NFL NFL Stadiums Discussion

[Dirty Bird]

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.

 

[Exe Gesis]

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

What a disgrace SF is. Might as well call them Moscow 49ers.

 

[deck]

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]

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]

What a disgrace SF is. Might as well call them Moscow 49ers.

Is that implying there's a high crime rate in Santa Clara after the shootings in Moscow, ID last year?

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Is that implying there's a high crime rate in Santa Clara after the shootings in Moscow, ID last year?

No

 

[Dirty Bird]

Actually surprised at how CLOSE Gillette Stadium is in relation to Boston.

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

 

[Exe Gesis]

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.

 

[Exe Gesis]

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.

 

[Exe Gesis]

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

 

[Exe Gesis]

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.

 

[Exe Gesis]

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.

 

[drd23]

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

Ford Field getting new playing surface, no more slit-film turf after player compaints

Originally scheduled for new tuf in 2024, the Lions moved installation up to this month once it became unlikely they would host a home playoff game

www.freep.com

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

 

[Jatz]

Has there been any link to more injuries on these types of surfaces?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Has there been any link to more injuries on these types of surfaces?

Turf more than grass

 

[Jatz]

Turf more than grass

No wonder the players didn't want it then.

I thought it was that but wasn't sure if I'd remembered that incorrectly.

 

[Exe Gesis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

“Grass is just better for you, it’s more forgiving,”: Panthers player express concerns about turf fields in the NFL

Bank of America Stadium is one of several stadiums in the NFL with synthetic turf and Panthers players have concerns about it.

www.wbtv.com

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

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.

Only Natural Grass Can Level The NFL’s Playing Field

nflpa.com

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

NFL data shows injury rates same on grass, turf

Data showing the NFL's recent rate of non-contact injuries to the knee, ankle and foot contradicts the calls this season from several players, agents and coaches to convert all surfaces to grass in response to high-profile injuries on artificial turf.

www.espn.com.au

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

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.

Playing Surface and Injury Risk: Artificial Turf Vs. Natural Grass

Artificial turf’s developmental history spans 6 generations and includes design improvements that transformed an injury-inducing 1st generation field into a modern 3rd generation natural grass substitute. Artificial turf has become a widely adopted playing surface with a $2.7 billion United...

www.intechopen.com

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