truth on hold Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 per my count only 7 of the 32 teams play in a dome (i left Cowboys toilet bowl off the list, as well as retractable roof stadiums in AZ and Seattle because theyre often left open), yet 3 of the 4 remaining teams play in domes. the team least likely to win (per odds makers), the jets are the only non-dome team left. is there anything to this? do dome teams have a greater home field advantage due to crowd noise? is it easier for the home team to come up with a game plan knowing exactly what the conditions will be like? or is it a statistical anomaly this year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyal2dagame Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 per my count only 7 of the 32 teams play in a dome (im putting Cowboys toilet bowl on the list), yet 3 of the 4 remaining teams play in domes. the team least likely to win (per odds makers), the jets is the only non-dome team left. is there anything to this? do dome teams have a greater home field advantage due to crowd noise? is it easier for the home team to come up with a game plan knowing exactly what the conditions will be like? or is it a statistical anomoly this year? anomaly. who played in the final 4 last year? year before that? and that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsObserver Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 It sure helps that the 3 remaining dome teams have great QBs. I'm talking Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 In a mostly unrelated note, it's interesting that 3 of 4 teams play the 4-3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 per my count only 7 of the 32 teams play in a dome (i left Cowboys toilet bowl off the list as well retractable roof stadiums in AZ and Seattle because theyre often left open), yet 3 of the 4 remaining teams play in domes. the team least likely to win (per odds makers), the jets is the only non-dome team left. is there anything to this? do dome teams have a greater home field advantage due to crowd noise? is it easier for the home team to come up with a game plan knowing exactly what the conditions will be like? or is it a statistical anomaly this year? I think you have to include retractable domes. The teams that play in them always play in "good weather." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPride12 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Just a coincidence. This is one statistic that you shouldn't read too much into. In another coincidence the qb's of those 3 dome teams are Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, and Drew Brees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 24, 2010 Author Share Posted January 24, 2010 I think you have to include retractable domes. The teams that play in them always play in "good weather." even so that would make 28% of the league in domes, whereas 75% of the teams in conference finals are in domes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 24, 2010 Author Share Posted January 24, 2010 Just a coincidence. This is one statistic that you shouldn't read too much into. In another coincidence the qb's of those 3 dome teams are Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, and Drew Brees. does a dome facilitate those QBs playing to their full potential? favre looks better in minnesota than he did in non-dome giants stadium, as does Brees since moving from non-dome qualcomm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPride12 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 does a dome facilitate those QBs playing to their full potential? favre looks better in minnesota than he did in non-dome giants stadium, as does Brees since moving from non-dome qualcomm I still think its insignificant. Favre had an awful season last year because he was playing with a torn bicep. I think his season has more to do with the offense he's in and an emphasis he has put on not making careless throws and he just has so much experience right now. Brees is just a matter of a quarterback coming of age and landing on a team with some great offensive talent. Don't forget Brees was starting to come along in his last season with San Diego as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 It might not be a guarantee, but I think playing in a dome helps make some teams look better. You get to play a min. of 8 games in ideal weaher conditions. No blizzards, rain, swirling winds, etc. Sadly, I know this is something Bills fans are completly against, but IF Buffalo were to build a new stadium for the Bills in the future, it will more then likely be a dome. The reason being, a dome would be more multi-purpose then an outdoor stadium. The Buffalo market, and whomever funds the stadium wil most likely need a way of increasing the revenue intake for the stadium to justify its cost, and a dome gives them more options for increasing the revenue. Right now RWS gets used 8-14 times a year (14 if the Bills played 2 home Pre-Season games, along with getting home field advantage in the playoffs). To spend $400-500g's on a stadium to get used under 20 times a year is not going to go over well in this market financially. With a dome, they can rent it out for other events anytime during the year, concerts/performances, conventions, events, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 24, 2010 Author Share Posted January 24, 2010 It might not be a guarantee, but I think playing in a dome helps make some teams look better. You get to play a min. of 8 games in ideal weaher conditions. No blizzards, rain, swirling winds, etc. Sadly, I know this is something Bills fans are completly against, but IF Buffalo were to build a new stadium for the Bills in the future, it will more then likely be a dome. The reason being, a dome would be more multi-purpose then an outdoor stadium. The Buffalo market, and whomever funds the stadium wil most likely need a way of increasing the revenue intake for the stadium to justify its cost, and a dome gives them more options for increasing the revenue. Right now RWS gets used 8-14 times a year (14 if the Bills played 2 home Pre-Season games, along with getting home field advantage in the playoffs). To spend $400-500g's on a stadium to get used under 20 times a year is not going to go over well in this market financially. With a dome, they can rent it out for other events anytime during the year, concerts/performances, conventions, events, etc) downtown niagara falls is waiting for that dome: access to toronto, tourist crowd, proximity to casinos, etc etc. "niagara frontier bills" takes away city association which broadens the appeal but keeping "bills" name and location still in greater buffalo area, doesnt lose traditional bills fans. why don't our politicians hit up obama for some bailout money to build that stadium and keep the bills here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Dome teams never win. I don't think it is a coincidence. A dome adds to the home field advantage. A dome takes the weather and wind out of the equation, which eliminates variables in the passing game. All 3 dome teams have excellent passing games. The aerial game meshes well with the current evolution of the college game, which is seeing more and more passing with the shotgun, pistol, run-and-shoot, spread option, etc. That means dome teams can translate top NCAA talent onto the rosters and more readily identify the types of players they want. It is also not a total coincidence that the one non-dome team was built to win with defense and the running game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilbuffalobob Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 This year, for the first time in a long time, perhaps ever, these wimpy 'Dome Teams' have not had to take their games on the road- to a real football climate. I remember when the Falcons seemed to go D.C. for several years for a playoff game and get embarrased. Colts had their share of that, as did the viks. These teams are where they are thanks to Home Field advantages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilbuffalobob Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 downtown niagara falls is waiting for that dome: access to toronto, tourist crowd, proximity to casinos, etc etc. "niagara frontier bills" takes away city association which broadens the appeal but keeping "bills" name and location still in greater buffalo area, doesnt lose traditional bills fans. why don't our politicians hit up obama for some bailout money to build that stadium and keep the bills here? How about Niagara Falls (US) builds a dome, mainly for tourism, conventions, concerts and that crap, and the Bills play 1 game per year there, instead of Toronto. Playing football without the elements makes me wanna puke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorom Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 per my count only 7 of the 32 teams play in a dome (i left Cowboys toilet bowl off the list, as well as retractable roof stadiums in AZ and Seattle because theyre often left open), The Seahawks do not have a retractable roof stadium. it's always open but the seating is covered for the most part by design. Seating near the field level is exposed some The mariners however do have a retractable roof ballpark, right next door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 24, 2010 Author Share Posted January 24, 2010 How about Niagara Falls (US) builds a dome, mainly for tourism, conventions, concerts and that crap, and the Bills play 1 game per year there, instead of Toronto. Playing football without the elements makes me wanna puke. without the Bills permanently moving there i dont see how the cost justifies it, even with all those other events. i hear you about the elements ... i love going to games in inclement weather. its fun. but maybe its time to move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostyle126 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 downtown niagara falls is waiting for that dome: access to toronto, tourist crowd, proximity to casinos, etc etc. "niagara frontier bills" takes away city association which broadens the appeal but keeping "bills" name and location still in greater buffalo area, doesnt lose traditional bills fans. why don't our politicians hit up obama for some bailout money to build that stadium and keep the bills here? There is no way the Buffalo Bills would become the "niagara frontier" Bills if a stadium were built in Niagara Falls. Just like they're not called the "orchard park" Bills now. Niagara Falls is part of Buffalo's metropolitan area. The team is the BUFFALO Bills. So feel free to build a new stadium up there but the name won't change, I can promise you that. You make a good point though. Why not push the Federal gov't, who is currently giving away money fresh from the printing presses (don't get me started on INFLATION), to fund a new stadium? Did you guys know that the old Aud was built with similar money? In response to the Great Depression the Federal gov't pumped money into public works projects just like they're doing now...and Buffalo got some of that money to build the Aud. http://www.bisonshistory.com/memorial-auditorium.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthICE Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 Any Coincidence That 3 out of 4 have stud QB's? Two of which have future HOF signal callers? The 4th has a young stud with an inspiring HC? Nah...its gotta be the domes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 24, 2010 Author Share Posted January 24, 2010 Any Coincidence That 3 out of 4 have stud QB's? Two of which have future HOF signal callers? The 4th has a young stud with an inspiring HC? Nah...its gotta be the domes... could be BUT plenty of stud QBs from non-dome teams watching these games on TV today -- Brady, Big Ben, Palmer, Rivers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostyle126 Posted January 24, 2010 Share Posted January 24, 2010 could be BUT plenty of stud QBs from non-dome teams watching these games on TV today -- Brady, Big Ben, Palmer, Rivers Obviously domes provide better conditions for QBs. But if domes were that big of an advantage you'd see dome teams in the superbowl EVERY YEAR. From a statistical perspective you'd have been more accurate to post "Coincidence that dome teams usually don't get to the Superbowl?", because statistically they usually DON'T. Keep in mind, dome conditions are great for the home team's quarterback AND the opposing team's quarterback. Both QBs benefit from the climate-controlled conditions. It would be a stronger argument to point out that domes trap in sound and therefore make for a louder, more hostile environment for opposing QBs. Minnesota has long been known as the loudest place to play for just that reason. So if you're looking for what role a dome might play in helping these 3 teams, that's probably a stronger argument than climate control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts