I don’t think the Coliseum is dilapidated. It’s still in good shape for a 42 year old stadium. It’s just dated. It’s a multi-purpose stadium built primarily for football. The design never was real good for baseball except for the old bleachers. Most of the seats are too far from the action. The upper decks are set so far back, you have a better view of the game on TV.

Oriole Park is very nice but I also liked the old park, Memorial Stadium. I never did understand why it needed to be replaced. I suppose it was more out of greed than need.

If the A’s are to get a new ballpark, I don’t want it to be another mallpark with an old-time veneer. I want a modernized version of Tiger Stadium with the upper deck sitting almost directly above the lower deck. The posts required for a design like this would obscure the views of about 250-350 seats in the lower deck but the 15,000 seats in the upper deck would be outstanding. The limited view seats in the lower deck could be sold to the jerkoff businessmen and cell phone-toting chicks who don’t watch the game anyway.

I normally don’t think the Coliseum is that torned-up until I go somewhere else. Normally I just deal with it and enjoy all the other aspects of watching an A’s game. But if I were to show you side-by-side comparisons of the restrooms, concession stands, entrances, views from various seats, it’s be stark. Even those of us who love the A’s are probably never going to write home about the facilities. I agree that the greater good would be served by a close third deck – I’m a shade-lover, so that’s a bonus.

Visiting Baltimore, which so clearly reminds me of Oakland, brought all this into some perspective. The O’s are not a big market team, they’re playing for average-joe fans that closely resemble many of us. We bemoan the poor attendance at A’s games despite playing superior ball to the Gnats. We complain therefore those shallow people must be more in love with the park that then game, because why else would they bother watching the heartache that is the San Francisco Giants.

But having a nice park really does add to the whole experience. To be honest, when I go to any live ballgame, I am going for the whole gestalt—the noise of the crowd, the food, striking up conversations with strangers, cheering and heckling. I can’t ever really focus on the game for 9 straight innnings like I do at home with Tivo and zoomed-in shots. I get distracted by so many other things – which is fun and a critical part of being a baseball fan. In that context, clearly a superior park yields a superior experience.

It costs money and takes effort to get out to a game, especially if you’re taking a family. The jaunt out to Baltimore (from DC) cost about $200 by the time you factor in gas, parking, 4 tickets, food – and we were in the nosebleed seats. What is going to motivate a family to spend that kind of cash/energy/time? It’s fair to say that we want what we’re paying for – an entire entertainment experience.

I know that new ballparks are not financially beneficial for towns who spring for them—even places like Oriole Park. I understand this is a business and that hometown loyalties run deep. I also know that there is a streak of fatalism and grittiness in A’s fandom that holds these imperfections as proof of our devotion. But sitting in Camden Yard, with that tasty dog (really, how hard would it be to get decent food?) in the warm evening with a great third deck view I felt like I was getting some value for my money – even if I had to lug home a ridiculous Markakis bobblehead.

I just don’t buy that we’re doomed to low attendence, even with an old park. They just need to be creative and deliver the best overall product they can.