Were there any teams that have played in indoor stadiums who didn't need to?

[PeteU]

This includes stadiums with retractable roofs. The threat of periodic inclemant or uncomfortable weather is a threat in nearly all markets. But were there any teams who have played indoors that really did not need a stadium with a fixed or retractable roof?

The list of teams that have played indoors at some point in their history:

Astros (Astrodome/Minute Maid Park)
Mariners (Kingdome/Safeco Field)
Expos (Olympic Stadium)
Twins (Metrodome)
Blue Jays (Skydome)
Diamondbacks (The BOB)
Rays (The Trop)
Brewers (Miller Park)
Marlins (Marlins Park)

Of that list, perhaps Milwaukee could slide most without the need for a roof, although I think the lake effect snow in early April/Late October could still be an issue.

Had New York followed through with their proposals of retractable roof stadiums for the Yankees and/or Mets back in the late 1990s/early 2000s, I think that probably would be superfluous.

There are a few places in football that probably don't need to be indoors, but I think were built with the prospect of attracting a Super Bowl or Final Four. (See Indy, Dallas).

[milladrive]

Football's an autumn/winter sport, so I would think it would benefit most of the teams in the north to play indoors.

As for baseball, the only ones I think that can have the roof open on that list are those in the southern U.S., and only when the weather/temperature is tolerable, like in the beginning and end of the seasons. For instance, Miami could've easily had their roof open this past Friday night, when the weather in southern Florida was virtually perfect. However, for most games in Miami, I think the roof should be closed due to the high humidity, which makes for a very uncomfortable heat index, not to mention the often-strong winds blowing in off the Atlantic in Marlins Park.

As for the Southwest, the D'backs can and should, imho, have their roof open for each and every night game throughout the season. Same goes for the 'Stros. Summer nights in both Phoenix and Houston are quite comfortable, especially in Phoenix.

:twocents:

[Chevy114]

If the twins can play outside, I don't think snow should be considered a reason to have a roof. Then again I can't fault teams cause hasn't Milwaukee played host to teams who run into jams in the past?

Its hard for me to say baseball should be indoors beause its a summer sport that for years was only played outdoors, but times change and I'm sure every inventor of a sport would want it to be as well thought out and as advanced as possible.

[jnakamura]

IMO the only places you absolutely need a roof are places with extreme summer heat (Florida, Arizona, Houston) and places that it rains a lot in the spring and fall (Seattle, Portland). Everyplace else it's not really a need.

[DrBear]

There is one other factor. In a large city, you wouldn't have as much need of a roof as most of your ticketholders come from a relatively small area and can make other arrangements in case of a rainout. However, for smaller market teams who must draw from a larger geographic area, a roof makes it a sure thing that a game will be played, and people who must drive two hours or more are more likely to buy tickets in advance. I once went to Boston on vacation and bought tickets to two Brewers-Red Sox games, only to have the first one rained out. Since I wouldn't be in Boston again, I was out the price of that ticket, since I had no use for a rain check. And that was in 1986. With today's ticket prices, an outlying fan isn't about to put out big bucks for what may be a rain check he can't use.