Same, they may break our hearts every year, but I'll always love the Vikings. Always. Like I said, if anything, the outdoor stadium would be less costly, and would bring the home-field advantage that Minnesota once had. Just common sense: Move outdoors, we don't need a stupid retractable roof. Football is a man's sport, who cares if it's a little cold? It's Minnesota.
Originally Posted by Youk Of The Nation
I love it when the spectators say things like 'its a MAN'S sport! be tuff!'.
You think the Vikings players would be (even the Packers or Bears for that matter) watching the weather the night before gameday hoping for a snowstorm?
Because if you live in a Minnesota, you have every right to call out anyone on their inability to tolerate cold weather. You're completely missing the point, which is that teams that we play that don't get Minnesota winter weather, will not play well in Minnesota winter weather. It used to be our homefield advantage. We used to dominate at home, because teams couldn't tolerate the cold. Then we moved into the dome, and all of a sudden the Vikings aren't one of the NFL's elite franchises, all of a sudden they can't even make to the Super Bowl to lose it. The Dome has temperature control, it's heated, it's comfortable for all players.
So why aren't the Packers a great team year in and year out? I'll bet their winters are as bad as Minnesota's.
As far as the players go, I don't see how a Vikings that won these snow games 30 years ago translates to today's Vikings players loving the weather.
I think every stadium should be the same. Roofs or retractable roofs.
Did I say it was all about the home field? There has to be a certain level of talent, you can't just beat teams because you can play in the cold. However, having the outdoors of Minnesota in zero temperature gives the Vikings players a huge advantage, because they're used to it, the guys from California or Florida definitely are not. And yeah, Green Bay winters are usually comparable to Minnesota winters, to be honest.
No one said they loved the weather, I said they could tolerate it much more than your teams that usually play in domes, or in warmer areas, etc. It gives them an advantage. The Vikings who won in the snow 30 years ago had a lot of talent as well, to be fair, but the added home-field advantage is gone.As far as the players go, I don't see how a Vikings that won these snow games 30 years ago translates to today's Vikings players loving the weather.
Why? That's called pussifying the sport. It's a game that was meant to be played outdoors, and if you want to play indoors, that's your decision.I think every stadium should be the same. Roofs or retractable roofs.
Maybe, maybe not. Its not like a team like the Falcons wouldn't be practicing in snowy/crappy conditions (if possible) for most of the week in preparation.
Removing all these random, needless quirks/variables is pussifying the sport? lol okayWhy? That's called pussifying the sport. It's a game that was meant to be played outdoors, and if you want to play indoors, that's your decision.
J_E has a point. Removing some unnecessary variables would help to ensure that the better team wins.
Baseball should do it too. Same dimensions, same conditions.
But I guess that wouldn't be FUN!! enough for most people.
Why? So that everything's fair and square and no one's feelings are hurt? Certain states have certain advantages, the weather happens, shit happens, the sport is an outdoor sport, and it's the only one of the major sports we have that plays rain, shine, snow, whatever. Life isn't fair, football isn't always going to be fair, and the fact that you're arguing that everyone should have a roof on their stadium proves my point for me that there is some advantage to be had in, for example, Minnesota weather.
That's just it, shit happens, the weather is the weather, and not everyone should have to have a roof because of this. If a team wants to play outside, they should be able to. It's pussifying the sport because you can't stand the weather, because it's not fair that they're used to 0 degree temperatures and you're not. That's practically the very definition of pussification.Removing all these random, needless quirks/variables is pussifying the sport? lol okay
No, so we can ensure that the better team comes out on top, and in baseball it would make player evaluation easier.
Would it be a good idea for the Sixers to make the hoops at Wachovia one foot higher? It would be a unique stadium quirk and make the game FUN! Maybe the Bruins should put potholes in their ice for a nice twist.
So you were in favor of steroid use, I take it?
Now you're really grasping as straws. Those aren't random factors. Keeping a roof off of your stadium, and allowing the weather to take it's course is. If you're going to pull your typical J_E condescending, sarcastic scheme, at least TRY to use a bit of logic when doing so. Thanks.
:lol:
This just keeps getting better and better. Steroid use isn't random. I know using logic isn't your norm, and I know it may be a troubling task, but please, think before you hit the "send reply" button. It's irritating having to deal with the arrogance every time I disagree with you, to be real honest about it.
But they are needless occurences that interfere with the game. Why the hell should outside, random events, irrelevant to the game, affect the game at the hand? I will bet anything that you lived in Dallas as a Cowboys fan and lost a snowy playoff game in Green Bay/Chicago/Minnesota, you'd be flailing around yelling for there to be a stop to this.
You're in the 'shit happens' camp, but you don't like the idea of extra-high hoops or trick ice? How about we put all the basketball and hockey teams outside then? Freezing rain/snowy NBA or NHL games (well in some places, since to achieve true random/shit happens mastery some teams need to experience this and some are exempt)? Ohfukyea. Remember, random outside occurences.
Posting Permissions
