NFL NFL Stadiums Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Dirty Bird

Pokémon Master
Aug 1, 2010
33,662
20,996
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
#BostonStrong #RiseUp
Feels like Adelaide Oval

Maintaining history but elevating the fan experience.

PLUS - It keeps it well located. Chicago is a city of 10 million people spanning across 16 counties (12IL, 2IN, 2WI). Moving it to the North-West screws over the majority of the cities population. And besides the Atlanta Braves and San Francisco 49ers. What franchises have moved into a worse location this millenia?

If I were a Bears fan and they were gonna move out to Arlington I'd be pissed.
 

A11dAtP0w3R

Organising Trident's is my specialty
Oct 18, 2013
74,471
97,889
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Carolina Panthers
What a disgrace SF is. Might as well call them Moscow 49ers.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

deck

Premiership Player
Aug 7, 2004
4,529
2,613
Melburn
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Liverpool, SF 49ers, FSU
What a disgrace SF is. Might as well call them Moscow 49ers.
Most the fan base comes from that way. I doubt less than 20% of the fan base are worse off travel wise. Yet many more than that would be better off. Candlestick didn't have any good transport options and the best they got was the third st light rail that didn't open until the mid 2000's. And getting in and out by car was a nightmare. Not like they moved it to where it was harder for most people to get to.

Dallas playing outside of Dallas benefits in having a larger footprint of fans in proximity and access to the stadium. Same thing applies with New England.
 

A11dAtP0w3R

Organising Trident's is my specialty
Oct 18, 2013
74,471
97,889
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Carolina Panthers
Most the fan base comes from that way. I doubt less than 20% of the fan base are worse off travel wise. Yet many more than that would be better off. Candlestick didn't have any good transport options and the best they got was the third st light rail that didn't open until the mid 2000's. And getting in and out by car was a nightmare. Not like they moved it to where it was harder for most people to get to.

Dallas playing outside of Dallas benefits in having a larger footprint of fans in proximity and access to the stadium. Same thing applies with New England.

I was only muckin'.

I just hate that stadium after SB50 so look for any reason to s**t on it.
 

Dirty Bird

Pokémon Master
Aug 1, 2010
33,662
20,996
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
#BostonStrong #RiseUp
Actually surprised at how CLOSE Gillette Stadium is in relation to Boston.

In my head I thought it was half way to Providence, RI
 

GG.exe

Kylo was here
Sep 6, 2005
138,988
89,121
AFL Club
Fremantle
Against the players wishes, the Lions have gone to synthetic turf.

Also of note, the new black outline on the logo suggests Lions adding black again to their rumored uniform change.

 

GG.exe

Kylo was here
Sep 6, 2005
138,988
89,121
AFL Club
Fremantle
Because grass requires more maintenance and care, and an indoor grass field would mean major renovations to the lights inside the dome, so it's a high upfront cost and a high continued cost for the care and crews to care for the field. With turf, there isn't as much maintenance work so it's a higher upfront cost but lower cost down the line until you have to replace it again. Essentially, it's all about saving money.

It isn’t even about getting the grass to grow inside. The Lions don’t own that field. Ford Field is hosting a monster truck rally, a motocross race, and 3 concerts before the end of June. A grass surface would be ruined after one of those events. It’s just not practical for a lot of NFL stadiums to use grass because they host so many non-sporting events throughout the year and occasionally with very short turnaround.
 

GG.exe

Kylo was here
Sep 6, 2005
138,988
89,121
AFL Club
Fremantle
Ford Field is one of the stadiums that will be used in the USFL, so we'll get to see it soon.

Also, Ford Field will be one of the stadiums used for the World Cup, so with Fifa stipulating grass only fields, this will all be ripped up and then reinstalled after the WC
 

GG.exe

Kylo was here
Sep 6, 2005
138,988
89,121
AFL Club
Fremantle
The Raiders and Cardinals have dome stadiums and grass fields. They get around that dilemma by rolling their grass fields outdoors when not in use.

Obviously that's not going to be possible to adapt for a team in an older dome like the Saints. But the Cardinals stadium had that technology as recently as the mid-2000s. Any dome stadium built since then should've tried to adapt that model, yet only the Raiders (who are notoriously light on funds) elected to do so. Some teams (Vikings and Colts) had spacing concerns due to location, but there's no excuse as to why the Rams didn't do this.

Ford Field gets a pass because it was built before the Cardinals new stadium.

The Cardinals had it working back in 2006. Since then, the only team that followed their lead was the Raiders. We've seen at least 5 other dome stadiums built in that timeframe: Cowboys, Vikings, Falcons, Colts, and Rams. Of those 5, the Rams are the most confounding as to why they didn't adopt that rollout grass model.

SoFi's Field is apparently built below the surface level due to the close proximity to LAX, so a rollout plan wouldn't have been possible.
 

GG.exe

Kylo was here
Sep 6, 2005
138,988
89,121
AFL Club
Fremantle
At least they are moving away from the worse turf in slit film. Monofilament is supposed to be very grass like.

Good, ford field is having improved playing conditions. This is the best turf you can get currently.

Because they've been getting paid for 20 years to have that field installed and it's free money for them.

Ford Field gets a pass because it's older. Same with NRG Stadium (Texas) and especially Caesar's Superdome (Saints). But any stadium built after 2006 should've adapted to the rollout grass model once the Cardinals showed it was excellent.

Yeah some locations like Mercedes-Benz Stadium (Falcons) and U.S. Bank Stadium (Vikings) have spacing concerns that prevent the rollout grass model, but then you have the Rams that managed to burn $6M dollars on a new stadium yet didn't implement the rollout grass despite having plenty of space.

That's cool in the south, but some teams in the north go 3 or 4 months with below freezing temps and minimal sunlight.

NRG had grass and also has a roof that opens. It should still be possible.

And ford field is in the middle of the city, where would they roll it out to?

Not feasible without a new stadium (unless they did “upgrades” to get that mechanism in place.) For an owner it doesn’t make much fiscal sense which is why turf would be the choice in this case.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

drd23

Hall of Famer
Feb 28, 2009
35,484
32,264
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Baltimore Ravens, Atletico
Because you posted the exact same wrong thing in two threads
Against the players wishes, the Lions have gone to synthetic turf.
They already had turf - they are moving from slit-film (which is the worst kind) to a different kind of turf

AFAIK the only indoor fields that have regular grass fields are Arizona and Las Vegas
 

GG.exe

Kylo was here
Sep 6, 2005
138,988
89,121
AFL Club
Fremantle
No wonder the players didn't want it then.

I thought it was that but wasn't sure if I'd remembered that incorrectly.
But apparently this type of turf is better than other types of turf....but turf is still turf and its not feasible grass in an enclosed done built not to accommodate rolling grass in and out. We shall see - the field is being used in the xfl or usfl.
 

offtherails9

Norm Smith Medallist
May 30, 2012
5,717
7,049
-
AFL Club
Hawthorn
It's a complete joke that they play on that s**t. I really can't believe they still do. The PA need to start making this a main priority in their next negotiations. A slap in the face that these stadiums happily agree to install grass for the lame soccer cup but won't do the same for the NFL. The injury rate is sooo much higher on turf.

It is possible to make grass grow indoors, the technology is there. But I admire Vegas for doing what they did with their stadium, it's perfect.
 

Jatz

.
Sep 7, 2008
48,850
31,896
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Philadelphia Eagles
It's a complete joke that they play on that s**t. I really can't believe they still do. The PA need to start making this a main priority in their next negotiations. A slap in the face that these stadiums happily agree to install grass for the lame soccer cup but won't do the same for the NFL. The injury rate is sooo much higher on turf.

It is possible to make grass grow indoors, the technology is there. But I admire Vegas for doing what they did with their stadium, it's perfect.
Must get messy when the team/owner doesn't own the stadium though? How do you dictate those demands when they cater to more than just the team.
 

offtherails9

Norm Smith Medallist
May 30, 2012
5,717
7,049
-
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Must get messy when the team/owner doesn't own the stadium though? How do you dictate those demands when they cater to more than just the team.

Who else would own them, the city? I don't know about it enough.

The NFL is the king though when it comes to any stadium so it should be the case. Particularly for outdoor stadiums, what a disgrace.
 

A11dAtP0w3R

Organising Trident's is my specialty
Oct 18, 2013
74,471
97,889
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Carolina Panthers
Its just owners being greedy as per usual, they want year round events at their stadiums so using whatever is cheapest for upkeep.

Panthers players hate the turf also, Tepper gives no *s about their complaints, has his soccer and concerts at BOAS

 

A11dAtP0w3R

Organising Trident's is my specialty
Oct 18, 2013
74,471
97,889
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Carolina Panthers
The data supports the anecdotes you’ll hear from me and other players: artificial turf is significantly harder on the body than grass. Based on NFL injury data collected from 2012 to 2018, not only was the contact injury rate for lower extremities higher during practices and games held on artificial turf, NFL players consistently experienced a much higher rate of non-contact lower extremity injuries on turf compared to natural surfaces. Specifically, players have a 28% higher rate of non-contact lower extremity injuries when playing on artificial turf. Of those non-contact injuries, players have a 32% higher rate of non-contact knee injuries on turf and a staggering 69% higher rate of non-contact foot/ankle injuries on turf compared to grass.

 

A11dAtP0w3R

Organising Trident's is my specialty
Oct 18, 2013
74,471
97,889
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Carolina Panthers

Lies No GIF
 

A11dAtP0w3R

Organising Trident's is my specialty
Oct 18, 2013
74,471
97,889
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Carolina Panthers

1.3 Cost of artificial turf vs. grass injuries​

Artificial turf is generally installed as a cost-saving, functional enhancement to athletic facilities for its ability to host multiple sports on the same field with minimal repair time and lower maintenance costs in comparison to natural grass fields. A common misconception surrounding artificial turf is its zero-maintenance nature. While artificial turf certainly has a lower maintenance cost than natural grass, it still requires a substantial level of upkeep to maintain the surface. Examples of such maintenance include debris removal, sanitation and disinfection, watering for heat dispersion, field hardness testing and infill replacement, rake sweeping and dragging to maintain proper fiber alignment and G-max value, snow removal in the winter, and regular certification checks to ensure maintenance is keeping the field within specification parameters [20, 21]. Even with these maintenance requirements and their associated costs, artificial turf still remains a significantly more cost effective option in the long term.

An analysis conducted by a field turf industry representative comparing the cost differential for an artificial versus natural grass 80,000 square foot field notes this cost disparity. Whereas artificial turf has considerably higher initial installation costs of $320,000 for base preparation and $400,000 for materials, maintenance costs of only $5000 per year significantly drop the long-term price compared to that of a natural grass field with costs of $150,000 for base preparation; $200,000 for materials; and $20,000 annual maintenance costs [6, 22]. Factoring in the significant increase in useable hours afforded by an artificial turf field, the 10-year average cost per hour of use for a turf field is estimated to be $25.74 whereas that of a natural grass field is over 3 times higher at $91.20 [6, 22]. Although these figures were sourced from turf industry representatives with potential for bias to promote the widespread adoption of turf, these analyses provide a general idea of possible financial savings associated with artificial playing surfaces.



Really thorough good article that one, well worth a read.
 

Remove this Banner Ad