(08-01-2018 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 08:02 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 07:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-01-2018 06:32 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  What? Detroit and Indianapolis guarantee indoor football.

Terrible idea, IMO. The only benefit of having a bowl game in a cold weather place is watching some cold-weather football on TV, it might snow or something, players huddling for warmth on the sidelines, etc. which makes it interesting viewing. We've seen that in the Pinstripe Bowl.

Put a Detroit or Indianapolis game in a dome and you take that away. And you have no benefits to the athletes or fans in terms of traveling to a desirable location. It's a loser for everyone.

You think fans DESIRE to sit in sub-zero weather to watch a meaningless bowl game? I don't! It might be fun to watch from the comfort of your own home, but as someone who has sat in Lane Stadium in -40F I can tell you -- that is NOT desirable! At some point bowls need to sell tickets, and I think indoor stadiums are a MUCH easier sell... JMO though.

I wonder about that. E.g. in St Pete Florida the St Pete dome is famous for being empty during that bowl game. I've seen empty outdoor stadiums and empty indoor ones.

The Lions play to a lot of empty seats in their dome, the Bears and Packers sell out in their frigid old outdoor stadiums. Football fans don't mind huddling up to watch a game.

IMO, there just is no upside to a dome game up north. The appeal of the game is the outdoor elements, for fans in attendance and watching on TV.

The date of the game hasn't helped in most cases. Also, some of the teams involved do not have much of a fan base.