I think it was Jim Crane that mentioned financially the April home games aren't as profitable with kids still in school. The southern or dome teams don't want that many home dates in April. So there is more to it beyond just playing in the south/dome stadiums in April.
Well then... you play craps? You're not wrong at all. The **** all falls on the players, but that's what they signed up for. But it ****s up the game, that's all I'm talking about. And the players' health. And the fans... Those THREE things....
And will they still be whining/complaining about it another 100 years from now? Especially since all these cold weather cities are building new open air stadiums.... jeez, 100million dollars more for a moveable roof is a drop in the bucket, big picture wise... to prevent future frigid April's and September's. Plus, there will never be another homer-dome type moment with the homer-hanky.... just wait till a future Twins WS game gets snowed out or moved to Milwaukee.
Dunno, we were just were just goofing around watching things...lot's of things can change in 100 years or more/less: Who should we burn?
For this issue, its been discussed a few times already (probably every year where somebody complains about the scheduling)... every new stadium built in a city that has inclement climate patterns is mandated to have a retractable roof. For the most part, they don't get added on due to money... and yet as soon as there's a wave of PPD - weather, cities wonder why they didn't just add one on. The new Yankee Stadium should have had one (and was originally designed with one). The new Twins stadium the same way. Lets forgo existing stadium remodels for now, but there were plans in KC dating back to the original construction of how a moveable roof could have accommodated both adjacent KC stadiums. They looked into one in Arlington, but that desperate pisshole will do anything to retain a MLB team, they're bending over backwards to just build a new one. Couldn't care less about NFL stadiums having them (most just keep them closed anyways, or see Atlanta where they can't even figure out how to fix it and its brand new)... but baseball cannot and should not be played in bad weather. And yet over the last 10 years, more NFL stadiums have been built with retractable roofs than MLB stadiums....unacceptable.
Thanks. Wasn't really trying to have an argument... just trying to find an alternative solution since scheduling most games in south/domes to start the first few weeks of the season will never be an accepted option by the franchises. All this being said, I expect the Astros bats to wake up in the frigid weather...
Is it me or concerning weather/sports...does it seem like ZERO responsibility falls on the fan to dress accordingly? Like it's no one's fault if you show up in shorts and T-shirts for a damp, 50 degree game. The Texans are the worst about this (and side note, we have to bring long-sleeves to battle the a/c when it's 104 degrees outside) acting like fans just couldn't handle it....well, maybe they're right.
The roof hasn't been open there in 2 years, and only is open on the best of the best days (if at all)... not sure why it would be harder for fans to figure that out.
I can kinda get some teams like the NY teams or the Cubs and Red Sox that either have bajillion year old stadiums or have always played outdoors, but I still have no idea why the Twins built an open-air stadium. I get the whole new stadium thing but why not give it a damn roof? Minnesota is a strange place, where they play football indoors and baseball in the freezing rain.
Funny thing is, the climate trends so far are pointing towards harsher winters east of the rockies, and hotter summers west of it. IE: that 100 degree WS game 1 in LA, with us getting a couple inches of snow a few weeks later.
Believe me, sitting in 35 degree weather watching a baseball game at Target Field is much, much (insert infinite muches here) better than watching a baseball game at the Metrodome.
