this also applies to tennis and football stadiums.
2007-07-25 21:37:42 · 10 answers · asked by jor-jor 5 in Sports ➔ Baseball
well if im not mistaken the mlb outlawed retractable roofs. i live in seattle and safeco field has had numerous problems with there roof and has actually had a rain delay or 2. football doesnt have them because it takes away from what football is, you play no matter what. i dont know why that is though.
as for tennis, some stadiums do have retractable roofs. in fact the old england club is installing a roof for there center court, who knew they would change anything.
2007-07-25 21:50:42 · answer #1 · answered by Max 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In one word: economics. It simply cost more money to build a roof or retractable roof on a stadium. Most franchises cannot afford the added costs of applying a roof to a stadium. Also, it is a fairly recent trend/technology. It is easier to sacrifice the few rained out games that may occur and simply reschedule. Now, certain cities warrant stadiums with roofs or retractable roofs. Minnesota for example. If the Twins did not play in a dome they might not be able to play a home game until the middle of May due to the cold and the constant threat of snow. Likewise, Tampa Bay plays along the Gulf Coast which statistically sees more rain per year than any other region of the country. So there is greater likelihood that more of their 81 home games might be rained out.
2007-07-25 21:53:54 · answer #2 · answered by wildcat617 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The stadiums with the retractable roofs
Safeco Field - Seattle
Minute Maid Park (formerly Enron Field) - Houston
Chase Park (former Bank One Park) - Arizona
Rogers Center (formerly Skydome) - Toronto
2007-07-28 17:53:59 · answer #3 · answered by jilted 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Retractable roofs are darn expensive.
Of the five coming ML parks -- both New Yorks, Oakland, Minnesota, and Washington -- none have retractable roofs included.
2007-07-26 03:00:13 · answer #4 · answered by Chipmaker Authentic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm glad they don't.......................... for me, part of the enjoyment of being at a baseball game is just sitting out in the sun, or at least fresh air, and relaxing. Yes, there's always a few rain delays/postponements, but there's usually not that much of a promblem with it at the end of the year. As for football, I think a lot of teams play outside and think that they have a bit more of an advantage over the visiting team. Teams such as Green Bay and Buffalo love playing home games in the middle of December!
2007-07-26 01:16:26 · answer #5 · answered by Chris 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Max, Seattle's roof failed once--in it's first year of operation. It works great and should be applied to all stadiums, especially the New NY ones
2007-07-25 23:18:36 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They also prevent natural turf growth.. and more importantly, revenue (someone has to pay for the expense and that is the people who come to the games). That expense can equal an additional $4-5 per ticket to a game over several years. Are you willing to pay it? Then add the expense of a free agency player to get you to pay it if you wouldn't come to games before.. these things are paid for by you and me, the fans, not teams. If you ask for it, be willing to shell out your portion to pay for it.
2007-07-25 22:00:40 · answer #7 · answered by EnormusJ69 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
now milwaukee still has a retractable roof........i agree that they should have them because it will stop rain delays.....but some stadums arent meant for them.....and there can be alot of hassle if you do have one
2007-07-26 01:49:08 · answer #8 · answered by eastsi11 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It cost more money to build and maintain
2007-07-26 02:00:30 · answer #9 · answered by Victor A 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea they all should but i think it cost a lot of money
2007-07-29 13:37:18 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋