Seattle vs Miami stadium comparison | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Seattle vs Miami stadium comparison

Two major problems with your comparison dude. I have been to both stadiums. Your argument is super flawed man.

Sun Life, I mean Joe Robbie, I mean Dolphin Stadium, I mean Pro Player, Orange Carpet...built 85-86 opened in 1987 is in the middle of nowhere (Miramar)

Century Link Field is a State of the Art Stadium built in 2002-2004. The Seahwaks are 66-30 at CenturyLink during the regular season, and 5-1 in the playoffs.
Biggest difference it is downtown!!! A true experience. I Love the Fins, but hate the Stadium and Location.

The Dolphins have only won one playoff game at Land Shark Stadium in 2001, almost 14 years ago...

Facts Jacks
 
TheWalrus said:
And this is what Dolphins Stadium will apparently look like after the renovation:

ds5-1.jpg
Click to expand...

That partial roof-canopy looks like it will get ripped off during the next hurricane.
 
I've been to quite a few Dolphin games. I dont mind the setup of the stadium, I just hope the new design blocks the sun a little (no a lot) better. We are lower bowl around the 30 yd line and that sun has made me give (or sell) some day game tickets away.
 
I like Sun Life but I miss the Orange Bowl. I used to complain about the Orange Bowl....too old...too rusty....blah, blah.....but it was in a great location and it was loud! I hope the renovations to Sun Life will help with the loudness....winning would help. Winning would also eliminate the opposing teams fans from attending!
 
If they use sound insulating glass on the roof the stadium is going to get LOUD. And you can't argue the stadium can't already be loud, the only unsportsmanlike conduct penalty caused by crowd noise I've ever seen was at JRS versus Montana's Chiefs.
 
If you look at that chart from the link I posted it's easy to identify why Miami doesn't receive the full 5.5 point split from home to road. I mentioned that last week, when someone posted that the Dolphins would be getting +10.5 if the game had been played in New England. The Dolphins have been a somewhat above average road team, in fact better than Seattle in terms of net points since 2002. But with the poor home results there's no reason to allocate the standard number at Sun Life.

For many years the oddsmakers failed to take note of Miami's poor home results. Consequently the money invariably showed on the road team, particularly in the late going. The sportsbooks ended up needed Miami to cover at home far more often than they needed the road team.

This week the Dolphins are -1 at Buffalo. If the game were at Sun Life the Dolphins would not be -6.5. More like -4.5.
 
Awsi Dooger said:
If you look at that chart from the link I posted it's easy to identify why Miami doesn't receive the full 5.5 point split from home to road. I mentioned that last week, when someone posted that the Dolphins would be getting +10.5 if the game had been played in New England. The Dolphins have been a somewhat above average road team, in fact better than Seattle in terms of net points since 2002. But with the poor home results there's no reason to allocate the standard number at Sun Life.

For many years the oddsmakers failed to take note of Miami's poor home results. Consequently the money invariably showed on the road team, particularly in the late going. The sportsbooks ended up needed Miami to cover at home far more often than they needed the road team.

This week the Dolphins are -1 at Buffalo. If the game were at Sun Life the Dolphins would not be -6.5. More like -4.5.
Click to expand...

One thing that article shows is the Dolphins had a 3.3 point home field advantage from 1990-2002, which was 10th at the time and that number dropped to 1.3 from 2002 till now. And the stadium didn't change...
 
archer101 said:
Interesting to see the graphics. What I am questioning is whether a vertical design actually results in seats that are closer to the field. They are closer horizontally obviously, but with the added height I wonder if the straight line distance is any different. It might just be down to preference rather than actual distance.

The reason that Seattle has low capacity is the lack of end zone seats. A full bowl (like Metlife) is the most efficient design but also boring. Seattle took away seats at both end zones to add character, but it costs capacity. If they had closed these in, even with two decks, they would easily by 75k + as their sideline stands are huge.

Remember that end zone seats are actually physically closest to the field as there is no setback from the field required. Therefore, the large number of end zone seats at SunLife cater for those who need to be close.

I don't think the renovated Sun Life will be perfect by any means but it should be decent. I wonder how much fixing they are going to do - the concrete in the stands is crumbling and needs to be fully repaired when they pull out the seats. They need to do it properly to make it feel like a 'new' stadium.
Click to expand...

You don't measure how close the fans are to the field by using any part of the field. You measure to the center of the field. That's the true measure. A seat in the end zone is close to the action but only for half of the game. That's reflected in the price of those seats.

That's why the open end zone is not really that big of a factor. Arrowhead has long been considered one of the loudest football stadiums in the country and it has an open end zone. So did the Orange Bowl for most of it's life (if memory serves they did add extra seats during the glory years).

Part of the reason to be wary of a patch is you invariably aren't getting your money's worth. It costs more to work around an existing structure than it would be to add a detail from the beginning. Ross just wants the stadium to be a bit better during his lifetime. Unless you have the energy and drive and familial experience of a Jed York doing a new stadium from the ground up can take a decade. Ross is 74 and spends most of his time in New York. He doesn't have the time or the energy to knock on doors the way York did.
 
Stephen Ross is one of the biggest developers in the US. He has had success after success developing major real estate projects. He is an expert in assessing major construction proposals. I'd be very confident that we have a very good quality architectural design and when constructed, it will be first class. Mr Ross is paying for the facility upgrade out of his pocket. It will be the best.
 
TheWalrus said:
You don't measure how close the fans are to the field by using any part of the field. You measure to the center of the field. That's the true measure. A seat in the end zone is close to the action but only for half of the game. That's reflected in the price of those seats.

That's why the open end zone is not really that big of a factor. Arrowhead has long been considered one of the loudest football stadiums in the country and it has an open end zone. So did the Orange Bowl for most of it's life (if memory serves they did add extra seats during the glory years).

Part of the reason to be wary of a patch is you invariably aren't getting your money's worth. It costs more to work around an existing structure than it would be to add a detail from the beginning. Ross just wants the stadium to be a bit better during his lifetime. Unless you have the energy and drive and familial experience of a Jed York doing a new stadium from the ground up can take a decade. Ross is 74 and spends most of his time in New York. He doesn't have the time or the energy to knock on doors the way York did.
Click to expand...

I agree a new stadium would be a far better solution. But the reality is that it will never happen. Ross would not do it without Government help and they will never pay up after the Marlins fiasco. I would much rather they have a downtown stadium but it is just not realistic - the only way it ever would have happened was if Ross had threatened to move the team, played chicken for five years and then still ended up probably having to move 'cos he wouldn't get the stadium anyway. He was never going to pay for a whole new stadium himself - other owners don't. If he had sold the team we would have ended up moving for sure.

All I am arguing is that the renovation may not be too bad and will give us a stadium that is average rather than way below average. I think the seat issue is overrated. The biggest problem is simply that we have sucked and the stadium is full of opposition fans. The capacity reduction should help a bit, as we have circa 49k season ticket holders so there should be less tickets being picked up by opposition fans.

Just remember, a lot of the new stadiums have also been terrible. MetLife is a massive waste of money that doesn't have any atmosphere at all. One of the problems is that NFL owners are trying to build stadiums too big and they lose intimacy and atmosphere. Dallas is a good example. Best stadium I have seen is probably in Indy which has a smaller capacity - but not much point having an indoor stadium in Miami.
 
archer101 said:
I agree a new stadium would be a far better solution. But the reality is that it will never happen. Ross would not do it without Government help and they will never pay up after the Marlins fiasco. I would much rather they have a downtown stadium but it is just not realistic - the only way it ever would have happened was if Ross had threatened to move the team, played chicken for five years and then still ended up probably having to move 'cos he wouldn't get the stadium anyway. He was never going to pay for a whole new stadium himself - other owners don't. If he had sold the team we would have ended up moving for sure.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no reason to believe that.

All I am arguing is that the renovation may not be too bad and will give us a stadium that is average rather than way below average. I think the seat issue is overrated. The biggest problem is simply that we have sucked and the stadium is full of opposition fans. The capacity reduction should help a bit, as we have circa 49k season ticket holders so there should be less tickets being picked up by opposition fans.

Just remember, a lot of the new stadiums have also been terrible. MetLife is a massive waste of money that doesn't have any atmosphere at all. One of the problems is that NFL owners are trying to build stadiums too big and they lose intimacy and atmosphere. Dallas is a good example. Best stadium I have seen is probably in Indy which has a smaller capacity - but not much point having an indoor stadium in Miami.
Click to expand...

Things can always go wrong. MetLife and Foxboro are both good examples. But I would take my chances it would be better than what we have now, and I see no reason to put a happy face on this solution when it's not really in any way a good one.

SunLife is not going to have atmosphere just because they put a few monitors in the upper deck corners. That doesn't make anything more intimate. Not that many people sit up there anyway, and for good reason.

The only saving grace to this solution is that almost no public money went into it. That still leaves the option for something down the road when the stadium will invariably -- and very quickly -- look outdated as the Levi's Stadium and the new Falcons and Vikings venues of the NFL go up. Our creaky bloated structure next to a dog track is only going to look worse and worse. This patch -- hundreds of millions though it costs -- will merely be a speed bump in that trajectory.
 
Awsi Dooger said:
Ah yes, wonderful subjectivity. Sample of one apiece and all we need to know.
yada yada yada. Blah blah blah.
Click to expand...

How the **** did this conversation go from an interesting thread pertaining to fan enjoyment and experiences at stadiums to Vegas mumbo jumbo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom