|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 14, 2005 23:23:23 GMT -5
Attendance was down last season here, in part due to the weather. Deny that all you want. Attendance was down because the Bombers had a lousy team, compared to the last 5 years. Weather was not a factor. Again, you continue to rant, without substantiating your claim. You lost the debate 40 posts ago. I have to admit, though. You are one persistant young man!
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 15, 2005 11:29:11 GMT -5
Attendance was down because the Bombers had a lousy team, compared to the last 5 years. Weather was not a factor. Again, you continue to rant, without substantiating your claim. You lost the debate 40 posts ago. I have to admit, though. You are one persistant young man! *sigh* It's always a sure sign that someone is losing an argument when they repeatedly claim victory. How about we allow everyone reading this thread to make up their own minds about who has presented the more compelling arguments? Let's play your game now. Please provide proof that last season's attendance was solely due to the Bombers record and that the bad weather we experienced last summer was not a factor. While you're at it, please provide proof that attendance would have been greater in Toronto and B.C. over let's say the last five years had those teams not played their home games in a dome. Thirdly, please provide proof that attendance in Montréal would have been less over the last five seasons if they had continued to play at Olympic Stadium. Here's some concrete evidence that the weather absolutely does affect Bomber attendance. Myself and the two people that go to the games with me do not attend the games after about the middle of September due to the weather. I'm sure we're not the only ones who feel this way. Want some more? Here you go. slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Football/CFL/Winnipeg/2005/04/13/994794.htmlHere are some quotes from the above article for you. " Poor weather and a pathetic on-field performance prevented the club from erasing its accumulated deficit last season. " " Inclement weather plagued six or seven home games last season and the team's performance on the way to posting a 7-11 record, which wasn't good enough to advance to the playoffs, also hurt attendance. " Please remember that you have repeatedly made the claim that bad weather has NO affect on attendance. So now I've backed up my claim that bad weather has an effect on attendance. I expect you to extend me the same courtesy with respect to your claims.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 15, 2005 11:39:58 GMT -5
Myself and the two people that go to the games with me do not attend the games after about the middle of September due to the weather. Can't handle a little cold, can we? I dress for the weather (long johns, wool socks and boots, gloves and toques) and have never experienced any discomfort because of the cold. If you don't come prepared for the elements, of course things will be uncomfortable. If the Bombers are doing well, playing in an important game when the Sunday afternoon temperatures are -5 under the sun in October, the team will approach a sell out each and every time.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 15, 2005 11:51:34 GMT -5
Can't handle a little cold, can we? I dress for the weather (long johns, wool socks and boots, gloves and toques) and have never experienced any discomfort because of the cold. If you don't come prepared for the elements, of course things will be uncomfortable. Who are you to criticize our preference? I have blood circulation and mobility problems that no amount of bundling up is going to prevent me from feeling the cold. It's just not worth it to me to go to the games when it gets to that point. Some people also like to jump through the ice and swim in freezing cold water. That's their choice and they are free to do so. It doesn't matter if the weather doesn't prevent you from going to the games. What matters with respect to the discussion we're having is whether the weather does prevent some people from attending, which it clearly does.
|
|
|
Post by Yar on May 15, 2005 11:53:12 GMT -5
bad weather does play a role in bomber attendance. i will go no matter what the weather is like but im one of the die hards. i think the attendance would have been better also if they had more friday night games rather than playing on thursdays.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 15, 2005 12:00:34 GMT -5
Who are you to criticize our preference? I have blood circulation and mobility problems that no amount of bundling up is going to prevent me from feeling the cold. It's just not worth it to me to go to the games when it gets to that point. Some people also like to jump through the ice and swim in freezing cold water. That's their choice and they are free to do so. Yes, it is. How am I criticizing you, anyways? I didn't claim it didn't. However, in October and November, when the games really matter and the team is doing well, you'll find the stands pretty much completely full. I'll be there; if you're not (which, obviously, is your own choice), someone else will be there to take your seat.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 15, 2005 12:10:46 GMT -5
Weather affects attendence; so does the team's record. What affects it more is pretty much impossible to judge. During the Reinbold years, it could've been a beautiful afternoon or evening and there'd be 8,00-10,000 empty seats. When the team was winning, such as the 2001 Eastern Final on a cold, cold day, we saw a packed house. Put a bad team in the rain, and the place'll be half full.
Neither of you will be able to come up with the definitive piece of evidence to prove the other wrong. There's too many variables in play to make a foolproof, blanket statement.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 15, 2005 12:14:11 GMT -5
Yes, it is. How am I criticizing you, anyways? It came across as that you were belittling people who don't choose to simply dress for the weather in order to attend the games. Then you are wise. ;-) In some instances, that's true. But unless the game is a sellout, you can't honestly say that more people would not have attended that particular game if the weather was nice, or the stadium was an enclosed one. Remember that Saskatchewan playoff game here a couple of years ago? As I recall, attendance was miserable as was the weather, and the Bombers were having a fairly competitive season.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 15, 2005 12:18:34 GMT -5
Weather affects attendence; so does the team's record. What affects it more is pretty much impossible to judge. During the Reinbold years, it could've been a beautiful afternoon or evening and there'd be 8,00-10,000 empty seats. When the team was winning, such as the 2001 Eastern Final on a cold, cold day, we saw a packed house. Put a bad team in the rain, and the place'll be half full. Neither of you will be able to come up with the definitive piece of evidence to prove the other wrong. There's too many variables in play to make a foolproof, blanket statement. Which is why I haven't been the one making the blanket statements. I've been repeatedly saying that the weather is just one factor. Anyways, I think we've beaten that one to death by now. Bad weather affecting attendance is only one of the reasons why I think that if a new stadium is built, it should be enclosed.
|
|
|
Post by MOC on May 15, 2005 12:28:29 GMT -5
I came across as that you were belittling people who don't choose to simply dress for the weather in order to attend the games. Not belittling, commenting. If someone doesn't take the extra effort to put on long johns, a good pair of boots and a thick jacket to go to a game, and show up instead in jeans, runners and a sweater and complain, I get rather annoyed. It's their own fault. Of course, some people can not stand it, and that's fine, my comments don't apply in that instance. As for weather, I personally think there is a major difference between cold and rain. Rain will keep people away more than cold will. Give me a cold, sunny day over a rainy, warm evening any time. Combine the two, and it's the worst. But, that doesn't happen a lot of the time.
|
|
|
Post by hatrick007 on May 15, 2005 22:40:13 GMT -5
Just how do you expect me to prove that aside from asking every person? You'll claim other factors. Can you prove attendance in those cities you mentioned would've been worse in a dome? Same thing. Attendance was down last season here, in part due to the weather. Deny that all you want. Perhaps... but the team was not as good.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 15, 2005 22:46:55 GMT -5
Perhaps... but the team was not as good. Who's denying that the team's performance is a factor? What is your point?
|
|
|
Post by blackthorne on May 16, 2005 20:19:58 GMT -5
It is ridiculous to suggest that weather doesn't affect Bombers attendance.
What kind of day will have a bigger walk-up crowd for tickets?:
1. Beautiful, warm, sunny, cloudless
2. Freezing rain, and very windy
It's nice that many people on here are the "die hard" Bomber fans that will go to games no matter WHAT, but not all Winnipeg sports fans are like that. I'm probably like that for the Goldeyes, but not the Bombers.
Build a dome for Winnipeg football fans! A domed stadium, built specifically for CFL football. But build it with lots of glass, giving people the impression they're outdoors.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 16, 2005 20:25:55 GMT -5
It is ridiculous to suggest that weather doesn't affect Bombers attendance. What kind of day will have a bigger walk-up crowd for tickets?: 1. Beautiful, warm, sunny, cloudless 2. Freezing rain, and very windy It's nice that many people on here are the "die hard" Bomber fans that will go to games no matter WHAT, but no all Winnipeg sports fans are like that. I'm probably like that for the Goldeyes, but not the Bombers. Build a dome for Winnipeg football fans! A domed stadium, built specifically for CFL football. But build it with lots of glass, giving people the impression they're outdoors. Couldn't agree with you more.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 17, 2005 20:09:42 GMT -5
It depends more on the significance of the game. If it's against say, the Renegades, the crowd is likely not going to be as big as if it was first place in the West on the line, against say, the Eskimos. Regardless of the weather, the walk-up crowd will be good if the game is significant.
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 17, 2005 20:16:24 GMT -5
It depends more on the significance of the game. If it's against say, the Renegades, the crowd is likely not going to be as big as if it was first place in the West on the line, against say, the Eskimos. Regardless of the weather, the walk-up crowd will be good if the game is significant. Please post proof of this theory of yours.
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 17, 2005 20:19:24 GMT -5
Please post proof of this theory of yours. No thanks. I will just take a page out of your book, and endlessly ramble on, without any substance, whatsoever!
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 17, 2005 20:24:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joelzillmanwpg on May 17, 2005 20:27:03 GMT -5
Aren't we testy today.....
|
|
|
Post by DKehler on May 17, 2005 20:28:07 GMT -5
Ps....Mennonite girls prefer non-Mennonites. We are better in the sack! Lucky for me I'm not a Mennonite, then. Don't you ever tire of being wrong?
|
|