HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2015 outdoor game: Sharks "expected" to host game in 14-15 (news update in post #90)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-27-2014, 04:20 AM
  #51
Felys
Registered User
 
Felys's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Country: United States
Posts: 773
vCash: 500
I can only imagine the swarms of seagulls at AT&T being incredibly confused about the ice on the field.

Felys is offline  
Old
01-27-2014, 11:59 AM
  #52
FSS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 113
vCash: 500
My vote would be for AT&T (and vs. the Kings), especially after what I experienced in Dodger Stadium.

I sat in the RF bleachers, and in the upper half of the RF bleachers...and could barely see a thing. The people in the 1st half of the bleachers couldn't see a thing. The lower level was completely sold out, all the way to the 1st row, and the bleachers are the same/higher than most of the lower level. The best seats were easily in the Loge and UD.

The second level of Stanford Stadium would be ideal for an outdoor game, but the majority of the 1st level would be hosed. Levi's, no idea...never been. AT&T has the Club Level, UD, and Arcade...all high enough and great for sightlines. Bleachers in any stadium will have the same issues.

The experience was very cool, gorgeous night, and quite a few Sharks fans were there attending the game...really hope we get to have one here.

FSS is offline  
Old
01-27-2014, 12:00 PM
  #53
FSS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 113
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptivAte View Post
I can only imagine the swarms of seagulls at AT&T being incredibly confused about the ice on the field.
Luc said when they played outdoors in Vegas, all the insects were confused and drawn to the ice. Crickets were leaping over the glass onto the ice, and then dying rather quickly. Talk about bad ice conditions.

FSS is offline  
Old
01-27-2014, 01:52 PM
  #54
sharksohnoes!
yeahokayidiot
 
sharksohnoes!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 3,840
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazedZooChimp View Post
Dry campus? What are you talking about? Stanford is the only zip code in the Bay Area with no open container laws, you can literally walk around all of campus drinking a beer (like I did most of grad school). It also has fantastic sight lines, unlike any of the baseball venues where people in the bleachers might as well be at home. Plus it's walking distance from Caltrain and halfway between SJ and SF. I think Levi's would probably be better, except Stanford is probably more the right size (and the upper level seats still aren't too far from the field), but obviously haven't seen the sight lines at Levi's yet. AT&T would suck, like all the baseball stadiums suck for hockey games.

The only benefits of AT&T are that I can walk there and that the weather is probably more conducive to hockey than the Stadiums further south.
They weren't selling alcohol at the California Classicos for the last couple of years. They told me it was because Stanford is a dry campus. I didn't go to Stanford so I don't know. If they didn't get a temporary permit/exception for the Quakes, I'm not sure why they'd be able to for the Sharks. Not having beer would be a major deterrent for all parties involved. That is a lot of potential revenue lost.

sharksohnoes! is offline  
Old
01-27-2014, 02:35 PM
  #55
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredragD View Post
As for venue in the SJ area, Levi's Stadium makes the most sense because it isn't too far and would generate the most $ with higher capacity and more luxury boxes than the other area venues. Vancouver would make an ideal opponent due to playoff history and a good traveling rabid fan base that would be more willing to spend than the SoCal rivals.
It's no coincidence that both Stadium Series games over this past weekend, the weekend the NFL is essentially off before SB, were at baseball venues. As a Sharks home outdoor game makes most sense in January, and Levi's has the SB, it's gotta be a baseball venue. Thus, putting aside anything and everything else, I don't see how Levi's makes the most sense. I would say it's a lock to be AT&T or Stanford, unless they want to do it post Super Bowl, but that's risky weather-wise. In fact, a home outdoor game in NorCal is risky anyways because the worst thing for outdoor ice hockey is rain, which is why you could make the argument that SoCal is a better region to host an outdoor game versus Bay Area. One of many reasons I'd rather have the Sharks as the road team in a Winter Classic instead of a home team in a Stadium Series game (and that would mean 24/7!). There is a report that the NHL will definitely not have 6 outdoor games next season. If that's the case, I say go down to 3.

Your Jan 1 Winter Classic which, sadly, has a bias towards Eastern teams + Chicago. Another January game, the "American Classic," featuring American West teams OTHER than Chicago. This would be locked into the weekend before SB, either immediately following or just before All-Star game. Finally, a Feb/March game, the Heritage Classic, featuring Canadian Teams.

So, as I posted in the business thread, I suggested this for 2015:

WC: Whoever at Caps (but please not Flyers, don't give Flyers 3 Winter Classics already)

American Classic: Sharks at Wild (about time the State of Hockey had an outdoor game, and we can end the whole Bay Area venue debate for now)

Heritage Classic: 2 Canadian teams, take your pick.

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
01-27-2014, 05:35 PM
  #56
PredragD
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
It's no coincidence that both Stadium Series games over this past weekend, the weekend the NFL is essentially off before SB, were at baseball venues. As a Sharks home outdoor game makes most sense in January, and Levi's has the SB, it's gotta be a baseball venue. Thus, putting aside anything and everything else, I don't see how Levi's makes the most sense. I would say it's a lock to be AT&T or Stanford, unless they want to do it post Super Bowl, but that's risky weather-wise. In fact, a home outdoor game in NorCal is risky anyways because the worst thing for outdoor ice hockey is rain, which is why you could make the argument that SoCal is a better region to host an outdoor game versus Bay Area. One of many reasons I'd rather have the Sharks as the road team in a Winter Classic instead of a home team in a Stadium Series game (and that would mean 24/7!). There is a report that the NHL will definitely not have 6 outdoor games next season. If that's the case, I say go down to 3.

Your Jan 1 Winter Classic which, sadly, has a bias towards Eastern teams + Chicago. Another January game, the "American Classic," featuring American West teams OTHER than Chicago. This would be locked into the weekend before SB, either immediately following or just before All-Star game. Finally, a Feb/March game, the Heritage Classic, featuring Canadian Teams.

So, as I posted in the business thread, I suggested this for 2015:

WC: Whoever at Caps (but please not Flyers, don't give Flyers 3 Winter Classics already)

American Classic: Sharks at Wild (about time the State of Hockey had an outdoor game, and we can end the whole Bay Area venue debate for now)

Heritage Classic: 2 Canadian teams, take your pick.
You have the wrong year for the Levi's Stadium Super Bowl. It will be in 2016; the 2015 Super Bowl is in Arizona. Also there is no Heritage Classic in 2015; the league has announced that it will be in 2016 in Winnipeg.

I wonder if they will try to get an outdoor game in the Phoenix area (perhaps Sun Devil Stadium?) next year the week before the Super Bowl to ride the Super Bowl wave. If so it would likely kill the possibility of a 2015 Sharks hosted outdoor game, but make a 2016 one highly likely.

PredragD is offline  
Old
01-27-2014, 06:44 PM
  #57
rangerssharks414
Registered User
 
rangerssharks414's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 11,281
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredragD View Post
I wonder if they will try to get an outdoor game in the Phoenix area (perhaps Sun Devil Stadium?) next year the week before the Super Bowl to ride the Super Bowl wave. If so it would likely kill the possibility of a 2015 Sharks hosted outdoor game, but make a 2016 one highly likely.
They could do that, but I don't know what the appeal of an outdoor game in Arizona would be. The Coyotes have the worst home attendance in the NHL as well.

rangerssharks414 is offline  
Old
01-28-2014, 01:42 AM
  #58
Bizz06
#FireDougWilson
 
Bizz06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,055
vCash: 50
the SF Bulls folding today is exactly the reason why the 2015 Sharks outdoor game should not be played at AT&T Park.

Bizz06 is offline  
Old
01-28-2014, 01:56 AM
  #59
PredragD
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rangerssharks414 View Post
They could do that, but I don't know what the appeal of an outdoor game in Arizona would be. The Coyotes have the worst home attendance in the NHL as well.
Nix the AZ idea. I forgot that they need to play the All Star Game the week before the Super Bowl, so the timing isn't right to try to accomplish the Herculian task of filling a football or baseball stadium for a Coyotes game.

This also means Levi's should be available since the 2015 Stadium Series would probably be in Feb/Mar.

PredragD is offline  
Old
01-28-2014, 11:45 AM
  #60
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizz06 View Post
the SF Bulls folding today is exactly the reason why the 2015 Sharks outdoor game should not be played at AT&T Park.
Because people in SF don't want to attend ECHL games at the Cow Palace???

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
01-28-2014, 11:51 AM
  #61
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PredragD View Post
You have the wrong year for the Levi's Stadium Super Bowl. It will be in 2016; the 2015 Super Bowl is in Arizona. Also there is no Heritage Classic in 2015; the league has announced that it will be in 2016 in Winnipeg.

I wonder if they will try to get an outdoor game in the Phoenix area (perhaps Sun Devil Stadium?) next year the week before the Super Bowl to ride the Super Bowl wave. If so it would likely kill the possibility of a 2015 Sharks hosted outdoor game, but make a 2016 one highly likely.
Whoops, thanks for correcting. Even with no SB at Levi's in 2015, given the possibility of a Niners run and needing several weeks lead time to set up an outdoor rink, they wouldn't even erect the outdoor rink at Levi's until after the NFC conf championship weekend and then likely not do it until the after that SB in Arizona, which puts an outdoor game at Levi's in February, risky weather-wise IMHO.

If they do an outdoor game in Arizona, you'd have to think the likely opponent would be the Sharks. That said, Sharks at Yotes (or even vs. Yotes in the Bay Area) would probably be the worst outdoor opponent for the Sharks and would be guaranteed to be the lowest viewed outdoor game in the history of these outdoor games. A non-Winter Classic game for the Sharks is hard enough to get hyped for, but playing the Yotes anywhere outdoors would be brutal.

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
01-28-2014, 06:28 PM
  #62
Bizz06
#FireDougWilson
 
Bizz06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 3,055
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChompChomp View Post
Because people in SF don't want to attend ECHL games at the Cow Palace???
No, it's because people up in San Francisco don't care about sports, except *maybe* the 49ers, but there's a reason why the 49ers chose to move towards San Jose, and it has everything to do with San Franciscans not wanting to keep them in the city enough. Giants attendance was terrible before they started winning World Series, and the Bulls weren't the only professional Hockey team that's taken less than a year to fail there. Remember the Spiders?

Bizz06 is offline  
Old
01-28-2014, 07:13 PM
  #63
Rickety Cricket
Registered User
 
Rickety Cricket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Not Kent Huskins
Country: United States
Posts: 28,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizz06 View Post
No, it's because people up in San Francisco don't care about sports, except *maybe* the 49ers, but there's a reason why the 49ers chose to move towards San Jose, and it has everything to do with San Franciscans not wanting to keep them in the city enough. Giants attendance was terrible before they started winning World Series, and the Bulls weren't the only professional Hockey team that's taken less than a year to fail there. Remember the Spiders?
If we were talking about having a permanent team up there I'd agree, but I think for one game it's fine. I think there are over 40K Sharks fans in the area that would go.

Rickety Cricket is offline  
Old
01-28-2014, 07:22 PM
  #64
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizz06 View Post
No, it's because people up in San Francisco don't care about sports, except *maybe* the 49ers, but there's a reason why the 49ers chose to move towards San Jose, and it has everything to do with San Franciscans not wanting to keep them in the city enough. Giants attendance was terrible before they started winning World Series, and the Bulls weren't the only professional Hockey team that's taken less than a year to fail there. Remember the Spiders?
The Niners are moving away, but then the Warriors are moving into SF (maybe)? If people in SF didn't care about sports, the Warriors wouldn't be interested in SF at all.

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
01-28-2014, 07:28 PM
  #65
ChompChomp
SACK T-MAC
 
ChompChomp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, TX (Ugh)
Country: United States
Posts: 8,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rickety Cricket View Post
If we were talking about having a permanent team up there I'd agree, but I think for one game it's fine. I think there are over 40K Sharks fans in the area that would go.
I would like to think if there was an outdoor game in SF with the Sharks, Sharks fans from all over would come out as well as some general people in SF. Hell I'm thinking about flying in from Texas for it. (Well, I've been debating it. On one hand, as a matter of principle, I don't want to go, but the whole principle thing isn't going to change anything so why not have an excuse to come home, spend time with fam and friends, and enjoy the event? I'm leaning towards going)

Randy Hahn said it best a few weeks ago when he said that you have it at AT&T because you want to grow the game and grow interest in the Sharks in the entire Bay Area.

The people of SF now have to get used to their football team being in the South Bay. Might as well get into the Sharks too, if they haven't already.

ChompChomp is offline  
Old
01-30-2014, 03:27 PM
  #66
rangerssharks414
Registered User
 
rangerssharks414's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 11,281
vCash: 500
I've read that there will be 4 outdoor games next year. So not including the Winter Classic, that will be 3 Stadium Series games.

I honestly think Colorado will get the "west" outdoor game, but I hope I'm wrong.

rangerssharks414 is offline  
Old
01-30-2014, 03:50 PM
  #67
HabsByTheBay
Registered User
 
HabsByTheBay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: London
Country: United States
Posts: 1,195
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizz06 View Post
No, it's because people up in San Francisco don't care about sports, except *maybe* the 49ers, but there's a reason why the 49ers chose to move towards San Jose, and it has everything to do with San Franciscans not wanting to keep them in the city enough. Giants attendance was terrible before they started winning World Series, and the Bulls weren't the only professional Hockey team that's taken less than a year to fail there. Remember the Spiders?
San Franciscans don't care about sports?

Prove it.


HabsByTheBay is offline  
Old
01-30-2014, 03:59 PM
  #68
hohosaregood
Drunken Snacking
 
hohosaregood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HabsByTheBay View Post
San Franciscans don't care about sports?

Prove it.

I don't think it counts if you're showing a championship celebration as proof.

hohosaregood is offline  
Old
01-31-2014, 02:10 PM
  #69
TheUndertow40Six2
Registered User
 
TheUndertow40Six2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: Kazakhstan
Posts: 167
vCash: 500
Here's a fun SF fact:

As of September 23, 2013, the Giants have sold out 240 consecutive games.

TheUndertow40Six2 is offline  
Old
01-31-2014, 05:22 PM
  #70
krudmonk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 5,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUndertow40Six2 View Post
Here's a fun SF fact:

As of September 23, 2013, the Giants have sold out 240 consecutive games.
So, with 81 home games per season....that's going back to about early 2011. Big shock.

krudmonk is offline  
Old
02-01-2014, 04:21 PM
  #71
TheUndertow40Six2
Registered User
 
TheUndertow40Six2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: Kazakhstan
Posts: 167
vCash: 500
Not a single year under league average for attendance since the new stadium opened? Big shock...


TheUndertow40Six2 is offline  
Old
02-03-2014, 12:52 AM
  #72
boylerroom
Registered User
 
boylerroom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Mountain View, Ca
Country: United States
Posts: 277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigwillie View Post
Yeah, I honestly would rather play Vancouver. SoCal is getting their's this year.
I completely agree. Or Detroit.

And I have to think AT&T is the PRIME location they'd want. Imagine a 5:00 start time and get those mild sf eve sunsets across the bay bridge.

Levi Stadium will be nice but frankly it'll be just a wall of people.

boylerroom is offline  
Old
02-03-2014, 02:02 PM
  #73
Chairman Mallard
GO DUCKS
 
Chairman Mallard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Pacifica / Sec 202
Country: United States
Posts: 15,692
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUndertow40Six2 View Post
Not a single year under league average for attendance since the new stadium opened? Big shock...

Paid attendance sure, but the place was still pretty empty during the week when they were terrible before 2010. That also includes the routine 5-8 dollar tickets you could get during the week during those seasons as well.

I used to buy 5 dollar tickets all the time and go with my friends.

Chairman Mallard is offline  
Old
02-05-2014, 01:07 AM
  #74
TheUndertow40Six2
Registered User
 
TheUndertow40Six2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: Kazakhstan
Posts: 167
vCash: 500
That means the records for the rest of the league are based off of paid attendance. This still leaves them above league average. They hardly struggle to attract fans during the Bonds era.

TheUndertow40Six2 is offline  
Old
02-27-2014, 06:29 PM
  #75
rangerssharks414
Registered User
 
rangerssharks414's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 11,281
vCash: 500
http://www.cbssports.com/nhl/eye-on-...or-sharks-game

Giants and Sharks talk about the possibility of a game.

rangerssharks414 is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.