BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 I was just wondering for the people who have traveled to different cities to watch NFL games.... I was just wondering if anybody can name a stadium worse than the Ralph..The reason why I say that is because I keep hearing that RWS is the worst..the only one I could think of was Mcaffe Coliseum in Oakland.... Does anybody have anything else. Yeah, Jacksonville. At least Raiders fans give a damn.
BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 i have a positive intrest in the bills...a positive intrest on making the team better and the stadium better and keeping them in buffalo Wow! You must be important. So, is this thread about decent places to take the wife out to dinner, or places to watch a football game? Sorry, my pea-brain is easily confused, though certainly intrested.
mike6683 Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 I think it's ridiculous that people still make false accusations. Naming the stadium after Ralph was not his idea...it was the idea of the NYS Governor and the Erie County Commissioner at the time. It actually was called Buffalo Bills Stadium for a while after the deal with Rich Products expiredAnd it's also ridiculous to insult our stadium by calling it the worst when it's far from it. The only thing I'd change at all about it is upgrade the bathrooms Agreed. Im there to watch football never been to a stadium with better views my seats are in the upper deck but ive been sat in a few different places and all good cann see just bout everything. The energy in the stadium by my account is better than any ive ever been to. I would not want a new stadium if that was an option.
mdbruce3 Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Who cares about using the sinks in Rich Stadium (er, Ralph)?? I get in and get out. I've never stood in line so long as I do in Baltimore. Expect a 15 minute line. They looked at me funny when I started going in the sink. Old habit I guess! On the other hand, M&T Stadium is completely wired for sound. How many speakers do they have? 50 or 60? The whole place just rocks. Besides Baltimore, I've been to Philly (wierd design that I just don't get) and Meadowlands (seems OK). Absolutely nothing wrong with the Ralph. It certainly feels older than the others (because it its) but there is nothing wrong with the Ralph.
May Day 10 Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 I love Rich Stadium we are all going to be very sorry when its gone.
LabattBlue Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 i heard Fed ex was nice...lots of in stadium restraunts and such Who the hell eats in the stadium after tailgating for several hours?
Gordio Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 I was just wondering for the people who have traveled to different cities to watch NFL games.... I was just wondering if anybody can name a stadium worse than the Ralph..The reason why I say that is because I keep hearing that RWS is the worst..the only one I could think of was Mcaffe Coliseum in Oakland.... Does anybody have anything else. Been to alot of NFL Stadiums here. I am not going to lie & say the Ralph is a Palace but it has it's own unique charm. First, at least from the stadiums I have been to, the parking lots at the Ralph, bar none arethe best for the talgating experience. You really just do not see, at least from the stadiums I have been to big open parking lots like you find at the Ralph. Once inside the stadium, the Ralph has it's own charm. The sightline are pretty good, the atmosphere is good, the scoreboard is nice(it would be better if they had one on each endzone. The negatives, I would have to say the concourses should be wider, the restroom should have easier access & the food pretty much sucks. Other then that though I really can not complain. BTW, the stadium in Jacksonville is a much bigger sh*thole then the Ralph in my opinion.
The Senator Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 You know Senator, I can always count on you to sharpshoot an argument, missing the main point. But as long as we're sharpshooting, the Rogers Centre is named as such because it is owned by Rogers Communications. As such one would conclude that this constitutes corporate naming rights, not some millionaire tooting his own horn. Oh. Thank you. And after whom is Rogers Communications named? If it was named after Ted Rogers, don't you think he might have named it the Ted Rogers Centre? In contrast Ralph owns the naming rights and nothing else as far as our stadium is concerned. How classy of him to put his own full name there. Secondly as you like to (attempt) to nail me on technicalities, I will have to nail you on one as well. If you continue your silly argument that the Rogers Centre is named after a living person I will have you know that Ted Rogers died on December 3, 2008. Or fail miserably trying. I will have you know that the stadium was renamed "Rogers Centre" following the purchase of the stadium by 'Ted' Rogers Communications in 2005. (Are you implying that you are fine with the name, if only Ralph would die?) FWIW I'm sure there are buildings named after living people. But that misses the point of my original post. And based on our recent history Senator, it is clear what your intentions are. My only intention, just in case it's not clear, was to point out that there are buildings, structures, monuments, etc. (think Reagan National Airport) named after living people. (And please don try to 'nail' me by pointing out that Reagan is dead - it was named after him many years before his passing.) My friend, methinks you suffer from a slight case of narcissism - it was not my intention to rebut you specifically. I don't really look to see who authored something before I disagree with them, I didn't know we had a 'recent history', nor do I even remember any recent dialogue between us - apparently there was, and I do apologize if I offended you in any way... GO BILLSSS!!!!
pBills Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Miami's s-hole. Sorry but Palm Trees can not make a piece of crap look and feel inviting.
NyQuil Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 I have no problem with RWS being named after the owner. Just dont cry poverty if you refuse to sell the naming rights. Even I know what maximzing revenue means.
billsfreak Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 I can't speak for how a stadium is for a player, but as a fan, FEDEX Field home of the Redskins really sucks. It isn't even an NFL atmosphere. Two years ago I went there when the Bills beat the Skins (Gibbs 2 Timeouts game), and there were many more Bills fans tailgating than there were Redskins fans. Some seats the view is blocked by an overhanging, where you can only see parts of the game on a TV screen. The upper deck is the size of 2 and a half upper decks, with no entrance in the middle of it. It is a hike of about 200 rows if you are up top. I have been to games in about 5 or 6 NFL stadiums and FEDEX was the Pits.
billsfreak Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 There is nothing wrong with the name "Ralph Wilson Stadium." As much as everyone wants Ralphie to sell the naming rights, I actually hate corporate stadium names. Some are worse than others. And even worse is when a building changes names. Coca Cola Field will always be Pilot Field to me. PTR Kinda like Ralph Wilson Stadium will always be Rich Stadium to alot of people, named for Rich Foods-a corporation.
PromoTheRobot Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Kinda like Ralph Wilson Stadium will always be Rich Stadium to alot of people, named for Rich Foods-a corporation. How ironic that the Bills started the whole naming rights industry with that deal? $1M for 25 years is downright cheap these days. Rich Stadium sounded fine compared to the outright retarded corporate stadium names we have today. As for naming rights now, would anyone object to selling the "field" name? Example: Gieco Field at Ralph Wilson Stadium. PTR
buckeyemike Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 The only stadiums I've been to are Browns Stadium, old Cleveland Municipal, and I took a tour of Lambeau before it was renovated. Browns Stadium = overrated, far too vanilla. The upper deck feels like it's in Akron. About the only thing I truly like are the video boards. My main problem is that it's a white elephant, and might be used 20 days a year. The city paid $300 million for a stadium that's probably been occupied a grand total of 200 days in the last 10 years. It completely misses the atmosphere of old Municipal. Cleveland Municipal Stadium = it was a dump, but dammit, it was OUR dump. The best place to watch a game was the Dawg Pound, which tells you all you need to know about how it wasn't built for football either. The 50 yard line seats were too far away from the field. The food was bad (the hot dogs were usually cold), the wind off the lake could get real fierce after Thanksgiving, my digital watch had more power than the scoreboard -- but it screamed Cleveland and was a classic old building. Lambeau Field = probably the world's most perfect football stadium. The Packers smartly turned it into a year-round destination, with the building of the atrium, the expanded Pro Shop, a year-round restaurant (but it works at Lambeau). None of that was there when I visited in 1998, and I was struck by how simple the place was. The seating bowl looked like 15 high school grandstands fused together around the field...and it still mostly looks that way, except for some club seats on one side and the luxury boxes on top. Be glad for what you have in Buffalo. Not every city needs to have, or can have, a new Meadowlands Stadium or the giant football-shaped airplane hangar that's nearing completion in Arlington, TX. And be careful what you wish for...you could wind up with another Browns Stadium, heaven forbid.
nucci Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 I have no problem with RWS being named after the owner. Just dont cry poverty if you refuse to sell the naming rights. Even I know what maximzing revenue means. He doesn't cry poverty. He complains that the large revenues from luxury boxes other teams get are not shared but still make the cap go up. When Jets/Giants and Cowboy stadium open, they get a ton of money to keep for themselves. I don't think Ralph cares about that as much as it raises the cap which is not fair to the other teams.
judman Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 Had a conversation about this topic last weekend. I guess ATL is a nightmare for parking, and has very little atmosphere in the area around the stadium. I got my usual spot for tailgating that is a reasonable cost, and a great setting. Not too many other stadiums have that it seems.
TheLynchTrain Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 did I say that I wanted resturants at the ralph.... I was just pointing out what I observed when I went to Fed Ex... I hope you read better in college, Kollege student or it could be a long semester for you If you think FedEx is a good stadium, you really are the village idiot on this board. It's possibly one of the worst stadiums in the league with sight lines and pillars in front of seats. What stadium built in the last 15 years has obstructed view seating? I think the atmosphere at redskins games is absolutely terrible too...a product of this corporate football crap where people go to network rather than watch a football game. There is a also a reason why Snyder wants a new stadium built after they got one only ELEVEN YEARS AGO.... its a terrible stadium! And you're talking about "landscaping" at a stadium? God, every post makes me laugh with this guy. Is everyone in Jacksonville like you? And what are your ties (if any) with Buffalo? Is it because you like Labbatt Blue that you suddenly became a bills fan?
nucci Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 If you think FedEx is a good stadium, you really are the village idiot on this board. It's possibly one of the worst stadiums in the league with sight lines and pillars in front of seats. What stadium built in the last 15 years has obstructed view seating? I think the atmosphere at redskins games is absolutely terrible too...a product of this corporate football crap where people go to network rather than watch a football game. There is a also a reason why Snyder wants a new stadium built after they got one only ELEVEN YEARS AGO.... its a terrible stadium! And you're talking about "landscaping" at a stadium? God, every post makes me laugh with this guy. Is everyone in Jacksonville like you? And what are your ties (if any) with Buffalo? Is it because you like Labbatt Blue that you suddenly became a bills fan? I know it's hard but just ignore him.
Ray Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 The Ralph has certain charms and history I think most people would agree. However, it is old and the seats themselves, bathrooms, suites and club seats are not comparable to the newer stadiums. But, do they need to be? For the WNY, So Ontario crowds, by and large they are there to watch football. The fans at Bills games are there for the game and NOT to socialize with other corporations or to be seen. When I was living in Boston the Patriot players were in public stating how the fans actually need to be loud and cheer as there was no atmosphere and no noise typical of an NFL game. Kind of the balance I guess between having the most expensive tix in the NFL with the type of people you get going to the games. Face it, I would love a new downtown Buffalo stadium, something that could be used year round and close to canalside and close to the water......but it is NOT happening. The big thing that keeps the Bills in Buffalo is the stadium. I think what would make it nicer is something to insulate the place from the wind and elements better.
TheLynchTrain Posted April 28, 2009 Posted April 28, 2009 I know it's hard but just ignore him. Is he serious with all this crap? I agree with Dean...he's got to be a troll or maybe another crayonz. Can anyone be so stupid? Sure, its just a message board, but I never thought you could figure out somebody was mentally handicapped from reading a few sentences. I guess you learn something new everyday.
Recommended Posts