What? They want a retractable roof for a stadium in Southern California? Are they insane? Don't they know it never snows and never rains. A roof makes no sense at all.

Does the NFL have some money invested in a retractable roof for stadiums company? Why would LA and Miami need roofs for their teams? I guess Miami might be hit with a hurricane but couldn't they just move the game to Friday night like they did a few years ago?

Yet the new Meadowlark Stadium is fine without one?

For this stadium a roof makes perfect sense. First of all the air in LA is disgusting and needs to be filtered ;). Secondly and more seriously it needs a roof because the stadium's primary purpose will be as a larger convention space for the LA convention center.

Why is it my responsibility to educate every loon on these message boards? Can't you do your own research, people? Sigh.

The reason there will be a roof on the stadium is because it will double as convention space and a venue for indoor events such as Final Four basketball and mega-concerts.

The roof will not be closed for football games. The roof will not be closed for football games. The roof will not be closed for football games.

Sheesh.

@Dan - fair enough, I never thought of either the pollution or it doubling as convention centre space.

That said - do you find it a tad questionable that everywhere the NFL even seems to consider a future Super Bowl destination requires either a roof or a new roof?

The traditional Super Bowl locations have been in the Sun Belt and besides a freak ice storm in Atlanta in 2000 the weather - to the best of what I've seen - has remained pretty good. Always perfect? Maybe not. Horrible playing conditions? Can't think of many.

So why the push?

Not really. While Football was once a game of "tough guys" who played on the "Frozen Tundra" it is not anymore. The NFL brass want the Superbowl to be played in comfortable and predictable conditions for the attendees and players despite the locale. That's why to this day the Superdome remains one of their preferred Superbowl venues despite being one of the NFL's older stadiums. And that's why they want roofs on venues like Joe Robbie Stadium in Florida. LA having a roof would just be a nice bonus for a Superbowl but the main use would be for the convention/alternate use space

After studying this for over a year now... What I think is happening now is that AEG is making a play to get an NFL team before Roski can. Phillip isn't convinced about building a downtown arena, I think they want to a QB sneak on the NFL and get awarded a team then say, "We don't have the funding to build our stadium" and force Roski's hand into giving AEG a sweet-heart co-lease for the Industry Stadium which means 2 NFL teams would come to L.A. I'm still on the fence that it will be the Chargers and Raiders that will move to L.A. to Industry, AEG just wants in on the cash. The stadiums they're proposing will cost around 2 billion dollars, and no way that gets built. Especially if the head-honcho of AEG isn't even sure to give up the money. Roski and his group are shovel-ready but just need a team but AEG is doing back-door dealings so they can get in on this business... It just smells too fishy especially after how crappy the designs are for the stadium. None of them look like they have an actually retractable roof. None of them make sense in how you could actually build one.

I get that the NFL wants to have a comfortable environment with optimal conditions giving the Super Bowl the opportunity to be the best game of the year. It also goes without saying that having the game in great weather is going to promote people moving around outside and enjoying a city rather than being cooped up and not. Unsure of what the spinoffs were in Detroit in 2006.

But is a roof all that necessary in Miami in February?

And I'm not being rhetorical - it's a sincere question. First time I went to LA was end of December and I was shocked how cold it felt down there (I'm from Canada) and I've never been to Miami.

So is it that necessary that it needs to be added for the cost it will run? Same thing with a new stadium in Atlanta with a new roof. The NFL has apparently stated they will not return for a Super Bowl in Atlanta until there's a new stadium with a roof.

LA - I get it, multipurpose facility.

Seems a tad extreme that they won't go back to any of these places that for the most part should offer pleasant enough weather that fans won't be subjected to an experience comparable to the Tundra of Lambeau Field.

So is this a pattern we're seeing or is there something else that's pushing the NFL's demand for roofed stadiums?

I think the NFL is looking for domed stadiums "because we can."

Meanwhile, if L.A. really thinks that a domed stadium is going to create a windfall for its convention business, they should read this first:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/sanders.html

Six words: Five time champion Los Angeles 49ers.

I mean, it's a win-win. The 49ers get a new stadium, taxpayers don't get screwed, and the 49ers get a spot in the second largest fan-base in the country.

Those stadium designs suck hard. I could do something more interesting in sketchup.

Bob, I said this on my blog years ago. I still believe the Niners Santa Clara deal will fall through and they're headed to La La Land.

Joe,

I hope you're right about the Niners moving to LA. One thing not to forget though, they do have a lease for their Santa Clara headquarters for $24K a year for 11 acres of city land (less than 5% of the FMV).

It would be like you having a $50 a month rent on a townhouse. They will probably expect some other like deal from another sucker city if they do move.

Joe, SANTA CLARA JAY

I really hope the 49ers leave the Bay Area. It's so sad to see a place with so much potential and culture be polluted by something as foul and uncultured as professional sports. Go up to any child in the Bay Area and I guarantee you he won't be able to name any impressionist painters or Nobel Prize winners, but he'll be able to tell you the names of all of the 49ers wide receivers.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying that Los Angeles is less cultured. I'm just saying that, given its relationship with the entertainment industry and its size, it would be more suitable for professional sports.

Bob,

I get your point, and mostly agree with you about pro sports dumbing down our culture, but my 10 year old son doesn't know who any of the 49ers are but can name all the principal dancers in SF Ballet...