(see bold above) ... because everyone's good at something. You are now saying it was "misleading" - originally you said it was a complete misnomer and a joke, which I disagreed with. I actually think Qwest will be one of the better non-SSS venues because it was designed to accomodate soccer (even if American football is its primary purpose). It's MUCH better than most football/baseball venues so I'm not a hater, but I don't pretend it's better than having a stadium designed for soccer as the primary tenant. However, there are a lot of venues like RES that are actually poor venues for soccer - sure, they're okay for temporary usage, but 3 years has been a long time to deal with the narrow field, the pronounced crown, the football turf... I can't imagine what it has been like for the guys in Giants stadium or KC or NE. SSS to me has always meant Checketts built a venue that will maximize the presentation of soccer. His plan has also always been to host other venues there (secondarily) to help pay for it. I also will enjoy the benefit of the SSS that we don't have to reschedule games from Saturdays to Mondays because the primary tenant used the field earlier in the day for a football game. RSL/soccer will now be the primary tenant.
That's ridiculous. I have had season tickets at Qwest since 2003 (USL-1 Sounders) and have always though it has GREAT, not OK, not just good, but GREAT sight lines for the sport. You are close to the field and the angle of the stands allows a wonderful view. The only time I ever look up to the second deck is to see these: (Wow, Qwest hangs Division 2 banners? Just think what they'll do for Division One. ) With some fine-tuning for MLS (mainly signage, and pitch issues) the venue will work quite nicely for us here in Seattle. Note: More soccer than football has been played at Qwest since it opened in 2002. True. So that of course makes Qwest a large SSS that also hosts other events, such as NFL games, using several definitions in this thread.
well, technically speaking qwest is an fss... football specific stadium... football is it's design but like the sss's they find other things to use their field for... international soccer games, usl games, potentially mls games... whatever they want... makes the owners extra jack sure, football is king... but it's not to say they can't open up the place to let the little people in and if anyone has any issue with regarding soccer as the little people in this equation... you need your head examined
The lower bowl of Qwest was designed with MLS in mind. The stadium funding was approved because of the soccer vote. The lower "bowl" is actually not a bowl, as photos will show. It is a set of four 'stands' not unlike a european football venue. This was not an accident. Neither were the FOUR sets of locker rooms. Why four? 2 for NFL, 2 for MLS. view here: http://goalseattle.com/2007/Qwest/lowerbowl.jpg
Would you not agree that using the term "specific" is misleading? They are freakin stadiums.....smaller multi purpose stadiums and nothing more. The "label" is especially important when voters are asked to foot the bill. That is all I was eluding to and to me they are mis-named and that is a joke. Call them what they are.
And yet, would not people laugh at the term Football Specific Stadium? Do you see baseball people insert the specific term? If anyone can make a claim for specificity, it is baseball as the field dimensions for that sport do not fit others. Where I am, they are not calling the new stadium for the Nationals as a Baseball Specific Stadium. It is nothing more than a marketing term used by MLS to make their fans feel better about the league. But it is a misnomer as all of these stadia are used for other events than just soccer, including American football. It is misleading and does send the wrong message to some fans.
I really hate to join in here, but ... having four locker rooms is hardly unusual. Wander the tunnels of any stadium or arena, and you're likely to find either four or more functioning locker rooms or at least four rooms that could be easily converted. How else are you going to satisfy Mick and Keith's backstage needs? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstagetour/rollingstones/rollingstones1.html
Just pointing out Qwest has'em, that's all. No bigger inference need be made, except that MLS Seattle players will have their own 'space,' and won't be using Seahawks locker rooms. That will be nice for them.
Mick and Keith won't mind the Seattle MLS color scheme in the locker rooms, the Seattle MLS crest-covered walls, and player names above each stall, I don't suppose.
Unlike Gillette which is built with soccer in mind which it is because New England has an MLS team, hosts friendlies, US National team games, male and female and hopefully future World Cup games down the road so I don't think they were just paying lip service to get the thing built. Football is one of many revenue streams. A lot of you naysayers want to bash Qwest. I am not even going to try change your mind, your minds are made so I would be wasting your time. With that sadi, you cannot deny that the design of Qwest field and the configuration really is truly designed with soccer in mind. Qwest looks much more like a European Football stadium vs. an NFL stadium. I have been to games at Qwest and so much reminds me of some of the newer Euro footy stadiums. There is nothing in the NFL that matches it's design. There are 8 regular season games and 2 exhibition games played a year = 1-2 playoff games (hopefully) by the Hawks. Sometimes during the fall there will be some highschool as well as college football played there. Still if you add this up the stadium will host a lot more soccer matches if you include regular season matches + USOC as well as friendly matches. It is basically a soccer stadium that accomidates American football not the other way around. Now we all know that NFL is king and the stadium will be packed for NFL games. That is obvious but When they built the stadium First and Goal saw an opportunity to have an MLS team, host international matches, US friendly matches as well as future world cup games (Hopefull down the road). Qwest may not be "Soccer Specific" but it is a soccer stadium and that cannot be denied. If they can do something about the lines, which from what I understand they are going to and add some asthetics and a cool tarp for the upper deck, it is going to be a wonderful stadium. A lot of you will disagree so to all of you Naysayers, and Qwest haters I say toss off you whiney wankers! ; ) Cheers Mates!
I think that one of the attributes he mentioned was "properly sized pitch." FIFA's "Football Stadiums: Technical recommendations and requirements" states as follows: "For all matches at the top professional level and where major international and domestic matches are played, the playing field should have dimensions of 105m x 68m. These dimenstions are obligatory for the FIFA World Cup and the final competitions in the confederations' championships. Other matches can be played on a playing field with different dimensions and the Laws of the Game stipulate the maximum and minimum dimensions. However it is strongly recommended that new stadiums have a 105m x 68m playing field." You can correct me if I'm mistaken, but it is my understanding that Qwest, while meeting the minimum dimensions in the LOTG for WC qualifiers, is incapable of accomodating the preferred FIFA dimensions and those that are required at WC finals. It is also my understanding that all so-called "SSS" venues meet the FIFA preferred dimensions. If so, this is not surprising, as all SSS were designed primarily to accomodate soccer, with the ability to stage other events as a secondary concern. (Hence, e.g., why SSS venues don't put patrons in an ideal seating configuration for concerts.) Qwest, it would seem to me, was designed for American football, with accomodations made for soccer to the extent that it does not require any sacrifice to what would be ideal for American football. Since accomodating FIFA preferred dimensions forces stands to be set a little further back than what the NFL prefers, it wouldn't be particularly surprising if Qwest is in fact incapable of meeting FIFA preferred standards. (After all, the money in soccer is primarily in international friendlies anyways, for which dimensions are really irrelevant.) It also helps explain why a term like SSS may actually have some actual meaning, as such venues are designed primarily for soccer, not just to accomodate it to the extent that accomodation doesn't run contrary to a venue's primary, non-soccer purpose and the desire of its primary (non-soccer) tenant.
There's probably going to be almost as many outside events at a SSS as at a stadium where the MLS team is a tenant. And these events are essential to the bottom line. The difference is that at the non-SSS stadium, the people controlling scheduling will give out the best dates to whoever they think will bring in the most money and the soccer team will end up with long road trips or playing a lot of mid-week games. Check out the 2006 Rapids home schedule against the 2007 version. The Rapids played nearly half their games in 2006 on school nights. I don't know what the deal is going to be at Qwest and don't care. That's a Seattle problem.
No wonder the pitch looks so horrible most of the time at HDC. EPL fields looks soooooo nice, just like a carpet.
Uh, yes it does. That's what "unique" means. And the term, "soccer specific" refers to the reason for building it, not any implication of exclusivity. The fact that a stadium was built specifically for pro soccer in America was considered noteworthy (and, yes, "unique") enough back in the day that the term was coined then. Happily, the sport has progressed enough since that we can have arguments like this after several have been built, and several more are on the way. Yes, I said "happily," because, despite the painfully juvenile nature of this entire thread, it's still better than enduring the American pro soccer landscape back when the biggest concern for most of you was how quickly you could traverse the bulge in your daddy's Levi's.