Game Thread: Super Bowl LVI: Cincinnati Bengals vs LA Rams (630 EST Kickoff)

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
37,639
34,289
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I don't mean to derail this thread any more than it has been, but I'm going back and watching some Dan Marino games. I'm watching the 1994 New England vs. Miami game, the season opener, in Miami. It was a great game between Drew Bledsoe and Dan Marino. My point is, the dumbest thing in NFL history, aside from artificial turf, is NFL stadiums sharing a field with an MLB team and having infield dirt on the field.
 

bamadwain

All-American
Oct 8, 2018
3,362
3,146
187
Jackson Tn
I don't mean to derail this thread any more than it has been, but I'm going back and watching some Dan Marino games. I'm watching the 1994 New England vs. Miami game, the season opener, in Miami. It was a great game between Drew Bledsoe and Dan Marino. My point is, the dumbest thing in NFL history, aside from artificial turf, is NFL stadiums sharing a field with an MLB team and having infield dirt on the field.
Wasn't Oakland and San Diego as well?
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
37,639
34,289
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Wasn't Oakland and San Diego as well?
I know Oakland's stadium was shared between the Raiders and the A's. I don't recall San Diego ever being shared.

Miami's was particularly awful because the style was the entire base path was dirt, not just the area around the bases. So almost half the field was mud in this particular game.

But so many were that way back then. Cheap.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
36,747
35,879
187
South Alabama
I know Oakland's stadium was shared between the Raiders and the A's. I don't recall San Diego ever being shared.

Miami's was particularly awful because the style was the entire base path was dirt, not just the area around the bases. So almost half the field was mud in this particular game.

But so many were that way back then. Cheap.
San Francisco also had that setup as well. So did the Steelers. To be honest at some point all of them pretty much did it’s just some looked worse than others. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a franchise that had both sports and isn’t an expansion team that didn’t share a field besides the Cowboys. Maybe @selmaborntidefan knows.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
37,639
34,289
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
San Francisco also had that setup as well. So did the Steelers. To be honest at some point all of them pretty much did it’s just some looked worse than others. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a franchise that had both sports and isn’t an expansion team that didn’t share a field besides the Cowboys. Maybe @selmaborntidefan knows.
It was the way to go back then. It was a cheap solution. Just like artificial turf. But like artificial turf, the monetary benefits do not outweigh the downsides of injury.

Y'all should go look up the highlights of that game I referenced. They were scraping mud out of Marino's cleats when Miami was on defense, like a horse trainer scraping mud out of their horse's hooves.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
36,747
35,879
187
South Alabama
It was the way to go back then. It was a cheap solution. Just like artificial turf. But like artificial turf, the monetary benefits do not outweigh the downsides of injury.

Y'all should go look up the highlights of that game I referenced. They were scraping mud out of Marino's cleats when Miami was on defense, like a horse trainer scraping mud out of their horse's hooves.
Well you could also say that constantly building new stadiums doesn’t help the citizens of the city either. Take Atlanta for example. Since the Falcons left Fulton County in 92 and the Braves left in 96 they have both went through 2 new stadiums each since. The city taxes couldn’t have been nice for those 4 moves. The multi use stadiums really saved money for those that lived there, but were often an eyesore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
37,639
34,289
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Well you could also say that constantly building new stadiums doesn’t help the citizens of the city either. Take Atlanta for example. Since the Falcons left Fulton County in 92 and the Braves left in 96 they have both went through 2 new stadiums each since. The city taxes couldn’t have been nice for those 4 moves. The multi use stadiums really saved money for those that lived there, but were often an eyesore.
I completely agree with you on building new (un-needed) stadiums so often. And making taxpayers fund it. I have nothing but disdain for these owners; but then again, the city politicians go along with it.

I was really hoping Kronke was going to get nailed to the wall for what he did to St. Louis.
 

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
46,491
36,917
287
Vinings, ga., usa
Well you could also say that constantly building new stadiums doesn’t help the citizens of the city either. Take Atlanta for example. Since the Falcons left Fulton County in 92 and the Braves left in 96 they have both went through 2 new stadiums each since. The city taxes couldn’t have been nice for those 4 moves. The multi use stadiums really saved money for those that lived there, but were often an eyesore.
The Braves moving to Cobb County actually made sense. Plus it created tons of work and new jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 81usaf92

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
36,747
35,879
187
South Alabama
The Braves moving to Cobb County actually made sense. Plus it created tons of work and new jobs.
Well the excuse they used was stupid and everyone saw through it (Marta access). Had they just said “we want to build a small city in a nice part of the area” then I think it would have been more honest than saying “Turner field is outdated and we need Marta access for Atlanta buildings”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DzynKingRTR

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
38,634
33,912
287
55
San Francisco also had that setup as well. So did the Steelers. To be honest at some point all of them pretty much did it’s just some looked worse than others. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a franchise that had both sports and isn’t an expansion team that didn’t share a field besides the Cowboys. Maybe @selmaborntidefan knows.
There's a key point to remember in the whole thing - baseball was more popular than football until 1965. Then the two sports traded off year after year until 1972. Football has been the most popular sport every single year the last 50 years - and that creation of revenue has made it more justifiable and feasible to have multipe stadiums.

It's not two stadiums that were the problem: the city of New York had THREE MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL stadiums from 1923 until the Dodgers and Giants left in 1958 - and then they turned right around and built another one (Shea) that opened in 1962. Boston had two stadiums as did Philly and Chicago. The only city that had two baseball teams but used only one stadium was St Louis - and in a cruel irony, the team that built it wound up losing it to the usurper (Cardinals) because that team became an NL version of the Yankees (to a lesser degree), winning World Series in 1926, 1931, 1934, 1942, and 1944 - and losing it three other times. It should perhaps also be noted in those days that the St Louis University football team used the same stadium.

Part of what kept baseball popular for so long is that as the population moved, so did teams. Boston, Philly, New York, and St Louis all lost one team - and when the St Louis Browns became the only one of those teams to move east (to Baltimore), the Senators moved west to become the Twins (which helped push the Braves out of Milwaukee and down to Atlanta).

The key point, though, was this: baseball stadiums were usually built in cheap sections of the city (not to sound racist but GENERALLY in areas with heavy concentrations of minorities who were displaced) - and prior to the early 1970s, it made absolutely no sense to have separate stadiums for football.

Why?

1) Football only played 14 games, so why build an entire stadium for use only 7 times in a year?
2) Baseball was still older and tended to have the stadiums already built - so it made more sense to find a way to accomodate football for those 7 games in markets. And it helped the baseball owners make more money for doing nothing more than renting out the stadium.

And that gave rise to the cookie cutter stadiums of the 1960s and 70s - Fulton County (Atlanta), Busch (St Louis), Veterans (Philly), Three Rivers (Pittsburgh), Riverfront (Cincy), Candlestick (San Fran), Oakland Coliseum, Jack Murphy (San Diego) and RFK (DC). In Kansas City, the expansion Royals (1969) and KC Chiefs (1963) played in the old Municipal Stadium that had housed the A's between their leaving Philly and arriving in Oakland. KC did it right, building a baseball stadium (Royals now Kauffman) AND Arrowhead for football. In Dallas, the Cowboys were there long before the Rangers arrived in 1972 and already had Cowboys Stadium open.

Of course then football got to where it could stand on its own. Their most important assets were that they understood how to show games on television (baseball took forever to figure it out), and Commissioner Pete Rozelle was a public relations wizard.

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION

None. Every single city that has both sports and is not a RECENT expansion team (e.g. the Houston Texans) has shared a stadium with a baseball team - except Dallas, and they don't count because the separate stadiums were already in existence when the Rangers moved to Arlington in 1972. Even had they moved earlier, the Cowboys played in the Cotton Bowl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 81usaf92

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
38,634
33,912
287
55
Well you could also say that constantly building new stadiums doesn’t help the citizens of the city either. Take Atlanta for example. Since the Falcons left Fulton County in 92 and the Braves left in 96 they have both went through 2 new stadiums each since. The city taxes couldn’t have been nice for those 4 moves. The multi use stadiums really saved money for those that lived there, but were often an eyesore.
Well, Atlanta is an exception in part because Turner Field was specifically built for the Olympics. In other words, they weren't just throwing up stadiums left and right just for their (mostly lousy) sports teams.

Remember - Atlanta has lost TWO HOCKEY TEAMS since 1979 and is on their second b-ball arena despite never even appearing in an NBA finals. You could almost name an expansion team the Atlanta Stadiums and it would have the ring of reality to it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: OSUTideFan

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
38,634
33,912
287
55
Moon had Givins and Jeffries, and the run and shoot before folks had a solid defense for it. FOUR WIDE RECEIVERS?!?! ARE YOU INSANE?
Who me?

Those guys weren't great. They were DECENT. But Rice/Taylor or Randy Moss those guys definitely were not.
They were more like Elway's Three Amigos in the late 80s or perhaps Kosar flinging it to Webster Slaughter and Brian Brennan.
 

AlexanderFan

Hall of Fame
Jul 23, 2004
13,004
10,581
287
Birmingham
Who me?

Those guys weren't great. They were DECENT. But Rice/Taylor or Randy Moss those guys definitely were not.
They were more like Elway's Three Amigos in the late 80s or perhaps Kosar flinging it to Webster Slaughter and Brian Brennan.
You’re right. They were not top shelf to be sure, but they got the job done.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
38,634
33,912
287
55
I don't mean to derail this thread any more than it has been, but I'm going back and watching some Dan Marino games. I'm watching the 1994 New England vs. Miami game, the season opener, in Miami. It was a great game between Drew Bledsoe and Dan Marino. My point is, the dumbest thing in NFL history, aside from artificial turf, is NFL stadiums sharing a field with an MLB team and having infield dirt on the field.
I hated that. Lord, I hated that.

It was worse in September when baseball was still being played. They'd fix it once the last baseball game was over. In Atlanta, they could have just said, "Braves will play all of their September games on the road" prior to 1991 and nobody would have cared save for 1982.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
36,747
35,879
187
South Alabama
Well, Atlanta is an exception in part because Turner Field was specifically built for the Olympics. In other words, they weren't just throwing up stadiums left and right just for their (mostly lousy) sports teams.
I get getting rid of Fulton County, but getting rid of the GA dome and Turner really makes no sense. Other than the Battery, Truist is not that much of an upgrade from Turner Field. The reason they got rid of it was because where it was in town. If not for the Battery then Truist would be a huge disappointment.

The Benz to me is one of the worst pro stadiums I’ve been to. It’s just a cramped area with Taj Mahal features. The old Dome was better IMO.

But tbh most New NFL stadiums are specifically made to send their city to the front of the line of Super Bowls. Notice very few good teams are upgrading and very few northern teams are doing it too.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
38,634
33,912
287
55
I know Oakland's stadium was shared between the Raiders and the A's. I don't recall San Diego ever being shared.
Yes, the Padres and Chargers both played at Jack Murphy Stadium - later Qualcomm.

Miami's was particularly awful because the style was the entire base path was dirt, not just the area around the bases. So almost half the field was mud in this particular game.

But so many were that way back then. Cheap.
Well, the one you cite is actually different. That was Hard Rock Stadium that Joe Robbie specifically had designed FOR BASEBALL since there was an assumption that Miami would be getting a baseball team during the next expansion (which they did). He even got Blockbuster Dude to purchase half interest in the stadium to help get baseball.

But I DO agree with you the visual and aesthetics and injury risk was terrible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
36,747
35,879
187
South Alabama
Well, the one you cite is actually different. That was Hard Rock Stadium that Joe Robbie specifically had designed FOR BASEBALL since there was an assumption that Miami would be getting a baseball team during the next expansion (which they did). He even got Blockbuster Dude to purchase half interest in the stadium to help get baseball.
I think the Marlins have one of the most annoying looking Baseball stadiums in the MLB.

As for Hard Rock the new shade features actually hurt the experience imo. The sound and lighting in the Orange Bowl vs Oklahoma was horrible

But pro player stadium during baseball/football season looked horrible. I’m actually wondering why Miami just didn’t use the OB for football during baseball season.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
38,634
33,912
287
55
I get getting rid of Fulton County, but getting rid of the GA dome and Turner really makes no sense.
Getting rid of the GA Dome was worth it just to see The Weather Channel fail to film the implosion when the MARTA bus blocked their line of vision.

However - it's ultra-ludicrous that the Braves had no less than 3 stadium homes in a 21-year span. AFC lasted 31 seasons, and while old school by that time, it would have lasted another 20. I "get" the concept of "let's build a stadium for the Olympics and then have it as the Braves new park." There was no way to know that Ted Turner was going to stop being the Braves owner just months after the Olympics ended (the Time Warner/TBS merger was completed on the day of Game 2 of the 1996 NLCS...when Greg Maddux surrendered what was then only his second career grand slam and both in the playoffs).

Turner still technically was over them, but he had Stan Kasten running things. Ted got fully pushed out when Time merged with AOL, the same power move that ended WCW.


Other than the Battery, Truist is not that much of an upgrade from Turner Field. The reason they got rid of it was because where it was in town. If not for the Battery then Truist would be a huge disappointment.
Still haven't been there myself.

The Benz to me is one of the worst pro stadiums I’ve been to. It’s just a cramped area with Taj Mahal features. The old Dome was better IMO.

But tbh most New NFL stadiums are specifically made to send their city to the front of the line of Super Bowls. Notice very few good teams are upgrading and very few northern teams are doing it too.
Last time I went to Atlanta for my final trip to Turner I went by the Benz, which was still being built. I took one look and thought, "What the hell is this?" It looked like a collapsed Jenga game made of metal outside.
 
  • Full Banjeaux!
Reactions: 81usaf92

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
46,491
36,917
287
Vinings, ga., usa
I get getting rid of Fulton County, but getting rid of the GA dome and Turner really makes no sense. Other than the Battery, Truist is not that much of an upgrade from Turner Field. The reason they got rid of it was because where it was in town. If not for the Battery then Truist would be a huge disappointment.

The Benz to me is one of the worst pro stadiums I’ve been to. It’s just a cramped area with Taj Mahal features. The old Dome was better IMO.

But tbh most New NFL stadiums are specifically made to send their city to the front of the line of Super Bowls. Notice very few good teams are upgrading and very few northern teams are doing it too.
Well, they did repurpose the old Braves stadium. It is now Georgia State football field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: selmaborntidefan

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
38,634
33,912
287
55
But pro player stadium during baseball/football season looked horrible. I’m actually wondering why Miami just didn’t use the OB for football during baseball season.
I don't know its structural soundness, but go look at some of the early 90s videos of games.
It looked like a Porta-Potty - a really large one everyone was watching a game.
Looked like a lower class version of Legion Field on the TV.
 

New Posts

Latest threads