The Roof is on Fire

The retractable roof should never be open again during a Colts game. The open roof hurt the home team on at least three plays this afternoon. Each play took place early in the game while the sun was shining directly on the field.

1. Silva is back deep to recieve the punt. He is forced to shield his eyes from the incredibly bright sun. He takes his eye off the ball and muffs the punt before recovering his own mistake.

2. The very next play Manning drops back and fires a bomb into the sunlight and light wind. The pass is off-target and Garcon fails to make the adjustment. The sun and wind made the play tougher for both Manning and Garcon. It should have been an easy touchdown.

3. Later in the game Manning throws for Clark in the endzone. Clark loses the ball in the sunlight. He looks utterly confused as to where the ball could be, and can't make the adjustment.

I'm a little confused, too. The Colts played in the RCA Dome for over 20 years. Opposing fans mocked us for playing in a vacuum-sealed 72 degrees and alway-sunny environment. Colts fans ignored the criticism because the team won an overwhelming majority of its home games. Manning thrived in the controlled conditions, and that's all that mattered. Then it came time to build the new stadium. Someone, I don't know who, thought it would be neat if the buiding featured a $100 million retractable roof. I think this was a huge mistake.

Look, the roof is cool. I'll be the first to admit it. But the city and state couldn't afford it. And more important, to me at least, are the difficult playing conditions it creates. Today there was a decent wind, as evidenced by the championship banners blowing constantly to the north. The sunlight was only on the field for about a quarter and a half, but in that short time it made an impact. Keep in mind that it isn't a natural light the Colts are dealing with. It isn't as if the entire field is bathed in light. The shadow/light effect has always had a negative effect on athletic competition. Today it was as if the endless fires of hell were located directly above the ten yard line on the north end of the stadium. The rest of the field was in shadow. Unacceptable.

Here's the deal: If Polian, Caldwell, and Manning are fine with the open roof then so be it. I strongly doubt they are. I want to know who is making the "open or closed" call. It smacks of politics, to me. We spent a ton of money on the roof. What if word got out that the Colts wanted it closed each week? Imagine the firestorm from the public. 10% unemployment and we just wasted $100 million on a roof we don't even want? Well, I'm sorry. It nearly cost them the game today.

And it wasn't just today. I thought the roof was a clear factor in the Jacksonville game, as well. Clark lost a deep ball in the sun, and Manning seemed to be struggling with it at times. After today, it is time to start asking pointed questions. If the Colts agree that the sunlight is having an impact then we need to close the damn roof and keep it closed.

Comments (23) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by Dave_H, November 01, 2009

I'd like that 100 mil back too. Oh well. Casey Irsay will likely be middle aged and in charge before we have to even consider doing any renovations to the place.
I could be wrong, but the place looks like it is good to go for along time.

...
written by DZ, November 01, 2009

The stadium is beautiful, but the roof is a bit of a boondoggle. It's cool and all, but $100 million extra for something that causes an unnatural problem seems ridiculous.

The weird 'open roof' shadows are causing a problem. This isn't the first game we've seen it. The roof needs to stay closed for 1 PM games.

...
written by 35er, November 01, 2009

I think they can still make use of the roof albeit not as much, they just need to choose better times to open it. Night games would be a great time to open it as long as the weather is clear. And I'm not sure but do they ever do 4:15 games at Indy?

...
written by Willy Duer, November 01, 2009

As noted in another post, Garcon didn't lose the ball in the sun - he was looking north (running south). The sun was shining from the other direction.

Everyone is free to have an opinion about the value of the roof vs the money spent - I agree that it's basically just an expensive toy - but the decision is made before the game with the impact on the game in mind, not for any other political reason.

This is kind of a dumb complaint. Most football stadiums are outdoors. The sun is routinely present in those games as well, and end zone seats often cast shadows over parts of the field just as the southern end of this roof does. It's just a bit odd now in November, when the clocks changed and the angles are different later in the year. But I'm not sure anyone really anticipated having November open-roof games. Anyway, it's not like the sun's presence or position was a surprise to anyone either. They had time to prepare for it.

...
written by DemondSanders, November 02, 2009

It's kind of a stupid complaint until it loses you a game.

"As noted in another post, Garcon didn't lose the ball in the sun - he was looking north (running south). The sun was shining from the other direction."

The ball was coming out of the sun and into the shadow, which is not a fun effect. I think the bigger issue is what the sun did to Manning who is staring directly into it, trying to hit a guy 50 yards downfield.

Most importantly: I realize the "well it affects both teams argument." I should have addressed it better in the post. The point is this: We have Manning and the much better team. When you are the better team you want to control the elements as much as posssible. This is because the other team's chances of winning are largely based on something going wrong. Multiple times. It isn't an issue of preparation, who the sun affects is blind luck. Which is an element I don't want involved in my Colts games.

"If Polian, Caldwell, and Manning are fine with the open roof then so be it."
written by kasey_junk, November 02, 2009

The Colts organization has full control of the decision of when to open the roof or not. I can't find a source right now, but that is how it always has been.

They are in a bit of a no win situation with the roof at this point. If they hadn't opened it yesterday everyone would be screaming that it was a waste of money. Now people are screaming about it impacting play.

On the topic of whether it was worth $100 million I don't have much of an opinion. I love going to the Luke when the roof is open, it makes for a much better fan experience.

If they are going to fix something about the fan experience at the stadium (that they can actually fix now) I would say they need to do a better job of working the scoreboards and showing us highlights. Whoever mans those things needs to be fired.

...
written by DemondSanders, November 02, 2009

"Anyway, it's not like the sun's presence or position was a surprise to anyone either. They had time to prepare for it."

Wily: How does one prepare for bright light burning into your retinas? Maybe you could fill Silva, Manning, and Clark in.

Look, I'm just saying the question needs to be asked by the media. Is the sun a negative factor? If it is we should close the roof during 1:00 games.

(And remember the sun was in their eyes in September too, so it is not just a November thing.)

Open roof from a TV viewer
written by Doug England, November 02, 2009

Living down here in Florida, I watch all the Colts games on TV. So far this season, the Colts have played three home games. Of those three games, the roof was open for the Jacksonville and 49ers games. The Jags game was in September, and viewing it on TV was terrible for the first half bacause of the lighting and shadows created.

And it was the same yesterday. I haven't noticed this problem on any other telecasts that feature strically outdoor stadiums, so obviously it is only a factor with the unique way the sun shines through the roof at the Luke.

So it is terrible for TV viewing and throw in the fact that it could randomly effect the play of the game... so the roof is open why?

...
written by DemondSanders, November 02, 2009

Thanks for the thoughts, Doug. After coming home I watched the first quarter on tv to make sure I wasn't crazy. I noticed the weird EXTREMELY BRIGHT / EXTREMELY DARK transition.

"They are in a bit of a no win situation with the roof at this point. If they hadn't opened it yesterday everyone would be screaming that it was a waste of money. Now people are screaming about it impacting play."

Yup. Exactly my point. It is a political thing. I just want to hear it confirmed from Polian or most importantly Manning (and the recievers). Simple question: is the open roof an issue on certain plays?

The scoreboard/highlight situation has been ridiculous for many years...

...
written by jdb, November 02, 2009

Right on! I mean... the Cowboys have sucked for years because of odd shadows and light from the hole they had in their roof. All the games they lost because of that... imagine the dynasty they could have had instead of the failed Aikman/Smith/Irvin years.

If players can't handle some shadows and a breeze, they should be playing Arena Football.

Open Roof = home field advantage
written by Go Horse!, November 02, 2009

IMO, it's like dead spots on a basketball court or a rim that has a unique "bounce" to it. As you play with those oddities, the home team is going to adjust to it. It's not an advantage today, but it will be in a couple years.

...
written by DZ, November 02, 2009

The point is that the shadows at LOS are weirder and more inconsistent than on other fields. The roof is different than the one at Dallas. There are lots more sun, shadow, sun, shadow spots where the ball moves in and out of sunlight.

Most fields have sun spots and shadow spots, but LOS has a weird pattern that makes it tougher than a normal open air field.

...
written by DemondSanders, November 02, 2009

My point is simple: does it bother Peyton, Reggie, and Dallas? If the answer is yes, then we shut it. That's all I care about.

Don't shoot me bulls**t about how everyone deals with it because I don't care about other teams. I'm concerned with the Colts and Manning. He's the best player in the league and in my opinion you should go out of your way to make sure he is playing in optimal conditions at home.

...
written by DemondSanders, November 02, 2009

Thanks to DZ for pointing me to this Peter King quote: "I think I'd bet a Jim Sorgi autographed football that the retractable roof will be closed for early games in Indianapolis from here on out, after what we saw in the first half of the 49ers-Colts game. With the sun shining brightly on the end zone and the Colts driving for a touchdown, Peyton Manning threw a catchable ball to Dallas Clark -- only he never saw it. Sun got in his eyes."

...
written by Attila, November 02, 2009

The punt returner could use next time a Darth Vader helmet, like LT does.

...
written by Zackasaurus Rex, November 02, 2009

Watching the game from home, I was annoyed by the open roof. I would certainly prefer if it were shut for early games in the future. But then again, I may have just been scapegoating the roof for the fact that the Colts were down.

However, Silva probably got more yards attempting to chase down his muffed punt than he did while milling around and waiting to be tackled on his other returns (yes, this is a sarcastic comment ... I realize it is probably not factually accurate).

...
written by Willy Duer, November 02, 2009

If Peyton complained about the roof, they'd close it.

And PK wins taht stupid bet anyway. It's November. Unless it's unseasonably nice again next week, there's almost no chance the roof is open anyway.

To whoever said it was open for 2 games: It has been open for all 3 home games this year.

I will agree that the shadows are pretty awful, given the giant supports across the middle creating stripes, but I think part of it is that all three 1pm home games this year have also been with the Fox and CBS D-teams. The productions have been awful. I think they're just bad at setting their levels. Other stadiums have shadows too - Irving was a great example - and the TV coverage has been much better. This wasn't a huge issue last year when the Jags-Colts game was between two high profile (at the time) teams, and wasn't the Ravens blowout also an open roof game? TV on that was fine, IIRC.

I'm watching my RZC replay right now and they just showed the Clark play. Dallas certainly lost it in the sun, but it was a pretty awful call. I understand why Peyton would want to throw a lollipop there, but they need to be smart enough not to make that kind of call on that end of the field then.

Wily: How does one prepare for bright light burning into your retinas? Maybe you could fill Silva, Manning, and Clark in.

Duh. Maybe by practicing outside?

If you want to complain about the roof being a waste of money, I'm not going to argue with you. But it's not open because of politics, and football gets played outside in the sun all the time.

As a fan, I'm glad for the chances they get in a wintery climate to play outdoors without making me uncomfortable as a fan, just as I'll be glad next month attending home games under a roof instead of out in the cold and snow. But it's not that big a deal. I'd still be plenty satisfied with games at the RCA Dome too. In fact, I preferred them.

$100 million? Really?
written by PatrickD, November 02, 2009

Where did you get the figure that making the roof retractable added $100 million to the cost of the stadium? Or is that just what you've heard and you just pass it on without a second thought?

http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=111&ArticleID=49760
According to that article from the Indiana Business Journal, the ENTIRE roof including the supporting structure cost $100 million.

It's difficult to completely untangle the cost of the roof from the rest of the facility. The steel that went into making the roof and supports the structure cost $83.2 million. The parts and labor for the moving components of the roof and retractable window on the stadium's north end cost $15.6 million. The annual maintenance budget for the roof is $270,000, with another $30,000 allocated for the window.

So it's $15.6 million for the "moving" part of the roof and $83.2 million to support the roof. If they used a regular roof instead, you'd still need to spend the $80+ million for the supports. If you really wanted to save that $100 million, then there would have been NO roof and the complaints about the sun and wind would still be there.

...
written by DemondSanders, November 02, 2009

Practicing outside would not help because playing at LOS isn't like playing outside. But, again, I don't think there's a mysterious recipe for catching a ball in blinding light. This isn't a lack of practice issue.

The Clark replay is pretty hilarious. He looks totally mystified -- throws his hands up a second after the ball has already landed behind him.

As far as Peyton complaining... I'm definitely keeping my ears open. Will be listening to the Polian show to see if it is mentioned. I think it is a lose/lose for Peyton. If he says something it sounds like whining. I think the veteran receivers are the ones who are going to have speak up (Reggie and Clark).

...
written by DemondSanders, November 02, 2009

Patrick,

1.) I've read and linked to that very article in the past. Putting an exact dollar cost on the roof is impossible... which is the entire point that paragraph is making. For you to say the retractable element only cost $15 million is misleading and inaccurate.

2.) As I said in the post: it's not about the money to me. It's about Manning.

3.) The sun would not be nearly as big of an issue in an open-air stadium. The bulk of the problem is the unnatural shadow/light/shadow effect.

...
written by Willy Duer, November 02, 2009

I'm not trying to say that there was some way that Clark would've magically been able to see that ball, but there are plenty of other stadiums that have funky shadows. Baseball outfielders contend with this issue all the time, as do football teams in stadiums with upper decks behind the end zones. It's not a problem in a place like Pittsburgh, but the Meadowlands for a 4pm game isn't too different from LOS because of the upper deck.

The NFL actually has rules about the direction a stadium can face for this reason. I believe one of the more recent constructions had to get an exemption so it could sit more east-west. Can't remember where I read that. Or maybe it was that east/west is OK because the sun is to the south, and that LOS is N-S only because it's a "dome." I can't remember now.

Anyway, they opened it knowing full well the sun would be where it was. The issue then is with the decision to throw a lollipop pass to the back of the end zone, and/or to choose that end of the field after the 49ers chose to take the kickoff.

I don't think Patrick was saying for sure it's $15m, only making the point that $15 is just as accurate as the $100 figure previously being used. I think the real take home issue from that post is that steel is way too goddamn expensive.

...
written by DemondSanders, November 03, 2009

"Anyway, they opened it knowing full well the sun would be where it was."

Nope. As Bill Polian pointed out... this was the first time they've had it open AFTER THE TIME CHANGE.

Read Polian's thoughts on both the sun and wind. Case closed. I was right because BP says so.

“It does cause some problems. First of all, we had never played a game with the roof open in the daytime in standard time. All of the games we played with the roof open have been in Eastern Daylight Time. Of course, the sun is a lot different in standard time than it is in daylight time. As a result, we didn't know where the sun would be. We found out Sunday that it's vastly different from what our experience previously had been. You might very well in future games if the window were open elect to defend the goal so that's not an issue early in the game. It abated by the second half, so you'd worry about the first and second quarters. We learned a lesson from that.”

my rant
written by Scott P, November 05, 2009

I've got to side with kasey_junk who said "I love going to the Luke when the roof is open, it makes for a much better fan experience."

The #1 reason that the new stadium was built to provide a better fan experience for NFL games. If it's a nice day or night, they need to open the roof no matter what & the teams must deal with the sun, wind accordingly. The stadium was not built solely to help the home team win.

More from kasey "If they are going to fix something about the fan experience at the stadium (that they can actually fix now) I would say they need to do a better job of working the scoreboards and showing us highlights."

I agree. The number of replays shown is good but we get no highlights from other NFL games & there have no areas of the scoreboards/big screens solely dedicated to the other scores. When they do show other scores, why do they bother to include 4pm & night games when the Colts are playing a 1pm game? Just give us the current game scores!

And while I'm on this soapbox, here's my biggest pet peeve-- add some tables in open areas of the concourses! At every level, I see people sitting on the floor eating. There are plenty of open spaces in the wide concourses where no one is walking so why not put a few tables for diners to sit or stand at? Besides the Club area & about a dozen stand-up tables in the Bud Light Fan Zone, there are no other tables in the place.