Should Pats have their own dome?

[dryheat44]

Good post.

Except for the part about Hartford. The stadium was going to be built at the intersection of 84 and 91. That would be a worse traffic situation that Foxboro? Really?

 

[Patjew]

Except for the part about Hartford. The stadium was going to be built at the intersection of 84 and 91. That would be a worse traffic situation that Foxboro? Really?

Traffic in Foxboro almost couldn't be worse. It's a terrible location (parking- and road width-wise).

 

[Tunescribe]

Traffic in Foxboro almost couldn't be worse. It's a terrible location (parking- and road width-wise).

That's why a Super Bowl there would be impossible. With all the people going to just hang out near the stadium, plus the security, etc., people would have to start lining their cars up a week ahead of time. If not for those idiots Finneran and Menino, the Patriots would now be playing their games in Boston near the waterfront. Maybe 30 years from now when Gillette has run its course, it'll happen.

 

[Patjew]

That's why a Super Bowl there would be impossible. With all the people going to just hang out near the stadium, plus the security, etc., people would have to start lining their cars up a week ahead of time. If not for those idiots Finneran and Menino, the Patriots would now be playing their games in Boston near the waterfront. Maybe 30 years from now when Gillette has run its course, it'll happen.

I was hopeing they'd end up in Providence. It would have been cool to walk to games from home, even if it took an hour.

 

[Bigdogx]

If the razor was somewhere dowtown boston with a roof they might have a shot at a superbowl, but no way in hell would the nfl host a superbowl in foxboro roof or no roof!

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

It's not just about the weather. Foxborough doesn't have the infrastructure to support an event like the Super Bowl. Inadequate hotels. Inadequate transportation. Inadequate restaurants. Inadequate entertainment venues. It's one of the drawbacks with a stadium so far away from a major city.

Say what you want about Indy, but they host several auto races a year, a few of which draw about 400,000 people. They've hosted several NCAA final fours. They have the necessary infrastructure in place to host a Super Bowl. Ditto Detroit.

Houston and Jacksonville were ill-equipped to host the Super Bowl. Foxboro would be about 50 times worse. It wouldn't be quite as bad as Green Bay, but it would be close.

Foxboro hosted the world cup. An event that is actually bigger than the SB on a global scale. Between Boston and Providence there is more than adequate infrastructure and by most people's standards neither are too far from Foxoboro. Folks in NE, particularly RI consider it a bigger deal to travel 50 miles than the rest of the country. Folks could be house in both cities with events through out the region.

 

[signbabybrady]

I say Hells snow.

 

[Patjew]

Foxboro hosted the world cup. An event that is actually bigger than the SB on a global scale. Between Boston and Providence there is more than adequate infrastructure and by most people's standards neither are too far from Foxoboro. Folks in NE, particularly RI consider it a bigger deal to travel 50 miles than the rest of the country. Folks could be house in both cities with events through out the region.

I know people in RI that don't like to travel 5 miles. It's the most provincial place I've ever been. And I'm a born and bred RI'er.

 

[dryheat44]

Foxboro hosted the world cup. An event that is actually bigger than the SB on a global scale. Between Boston and Providence there is more than adequate infrastructure and by most people's standards neither are too far from Foxoboro. Folks in NE, particularly RI consider it a bigger deal to travel 50 miles than the rest of the country. Folks could be house in both cities with events through out the region.

Foxboro hosted a few World Cup games...the vast majority of attendees of which came from the local area, not unlike a Patriots' home game.

So you're going to host a Super Bowl, and force 70,000+ people. about 90% of whom are coming from out of town, to commute from Boston and Providence along Rte 1? There won't be enough rental cars for attendees, which means someone's going to have to arrange for maybe a thousand buses to be shuttling to the stadium all day from both directions. I think you're severly underestimating the logistics required to pull off a two-day event like the Super Bowl. You need to shuttle a few thousand people to work the event, before you even start talking about the spectators. It wouldn't be a good time for anybody involved. Unless you lived within walking distance from the stadium, it would suck for the players, league officials, corporate bigwigs, and the fans.

 

[Mainefan]

No dome for me, please. I love the snow and rain games. They are great fun to watch and yet another test of the teams playing. I think domes add an artificial element that detracts from what happens on the field.

 

[scout]

Heck, I'll post.
Not sure I've been on Rte. 1, but if they built a roof, wouldn't they widen Rte 1, or is that even possible. If this all happened, wouldn't it take a few years, and by that time wouldn't Brady be Elway-esk and be handing off to a powerful running back.

 

[Rob0729]

Retractable roof or dome? No way! Sorry I am a football fan and real football fans believe that football shouldn't be played indoors.

Sorry, but the best games I have watched in Foxboro have been in snow and/or cold. The Snow Bowl. The blizzard/snow fireworks game. The mud bowl playoff game vs. the Colts where Bruschi wrestled an interception from the Colts receiver. And that is just during the Belichick era.

 

[JoePats]

Yeah but we are coming off of a season like that. That's what our team is now. And that's what the NFL as a whole is now. And you could leave the roof open for games against teams that suck in the elements.

But you can't make a dome decision, one that you are basically stuck with for 50 years, based on how the team is constructed for the next 5.

And as for a retractable roof, they wouldn't put one up, and then not use it when it's 20 degrees and snowing just because our team relies on running the ball.

 

[DESERTPAT]

Domes are for ****ies.

I hate the cold, but the thought of the Pats playing indoors makes me sick.

Football should be played outside by manly men.

Domes are for ****ies.[/QUOTE

Yeah, that.

 

[Kontradiction]

What are we in a tit for tat with the Colts? Hell no on a dome or a retractable roof. While Brady may want it to open up the passing game, people forget this is a huge advantage for us against teams like the Colts and the Chargers. Manning isn't able to run an efficient offense when there is a noreaster in effect. Do you think Joseph Addai can win the game? And for the guy that said the blue collar days are gone, I disagree. Sure, the offense is a high octane "finesse" style offense, but our defense is still very much a blue collar defense. Field that defense in the snow and anybody is going to have a very tough time with us.

 

[Lampshade]

Everything is better when done outside.

Dome teams don't get to say "the Miami snow game was awesome", they get to say "that dome game was just like the game last week".

 

[DESERTPAT]

I know people in RI that don't like to travel 5 miles. It's the most provincial place I've ever been. And I'm a born and bred RI'er.

I'll vouch for that! I managed to get 2300 miles away, best move I ever made.

 

[BelizePats]

Yes, I'm an architect with Vandelay Industries and a dome would be a dumb idea! The Superbowl is for warm weather cities, not toliets like Indianapolis. Polian is just unbelievable!!! Detroit was dumb! Indy is just plain ******ed (no offence to those mentally challenged parental basement dwellers on this board)

 

[NEPatriot]

who cares about hosting the superbowl.

you couldn't be serious when you said it.? Are you sure you are a Pats fan.? I care about hosting a SB game in Boston.

 

[Kontradiction]

you couldn't be serious when you said it.? Are you sure you are a Pats fan.? I care about hosting a SB game in Boston.

I think he meant that he'd rather win the Super Bowl than host it. And, let's face it, hosts don't have too good of a history of actually PLAYING in a Super Bowl hosted in their home stadium... much less winning one.