Skip to comments.Sport Science: CenturyLink Field (Seahawk's stadium designed to be loud)
Posted on 01/13/2014 8:32:38 PM PST by doug from upland
FOOTBALL FANS WILL ENJOY THIS VIDEO explaining why the Seahawk's stadium is so loud -- setting the record of 137.6 decibels. They beat the Kansas City Chiefs' 137.5. A jet engine at 100 feet is 140 decibels. If you want to own a hearing aid company in the future, head to Seattle.
(Excerpt) Read more at espn.go.com ...
Don’t matter. Bring it! 49ers gonna beat the feathers off Seatle chicken hawks!
Will the half of the city that is gay or transgendered be watching or don’t they care about football? It is disgusting what has happened to the beautiful city I loved visiting many, many times in my youth.
40whiners will need Midol after Sunday’s game.
Just because the 69ers beat the Fudge Packers doesn’t mean their Superbowl bound!
I think if the Seahawks are allowed to engineer their stadium for noise, visiting teams should be allowed to modify their helmets with radios for all players. It’s an artificial advantage for the home team not the result of just enthusiastic fans.
Isn’t the SF and the metrosexual Seattle fans that are into fudge packing?
Kaepernick is our local hero! Reno loves him! We're hoping he goes all the way this time!
I guess someone is just going to have to file a federal lawsuit and demand that the NFL make it fair. The Colorado Rockies should be required to use heavier baseballs because of the altitude and designing their team for home runs. And the Broncos should be forced to provide extra oxygen to visiting players, who are not used to playing with a little less oxygen at a mile high. Because of the Green Monster, the Red Sox should only be allowed to have a limited number of right handed hitters and pitchers, and when they face an opposing southpaw, they should be forced to also use a southpaw.
Nice straw man argument. Physics of the atmosphere is physics, and both teams hit the ball as far in Denver. Denver’s elevation affects both teams and is a fact of location. Boston’s stadium is the oldest in baseball, and was the result of the stadium foot print. Both teams again get to hit the ball the same distance, and that wall has hurt the Redsox as much as it has helped them over the years. This is FUNDAMENTALLY different. The stadium was engineered to give the home team an advantage and that’s BS. If it’s okay for the Seahawksto do that, the visiting teams should be allowed a technological response .
Oh yeah, and the Vikings used to pump fake crowd noise through their PA system at the Humpty Dump, and the NFL stopped that.
OR......future stadiums will be designed to enhance the crowd noise
which will bring about the noise nazis dead set on ending the evil,
eardrum shattering NFL.
When the RCA dome (former Colts stadium) got too loud, they were accused of “noise piping”. Now it’s celebrated.
Amen to that!
So long as they win.
Game is still 5 days away, and already the excuses are starting.
49ers and their fans must really be worried.
I’m no 49 er fan. Anything but. But again, building a noise enhancement into a stadium is Bullsh#t.
I was just jerking your chain. I understand the argument. What is interesting is that, until the Seahawks became a really good team, their stadium did not seem to be a major concern. The Chiefs generate almost an equal amount of noise. Did the NFL have any input in the construction of the stadium? Is it borderline breaking the rules? I do not know the answer.
As a Chief's fan I feel we have been cheated. First steroids then this. We are naturally loud and obnoxious without artificial enhancements.
Well, let’s see...Lambeau Field was designed to take advantage of the weather and winds for the Packers. Who won that game? No matter if it’s the weather or crowd noise or whatever...if a better team plays the way they’re supposed to, they can overcome any supposed ‘advantage’ a location may offer.
Like I said in Bender’s thread....if the Seahawks make it to the Super Bowl, all I ask is that it be a clean game with fair and equal officiating.
Unlike Super Bowl XL.
A team used to playing in cold and snow has a distinct advantage over a West Coast team that does not practice in that stuff. Should teams in that kind of weather be required to build a dome? Where do we draw the line of what constitutes a home field advantage?
CAVEAT: As a Dodger and Rams fan, I grew up loathing SF teams. Even though I loathe everything about leftist Boston (except the history), I would even root for Brady over SF in a SuperBowl.
I agree.. especially if the 49ers get a couple quick-strike TDs, they can take the crowd out of it, as they did in Carolina.
The thing to remember, Doug, is that Seattle DOES play outside. CenturyLink Field is an open-air stadium. Granted, we DON’T have the really cold weather that Denver or New England has, but we DO have RAIN....LOTS and LOTS of cold rain. SF has an open-air stadium as well, but their climate is a little milder than ours....and remember that they did pretty well in the frigidity that was Green Bay last week.
The REAL home-field advantage is (IMO) the FANS. Other than the way the team itself plays, they are what make or break a team. Seattle knows they have the backing of the (officially) loudest fans in the NFL. Should the Seahawks make it to the Super Bowl, I think their biggest disadvantage will not be the cold weather...it will be the lack of “The 12th Man”.
Yup...it’ll be difficult to do, but if SF gains a large advantage in points, especially early in the game, the “12th Man” just doesn’t have the power it usually does.
The stadium doesn’t MAKE noise, it KEEPS the noise the fans make. And remember both teams have to deal with the noise.
Sounds like a lot of preemptive excuse making by Niner fans on why they’re going to lose this weekend.
As a life-long baseball fan raised in a life-long baseball family, I'll never forget that day, 36 years ago, when I first walked past the Jimmy Fund boxes, up the ramp, and into the fall New England air to see the Green Monster in real life.
You have to love Fenway Park, even if you loathe the Red Sox.
It amplifies the noise the fans make and artificially increases the level over what the noise would be in a “ normal “ stadium. And it’s an advantage to the home team because the fans are not morons and quiet down when the Seahawks are on offense and increase their noise when the other team is on offense. You don’t watch football much do you?
The fans don't make the same amount of noise when Russell Wilson is calling out the cadence as they do when the opposing QB is.
But the defense is on the field when the crowd is making noise against the opposing offense, so their communication is hampered. And the offense is on the sideline talking about the last possession. Noise effects everybody.
I watch TONS of football so your sad attempt at well poisoning fails. Meanwhile in the land of facts this isn’t any different than the guy in charge of the jumbotron putting the “get loud” on the screen. Noise is noise, the home team likes noise, the away team doesn’t. So what if 14 years ago they decided to use some architectural tricks to keep the crowd noise in the building, both teams have to deal with the noise, their defense is on the field and having communication hampered just as much as the opposing offense.
This is why teams work so hard in the regular season to acquire home field. If the Niners don’t like coming to Seattle for the playoffs then they should work a little harder and win the division.
The greatest effect of the noise is the number of false starts by the opponents’ offense - a statistic in which the Seahawks lead the league in their home games.
LOL and even though it was demolished in 2008, us taxpaying suckers are still paying on the mortgage.
Yes, lead the league with 2.36 a game since the new stadium was completed, compared to a league average of around 1.5 per team per game. I don’t see that “extra” 1 5 yard penalty per game really changing things dramatically. Also interesting to note that while they do hold the record since 2005 for opposing false starts, they’re only 15 up on Minnesota in second place, and that includes the record 11 the Giants had there in one game. Throw that statistically aberrant game out of the mix and they’re only 4 up on Minnesota a team nobody really considers to have that great a home field advantage.
Exactly... the "12th Man" becomes the "12th Meh."
The Met was called “The 23rd Viking”.
It’s no coincidence that when they played outdoors, the Vikings won 4 NFC titles (including one “NFL” title in 1969), and since they moved indoors they haven’t won one.
Driven by but never had the experience of the Green Monster in person. Maybe some day. I have made probably six visits to NYC and really regret not seeing a game in the house that Ruth built before it was gone.
Eagles offense fixes the problem.
I was on that project when they demolished it. That site scared the poop out of me.
Yeah..I really like paying that restaurant tax on the Lucas Oil on top of it. And the capital investment board (or whatever they’re called) had so much trouble keeping Banker’s Life maintained as well. :-(
I agree, I think the teams are darn near equal in all respects, it will be home field advantage and with extra noise, SF has never been that loud and if they were fans wise the stadium wasn’t.
I bet both sides are working on more non verbal forms of signals.
What really grinds me is that the Irsays get the money from all the non-Colts events held there, that f_cking Bart Peterson gave them a deal beyond belief.
Well that explains why they didn’t move to L.A.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.