Wednesday, May 5, 2010


For all of the whining about the Minnesota Twins building and open-air stadium, they haven't had so much as a rain delay in their 11 home games so far.  The coldest game-time temperature was 52 degree for a sunny afternoon game.

I think that a roof on a stadium is something that you overvalue if you have and is sour grapes if you don't.  Plenty of colder climate teams have been able to draw fans.  Cleveland sold out their stadium for something like three straight years after it opened - the same team that had to play a series in Milwaukee because of the snow a few years ago.  I have never liked the confined feeling I get at Miller Park and my preference would be to not have a roof.  But I don't have to drive three hours to get there either, so I understand the appeal for the people who do.

I'm not advocating tearing the roof off of Miller Park.  The headline was too catchy to pass on.  But I'm just sayin'; if I had to do it over again I'd do what the Twins did.

1 comment:

Scott Segrin said...

An emailer writes:

"There wouldn't be a team left in Milwaukee if the Brewers hadn't gotten public financing for a new stadium, and that wouldn't have happened for a stadium without a roof."

Perhaps that's true. But perhaps an open-air stadium could have been built without public financing. Maybe that would have been a way for the Brewers to approach this. "We'll build and pay for a stadium. If you guys want a roof on it, you guys pay for the roof."

My bigger point though is that I prefer the atmosphere of an open-air stadium. I get why some stadiums have roofs. I just don't like going to them as much. I also think the value of a roof is sometimes overblown.

Blogged Blog Directory