Debate: Domes in the NFL

With new technology comes new territory, and the rise of domes in sports is becoming one of those proverbial gray areas. Sure, climate control seems like a utopian idea, but does it take the fun out of the sport? For baseball, I don’t think there’s any question, since playing in “bad” weather is hardly a viable option. The other sport we’ve seen a real rise in concerning domed stadiums is the National Football League, but is creating the perfect atmosphere taking a real element out of the game? Let’s discuss it a little further.

As of right now, five teams in the NFL play in completely enclosed stadiums, which include the Atlanta Falcons(Georgia Dome), New Orleans Saints(Louisiana Superdome), St. Louis Rams(Edward Jones Dome), Minnesota Vikings(Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome), and the Detroit Lions(Ford Field). Four other stadiums have a retractable roof because of variance in local weather, and those four are the Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, Indianapolis Colts, and Houston Texans. Realistically, we’re looking at almost a third of the NFL playing in stadiums that will no longer feature those monsoon and blizzard-esque games we watched growing up.

The question I present to you: Is that necessarily a bad thing? Some people have an intrinsic belief that football is a game that should be played in the elements, and that unique weather has been one of the shaping forces behind the game for quite some time. On the other hand, you have franchises who have traded in those snowy Sundays for seventy degrees, climate controlled of course.

With the exception of the Arizona Cardinals(the enclosure is a heat deterrent), these teams gain a comparative advantage in a few different categories. First, they avoid the injuries that often plague games in messy conditions. Secondly, they appease the fans, a majority of which do not attend sporting events to freeze in sub-zero(or in Arizona’s case, 100+) temperatures. Thirdly, their field won’t be subjugated to a ton of stress from players tearing up wet grass, and don’t have to worry about any kind of supports waivering in strong winds. Lastly, although this is a deeper part of the issue, is that their stats may or may not be realistic, depending on how you look at it. Players that avoid harsh conditions will tend to have stronger outputs on the offensive side of the ball, and that also includes kickers and punters on special teams.

Special teams? Absolutely. It may not be a franchise issue, but a punter with a net of 50 in Arizona may be nowhere near the caliber of a punter with a net of 45 in Pittsburgh. Since NFL fans, experts, and analysts rarely if ever account for weather conditions when comparing two or more players at face value, you can chalk this up to the laundry list of gray area points that we currently have been presented with.

On the other side, you have your traditionalists, who unlike baseball traditionalists(as in the ones who shun the truth Sabermetrics), do have an equally strong argument. More often than not, you’ll see the hardcore football fan side with this group, as the sport has been built on playing in weather no matter the circumstance. To these people, removing weather is like removing the center from the offensive line – the game just won’t work. Fans in Green Bay and Buffalo pack the stadiums in tight, regardless of their small market, and seem to almost revel in bad conditions. The amount of shirts removed per game in these stadiums seems to be inversely related with the current temperature, and as a franchise owner, keeping the fans entertained and happy is one of your main concerns. The profit margin in sports is an incontrovertible force that can mean the difference between a team in Baltimore and a team in Indianapolis, and one of the main drivers behind profits is the fan base.

Once you step outside of the “on-field” spectrum, more points unfold for both sides. For starters, stadiums like Heinz Field, Ralph Wilson Stadium, and Soldier Field have become synonymous with the sport - Lucas Oil Stadium hasn’t exactly grabbed fans the same way. On the other hand, these domed and retractable stadiums are becoming big-time draws for other venues, which can mean some serious buku bucks. Any non-believers can consult this extensive list.

Already, we’re beginning to see a trend in the argument – dollar signs versus traditional football. I don’t know if “selling the soul” would resonate with the former, but the latter would see it as so. But, to remain fair, let me present a final point that has to be presented.

Dome teams in the NFL just aren’t very successful in the end game. Call it a fluke, call it a statistical enigma, call it whatever you want. Kerry Byrne did a phenomenal job of summarizing the struggles of these teams, but I’ll try to highlight the main talking point: The combined record of the three playoff teams still alive this season in the Colts, Saints, and Vikings since moving into domes is 8-21. Even worse, they’re 7-19 on the road. And yes, an inverse relationship does exist with how they play in climate controlled stadiums, enjoying a ton of more success when they’re used to their elements – or lack thereof.

Sorting through this debate does require your thinking cap, but I want to hear your take. Should all NFL teams try and implement domed or retractable structures? Do these structures have any place in Football, and has it ruined the integrity of the game? Or, are you fine with some teams enjoying the climate control, while others stick to their roots, even though the statistical imbalances continue to occur?