Topic: NFL and Baseball grounds?.. (no) lessons to be learned...

[Alan_X]

One of the constants in The New Stadium forum is the regular posting of various NFL/Major League Baseball stadia and eulogising over how amazing they are. Personally, I find it to be a pointless exercise for a number of reasons as follows:

1. The difference in the games themselves. Baseball is obviously completely different but NFL games are also fundamentally different in the nature of the experience. It's a game played up and down the field, always re-centred to the middle of the pitch. It's a linear game not an expansive game played across the pitch in the way that football is and most NFL seating is focussed on the long sides of the field.

Typical NFL field:



That's why you get roof structures like the Dallas Cowboy ground (HKS-designed), or the Lucas Oil stadium (HKS-designed) with their massive linear trusses emphasising the length of the field. And that's why HKS did the same for their design for Stanley Park - that's what they understand.

2. The duration of the games and breaks in play. A nine-inning baseball games lasts around 3 hours with breaks between each inning. A (60-minute) NFL game lasts about 3 hours 20 minutes (longer for bigger games with more TV timeouts). A (90-minute) football match has two continuous 45-minute periods of play with a fifteen-minute break half-time and lasts a little under 2 hours. This has a massive impact on the provision of catering, toilets and the design of the concourses etc. At and NFL game or a baseball game it's not unusual to leave your seat during the game and to be able to see the game from the concourses. That makes no sense at a football match and would ruin the atmosphere.

Here's a view of an open concourse at the Lucas Oil Stadium:



Again - the HKS design proposed similar areas including behind the Kop, in the corners and the length of the East Stand. Perfect for an NFL game but pointless for football.

3. Outside the ground, pre-game and post-game. Most NFL stadia have large parking lots next to the ground and tailgating is part of the pre-game experience. While having a few tins on the Sandon Wall may be seen as its distant cousin, the pre-game and post-game pint (or two) in a pub is what most of us traditionally expect and enjoy.





There are more but that should do for a start. NFL stadia look superficially similar because they are large grounds (60-90,000) based around a rectangular pitch, with a range of ticket prices. The similarities also relate to basic comfort factors including quality of the sightlines, viewing distance from the pitch and seat width/row spacing.

Oh and American college football grounds are something else entirely and have even less relevance to Association Football, unless you want to go back a hundred years or so, to huge open terraces like the old Wembley, White City and Hampden Park.

So, next time you feel the urge to post a photoshopped image of the Lucas Oil Stadium with red seats, or cream over the Cowboys stadium, have a think about what your looking at. If you disagree with the above feel free to comment.

[John C]

I think only a fool is going to disagree Alan. We'll wait and see though eh, they're often not far away.

[tomo1980]

 there is 1 minor benefit to that system. standing room tickets which equate to some more affordable tickets. lincoln financial field in philadelphia has roughly 68,000 seats, a sell out capacity of roughly 73,000. not a bad idea but i am in total agreement about nfl stadia not the way forward for football. they are soul less scaffolding stacks.

 it would be nice to have 58,000 seater with the option of 4,000 standing at the back on a concourse. 62,000 capacity without empty seats.

[Alan_X]

there is 1 minor benefit to that system. standing room tickets which equate to some more affordable tickets. lincoln financial field in philadelphia has roughly 68,000 seats, a sell out capacity of roughly 73,000. not a bad idea but i am in total agreement about nfl stadia not the way forward for football. they are soul less scaffolding stacks.

 it would be nice to have 58,000 seater with the option of 4,000 standing at the back on a concourse. 62,000 capacity without empty seats.

Standing is a separate issue and is not allowed at Premier League grounds. If we were allowed standing (and assuming people would want it at Liverpool) it would be as the German Bundesliga, not standing around in the concourses.

 I assume you're not English?

[LiamG]

I still appreciate the NFL stadiums for what they are, Some of them are just outstanding for the job they are supposed to do, but like you said they wouldnt work for us or any other "soccer" ground

But it is basically what Hicks got designed for us and why it shouldnt be built!

P.S Alan will there ever be a part two to your other thread? :p

[Alan_X]

Probably - this is a filler in the meantime. Really busy at work and decided to take a holiday for the first time in years.

[GeorgiaRed]

Probably - this is a filler in the meantime. Really busy at work and decided to take a holiday for the first time in years.

Hi Alan,

I posted in the other thread showing some of the corporate suites in American Stadiums, and what I would like to know from all of the UK based Reds supporters is how the corporate suites fit into football stadiums in England?  It's not like you have in between innings to go get some food. I looked at Arsenals corporate suites on their website and they seem similar to the American Football stadiums.

I agree that the USA football stadiums won't work for Association Rules Football. As an aside I remember going to the old Meadowlands stadium to watch the New York Cosmos play and in the upper deck you couldn't see the near side touch line. 

[Brian Blessed]

This seating chart shows why the comparison is entirely inappropriate for practical purposes.

[Giono]

NESV would be familiar with the Skydome disaster of a stadium in Toronto. Terrible terrible stadium.

Only good thing about the place is that there is a hotel that has rooms that overlook the pitch. Some folks take advantage to multi-task....

[soxfan]

One of the constants in The New Stadium forum is the regular posting of various NFL/Major League Baseball stadia and eulogising over how amazing they are. Personally, I find it to be a pointless exercise for a number of reasons as follows:

I've never understood the need for some people to take potshots at other cultures and their favorite activities in order to state a case about one's own.  Alan, you have a very biased viewpoint, dripping with disrespect for American sports, which becomes obvious in your second sentence. I taught myself to love football while still enjoying baseball AND the NFL -- there's room for all you know, and if you took the time to understand them, the two Americal sports are quite fascinating in their own ways (baseball like chess; NFL like a violent video game).

NFL games are also fundamentally different in the nature of the experience. It's a game played up and down the field, always re-centred to the middle of the pitch. It's a linear game not an expansive game played across the pitch in the way that football is and most NFL seating is focussed on the long sides of the field.

You are overstating the differences in how one's eyeballs view football and NFL contests.  In order to get vertically down an NFL field (which is also the objective in football) NFL teams often need to move play horizontally in order to bypass vertical defenses, using down and outs, sweeps, quick outs, etc.

The two football goals are at the vertical ends of a pitch. The two NFL goal lines are also at the vertical ends of the field.  You are not successful in either sport unless you get the ball scoring at those vertical ends.  Yes, there are more backward passes in football, but there is a similar amount of side-to-side activity in the two sports that you must watch.

A nine-inning baseball games lasts around 3 hours with breaks between each inning. A (60-minute) NFL game lasts about 3 hours 20 minutes (longer for bigger games with more TV timeouts). A (90-minute) football match has two continuous 45-minute periods of play with a fifteen-minute break half-time and lasts a little under 2 hours. This has a massive impact on the provision of catering, toilets and the design of the concourses etc. At and NFL game or a baseball game it's not unusual to leave your seat during the game and to be able to see the game from the concourses. That makes no sense at a football match and would ruin the atmosphere.

I pretty much agree with your point here. Just to clarify though for those who don't follow these sports, an average MLB game lasts 2:47 and an NFL game is 3:06, both a tad shorter that you suggest.

[CraigDS]

I think you misunderstand with your first point as I cannot see anywhere Alan was having a pop at US sports. He simply said people pointing out how amazing US sports stadiums are is pointless in terms of designing a football stadium. He never mentions anything about them being poor stadiums for their sport, or anything about those sports.

To answer tour second point, whilst I don't watch NFL regularly I have watched enough to know it doesn't move at anywhere near the speed for any continuous times either horizontally or vertically along the pitch as football does.

And with regards to your last point, it's a few minutes different, his point is still extremely valid about how long games last compared to actual playing time on the pitch.

[mark82]

Doesn't change the fact at NFL two thirds of the total time can be spent looking for Vendors without it ruining yours or others viewing of the game. There was no criticism just stating facts about why the stadiums have different designs.

[rafathegaffa83]

NESV would be familiar with the Skydome disaster of a stadium in Toronto. Terrible terrible stadium.

The SkyDome's reputation is far worse than it's reality. At the time it was cutting edge and had the best attendance record of any stadium in baseball. The problem the SkyDome now has it is that was stuck in the precipice between the concrete multi-purpose stadiums of the late 60's through late 80's and the more retro-modern, baseball-specific stadiums of the early 90's. In contrast to the latter set of stadiums, it lacks an internal identity, as its inside is mostly a large round concrete concourse and besides the hotel there is no signature appeal to it. The biggest issue I have with the SkyDome is that the differences in leg room throughout various parts of the stadium, even those in the same price range, is laughable.

The best attributes NESV can bring from their experiences in MLB are to go for more of a retro-modern look, i.e not a soulless bowl like the Reebok, and bring about an online ticketing system for any new or revamped Anfield that gives people a greater opportunity to pick a specific seat in an available section.

[Alan_X]

I've never understood the need for some people to take potshots at other cultures and their favorite activities in order to state a case about one's own.  Alan, you have a very biased viewpoint, dripping with disrespect for American sports, which becomes obvious in your second sentence. I taught myself to love football while still enjoying baseball AND the NFL -- there's room for all you know, and if you took the time to understand them, the two Americal sports are quite fascinating in their own ways (baseball like chess; NFL like a violent video game).

You are overstating the differences in how one's eyeballs view football and NFL contests.  In order to get vertically down an NFL field (which is also the objective in football) NFL teams often need to move play horizontally in order to bypass vertical defenses, using down and outs, sweeps, quick outs, etc.

The two football goals are at the vertical ends of a pitch. The two NFL goal lines are also at the vertical ends of the field.  You are not successful in either sport unless you get the ball scoring at those vertical ends.  Yes, there are more backward passes in football, but there is a similar amount of side-to-side activity in the two sports that you must watch.

I pretty much agree with your point here. Just to clarify though for those who don't follow these sports, an average MLB game lasts 2:47 and an NFL game is 3:06, both a tad shorter that you suggest.

I was talking about the design of stadia not the games themselves. In the case of NFL the field is much narrower than a football pitch. Yes, the ball may go wide and often play stops when it goes out of bounds but after every play it restarts from the centre of whichever yard-line the ball stopped on. 'Yardage' is only measured as it relates to progress along the long axis because that's all that matters.

It's not just my opinion - design guidelines for the two different types of ground say as much and the design of the New Cowboys stadium and the Lucas Oil stadium for example are clear evidence of the low value placed on seats behind the end zones. The 'best' seats in a football ground are along the long edges and premium seats will be halfway up the main grandstands but football has a long tradition of large stands behind the goals packed with the most passionate fans. Liverpool's Kop is only one of many.

[ruairimacliam]

One NFL stadium i adore is that of the Cardinals;

http://www.mnartists.org/uploads/users/user_7751/fac2e97572a44471234e9ad5f3c43c77/fac2e97572a44471234e9ad5f3c43c77.jpg

I dont see how it could not work for a football stadium. To me it is very simalar to that in Croke Park;

http://www.footballzz.com/img/estadios/271/33271_ori_croke_park.jpg

And let me tell you that creates a huge noise.

But NFL is different. Teams sellout every seat, well for Steelers anyway.

P.S. Does anyone know the FA's or UEFA's stance on stadiums with a roof?

[Alan_X]

One NFL stadium i adore is that of the Cardinals;

http://www.mnartists.org/uploads/users/user_7751/fac2e97572a44471234e9ad5f3c43c77/fac2e97572a44471234e9ad5f3c43c77.jpg

I dont see how it could not work for a football stadium. To me it is very simalar to that in Croke Park;

http://www.footballzz.com/img/estadios/271/33271_ori_croke_park.jpg

And let me tell you that creates a huge noise.

But NFL is different. Teams sellout every seat, well for Steelers anyway.

P.S. Does anyone know the FA's or UEFA's stance on stadiums with a roof?

A football ground with nothing behind the goal and triple banked corporate boxes? You do realise you've just made my point. Long narrow field - check. All the seats along the sides - check. Nothing behind the end-zone -check. It's a great NFL ground and would be a shite football ground.

Croke Park might make noise but that's not the point and it's also nothing like the other ground - it's also not designed primarily as a football ground. The silly little stand by the river is a planning/design issue. No one in their right mind would choose to waste good seating/standing space behind the goal unless there was some other factor in play.

*edit - sorry, I was thinking of the new Lansdowne Road but ironically, Croke Park does also has a small stand behind one of the goals.

Some addtional info taken from 'Stadia' by John, Sheard and Vickery:

Football pitch for FIFA/UEFA matches: 105 x 68 m
NFL field: 110 x 49 m (about two-thirds the width)

Chapter 11. spectator viewing gives a number of diagrams with the preferred viewing positions for some principal sports.  11.2 a) shows a football ground with preferred seating along the sides but also indicates seating behind the goal. 11.2 b) shows an American football field with the preferred seating only along the edges and not even extending into the end zones. There is no preferred seating shown behind the end zones.

The accompanying text reads:

11.3.3 Preferred viewing locations.
It is not always self-evident where viewers like to sit for particular sports. In the case of football, conventional wisdom holds that the best seats are on the long sides of the field, which give a good view of the ebb and flow of the game between the two opposing goal-posts. But there is also a tradition for highly motivated team supporters to view the game from the short ends, behind the goal posts, where the get a good view of the side movements and line openings which present themselves to the opposing teams. To designers who do not understand these traditions it may seem ludicrous that a football supporter may insist on watching from behind the netting of the goal posts in crowded conditions when there is ample space available on the long sides. But such preferences exist, and the design team must identify them for the stadium under consideration, and suitably modify the 'optimum viewing circle' to locate the maximum density of spectators in their preferred positions

HKS didn't get that. They thought the Kop was about fans performing for the rest of the ground, not actually watching the game. Hence the bollocks about the new Kop being a 'stage' and the rest of the ground a 'theatre' to watch the Kop, and the decision to design a 60,000 seater stadium with only a 3,000 seater stand at the other end.

[ruairimacliam]

You defiently seem to know your stuff Alan.

Can you confirm whether or not a roof is a viable option? Or is it against UEFA rules?

[CraigDS]

Can you confirm whether or not a roof is a viable option? Or is it against UEFA rules?

Like a fixed roof that doesn't retract?

[greenone]

Croke Park might make noise but that's not the point and it's also nothing like the other ground - it's also not designed primarily as a football ground. The silly little stand by the river is a planning/design issue. No one in their right mind would choose to waste good seating/standing space behind the goal unless there was some other factor in play.

*edit - sorry, I was thinking of the new Lansdowne Road but ironically, Croke Park does also has a small stand behind one of the goals.

The old Lansdowne Road was exactly the same. It's so the stand doesn't completely block out sunlight to the houses across the road.

[Alan_X]

The Ajax Arena has a retractable roof as does the Millenium Stadium. Not sure if they can be closed for UEFA games.

[Demandred]

The Ajax Arena has a retractable roof as does the Millenium Stadium. Not sure if they can be closed for UEFA games.

Champions League Rules:

12.17
Before the match, the UEFA delegate, in consultation with the referee, decides whether a stadium’s retractable roof will be open or closed during the match. This decision must be announced at the matchday organisational meeting, although it may subsequently be altered at any time prior to kick-off if the weather conditions change, again in consultation with the referee

[Alan_X]

Thanks.

Unless it's going to be used for multi sports I can't see the point in a retractable roof. It's a huge additional expense and not necessary for our climate.

[Not Bob]

I like American sports, so I'm obviously not having a pop at them here. I really enjoyed the opening post of this thread, and while it gives facts, rather than sentiments, I have a few of the latter to share.

The atmosphere issues Alan touched upon are at the base of the problem. Fans getting up and down to leave is simply unfeasible in football. There are no time outs, no stops until the 45+ are up. The entire philosophy of a game of baseball is the family day out. The beer, the hot dogs, etc. The game itself is secondary. Even at grounds like in my alma mater college, where there are no concourses where one can both buy food and still watch the action, the tailgating doesn't stop long into the game. It's an event, but the sport isn't at the heart of it. Football, obviously, is different.

The American stadiums (at least the ones I've been in) are designed like supermarkets, where the bread and milk are always located as far away from the cashiers as possible, so to create traffic and sell other products. They are designed to sell merchandise, hot dogs and 17 dollar Budweiser.

[4H_Poker]

This seating chart shows why the comparison is entirely inappropriate for practical purposes.

You do realize the large unseated areas in either end zone are the 6 party pass areas , right ? They are standing only, and therefore don't show on a seat chart.
IIRC, it's where the majority of the increase is used to take it from standard 80k'ish capacity to a possible 110/120k'ish capacity.

[Alan_X]

You do realize the large unseated areas in either end zone are the 6 party pass areas , right ? They are standing only, and therefore don't show on a seat chart.
IIRC, it's where the majority of the increase is used to take it from standard 80k'ish capacity to a possible 110/120k'ish capacity.

How is that relevant?

[ultimatewarrior]

They thought the Kop was about fans performing for the rest of the ground, not actually watching the game. Hence the bollocks about the new Kop being a 'stage' and the rest of the ground a 'theatre' to watch the Kop, and the decision to design a 60,000 seater stadium with only a 3,000 seater stand at the other end.

I thought the reason for such a small stand was because this was where the increase in capacity would happen .

[Alan_X]

I thought the reason for such a small stand was because this was where the increase in capacity would happen .

It was, but the likelihood would have been that the economics for 72,000 wouldn't stack up and we'd been left with a joke of an 'away' stand. That decision meant that huge areas of prime quality potential seating would have been empty while a load of seats would have been built too far away with crap views at the 'Kop' end of the two main stands because of the increase in height towards the Kop. It was idiotic and showed a complete disregard for the people who matter - the fans who actually would have bought tickets to watch the game.

To give you an idea, the attached image shows the basic scale of the HKS stands overlaid on Anfield at the same scale. They aren't profiled as in the actual scheme but the height of the stands at the Kop end is the highest they got to. The furthest seats from the pitch would have been more than twice as far from the pitch as the back of the Upper Centenary. That's maybe acceptable if those seats are part of an expansion, but to be forced to sit that far away because of Hicks' ego, the lack of understanding by HKS and some fans desire to have a 'unique' stadium.

The HKS scheme was a bloated, over-blown NFL stadium with a 'Kop' and a football pitch in the middle. It would be fine with a load of jumbotrons so you don't actually have to watch the match on the pitch.

[Standards]

1. My family supported Liverpool
2. I went Boro as soon as I could
3. I miss Ayresome deeply
4. It never goes away
5. I love NFL online because its glossy and good and takes away seasonal blues when im in me bed watching Florida state and lasses jigging up and down with big boobie and that.
6. I miss Ayresome Park
7. Boro play at the Riverside. Its bigger than Ayresome and has other modern stuff.
8. I miss Ayresome
9. HITACHI
10. Brad Jones wtf/

In summary, be careful what you wish for.

[Standards]

I actually eat my lunch every day, outside the old entrance to the Holgate End at Ayresome Park. All thats there now is an overfull Biffa bin.

[Alan_X]

Bizarre.