- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This may be the end of Qatar
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:14 am to mynamebowl
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:14 am to mynamebowl
quote:
Ok, I'll give you the efficiency thing but fans getting to and from games is hardly the only criteria FIFA uses when deciding these things. Sure, it's easier to walk to a 50k seat stadium that's 100 years old
know how I can tell you have never seen a European football ground in person.
quote:
. Or, you could hop on a shuttle from a hotel in any NFL city, be there in 10-15 minutes
As a lifelong Redskins fan i'll tell you this is completely fricking false.
quote:
We do a few things pretty well over here man, sporting events is one of them.
The last two super bowls would disagree. I actually went to a WC game in 94 and it was great b/c RFK was right next to the train station.
quote:
Tell me this, would you rather walk 5 minutes to watch a USA game in, let's say, Newcastle or Monchengladbach, or ride a train 10 minutes to Reliant stadium in Houston. There is only one correct answer here.
At an actual soccer ground, better sight lines with a variety of other things. Using Reliant stadium as you bench mark. Houston would not even sniff a WC game
2
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:15 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
If you watched the WC you know not every game was a sell out.
That was 1994. Look at how much bigger the game is in the US now. Every available seat would be sold.
quote:
Their pro stadiums are not in the city whatsoever and are logistical nightmares.
I get the point about transit, but it isn't the only factor when considering if a stadium is fit to host a World Cup match. Besides, you are ignoring numerous stadiums that do have transit like Atlanta, Denver, Houston, Charlotte, Chicago, and the new 49ers stadium. Also, Met Life Stadium is connected to New Jersey Transit (even though it was a disaster for the Super Bowl).
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:25 am to NOTORlOUSD
quote:
That was 1994. Look at how much bigger the game is in the US now. Every available seat would be sold.
This. SCH, you're trying too hard here. At least in regard to this point.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:30 am to BleedPurpleGold
1994 was the biggest WC in history in terms of attendance. Having one now would shatter that record.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:31 am to NOTORlOUSD
quote:
I get the point about transit, but it isn't the only factor when considering if a stadium is fit to host a World Cup match. Besides, you are ignoring numerous stadiums that do have transit like Atlanta, Denver, Houston, Charlotte, Chicago, and the new 49ers stadium. Also, Met Life Stadium is connected to New Jersey Transit (even though it was a disaster for the Super Bowl).
Denver, ATL and Chicago would for sure get games, we don't even know about the logistics of the 49ners stadium which is also not in the city
The SB was a disaster now imagine it with people who have never been to NYC and might not speak the language
This post was edited on 6/2/14 at 7:34 am
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:32 am to BleedPurpleGold
quote:
This. SCH, you're trying too hard here. At least in regard to this point.
That would depend on planning have a low profile group game in a stadium that hold 85k probably won't be filled.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:32 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
know how I can tell you have never seen a European football ground in person.
I haven't. Plan to one day. I do have a TV though that like, shows what the stadiums look like and stuff.
The quality of venues aren't in the same galaxy as what we have in the states man.
quote:
The last two super bowls would disagree.
New York and New Orleans were the last 2 cities to host it. Did something go horribly wrong that no one else knows about but you? Weather was a scare for the New York game, but it ended up not being a factor whatsoever. Indy hosted it in 2012 where the stadium is in a perfect downtown location for big events like a World Cup game.
quote:
At an actual soccer ground, better sight lines with a variety of other things. Using Reliant stadium as you bench mark. Houston would not even sniff a WC game
Dude, they play football games there. Sight Lines? What are you talking about? I live in Houston and have been to several Texans games, you can see the game just fine from anywhere in the stadium. Not to mention the massive screens that every big stadium have now. The field dimensions are similar enough where a few slight alterations would be easily made to suit the needs of a soccer pitch.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:36 am to mynamebowl
quote:
I haven't. Plan to one day. I do have a TV though that like, shows what the stadiums look like and stuff.
then you really can't comment on it.
quote:
The quality of venues aren't in the same galaxy as what we have in the states man.
Come on man thats just being redic.
quote:
New York and New Orleans were the last 2 cities to host it. Did something go horribly wrong that no one else knows about but you?
The lights went out in Nola and NYC was a disaster getting fans there.
quote:
Indy hosted it in 2012 where the stadium is in a perfect downtown location for big events like a World Cup game.
Indy is awesome ive been to the stadium (2010 Final 4) but it wouldn't host a WC game.
quote:
Dude, they play football games there. Sight Lines? What are you talking about? I live in Houston and have been to several Texans games, you can see the game just fine from anywhere in the stadium. Not to mention the massive screens that every big stadium have now. The field dimensions are similar enough where a few slight alterations would be easily made to suit the needs of a soccer pitch.
There is a difference in viewing at a football stadium and a soccer ground they are built total different.
Look im excited for the US getting another WC but you are just spouting random things. Ive been to 12 or so NFL stadiums and its just different.
This post was edited on 6/2/14 at 7:39 am
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:57 am to StraightCashHomey21
No I'm using common sense and logic to argue a point that I'm right about. With 8 or 12 years to prepare for a World Cup, we would do it better than anyone else.
Nope that's a fact. Our large stadium infrastructure is better than any country in Europe or anywhere else. It's not close. Also, you use the word redic, so, yeah.
I'm sick of looking at this so I'm getting off now.
quote:
The quality of venues aren't in the same galaxy as what we have in the states man.
quote:
Come on man thats just being redic.
Nope that's a fact. Our large stadium infrastructure is better than any country in Europe or anywhere else. It's not close. Also, you use the word redic, so, yeah.
I'm sick of looking at this so I'm getting off now.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 8:00 am to mynamebowl
quote:
Nope that's a fact
How so?
Some of the best stadiums regardless of country are over here. Are there more shitty stadiums in Europe yes b/c there are more in general. But to say European soccer stadium esp top tier ones are not in the same galaxy as american football ones is fricking absurd. esp for the purpose of watching soccer.
Also other than maybe ATL who else would be building a new stadium that would be host city.
This post was edited on 6/2/14 at 8:02 am
Posted on 6/2/14 at 8:45 am to mynamebowl
quote:
let's say, Newcastle
Newcastles stadium is literally in the middle of the city.
You can be stood in their main high street shopping and you can see the stadium as it towers over the city, its an awesome view.
Nothing better than being in a pub in the middle of town and 5 minutes later being at the stadioum, also gives the women something to do
Posted on 6/2/14 at 8:46 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
Some of the best stadiums regardless of country are over here. Are there more shitty stadiums in Europe yes b/c there are more in general. But to say European soccer stadium esp top tier ones are not in the same galaxy as american football ones is fricking absurd. esp for the purpose of watching soccer.
It isn't about having 1-2 good stadiums; it's about having 10 of them for the World Cup. Using two of the best examples from Europe:
UK
1. Wembley
2. Old Trafford
3. Millenium (Cardiff)
4. Emirates
5. Anfield? Hampden Park?
Germany
1. Allianz Arena
2. Signal Iduna Park - Dortmund
3. Berlin Olympiastadion
4. Mercedes-Benz Arena - Stuttgart
5. Schalke?
Compare that to the US...
1. Cowboys Stadium
2. Met Life Stadium
3. University of Phoenix Stadium
4. Lucas Oil
5. Reliant/NRG Stadium
6. Ford Field
7. CenturyLink Field
8. Mile High
9. FedEx Field
10. Gillette Stadium
11. Heinz Field
12. SunLife Stadium
There are a dozen more NFL stadiums that would be a better venue than Anfield, not to mention college.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 8:52 am to NOTORlOUSD
quote:
It isn't about having 1-2 good stadiums; it's about having 10 of them for the World Cup. Using two of the best examples from Europe:
But thats not what he said is it
quote:
Compare that to the US...
1. Cowboys Stadium
2. Met Life Stadium
3. University of Phoenix Stadium
4. Lucas Oil
5. Reliant/NRG Stadium
6. Ford Field
7. CenturyLink Field
8. Mile High
9. FedEx Field
10. Gillette Stadium
11. Heinz Field
12. SunLife Stadium
About 4 of those wouldn't get the WC anyway. And some of those UK stadiums you listed are better than a few on the US list.
quote:
There are a dozen more NFL stadiums that would be a better venue than Anfield, not to mention college.
When it comes to watching Soccer no, in terms of football of course. Most Soccer stadiums are not built going super high up and insanely steep.
This post was edited on 6/2/14 at 8:59 am
Posted on 6/2/14 at 8:57 am to NOTORlOUSD
quote:
UK
1. Wembley
2. Old Trafford
3. Millenium (Cardiff)
4. Emirates
5. Anfield? Hampden Park?
Newcastle, Etihad, The Olympic Stadium, The new Anfield. Celtic Park, Ibrox, The new Chelsea stadium, Villa Park.
quote:
Germany
1. Allianz Arena
2. Signal Iduna Park - Dortmund
3. Berlin Olympiastadion
4. Mercedes-Benz Arena - Stuttgart
5. Schalke?
Hamburg, FCK, Frankfurt
Posted on 6/2/14 at 8:57 am to StraightCashHomey21
Ok,say the USA was awarded the world cup in a revote. I'm assuming transportation and infrastructure could be improved to acceptable levels in 8 years. The stadium infrastructure is there. Transportation and lodging could improve but is at least acceptable in quite a few places that would host games. The point these guys are trying to make is that minimal upgrades and investment could be made to an already excellent network of venues to make a world cup not only feasible, but above and beyond what most countries are capable of.
This post was edited on 6/2/14 at 8:58 am
Posted on 6/2/14 at 9:03 am to thebert4130
quote:
The stadium infrastructure is there. Transportation and lodging could improve but is at least acceptable in quite a few places that would host games. The point these guys are trying to make is that minimal upgrades and investment could be made to an already excellent network of venues to make a world cup not only feasible,
The WC in the states will happen and it will be a success. But unless you realize how far some of the stadiums are from the host city is kind of crazy throwing in traffic etc. Of course it will be improved upon but to claim it is better the euro level or that it already is better when the train or tube stop is blocks away from the stadium is pretty off.
The good thing about a US WC is we don't need to build new hotels and stadiums like Brazil, Russia, South Africa and Qatar.
This post was edited on 6/2/14 at 9:07 am
Posted on 6/2/14 at 5:41 pm to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
we don't even know about the logistics of the 49ners stadium which is also not in the city
Caltrain runs between San Francisco and San Jose, passing through Santa Clara. There are plenty of hotels between SF and SJ.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:51 pm to OFWHAP
Why a pissing match between the top three options in the entire world (infrastructure wise) to host a WC? England, Germany and the USA can all do it very well. The discussion is the magnitude between them and Russia and Qatar + the now confirmed fraud that makes them logical choices as replacements.
Posted on 6/2/14 at 6:57 pm to lynxcat
The US is the best sporting country in the world hands down. I have no doubt given just 4 years to prepare we have the potential to throw the best wc in the world. That being said the UK and Germany are probably options 2 and 3 and would also do an amazing job. The point is FIFA keeps awarding to these bankrupt incompetent borderline third world countries instead of just manning up and giving it to Western Europe and the US until these other countries get their shite together. Same with the Olympics
Posted on 6/2/14 at 7:12 pm to tigerfan88
Waited in tube lines after matches at both Emirates and Craven's Cottage is just as big a CF as anything at Reliant.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News