Why Doesn't MetLife Stadium Have A Roof? "They" Have An Anserr
Excerpt: "The question has been asked around North Jersey for years, and no doubt visitors from Denver and Seattle today will ask the same thing: "If they wanted to have a Super Bowl so badly, why didn't they put a retractable roof on MetLife Stadium?"
The answer ultimately comes down to who "they" are.
Had leaders of the New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority at the time had their way, the 4-year-old stadium at the Meadowlands Sports Complex would be capped against inclement weather, a feature that would have turned it into all-year venue.
But owners of the Giants and Jets, the two NFL franchises that built and paid for the new $1.6 billion stadium, would have none of it.
First, they said, they saw an added advantage for their teams in playing late-season games outdoors against opponents less accustomed to harsh weather.
And then, of course, there was the added expense.
"We looked at it at a point in time, but it was so cost-prohibitive that it just wasn't worth it," Giants co-owner John Mara said after a Manhattan news conference on Monday. "For the limited number of additional events you might get, it's not worth it." Read more...
As much as I like the football in the elements thing, I think it was a dumb decision to not include a retractable roof...key word retractable. No reason you couldn't leave it open when it was to teams advantage.
Wouldn't that be unethical?
Originally Posted by keyofgmen
I don't know about that. Both teams play the games under the same conditions and nobody gets an unfair advantage. But then what's the point of having a roof if you're going to leave it open when the weather is bad? Or when the weather is good? Just so you can host a Super Bowl every 10-15 years? That would have been a waste of money.
Originally Posted by RoanokeFan
There's no place for indoor football in the NFC East. (Or the AFC East, for that matter but who cares.)