblitz]

It's Ford Field, not Ford's Field. I heard a few announcers call it Ford's Field also.

[The Dean]

You gave a very thoughful response.

 

The problem with trying to construct a team for the cold weather is that most games are played in comfortable weather. The emphasis should be on building the best roster you can regardless of the elements you play in. A good OL is simply a good OL in good and bad weather. A very good qb is impactful regardless of the weather.

 

It is agreed that weather is a factor in a few games. But overall it is over-rated and it is a mistake (my opinion) to try to construct a roster to take advantage of the challenging conditions that happens a few times a year.

 

Regardless of how the weather affects the game as a customer I would rather sit in a climate controlled environment rather than freeze my arse off in a game played in an arctic blast. Some people find it manly but I don't. I prefer to not wanting to pay good money for being uncomfortable in miserable conditions.

 

John, no doubt putting together a team only suited to play in bad weather is a bad strategy if the goal is to go to, and win, a Super Bowl. But it isn't impossible to put a team together that can play indoors, in good, and in bad weather. The Bills did it for years and so did the Steelers. The Bills went to four SBs and the Steelers even won a few.

 

But I disagree with you assertion that a good QB is good in any weather. That simply isn't always the case. GREAT players may be good in all types of weather. But good, even very good, players can be affected by the elements.

 

And I respect your preference to watch a game indoors, but the Bills (and other NE teams) have shown if the team is winning there are more than enough fans willing to brave the elements to watch the team play.

 

IMO football is very different than baseball in many ways, but none more important than football is actually better to watch on TV than in person. Baseball is boring in person. Being at the park is a great experience and you get more involved in the game. Again, IMO. With all the replays (and now with the all 22 views of the game, for those that can get that) you actually see more at home than you do in person. For me, the reason to go the stadium is, in large part, the tailgate experience and the comradery with your fellow fans. That comradery just isn't the same in fair weather. It really blossoms when the weather gets ugly. Your mileage may vary.

 

I know, when the Bills are losing, attendance tends to decline in December. I'm wondering, if the Bills are out of it early, if fans will bother to show up in October or November in a downtown indoor stadium, with limited tailgating.The blackout rules are in jeopardy and any idiot with an Internet IQ of 80+ knows how to watch them on TV. The game day experience is what will matter going forward. Some here, like me, believe the tailgate experience is a huge part of that. Some believe pop concerts, fireworks, huge scoreboards and other constant non-football-related entertainment is what is important. A downtown stadium is likely to severely curtail tailgating, make the commute far more difficult and frankly add little to the local economy. (8 Sunday home games does not save the downtown area. And spare me the argument that the few extra events that might take place in the stadium will make that much of a difference.)

 

Buffalo is far more like Pittsburgh and Cleveland than it is like New Orleans, Texas or Arizona. And the only Northeast stadium that is covered is in Detroit. It is a huge risk to change the gameday experience for Bills fans, IMO. The safe bet is to keep the stadium in the suburbs and leave it open with plenty of tailgating availability. We know that works for the fans of WNY. Changing any of those variables represents a bit of a risk. Changing ALL of those variables is a huge risk, IMO. Yes, as has been explained, it should increase the demand for luxury seats and boxes. But what will it do for the vast majority of seats in t he stadium? Frankly I don't know. I'm a research guy and that would be an interesting project to study. But this is one of those studies I question if there is a way to really assess what people will do. Suck away they experience Bills fans are used to and even they probably don't know how they will respond.

 

But I'm a realist, and I understand it is likely things will change under new ownership. The stadium will probably be downtown since Pegula is building an empire there. (A mistake in my mind, but one that can probably be overcome.) Since it will be close to the waterfront, it will likely have to have some sort of roof. I seriously hope it is retractable, as at least in the fall it can be open and give the fans some feeling of being at a football game. But I hope for the fans, and the future of the Bills, they keep the tailgate experience at some level. Remember, Bills fans tailgated when they played at the Rockpile (though the experience was a bit different). But that kind of parking and tailgating isn't likely to be repeated. A sterile experience (which it seems some are predicting and actually rooting for) isn't a great bet for Buffalo. Again, just my prediction and opinion. But I can't imagine fans being as loyal to the team for years of failure as they have been, when the atmosphere is sterile.

[machine gun kelly]

The size FO the square footage on the border of the first,ward and downtown, with three freeways is more than enough to handle and the parking will be expansive enough that we can all still tailgate. ,it's just different, and that takes change.

 

I'll give you of a mistake in a rest tractable stadium hopefully we would not make. Yesterday, Cowboys stadium had the opportunity to open their roof and really cool down the stadium. Their team would have benefited from the cold with the line and the running game, and Philly prides itself on that fast,offense. The cold could have kept Dallas's line in better shape.

 

A retractable roof would be perfect. Muse it when you think you have an advantage.

[Ramblin' Rob]

It would make the OCD part of my mental illness sooooo much good if the OP or administrator would fix the title. "...A Ford's Field" is killing me. I mean no disrespect, but it is so wrong, It has an apostrophe! I thought to my self when this thread began, "there have been a hundred threads about stadium possibilities, this one too shall pass and that grammatical error will not matter." Wrong. It has been on the home page as a top topic for a F@#$ing week! This is all irrational, I know. But remember, I said no disrespect. but fix it. please. seriously.

[bbb]

It is annoying. I think it got mixed up with Ford's Theater.

[vorpma]

I think he means that it will be closed like Lucas Oil

 

IF it is anywhere near the lake downtown then closed is probably for the best. Being down there in the winter is absolutely miserable.

If going to a football game in the cold weather is miserable, take up soccer!

 

Domes are awful. the lighting and atmosphere sucks compared to open air stadiums.

 

With all the glitz and flashiness and marketing being force fed into this game, please don't take away the awesomeness of playing the game in the open air.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Beerball]

If OBD is no longer can TBD survive?

[BUFFALOKIE]

If OBD is no longer can TBD survive?

 

Shouldn't this place become OBD by default?

[JohnC]

John, no doubt putting together a team only suited to play in bad weather is a bad strategy if the goal is to go to, and win, a Super Bowl. But it isn't impossible to put a team together that can play indoors, in good, and in bad weather. The Bills did it for years and so did the Steelers. The Bills went to four SBs and the Steelers even won a few.

 

But I disagree with you assertion that a good QB is good in any weather. That simply isn't always the case. GREAT players may be good in all types of weather. But good, even very good, players can be affected by the elements.

 

And I respect your preference to watch a game indoors, but the Bills (and other NE teams) have shown if the team is winning there are more than enough fans willing to brave the elements to watch the team play.

 

IMO football is very different than baseball in many ways, but none more important than football is actually better to watch on TV than in person. Baseball is boring in person. Being at the park is a great experience and you get more involved in the game. Again, IMO. With all the replays (and now with the all 22 views of the game, for those that can get that) you actually see more at home than you do in person. For me, the reason to go the stadium is, in large part, the tailgate experience and the comradery with your fellow fans. That comradery just isn't the same in fair weather. It really blossoms when the weather gets ugly. Your mileage may vary.

 

I know, when the Bills are losing, attendance tends to decline in December. I'm wondering, if the Bills are out of it early, if fans will bother to show up in October or November in a downtown indoor stadium, with limited tailgating.The blackout rules are in jeopardy and any idiot with an Internet IQ of 80+ knows how to watch them on TV. The game day experience is what will matter going forward. Some here, like me, believe the tailgate experience is a huge part of that. Some believe pop concerts, fireworks, huge scoreboards and other constant non-football-related entertainment is what is important. A downtown stadium is likely to severely curtail tailgating, make the commute far more difficult and frankly add little to the local economy. (8 Sunday home games does not save the downtown area. And spare me the argument that the few extra events that might take place in the stadium will make that much of a difference.)

 

Buffalo is far more like Pittsburgh and Cleveland than it is like New Orleans, Texas or Arizona. And the only Northeast stadium that is covered is in Detroit. It is a huge risk to change the gameday experience for Bills fans, IMO. The safe bet is to keep the stadium in the suburbs and leave it open with plenty of tailgating availability. We know that works for the fans of WNY. Changing any of those variables represents a bit of a risk. Changing ALL of those variables is a huge risk, IMO. Yes, as has been explained, it should increase the demand for luxury seats and boxes. But what will it do for the vast majority of seats in t he stadium? Frankly I don't know. I'm a research guy and that would be an interesting project to study. But this is one of those studies I question if there is a way to really assess what people will do. Suck away they experience Bills fans are used to and even they probably don't know how they will respond.

 

But I'm a realist, and I understand it is likely things will change under new ownership. The stadium will probably be downtown since Pegula is building an empire there. (A mistake in my mind, but one that can probably be overcome.) Since it will be close to the waterfront, it will likely have to have some sort of roof. I seriously hope it is retractable, as at least in the fall it can be open and give the fans some feeling of being at a football game. But I hope for the fans, and the future of the Bills, they keep the tailgate experience at some level. Remember, Bills fans tailgated when they played at the Rockpile (though the experience was a bit different). But that kind of parking and tailgating isn't likely to be repeated. A sterile experience (which it seems some are predicting and actually rooting for) isn't a great bet for Buffalo. Again, just my prediction and opinion. But I can't imagine fans being as loyal to the team for years of failure as they have been, when the atmosphere is sterile.

 

I appreciate your well thought out and expressed point of view. I'll only respond to a small fraction of your comments and good points.

 

One of your main themes is that tailgating is the central focus of your attraction to the team. That is sad. It should be more focused on the product on the field. It is almost as if you have conceded that this franchise is incapable of being a seriously competeing franchise. It is evident that you have substituted the communal experience of tailgating to the actual game as the primary reason for your attendance. When the team has been out of the playoffs for 15 consecutive years and they have had a losing season in 9 out of 10 seasons it is understandable why the ancillary activity is taken more seriously than watching the most often frustrating product.

 

In my view that balance and dynamic has to change. Under new ownership there has to be a committment to building a winner and a product worthy of watching. If a new stadium (especially a roof facility) is built odds are that tailgating will be scaled down. The Ralph Wilson era of milking the product of its resources in order to maintain the business model at the expense of the product on the field has changed with the installation of the new owner.

 

Make no mistake that if a covered stadium is built your primary reason why you attend games will be very much affected. For you personally it might be a lesser experience but for me it won't. I want this franchise to build a facility that one can be proud of. The Ralph is an outdated corroding facility that no more public money should be used/wasted to maintain. Times change and environments change. The old days are fine to reminisce over but clinging to them and not adapting to the new reality is one of the main reasons why for so long this franchise has been an irrelevant franchise.

 

Looking back or maintaining the status quo is a losing proposition when dealing with institutional failure. Don't fear change, embrace it. Under new ownership the future should be brighter than the dim past. I'm confident that you will be pleasantly surprised with a new approach to operating the franchise compared to the way it was done in the past.

[The Dean]

I appreciate your well thought out and expressed point of view. I'll only respond to a small fraction of your comments and good points.

 

One of your main themes is that tailgating is the central focus of your attraction to the team. That is sad. It should be more focused on the product on the field. It is almost as if you have conceded that this franchise is incapable of being a seriously competeing franchise. It is evident that you have substituted the communal experience of tailgating to the actual game as the primary reason for your attendance. When the team has been out of the playoffs for 15 consecutive years and they have had a losing season in 9 out of 10 seasons it is understandable why the ancillary activity is taken more seriously than watching the most often frustrating product.

 

In my view that balance and dynamic has to change. Under new ownership there has to be a committment to building a winner and a product worthy of watching. If a new stadium (especially a roof facility) is built odds are that tailgating will be scaled down. The Ralph Wilson era of milking the product of its resources in order to maintain the business model at the expense of the product on the field has changed with the installation of the new owner.

 

Make no mistake that if a covered stadium is built your primary reason why you attend games will be very much affected. For you personally it might be a lesser experience but for me it won't. I want this franchise to build a facility that one can be proud of. The Ralph is an outdated corroding facility that no more public money should be used/wasted to maintain. Times change and environments change. The old days are fine to reminisce over but clinging to them and not adapting to the new reality is one of the main reasons why for so long this franchise has been an irrelevant franchise.

 

Looking back or maintaining the status quo is a losing proposition when dealing with institutional failure. Don't fear change, embrace it. Under new ownership the future should be brighter than the dim past. I'm confident that you will be pleasantly surprised with a new approach to operating the franchise compared to the way it was done in the past.

 

John, I've attended Bills games in every decade in their existence. Through the good years and the bad years. I agree with your desire for the team to be focused on winning, and a product worthy of watching. But since 1960 there has been one thing you can count on as a Bills fan. A very good gameday experience. And an integral part of that experience in Buffalo, has been the tailgating. You may not care about that, but I would bet a huge percentage of current fans do. Of course, that is a research question, we are both just speculating. And let's be clear, the tailgate experience isn't just about getting sloshed (though it is Buffalo, a city with a strong drinking culture) it is about community and comradery. It is about spending the entire day together, with the Bills game as the focus. For stadiums without that, and especially those that are covered, the gameday experience is more like a 4-hour diversion, IMO. Get in, get out. Clean. Businesslike. Sterile.

 

For watching the game itself, The Ralph is fine, actually better than fine, for the average fan. Great sight-lines, terrific crowd involvement. Sure a "state of the art" facility would be a nice thing for Buffalo, and the fans. But what makes a stadium "state of the art"? A covered stadium is old news, actually. I'm surprised they are still building them. Baseball seems to be getting out of the inside experience and retractable roofs have taken over for most of the newer NFL stadiums that have any cover at all.

 

And like you, I don't believe in going with the status quo simply because "that's the way it has always been". But ignoring your customers (in this case the fans) is a sure way to change into failure for a business. Changing the product on the field is something everyone can get behind. But dramatically changing the gameday experience is something that needs to be done carefully, and not simply because "that's the trend these days".

[PromoTheRobot]

For those married to the notion that playing in bad weather is some kind of advantage, consider that most of our players are from the south and played college in the south. Also the Bills practice indoors. So how does playing in bad weather help us exactly?

Edited November 29, 2014 by PromoTheRobot

[dwight in philly]

John, I've attended Bills games in every decade in their existence. Through the good years and the bad years. I agree with your desire for the team to be focused on winning, and a product worthy of watching. But since 1960 there has been one thing you can count on as a Bills fan. A very good gameday experience. And an integral part of that experience in Buffalo, has been the tailgating. You may not care about that, but I would bet a huge percentage of current fans do. Of course, that is a research question, we are both just speculating. And let's be clear, the tailgate experience isn't just about getting sloshed (though it is Buffalo, a city with a strong drinking culture) it is about community and comradery. It is about spending the entire day together, with the Bills game as the focus. For stadiums without that, and especially those that are covered, the gameday experience is more like a 4-hour diversion, IMO. Get in, get out. Clean. Businesslike. Sterile.

 

For watching the game itself, The Ralph is fine, actually better than fine, for the average fan. Great sight-lines, terrific crowd involvement. Sure a "state of the art" facility would be a nice thing for Buffalo, and the fans. But what makes a stadium "state of the art"? A covered stadium is old news, actually. I'm surprised they are still building them. Baseball seems to be getting out of the inside experience and retractable roofs have taken over for most of the newer NFL stadiums that have any cover at all.

 

And like you, I don't believe in going with the status quo simply because "that's the way it has always been". But ignoring your customers (in this case the fans) is a sure way to change into failure for a business. Changing the product on the field is something everyone can get behind. But dramatically changing the gameday experience is something that needs to be done carefully, and not simply because "that's the trend these days".