Part of the ambiance of Green Bay is that you brave the elements when you play there – gives them an advantage against the teams from warmer climates, and the fans (and owners) love it.
Kansas City is in an extremely unique stadium that the fans love. Not everyone wants perfect 70 degree weather and no wind for games.
I imagine it’s more expensive to build an enclosed or closeable dome, and when it’s not that cold for the majority of the season, why bother. Plus football is a sport that’s almost always (from my knowledge at least) played outside, from kids to college. So it’s like a tradition or convention, or something.
A) Money. Domes are quite a bit more expensive
B) Structural concerns as well. Not every place can physically support a dome. For instance, Cleveland said that the current stadium location could not support a dome – it’d weigh too much and cause the stadium to sink.
C) there’s definitely some “identity” element to it as well as seen by Green Bay and Buffalo fans. Some people like the cold.
The Vikings are dumb as rocks. Outdoors in MN. No one is used to our cold but GB. It might be zero as a high all week. If it gets to 10*F that feels balmy. 99% of opponents wouldn’t acclimate like a player here for a couple years.
Outside better than dome. Vikes dumb for not opening stadium in winter.
Latest Answers