OT: - Washington Commanders 2025-26 thread | Football is fun again Edition | Page 22 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

OT: Washington Commanders 2025-26 thread | Football is fun again Edition

kicksavedave said:
Sure, but RFK had a 40 year waiting list, so it was too small. Fed Ex once held 90,000, but thanks to Snyder's reign of horror, removing seats so they wouldn't look empty, its now second to smallest at 62,000, so technically the new site would be larger. But 65,000 would still be tied for 4th smallest in the NFL. There are 12 stadiums over 70K, 3 stadiums over 80K. None at 90+ anymore.

en.wikipedia.org

List of current NFL stadiums - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Also Seattle pumps in crowd noise over their speakers, everyone knows the 12th man is fake :D:D:D
Click to expand...

As more new stadiums are built they will also be 70K max.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jags, kicksavedave and ynotcaps
I love pretty much everything about this.

If the dome is clear, maybe they'll still be able to have natural grass (I'm no horticulturalist, but...)

As for tailgating, fun, but not really necessary if there are other options -- and I've never been to a pro tailgate that was anything close to an LSU or a Penn State TG.

The only thing that gives me a little bit of sweat is the height of the top section seats -- I'ma' hafta' SPEND for seats that won't make me pass out!
 
  • Like
Reactions: kicksavedave and Kazer
SkinsFan09 said:
As more new stadiums are built they will also be 70K max.
Click to expand...
Teams make more money going premium/luxury route, vs capacity route these days.

If they are going with a roof, I can understand the reasoning why. Only way to open up the Nov-Apr period to other events. Hopefully, they can figure out how to use a grass field, like in AZ, LV or Tottenheim vs going with a turf field in LA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ynotcaps, Kazer and qcal1427
SkinsFan09 said:
The dome sucks - football should be played outdoors but it was inevitable to make this works financially. A translucent roof is best case scenario.
Click to expand...
Well, whenever in the future that the other northern teams like Chicago (decision looming), Cleveland (decision looming), Philly, New York, New England, and in Pitt/Balt come up, they will have to decide what they wish to do. Does seem like the trend is to go with a roof to open up the stadium for Nov-Apr period. Plus, slower wear and tear on the stadium itself being enclosed vs exposed to elements.

How many other events do the indoor ones in Minny/Det/Indy get? Only a certain number of one off events like a Final 4. When Swift goes on tour, she'll hit the stadiums. But, only a small number of entertainers require a stadium. Others would do 2 shows in the nhl/nba arena instead if the demand doesn't reach Stadium levels.
 
Obviously have fond memories of tailgating in the vast expanses of parking lots but in this day and age a more efficient use of space is better all around.

I'm getting up there so no wish to experience the elements in a non-domed stadium. Cause they will be competing with folks with 100" flat screens in their compfy homes as well.

I know they mentioned an entertainment district it would be cool if there could be a venue for live music etc like the one planned for the Caps doomed Alexandria site.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ynotcaps
RFK -- would be awesome to be back .. saw exactly 1 skins game there but saw lots of shows like Jerry Garcia and the Dead etc

Edge - we can platoon it, pick up an August roster cut .. or make a move

In Peters we trust
 
  • Like
Reactions: usiel and ynotcaps
I highly doubt I’ll ever go to a skins game again, possible, but unlikely. That being said, I vote a big fat NO for a dome. I don’t care if it’s 100% see through.

I understand the appeal, and what they offer, so if that’s a “gotta have it”, please please please make it retractable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neil Racki
Chokingdogs said:
I highly doubt I’ll ever go to a skins game again, possible, but unlikely. That being said, I vote a big fat NO for a dome. I don’t care if it’s 100% see through.

I understand the appeal, and what they offer, so if that’s a “gotta have it”, please please please make it retractable.
Click to expand...
Honestly though, once you have the overhang that covers the fans, the retractable roof is just to see the sky. The open air stadiums like in Seattle, Pitt, NE (before they covered it), the corners were open to the city view. The domes in Indy, DAl, AZ, Hou, ATL that open, does it really make that much of a difference?

Question then becomes whether a retractable option for a roof is worth the however many hundreds of millions of dollars it costs to have that vs going without it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ynotcaps
Honest question to those advocating for retractable rook instead of a dome (as opposed to open-air, which appears off the table entirely):
Is the expectation that the team will always play with the roof open and it would only close for other events and presumably a Super Bowl?
Or is it that we would play mostly with the roof closed except for when warm-weather or dome-only teams come late in the season when we would ostensibly have the climate advantage?
If the thought is the latter, the fact that we would be playing most games in a closed stadium pretty much takes that supposed "climate advantage" away -- we'd be just as much of an inside/no weather team as those visitors would be.
Same logic is we play with the roof open when it's nice but close it for inclement or very cold weather.
Is there some other advantage that I'm not seeing?
 
I only say retractable roof, one that can seal out the elements, is for its non-football usage.

For football, that needs to be played in the elements, just as Stephen peat intended.
 
ynotcaps said:
Honest question to those advocating for retractable rook instead of a dome (as opposed to open-air, which appears off the table entirely):
Is the expectation that the team will always play with the roof open and it would only close for other events and presumably a Super Bowl?
Or is it that we would play mostly with the roof closed except for when warm-weather or dome-only teams come late in the season when we would ostensibly have the climate advantage?
If the thought is the latter, the fact that we would be playing most games in a closed stadium pretty much takes that supposed "climate advantage" away -- we'd be just as much of an inside/no weather team as those visitors would be.
Same logic is we play with the roof open when it's nice but close it for inclement or very cold weather.
Is there some other advantage that I'm not seeing?
Click to expand...
DC area, imho, doesn't even have a real weather advantage anymore so still don't see the point of having it be open. Don't know what the climate impact of the upfront cost of a retractable roof versus it enclosed to be honest when talking about the green initiatives. Do look forward to getting more stadium details technically things can still derail. Bowser was pretty impressive in that news conference.

As others have mentioned grass is sort of a must for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ridley Simon
John Price said:
we cut Zane and got a kicker named matt gay

Click to expand...



IIRC Gay was pretty good but had injuries.

yup

1745942376863.png


hence the 1yr contract I guess
 
ynotcaps said:
Honest question to those advocating for retractable rook instead of a dome (as opposed to open-air, which appears off the table entirely):
Is the expectation that the team will always play with the roof open and it would only close for other events and presumably a Super Bowl?
Or is it that we would play mostly with the roof closed except for when warm-weather or dome-only teams come late in the season when we would ostensibly have the climate advantage?
If the thought is the latter, the fact that we would be playing most games in a closed stadium pretty much takes that supposed "climate advantage" away -- we'd be just as much of an inside/no weather team as those visitors would be.
Same logic is we play with the roof open when it's nice but close it for inclement or very cold weather.
Is there some other advantage that I'm not seeing?
Click to expand...

Keep it open for all football games. Always. Rain. Snow. Or Shine.

usiel said:
DC area, imho, doesn't even have a real weather advantage anymore so still don't see the point of having it be open. Don't know what the climate impact of the upfront cost of a retractable roof versus it enclosed to be honest when talking about the green initiatives. Do look forward to getting more stadium details technically things can still derail. Bowser was pretty impressive in that news conference.

As others have mentioned grass is sort of a must for me.
Click to expand...

I mean, it snowed the same amount here in DC as it did in Philly when they beat the Los Angeles Rams outside in the Divisional Round playoffs. A snowstorm that weekend.

The only thing is that we weren't home that weekend where it snowed. We were just facing the Lions IN DETROIT. In their nice comfy dome/roofed stadium.

And we slapped them silly in their nice indoor stadium. In their nice comfy home.

If we were to become an indoor team, we could be used to being nice and comfy all the time and might have a disadvantage when we have to travel in our games against outdoor teams.

I stand with @Chokingdogs
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chokingdogs
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • RL9
Total: 5 (members: 1, guests: 4)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom