• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

NFL Thread

Who's it with this year?

Buzzing for new season, think this season could be a belter. Happy about the additions made to the Saints both in defence and wide out. Might try again for a fantasy league after last year botched effort. Even the XFL lasted longer


 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still don't understand how NFL stadiums look so ****ing enormous.

Met-life has the same capacity as Twickenham - but if I didn't know any better and I guessed I would say it was 100,000 capacity.

They need to start designing all stadiums like that.
 
I still don't understand how NFL stadiums look so ****ing enormous.

Met-life has the same capacity as Twickenham - but if I didn't know any better and I guessed I would say it was 100,000 capacity.

They need to start designing all stadiums like that.

There are a couple of college ones at that capacity....

Michigan Stadium (The Big House)

michigan-stadium_660.jpg



Beaver Stadium(Penn State)

beaver1.jpg
 
I still don't understand how NFL stadiums look so ****ing enormous.

Met-life has the same capacity as Twickenham - but if I didn't know any better and I guessed I would say it was 100,000 capacity.

They need to start designing all stadiums like that.

One reason could be that american football fields are narrower on average the width is 160 feet, 53,33 yards or 48,7 metres. While an average rugby field is 70 meters wide, that's about 20 meters apart, the difference is too much. Which allows NFL's architects to make stadiums closest to the fields, so if a stadium with similar capabilities as the example you gave (MetLife and Twickenham), the stadium who has a narrower field can be constructed closer to the field and this inevitably makes the stadium is higher, even if both have the same number of seats.


MetLife stadium:

140808014310670695.jpg


Twickenham stadium:

140808014306369369.jpg
 
Last edited:
I know they do have a couple of genuinely massive stadiums and that the field's dimensions plays a part in it, but still...

It's mainly to do with stadium design IMO - the Stade Marcel Michelin is a good example of a stadium that looks waay bigger than it's actual capacity.
 
Michigan Stadium isn't physically huge, all the seats are benches, so they can pack more people in. I wouldn't say it is bigger than Millennium, at least noticeably.
 
Michigan Stadium isn't physically huge, all the seats are benches, so they can pack more people in. I wouldn't say it is bigger than Millennium, at least noticeably.

Heard from other people who've been there who've said the same thing, also not very wide concourses and aisles mean the stadium isn't as massive as the capacity of nearly 110,000 would suggest. Beaver Stadium looks to be a MUCH larger physical structure.

Canada's biggest is Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton, and it's a fairly medicore stadium, bland and simple. Looks pretty crappy even when the Eskimos draw a decent crowd of about 35-40,000 in a 60,000 seat stadium.

Tests used to be played there from time to time when it was grass and it looked awful, 15,000(that number is debated to this day in Canadian circles) showed for a Maori game and it looked deserted even though elsewhere it would have been a really good Canadian crowd for Rugby.

29008.jpg
 
Last edited:
Michigan Stadium isn't physically huge, all the seats are benches, so they can pack more people in. I wouldn't say it is bigger than Millennium, at least noticeably.

they pack more people in and then they call it "the big house"...^^
 
I know they do have a couple of genuinely massive stadiums and that the field's dimensions plays a part in it, but still...

It's mainly to do with stadium design IMO - the Stade Marcel Michelin is a good example of a stadium that looks waay bigger than it's actual capacity.

The newer stadiums are much more than just sports stadiums. They might have metting and conference facilities as well as the fan orientated things like bars etc (like the two on the posts). I'm sure I heard plans one new stadium would have a cinema in it!

Plus, and it may be a generalisation but it seems the American way to make this much bigger and grandiose than they might need to be. Look at the Superbowl halftime show. Over here we get some feeble attempt at some cheerleaders (the Sharks ones excluded, crikey) or some rubbish competition. And there, its a flaming music concert
 
they pack more people in and then they call it "the big house"...^^

1) It is still a pretty large structure even if not as large as capacity would suggest.

2) It's an older stadium with a capacity that's been very high since the late 1920's, the nickname is an older one that's stuck around.
 
No NFL games planned for Ireland, which makes a lot of sense but still a pity for fans here.

http://www.thescore.ie/nfl-in-ireland-1608412-Aug2014/

Been honest I don't think it was ever on cards just that Dan Rooney made a comment on the side while ambassador here. Am hoping to go toCowboys game in London and fully back NFL on this as it is realistic to have Franchise there.

Regards Ireland, we getting college games which I love as they're more adventurous and Croker hopefully will get great showing
 
I know they do have a couple of genuinely massive stadiums and that the field's dimensions plays a part in it, but still...

It's mainly to do with stadium design IMO - the Stade Marcel Michelin is a good example of a stadium that looks waay bigger than it's actual capacity.

For me it's the main reason, so always american football fields will look bigger than its actual capacity. Look at another example between stadiums with similar capabilities, field size helps a lot:

Melbourne Cricket Ground - Capacity: 100,024

140808072906276134.jpg


AT&T Stadium (Dallas Cowboys) - Capacity: 108,731

140808072902640022.jpg
 

Latest posts

Top