Categories for Determining Stadium Goodness Ranking

[ZGare]

Since CVC and the Rams have to determine what they can do to put the Edward Jones Dome in the top quarter of stadiums in the NFL, I thought I'd try to determinge what catgories would determine that. When others rank stadiums, they always seem to add things about the fans or the team, such as electric atmosphere. Those things are pretty much all determined by how good the team is on the field, and how long they have played at a high level. Then they cite Lambeu and Foxboro. They have nothing to do with the actual physical facility -- but that is what CVC and the Rams must rank.
How about these for categories:
1. Average distance from each fan to the center of the field. Measure the distance from each seat in the stadium to the center of the field, add them up, and divided by the number of seats.
2. Physical Environment control for the Fans -- temperature, wind, light, average seat width and padding.
3. Number of concessions and restrooms per seat. Average distance of concessions and restrooms from each seat.
4. Number of club seats and luxury skyboxes.
5. Parking nearby -- average distance a fan must walk from the closest XX/2 parking spaces to the stadium. XX= number of seats in the stadium. (assume 2 fans per car)
6. Hotels nearby -- average distance a fan must walk from the closest XX/50 hotel rooms to the stadium. (assume 1/50 of fans use a hotel room.)
7. Restaurants nearby -- average distance a fan must walk from the closest XX/20 restaurants to the stadium. (assume 1/20 of fans use a restaurant.)
8. Tailgating nearby -- average distance a fan must walk from the closest XX/10 tailgateable spaces to the stadium. (assume 1/10 of fans tailgate.)
9. Stadium interior emenities -- Jumbo screens number and size, other electronic info, banners/honors, party zones/restuarants.

 

[Anonymous]

No way the 25% criteria is achieved without SK financing most of the cost of a new stadium (85%) like the deal the baseball Cardinals received from the city/county and state. In lieu of that then an agreement to upgrade the dome while dropping the 25% provision with revenue streams renegotiated and possibly SK kicking in for some of the costs too. To stay in St. Louis it's between those two options IMO.

 

[ZGare]

Talk in specifics. In what category above does the dome fall short?

 

[Anonymous]

Talk in specifics. In what category above does the dome fall short?

The specifics are whatever SK and the CVC agree to. The 25% criteria written circa 1995 will not be met by the CVC alone. The two scenarios I gave are how it will transpire.

 

[steferfootball]

IMO, the stadium is fine.

I understand there are some contractural things but still.

 

[ZGare]

I agree. That's my point with the categories. In what category above is the facility NOT in the top tier for viewing games? Dallas has a palace, but those upper seats have to be very very far from the field compared to the dome -- hence the need for the big screen. No thanks.

The Rams may demand big stadium upgrades, I guess, to improve the experience for the fans. As a charter PSL holder, I say, I don't need a better experience other than play on the field.

How ironic is it that the Rams want to hold St. Louis hostage unless we provide funds to make the stadium experience better for us fans here in St. Louis. Sounds like a scene from Blazing Saddles.

That's like saying to your kid, "If you aren't willing to do the things required for you to start having a lot more fun, I'm going to have to make you move out. I warned you."

 

[superfan24]

I agree. That's my point with the categories. In what category above is the facility NOT in the top tier for viewing games? Dallas has a palace, but those upper seats have to be very very far from the field compared to the dome -- hence the need for the big screen. No thanks.

The Rams may demand big stadium upgrades, I guess, to improve the experience for the fans. As a charter PSL holder, I say, I don't need a better experience other than play on the field.

How ironic is it that the Rams want to hold St. Louis hostage unless we provide funds to make the stadium experience better for us fans here in St. Louis. Sounds like a scene from Blazing Saddles.

That's like saying to your kid, "If you aren't willing to do the things required for you to start having a lot more fun, I'm going to have to make you move out. I warned you."

Agreed, play on the field and for the crowd itself to be loud and rocking.

 

[Anonymous]

I agree. That's my point with the categories. In what category above is the facility NOT in the top tier for viewing games? Dallas has a palace, but those upper seats have to be very very far from the field compared to the dome -- hence the need for the big screen. No thanks.

The Rams may demand big stadium upgrades, I guess, to improve the experience for the fans. As a charter PSL holder, I say, I don't need a better experience other than play on the field.

How ironic is it that the Rams want to hold St. Louis hostage unless we provide funds to make the stadium experience better for us fans here in St. Louis. Sounds like a scene from Blazing Saddles.

That's like saying to your kid, "If you aren't willing to do the things required for you to start having a lot more fun, I'm going to have to make you move out. I warned you."

I find your opinion odd for a "charter PSL holder" given the reality in '95 as what that entailed.

Regarding the stadium clause from what I remember it's not defined....deliberately nebulous. Fan experience as in viewing the play on the field can mean bigger and more jumbo screens....it's the bells and whistles the stadium possesses that will be given more credence snce watching the game appears to be way down on many peoples list these days. Same is hapening in MLB.