92% of NFL players want grass fields

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

This happens to everyone who argues with the zone’s resident crybaby. It’s not just DB.

Good to see that you are self aware.

You came to this thread, not to offer up anything of value to say or add to the discussions, but rather to cry and whine over your obsession with the me. It's sad...for you.

I'm living rent free in your head...it's a lonely place to be.

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Would the players consider striking about this? Some are so wealthy, they could bankroll the vet min/UDFA players who actually need the money for a year even two.

To even suggest that 100M nfl fans could organize themselves and force action is laughable.

A reasonable question.

The possibility of a strike over field surface? Very unlikely. Here is a list of "NFL Labor history since 1968" (up to 2011).

The impetuous for all labor strife between NFL players and owners has been over free agency (or better understood as how much control does a NFL team have over a NFL player's career and movement between teams) and money.

The players have a pretty good record of getting much of what they want in these two critical areas, with (more or less) reasonable concessions with the owners.

Free agency is now a given, within the negotiated parameters. Long gone are the days that an owner basically "owning" each player.

Money sharing with players is now codified into each CBA, where the average salary of players has skyrocketed (justifiably) with the concession to the owners of the Cap system. A set percentage of the total revenue of all the teams is now a given. The negotiating today is nibbling at the edges of what "income" is included and tweaking of the percentage.

I remember when OJ Simpson held out (he had NO recourse except to withhold his services) and Ralph Wilson dug in. OJ sat out before the 1976 season. He forced Wilson to offer up a contract that made him the highest paid NFL player.

Reportedly it was a series of three one-year contracts worth a total of $2.5M. That is $13.6M in 2023 dollars. Or, $4.5M a year. In 1979, when OJ retired, he was the NFL's highest paid player at $806,668.

That's $3.4M in 2023 dollars.

Today, the highest paid player is Joe Burrow...$55M a year....SIXTEEN TIMES MORE! $3.4M today would place him at #17 for RB's (Najee Harris on a rookie controlled contract) while RB's value has plummeted.

WR's today (the equivalent of yesteryear's RB's) $3.4M would be the 60th ranked pay.

Money will continue to be the main negotiation point for the NFLPA, as gambling money and other streams of revenue will be a point of contention to be included in the set percentage of revenue the players get.

Field surface is very likely to be an issue for the 2030 CBA negotiations, if not before. I have already suggested a possible negotiations for the 2030 CBA where field surface could be an issue. Grass fields in exchange for an 18th game....take away one preseason game and add a second bye for each team. That would make international games easier to schedule as well.

There is little reason to think that ANY issue will be critical enough for the players to even consider striking. They already have (more or less) won most of what they want as the pay is enormous even for fringe players (as it should be) and even the amount of practice time or how training camp is conducted is negotiated and enshrined in the CBA.

Striking is the last resort when the issue is so critical (money and freedom to move from team to team) and the parties are so far apart that the acrimony is so bitter that the two sides cannot get even close to an agreement. The gravy trains is SO good for both sides, it makes little sense to let it get even close to that dire.

Another very possible way forward is pretty simple. Every new stadium must have grass field. And every outdoor turf field be transitioned to grass (including hybrid grass like GB) ASAP.

[Woodman]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Football should be played on grass that becomes mud when it rains.

[Bill Cody]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Never about a single fan and I didn’t advise anybody to watch or not watch.

What I said is that if Nottie going to demean and dismiss another poster then he should at least have the decency to actually care about what he says and not just let the words ring hollow by his own actions.

We can say we care about player safety, but we all watched Hamlin nearly die on the field and then turned right around and kept watching. It’s just bull**** and blame shifting, our collective inability to be honest about that is one of the worst parts of fan culture.

I'll take one more stab at understanding your point: if you care about issues such as safety as a fan you're not really serious unless you stop watching or buying gear. You've said this twice now. Here is your earlier quote "For as passionate an argument as you want to make you’re not stopping your viewing, buying of merch, or attending games over this issue. Which is why nothing changes, same with the refs, and the other litany of items that fans love to complain about, but aren’t willing to do anything about."

Is that your point or no? If it isn't don't bother trying to explain what it is because it means what you type is literally indecipherable. If that is your point I would say what Noty or anyone else does as a fan won't change anything. As passionate as Noty may be he's not Dr. King starting a movement over grass fields. "I have a dream...."

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

I'll take one more stab at understanding your point: if you care about issues such as safety as a fan you're not really serious unless you stop watching or buying gear. You've said this twice now. Here is your earlier quote "For as passionate an argument as you want to make you’re not stopping your viewing, buying of merch, or attending games over this issue. Which is why nothing changes, same with the refs, and the other litany of items that fans love to complain about, but aren’t willing to do anything about."

Is that your point or no? If it isn't don't bother trying to explain what it is because it means what you type is literally indecipherable. If that is your point I would say what Noty or anyone else does as a fan won't change anything. As passionate as Noty may be he's not Dr. King starting a movement over grass fields. "I have a dream...."

Spot on Bill.

What has DB's panties in a illogical twist is when I wrote this (several times) "WHY are you (the silly rebuttals to the idea of requiring NFL games be played on grass....that is supported by 92% of NFL players) taking the side of GREEDY NFL owners and, basically, ****TING AL OVER the players, their well being, health and preferences for their work environment?!?!?!"

My premise is 100% accurate because the push-back against grass fields IS, in fact, "taking the side of greedy owners" and, at the same time it IS, in fact, ****TING AL OVER the players, their well being, health and preferences for their work environment. It is undeniable.

The premise that DB is putting forward and you have detailed and surmised perfectly with...."if you care about issues such as safety as a fan you're not really serious unless you stop watching or buying gear."

THAT premise is silly to the nth degree and just plain dumb.

[DraftBoy]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

I'll take one more stab at understanding your point: if you care about issues such as safety as a fan you're not really serious unless you stop watching or buying gear. You've said this twice now. Here is your earlier quote "For as passionate an argument as you want to make you’re not stopping your viewing, buying of merch, or attending games over this issue. Which is why nothing changes, same with the refs, and the other litany of items that fans love to complain about, but aren’t willing to do anything about."

Is that your point or no? If it isn't don't bother trying to explain what it is because it means what you type is literally indecipherable. If that is your point I would say what Noty or anyone else does as a fan won't change anything. As passionate as Noty may be he's not Dr. King starting a movement over grass fields. "I have a dream...."

You’re limiting the options of things that can be done to just two actions for whatever reason. That’s not the only actions that can be taken to demonstrate care for the issue beyond just complaining about it.

As you may recall earlier in the thread I also said there are lots of of things that can be done.

[Bill Cody]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

You’re limiting the options of things that can be done to just two actions for whatever reason. That’s not the only actions that can be taken to demonstrate care for the issue beyond just complaining about it.

As you may recall earlier in the thread I also said there are lots of of things that can be done.

Nothing you've said would make any difference. If it would please explain how.

[Woodman]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

The fact that multiple NFL stadiums will convert to pristine, high-end grass surfaces in order to host FIFA World Cup games makes the argument tougher for the league. But it all comes down to bargaining power. If NFL venues want to host those matches, NFL venues must have acceptable grass surfaces.
For NFL games, there’s no equivalent business impetus for the owners to do what the players want. It’s something that could, in theory, be handled at the bargaining table. If it’s an issue on which management simply won’t yield, then the players would have to be willing to strike over it.
They likely won’t.
That’s the biggest problem for the NFLPA. The owners can and will shut the sport down for a year to get what they want. The players won’t.
Until they will, they likely won’t be getting grass in all stadiums — unless they make some other major concession that the owners deem to be a fair tradeoff.


NFLPA president Jalen Reeves-Maybin believes shift to grass fields "can happen" - NBC Sports

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Thanks for this Woody. These paragraphs from the article stood out for me...

Players want grass. New NFL Players Association president and Lions linebacker Jalen Reeves-Maybin thinks it’s possible to get grass in every NFL stadium.

“We see right now they’re changing all the fields for soccer to come over (for the World Cup) and soccer players don’t play on turf,” Reeves-Maybin tells Dave Birkett of the Detroit Free-Press. “I think it’s definitely a thing that can happen, and it’s proven to be a safer and healthier option. I think as time’s gone on, we’ve put player safety, health and safety to the forefront, and I think the surface that we play on plays a huge part in that.”

It can happen, in theory. But it won’t be easy.

It will be expensive, especially in closed-roof stadiums that don’t have a field that can be slid outside and properly grown and maintained, with real sunlight.

The fact that multiple NFL stadiums will convert to pristine, high-end grass surfaces in order to host FIFA World Cup games makes the argument tougher for the league. But it all comes down to bargaining power. If NFL venues want to host those matches, NFL venues must have acceptable grass surfaces.

The article that is linked to in that quote puts the issue exactly where I suspected it might end up....


New NFLPA president Jalen Reeves-Maybin talks 18-game schedule, banning turf fields


Hmmmmmmm....."it all comes down to "bargaining power". The players want grass fields....the owners want an 18 game schedule.


It's not surprising that these two issues are highlighted as they sure seem like the "bargaining power" for each side to get what they want.


The CBA expires in 2030. Stand by.

[Bill Cody]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Sukie please explain what the difference between soccer grass and football grass is or why you think only less sturdy grass could be grown in a dome. That's the part of the back and forth in this thread I had trouble following. But then again my college didn't offer a major in Turfgrass so I don't claim to know that much about grass.

My speculation would be that almost all plants need a combination of the right light and the right water so you should be able to grow virtually any variety of grass you want with the right light but you seem to think otherwise. The fact that it hasn't been done for football yet isn't by itself a persuasive argument. They haven't put computer chips in footballs to see if the ball crossed the goal line either but that doesn't mean they can't. My guess is this is about money pure and simple.

[sukie]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Don’t have to explain it. Soccer grass in a dome is temporary for World Cup to be able to host. Soccer stadiums are all open air with grass. I didn’t make up the claim about soccer vs football . It was in articles about that very thing. Football is more taxing than soccer.

temporary turf maintained by grow lights 100% indoors is just that. Temporary.

Chicago is planning a downtown dome… non retractable.
grow lights and indoor irrigation in a dome has to be less expensive than a rail and tray system requiring the same irrigation after the field is moved outside. Why? Perhaps sunshine is more efficient than a grow light system slowly moved over a field and back again over and over.

Chicago has no choice but to put in real grass if all things are equal.

[notacon]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Sukie please explain what the difference between soccer grass and football grass is or why you think only less sturdy grass could be grown in a dome. That's the part of the back and forth in this thread I had trouble following. But then again my college didn't offer a major in Turfgrass so I don't claim to know that much about grass.

My speculation would be that almost all plants need a combination of the right light and the right water so you should be able to grow virtually any variety of grass you want with the right light but you seem to think otherwise. The fact that it hasn't been done for football yet isn't by itself a persuasive argument. They haven't put computer chips in footballs to see if the ball crossed the goal line either but that doesn't mean they can't. My guess is this is about money pure and simple.

SPOT ON!!!! No need to "guess". It's a FACT!!!

The issue of whether football is "more taxing" on a field than soccer is totally irrelevant.

Half of the NFL stadiums have grass. (soon to be more than half when Buffalo opens their new stadium) They are doing just fine with that surface.

There is NO DIFFERENCE of the quality or ability to maintain grass in a dome as compared to open air. It's ALL about cost.

I did find this article that put a price tag on it concerning Minnesota's dome....

Would a natural grass field be possible at US Bank Stadium?

But for an enclosed facility like the Vikings home stadium, would a natural grass field even be possible?

"Complete enclosed canopy stadiums like U.S. Bank Stadium are almost never fielded with a natural turfgrass," said University of Minnesota Turfgrass Extension Educator Dr. Jon Trappe.

Even though part of the roof is made of EFTE, a plastic-like material that is lighter and cheaper than grass, experts say there wouldn't be enough hours of sunlight a day during our Minnesota winters for natural grass inside the stadium to grow or repair itself without grow lights.

"Sun angle is lower, so light quality and quantity are poor, so day length is short, and the light angle is weaker. So the grasses themselves are getting less sunlight, which is what they need for photosynthesis," said Dr. Trappe.

A turfgrass management professor at Michigan State, who is working with FIFA to bring natural grass to five domed stadiums when the World Cup comes to the U.S. in 2026, says a natural grass field in an enclosed stadium would most likely have to be swapped out every few weeks, which some outdoor NFL stadiums already do.

But with grow lights and other infrastructure, it could cost U.S. Bank Stadium $4 to $5 million a year to maintain.

"We're not talking about anything new. We're just talking about it would be new to a domed stadium," said Trey Rogers.

But experts say a football field takes more punishment than a soccer field and would have to be changed out with fresh sod more often for the NFL than the World Cup.

In other words, grass inside a dome is ABSOLUTELY possible with "grow lights", and the issue of football being tougher on a grass field than soccer is ALSO APPLICABLE TO ANY GRASS FIELD in an open air stadium!!!!

So, any argument against grass in a dome (besides money) is ALSO arguing against GRASS FIELDS ALTOGETHER!!!

It's ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!!!

As I already posted in detail, the increased cost is relative PEANUTS to every NFL team. The "$4 to $5 million a year to maintain" a grass field inside a dome is the equivalent as a family with $100,000 income spending $688 to $860 a year.

[sukie]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Not arguing against grass fields altogether. Just norther domed stadiums.

that article as you can easily see is speculative. Grow lights are a big operation. The lights need to be as close to the surface as possible. To maintain a turf field 100% is theoretically possible but swapping out turf indoors and out is not an equal proposition. Outdoor fields don’t need massive lighting systems rolled over them constantly to provide light and outdoor fields (believe it or not) sometimes need no irrigation.

when someone accomplishes this feat then that would be something. Now? Chicago building a non retractable dome will not have real grass.

[Bill Cody]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

Not arguing against grass fields altogether. Just norther domed stadiums.

that article as you can easily see is speculative. Grow lights are a big operation. The lights need to be as close to the surface as possible. To maintain a turf field 100% is theoretically possible but swapping out turf indoors and out is not an equal proposition. Outdoor fields don’t need massive lighting systems rolled over them constantly to provide light and outdoor fields (believe it or not) sometimes need no irrigation.

when someone accomplishes this feat then that would be something. Now? Chicago building a non retractable dome will not have real grass.

Sounds like you just have to go to some trouble and expense to swap out the turf, something as stated is already being done. Not buying this is that complicated. Expensive? Probably not that either when the increased cost of injuries is factored in.

I think if the teams were FORCED to do it they'd get this sorted pretty quickly. This isn't John Kennedy saying we're going to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in < 10 years.

[sukie]

Re: 92% of NFL players want grass fields

If it was not that complicated Arizona would be doing it. Outdoors in a dry desert on an expensive tray rail system vs grow lights constantly running over the field in a climate controlled setting. Same with Vegas.

they chose to put fields on trays and rails to move the entire surface outdoors.

there is much more not happening in the grow light indoor turf industry.

if there is such an industry outside of open air soccer fields.