Is it time to replace Arrowhead with a dome?
 

The cold, crappy Dec/Jan. KC weather doesn't appear to provide any real home field advantage anymore.

At least the fans wouldn't be so miserable in a nice climate controlled facility. No more thousands of no shows or leaving at halftime on bad weather days.


Discuss......

What kind of blasphemy is this?

They already did. It's called "club level".

Won't happen for atleast 25 years

Go fist yourself.

Honestly, I'm convinced domes actually have an adverse effect on teams' performances in outdoor stadiums and in bad weather. Teams just get too used to perfect conditions at home that they forget how to grind out a game when natural conditions are working against them. So no, Arrowhead is fine the way it is.

I'm semi-serious.


Would you rather be cold and miserable, or warm and miserable?

Dome teams are soft.


Wait, what?

Do it. I want to see Kansas City host a final four in basketball again. Without a dome it'll never happen.

Unless your the Colts.

I would have paid a lot of money to go to that snow game with the Lions last week. Weather adds a lot to the game for me.

I'm sure the taxpayers of Jackson County will be more than willing to bend over for another renovation project of the Hunt's playground.

The dome could be a big factor in why Fivehead choked so much in Indy, especially in cold weather, though.

I'd actually be interested to see data on this.

As a taxpayer, I wouldn't pay a penny to subsidize the businesses of a bunch of billionaires.

Everyone could have their own personal dome.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt...oilmain615.jpg

Everyone always says this......but when push comes to shove and the owner threatens to move, the taxpayers usually bend over with a smile on their face.

...i think it's time to replace hope with apathy.

**** basketball.

F*** NO!!!!

Banners aren't as effective when flown around a dome.

Bundle up and quite your crying.

How about a rolling roof? No one ever thought of that before...

I prefer the outdoor elements. I've been to a ton of games where it was 10 degrees. I just prepared. I wear winter clothing. Lots of it. I love the snow and rain. It's a great time.

keep football REAL no domes anywhere

football is the only sport not called by rain...
if played outside what sport does not get called by rain

name one...
I can't wait to see the "fans" freezing their asses off this year at the superbowl

LMAO

yes

Soccer :evil:

To attract big sporting events, etc. yes. KC would be an obvious candidate to host the Final Four if they had a dome.

If the reason is try to impact the Chiefs on field performance then the answer is no… that would be a stupid reason to do so.

Save our Chiefs would have to save up to rent a laser light show.

You really don't understand how "our" government works, do you?

no. No. NO.

This is a very underrated post.

No. Don't be a pussy.

The Colts demolished the old dome when they had the new stadium built.

They can technically have snow and cold when they need/want it.

http://ad009cdnb.archdaily.net/wp-co...-09454-127.jpg

I loathe domes or any type of retractable roof stadium.


between those, fake fields, spotless jerseys, players weren't no pads below the shoulder pads........it doesn't even feel like I'm watching football anymore.

Something needs to happen at Arrowhead... It has zero fear factor, its not intimidating and opposing teams have zero issues playing there.

the mystic of Arrowhead or Terrorhead is long long gone.

Its time for something different...

I don't have the answer, but you can see opposing teams love playing there.

Get bent, wtf.

The crowd was taken out of the game yesterday by the shitty play, coaching, and officiating.

The crowd showed up, the team did not.

Domes are for pussies.

Ill admit, I am a pussy...

Ill only go to the game if I have a suite to sit in.... Or a climate controlled dome...

It was obvious from the broadcast that a lot of fans didn't show up yesterday, in fact there were a lot of tickets being given away due to the weather.

I got a text yesterday from a Bears fan that I have never had a text from, asking me where the Chiefs fans were for such an important game?

But by all means, hang in there and don't get a roof and don't sit in the seats either! :rolleyes:

A retractable roof would be nice, and would give the team the option of keeping it open in the cold and letting everyone be miserable or not.

Plus a dome gives you a lot more flexibility in the events you have there besides football.


I don't see why KC shouldn't have a retractable dome besides the bad economy.

Peyton Manning built that place.

Their stadium is pretty damn nice....

Sort of my point. It's obvious there are thousands of fans that will not show up in bad weather. I had 3 sets of friends offer me tickets for free yesterday. A dome would stop a lot of this behavior.

20 years ago, I would considered (and did) go to those freezing ass games. Now I am older and wiser. Sitting outside in that freezing weather to watch a sporting event doesn't sound like much fun to me. Especially when you can stay at home, watch multiple games and NFL red zone in the comfort of your own home.

Going to games is fun, but you are totally in the dark as to what is going on around the NFL during that game. TV is killing the stadium experience.

Worst thread of the year.

A whole lot of this. Yes

that, and the Chiefs lose at home more often than not...

Every game I've been to in the last 8 years they've lost. I 'think' all of them have been December games. Or, at a minimum, they've been balls cold.

it would be one thing if the Chiefs were dominant at home etc, but they are completely unpredictable in which Chiefs team will show up.

So, my cold game days are over.

I couldn't agree more. It was pretty clear for this game that a lot of people feel that way. No way could I have handled that weather yesterday for the entire game.

But, but we are tough, and we don't need no freeking dome!/ 20,000 diehards

yesterday, I sat and watched the Denver/Houston on a 32 inch TV, had the Red Zone on a 37 and the chief's game on a 42 all in HD...

Plus it was 70 degrees and the beer/restroom was just a few feet away...

Hard to give that up to sit in 20 degree temps with Ice...

that too.

One reason, IMO, the 90's were a huge home field advantage was that it was really the only entertainment in town. I remember working at the Mall, and on Sundays during football season, the owner of the sandwich shop that I worked at would literally scheduling his staffing around Chiefs games because the entire town seemed to shut down.

Now with HD, very affordable big ass TVs, Sunday Ticket, home theaters etc.....there really isn't any incentive to see a game at the stadium for most fans.

the Arrowhead mystique has been dead probably since 2004.

It's better to be warm and miserable than cold and miserable. :)

the Ramsification of the Chiefs continues

The idea of a dome or retractable roof has been considered for Arrowhead several times in the past - when initial construction was being planned, again in 1984, then more recently in 2007 when the prospect of hosting a 2015 Super Bowl was dangled by the NFL. I remember in the beginning, there was even an artist's rendering of the roof on the front of the Kansas City telephone book. Alas, the engineering was too complicated as the roof as to cover a side-by-side Arrowhead and Royals stadium.

In the case of the Hunts, though, it's really not quite correct that this is classic case of a greedy owner shaking down taxpayers. The Hunts have been significant contributors both in the initial construction and the recent renovations.

One thing I don't understand, is why the burden always falls on Jackson County alone? As a public improvement, Truman Sports Complex obviously benefits the whole metropolitan area so why don't all the jurisdictions step up? Including the Kansas counties.

Lets see they just renovated Arrowhead and the Dome/retractable roof was part of the original plan but was not approved by the taxpayers. So the answer is still NO. Just like it was a few years ago.

No.

Deberg you have been on a roll lately. That roll is of course shitty stupid ass threads man. Worst thread of the year just barely over the 2cd placed worst thread of the year that is also yours.

Ahh yes This.

Arrowhead was supposed to have a "rolling roof" when Jackson County taxpayers agreed to build the Sports Complex in the late 1960's. It was a big selling point that helped carry the original vote. Construction strikes and cost over runs made them whack the roof. Then when the renovation talks came around, the politicos actually put two different measures on the Jackson County ballot. One was for the renovation of Arrowhead and Kauffman Stadium, which passed, and the second measure was to build a roof over Arrowhead, which failed.

I voted for the renovation and against the roof. On the roof, I wanted the Chiefs to have a natural winter advantage over the Raiders and Chargers. Making California teams play in cold weather is usually an advantage. Secondly, if the Chiefs wanted a roof that badly, the Hunt family has the money to pay for it themselves. The money the Hunts put into the renovation all went to luxury suites and rich **** amenities. Didn't affect the average joe fan at all.

It's called a dominating defense. We need one.

:clap:

but I am still staying home. F the cold weather...

This...
7 games ago Arrowhead was nearly impossible for other teams on offense. Now? Same shit, different day.
A dome wouldn't have made much of a difference yesterday unless KC paid for it to be over the roads leading in as well. I checked 411.org yesterday morning at 0600 and the roads were in shit shape. If they'd have been halfway decent, I would've braved the drive down from Omaha.

Tell that to the Colts.

Sounds like a great idea, as long as you have an extra $800 Billion lying around that could be used for this, since the taxpayers are still paying for the renovations that were done just a few years ago.

THIS. That was the first time in quite a while that I was so damn frustrated with the team that I just became apathetic and half assed my yelling.

Why give 110% to a team that was only giving 60%?

Yeah, and which Super Bowl was promised if they approved the rolling roof for the renovations? The one coming up that ended up in NY?

and obviously the fans didn't give two shits about getting that superbowl here. If the Hunts want that damn rolling roof so badly, they can pay for it themselves. Its complete bullshit expecting fans to cover all their costs. I can't stand Jerry Jones but at least he paid for his shit. Fans get to repay him for it with $15 per slice pizza. LMAO

Yep. I could have gone yesterday with free tickets but I said **** that. I have gone to multiple cold Chiefs game, the coldest being the 95 playoff game. Never again.

The final nail to the stadium experience will be the end of blackout rules that are coming

This thread idea is almost as dumb as the one that suggests we should trade Bowe.

I still think the transferrable roof was a great idea. it would be the porta-dome.

They are?

Yep.

Wait. What?

ending the blackout rules will never happen. This is the NFL. LMAO

uh oh.

The beer/ restroom proximity alone is enough to stay home.

I'm a traditionalist so I believe all football games should be played in the elements. That being said, retractable roofs are the best value for the community. They provide a great facility to attract large national events, which, in turn provide large cash infusions to those communities. I think the Colts have only played one game a year with the roof open so they're pussies but theres no discounting the value.

As a fan, I would definitely prefer a dome. I don't understand why people would prefer to sit outside in 10 degree weather if they don't have to. I really don't understand it. I guess these are the same people that like to go enjoy nature walks when it's 110 degrees out as well.

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/the-...g-events-1159/

My print column this week examines estimates of economic impact from major events, including some of the big quadrennial ones this summer: the just-completed Summer Olympics in London, and the upcoming Republican and Democratic conventions in Tampa, Fla., and Charlotte, N.C., respectively.

Typically organizers of these events, or sponsors or other backers, cite specific and often large estimates of their economic impact. Some economists who have looked back at prior events say these figures are often exaggerated.

“Impact analysis adds and multiplies, but never subtracts and divides,” said Philip Porter, an economist at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

“Somehow, every city thinks that it will be different” than predecessors that didn’t see a big boon from big events, said Robert A. Baade, an economist at Lake Forest College in Illinois who has co-authored a study that found no significant economic impact from national political conventions. “You need people to believe that in order to get the money you need to host the event.”

One of the flaws these and other economists cite in the economic-impact estimates is equating government spending — on new buildings, or security, or infrastructure — with a positive economic impact. By that logic, said Porter, the U.S. government could end current economic doldrums by “hiring half the unemployed people to dig holes during the day and the other half to fill them back in during the night.”

Another common drawback with these estimates is unwarranted precision — citing an economic impact to four significant figures when it is impossible to predict the future with anywhere near that level of certainty. “Useful forecasts come with a measure of the uncertainty associated with them,” said Brad R. Humphreys, an economist at the University of Alberta.

One uncertainty plaguing political conventions is what level of disruption they will cause to usual levels of business. It is hard for this year’s host cities to realize the $150 million to $200 million in projected economic benefit, said Victor A. Matheson, an economist at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., “when the city essentially shuts down except for the convention.”

Ken Jones, president and chief executive officer of the host committee for the Republican convention in Tampa that is projecting an economic impact of $175 million to $200 million, said much of the city’s tourism economy is essentially shut down in a typical year during late August, when the convention will be held. Such nuances and differences between cities matter, Jones said: smaller cities such as Tampa may be better suited to reaping benefits from big events than larger cities with steadier, higher levels of year-round activity. “That’s what makes this economic impact greater for us, than for a different city,” Jones said.

Jones Lang LaSalle, a real-estate services firm, projected similar levels of economic impact for Tampa, though it also warned against ignoring the effects of crowding out locals and reducing productivity — and said conventions’ ability to boost future economic activity by increasing tenancy is unproven.

The Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority is projecting economic impact of $150 million to $200 million from the Charlotte convention. “Estimating economic impact in advance of a convention or event is often more an art than a science,” Tom Murray, chief executive of the authority, said in a statement this week. “Based on past conventions we predict it will be well north of $100 million, but it is essential we measure ourselves after the fact to see actual results. Regardless of the actual number, we know it will be a large, positive impact to our area.”

Allen R. Sanderson, economist at the University of Chicago, said that these conventions — plus the London Olympics as well as the games in four years in Rio de Janeiro — can’t be justified on business grounds, though perhaps they can as pleasure. “If Charlotte or Tampa or London or Rio wants to argue that they’re going to throw a huge party and, with their eyes wide open, they are willing to blow some fraction of their disposable income to do it, fine by me,” Sanderson said.

In support of his argument, Sanderson cited a bachelor’s thesis study this past April by his student, Samantha Edds. Edds, now working as part of Nielsen’s Emerging Leaders program outside Chicago, studied three recent host cities with paired cities in the same country that didn’t host the Olympics, and found little evidence of any boost to the hosts’ economies, other than Barcelona’s construction sector. She said that in her examination she found little evidence of hosts attempting to measure the economic impact after the events were over, “and it is unclear what would be the best methodology to minimize errors.”

Economists agree that it is too soon to assess the economic impact of the London Games, though some cite early reports of slowdown in business in London, particularly in the first week of the Olympics. “The Olympics were great fun but not a great economic boon,” Matheson said.

“The Olympic effect will be very small, apart from possible sales of sports and event equipment, businesses making sales on the back of their involvement in the Olympics, and the growth in indigenous industries such as cycle manufacture,” said Joshua Bamfield, director of the Centre for Retail Research in Nottingham, U.K.

Here, again, the characteristics of host cities matter. One common factor in big economic-impact estimates is the assumption that serving as a good host will boost a city’s image with tourists and businesses. London, though, say some economists, doesn’t have much room to grow with either group. “London was already on everyone’s tourism map,” Matheson said.

“The people visiting London for the games are taking the place of other tourists who would have visited even if the games would have been in Paris,” said Humphreys.

Tom Jenkins, executive director of the European Tour Operators Association, said the reality was even worse in London. The ETOA has studied prior games and found that tourism by many measures declines during the Olympics. Early reports suggest the decline was precipitous because of warnings from politicians about overcrowding on public transit. “What’s unique about 2012 is that London had the most to lose, and lost it,” Jenkins said.

Baade said it is possible that some cities really can realize the benefits from big events, so long as certain conditions are right: For instance, they are staged at times that aren’t already popular with tourists. It also helps if the city and its residents impress visitors, which is why even overly optimistic economic-impact estimates can be useful, and even prove to be self-fulfilling: If they help galvanize local support for the event, they can create the right kind of surprise for first-time visitors, who may return with their tourism or other business.

“Surprise cuts both ways,” Baade said. “You can have a good surprise and you can have an awful surprise.”

Stephen Lea, an economic psychologist at the University of Exeter in the U.K., said the British hosts provided a positive surprise. “It is perceived that the public and especially the volunteers were hospitable and friendly to visitors — counteracting the prevailing discourse that we’re a grumpy and dislikeable lot,” Lea said.

Whether that all adds up to the $26 billion positive economic impact forecast by Olympics sponsor Lloyds Banking Group is up for debate; so far, efforts to regenerate East London, a centerpiece of the economic plan for the Olympics are going slowly. Chris Daniels, head of London 2012 for Lloyds, said the bank’s report, commissioned to outside firm Oxford Economics, wasn’t biased by the sponsorship. “There is always going to be debate about the opportunity cost of all of this” government spending, Daniels said. “We went out deliberately to get an unbiased answer.”

“It’s debatable how much we would have promoted [the study] if it was a negative number” for economic impact, Daniels added. “Fortunately we never had to have a debate.”

In 2005, the U.K. government sponsored a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers that projected a much smaller economic impact of about $3 billion. PwC economist Mark Ambler, a co-author of the report, said that had the firm repeated the report closer to the event, it would have projected a larger number, because of growth in the government’s investment in the games. However, he added that it was important to calculate the net effect, after accounting for the opportunity cost of the government’s spending.

The U.K. government’s current estimate is of roughly a $20-billion impact from the games in the next four years, according to a government spokesman. However, the government will try to get a more precise figure based on what happened rather than sticking with its prediction of what was going to happen, undertaking a $2-million meta-evaluation of the games’ impact. “The public will want to know what the benefits of legacy programs are,” the spokesman said.

I think they should also play flag football instead of tackle. That would give the Chiefs a better advantage. And no forward passes should be allowed.

Tell Indianapolis that.

**** people are stupid.