Sunlife Stadium

yeah, you still don't get it..

But this guy does..

"Exactly!!! The OB was loud enough to impact the play on the field regularly. It was one of those intimidating places to play. I think the combination of the heat and the noise as well as the vertical stands made opponents notice. I used to work as an usher in both stadiums back when JRS (now Sunlife) was first built. I would notice the looks on the players when they looked up into the stands. There was often a measure of awe or intimidation. On the field at the OB it literally like a wave of humanity was about to crash over you at any moment. In the stands, I swear the stadium would seem to rock or sway. In the back of my mind I always wondered if it was structurally sound. LOL. JRS, even at it's loudest, has very little impact on the field. The sightlines are great and the big screen is awesome. The seats are certainly more comfortable, but there's a separation or disconnect between the fans and players. At best, you might say, "hey, this crowd is loud", but you never get that intimidation factor that the OB provided."

 

I would say that there will likely be some renovations b/c the change is desirable, therefore it's not a waste to discuss it. It seems that you don't like/want to discuss it and that is your right, but I don't see the point in telling others not to discuss it. I also don't agree that JRS is comparable to other stadiums in terms of noise. I would say it's in the lower end. IMO the team is focused on making going to the game an "experience". While you want to have a certain level of comfort and amenities, (covered seating, internet access and the big screen) the goal shouldn't be to make it like people's homes. They should focus on what makes it different from the home, ie. the energy. That's where JRS falls short compared to most new stadiums.

 

While I'm not in the area to confirm, I'd imagine that the response to a request for 350 million for improvements would be received cooly. Has there been any response for or against the proposed request?

 

I'm sure that people will be against it. I'm just not sure that means all that much. My guess is that eventually there will be renovations with some of the money coming from the public.

 

Ya know, this post tells me y'all don't ever read what I have to say on this subject...I'm not going into it again..

Just know this, everything that I've said that would happen, has happened...my point of view and theories on this subject are only gaining strength, and literally coming to fruition in front of your eyes..if y'all wanna look the other way, or not take the time to really think about the last two decades relative to our deterioting culture, or it's just pure ignorance, ok, lets drop the subject.

 

I'm not telling anyone not to discuss it. Knock yourself out.

But it's a waste of time in that until such renovations are presented and then paid for, there is nothing to discuss. It's not like discussing free agency which starts in two months.

And even if JRS is on the lower end of the noise spectrum, that doesn't make $350 million in public funds a good investment.

 

I wouldn't say that the stadium is why the team struggles. I would say the stadium provides no energy and is not among the reasons the team would succeed. I would also say that the stadium needs to and will be upgraded, but not so the team will be better. It will be upgraded so that the fan experience improves and the percentage of luxury boxes better matches what SB venues generally have.

 

I seem to recall Mike Dee or somebody saying their latest renovation plan was going to be announced some time this month.

 

Here's one specifically on the Super Bowl

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/self-reported-economic-impact-estimates-deserve-scrutiny-948/

 

All that is great, and Steven Ross should feel free to pay for it himself. If it results in an increased ticket price, the consumer can decide if the increased cost is worth it.

 

Whether it's a good investment or not or whether your public policy views favor such an investment seems like the kind of thing that would be discussed in another venue. But whether the stadium in it's current configuration provides the noise and energy of past Dolphin stadiums and other team's stadiums does seem like something that would be discussed in the fan forum. And since there have been several plans floated over the last few years and there's pressure from the league to have a plan before the next SB assignments are allotted, it is a timely discussion.

 

If they put some rows of seats closer to the field and install a canopy over the seats like has been proposed, then you might see a noticeable increase in volume in the stadium. But first and foremost we need to put a winning product on the field that fans can truly get excited about.

 

Having a discussion that is basically "Gee, wouldn't it be rgeat if we had a carbon copy of Seattle's stadium" is as relevant as a discussion that entails "Gee, wouldn't it be great if we had Tom Brady"

Sure, those things would both be great and they are things fans will discuss, particularly in the dead season, but neither is going to happen, which makes sinking a ton of energy or spilling a lot of online ink about them silly.

And the NFL is demanding a plan because the Super Bowl is its leverage to get the city/county/state to do something, that benefits Steven ross far more than those entities, that they would not otherwise do.

So, any discussion of the actual proposed renovations (which do not exist right now) correlate exactly to how they are being paid for and why.

 

I suppose I'm lucky in that it ain't my money at stake.

 

That's what I see happening (seats and canopy). In fact, I think that just like the logo losing the helmet and it's cartoon quality, these two changes are inevitable. The more difficult part is the question of more luxury boxes. That's not really a fan thing IMO, but more of a revenue stream. That's the business side that I find uninteresting in this forum.

 

If you live in DC it sure was for the Nats stadium.

 

Not really. There have been several plans floated by the team for renovations complete with artist renderings that have even been posted here over the years. I'm not aware of any plans to bring in Brady. IMO the renovations are inevitable and will happen. There have even been rumors that a plan will be put forth in the next month or so. So I don't see how you can state that it's a waste to discuss what seems inevitable and imminent other than the funding side seems like a personal pet peeve of yours and you want to pretend it will never happen.

 

If the suits were smart, they would launch a campaign to get money on exactly what you said here..Fans could get behind that.

I'm torn about this, on one hand, putting 350 mill in a fundamentally flawed design is a bad idea, on the other hand, I don't think they have the vision to see how if they spent twice that, built and marketed a new one with the exact intention you are pointing out, that they could cover their investment quickly on the lure of the new 12 th man and a resurrection of a tradition that was all about the building, so I guess I'll take what I can get from some really bad visionaries.

 

I lived in NOVA and dodged that bullet kinda. That's not a bad stadium though, I go there when the Braves are in town. Club level seats are usually cheap too. Certainly better than RFK, which is in desperate need of Jesus.

 

It's relevant to discuss because Seattle went undefeated at home with a surging 12 th man culture, it's relevant to discuss because Baltimore is 28 and 2 in their last 30 at home, it's relevant to discuss because the canes had a 56 game winning streak in one building, they all three have something in common, they have stands that are and were closer to the field than any other building..now you take that extreme, and you take our situation, and I'll say this, we're not in the lower end of the spectrum, we are the worst (which is a metaphor for Farthest?) in the league, and it's not even close.

Basically to sum up the people that are mocking these points are just saying to me that they believe there no such thing as a home field advantage, tangible energy in the building does not affect the players..sure it doesn't.

This is science to a degree, the distance is a severe disadvantage on many levels, it's trickle down affect on the culture has been apparent, and predictable.

 

I did tell you and I don't think I an right! I know I am ! That stadium was plenty loud last night. It's also been plenty loud and plenty of Dolphins games. That's a fact.

The problem with some is that they think a new stadium should just pop up out of thin air because the owner has billions of dollars. Your dream is a long long way from reality.

 

Mike Dee stood by his comments that a plan will be revealed in 30 to 45 days. That was 6 weeks ago so something should appear any day now.

 

That's why the new plan will probably be a hotel/tourist tax. The public does not have a say in many of those matters. The problem is how the Marlins just screwed the City of Miami to get funding. There will be some disgruntled councilman/women that will be reluctant to fund big projects for a while.

 

But you're never going to get any consensus about how much of that was due to the stadium energy. I think there's an impact, but it's always a combination of things. People want the magic bullet, one thing is to blame type of answer. That really doesn't exist. People want to say adding a WR or TE that stretches the D doesn't solve the offensive woes on most teams. That's true, but on the teams with great offenses that is almost always part of it. I think it's the same with the stadium impact. I see it as a part, but relatively a small part compared to the product on the field. But in discussions in this forum, you have people so focused on the funding side or the "team sucks" side that they won't even admit the stadium has any impact.

 

It shouldn't be a dream, simple common business sense actually.

 

I agree. It's always easier to push such funding through with the argument that somebody else (tourists) will pay for it. The hotels will be split on the issue b/c they don't want the additional tax but they do want the influx of tourists a SB would bring. And there will always be some council person to champion no public funding side. I think it will happen eventually, but how soon will largely depend on how coordinated each side is and how politically powerful the council people are on each side.

 

This is actually where I tend to argue with you the most. It's not simple at all. The team was sold and the stadium was sold with it and an extra cost. Building a new stadium does not make sense for an owner who just bought one to begin with. There will be NO profits seen from the building in his lifetime because he'll be so far in the hole. But hey, he'll own two stadiums right....

 

I think Stringer said probably in 5 years it will pass. Right now it's just going to be a hard sell to fund renovations. I think it will be longer than 5 but the Dolphins brass will be backing every council person they can that's trying to get elected. They'll be backing every project they can, and so many more things that the councils need until they finally can find a favorable vote.

 

Last week Phil Simms said Andrew luck and his team is struggling because of the noise in the building, said that the he noticed the players getting off to late starts on the snap and some coming off at different times.

"They don't allow us to come out flat"

"They're right there with us, almost on top of us"

They give us energy in the 4th quarter when we don't have anymore"

"we play for them, they give us the energy we need to perform"

Seattle player quotes for which I could go on and on about..

Crowd induced penalties....Penalties change the dynamics and outcomes of games.

These are a Few elements to a real home field advantage that I believe has a bit more importance that what most think..

My point is, I'm not crazy to suggest that our stadium is a disadvantage for the team and culture, and a new stadium could not only rebuild two cultures, but it could also make a lot of extra money in the process, and help the teams win games..

 

He's thinking about putting 350 mill for a renovation, don't you think we should point out what I'm trying to say before he does it.?’

 

I just find it silly that so many discussions about this are met with "win" or "make the team better" comments. Nobody is saying, "don't improve the team, just the stadium".

 

Good teams will win regardless of the stadium, that's the point.

Too often this "debate", and I hesitate to even call it a debate since I don't think anybody is arguing that a new or renovated stadium wouldn't be nicer, leads to a discussion of the magical and mystical and "energy" and other such nonsense.

The Dolphins won a lot of games in the Orange Bowl because they were a really good team for most of that time. Same thing with the Hurricanes. Much is made of their home game winning streak, but the dirtly little secret is that most of that streak invovled crowds of 35,000 or less. Seriously, go look up the OB attendance numbers for UM.

In short, the OB is more myth than reality at this point. sure, it was louder. It was also a decrepit dump for the last 25 years of its existence.

Whether JRS is the quietest stadium or not has not had any tangble affect on wins or losses.

 

It's not silly at all. The team asked for public help to renovate their stadium. At a time when the team is not winning much. Win consistantly and you will see the fans more receptive to whats being asked.

Most of the "just win" statements are directed at people saying we need a new stadium because it's not loud enough.

I do think the stadium needs some upgrades. I think most agree to that.

 

Bumping this one up. According to a Tweet by Ben Volin:

 

Man, I hope they show some actual plans, I'm so sick of this secrecy crap. We already have to wait for a while with the logo. It's football not the FBI.