You could compare injury rate From these 2 grass fields vs turf fields.Originally Posted by OpIv37
The Cleveland Browns and Pittsburgh Steelers are two franchises that have stadiums in cold-weather climates, but also cultivate natural grass fields in both Lambeau and Heinz Field.
97% just want good grass to smoke.
kscdogbillsfan1221 (02-16-2024),POTLAND PSILBYLO (02-13-2024)
I have no idea what it will take. I suspect that other issues (percentage of shared revenue....reducing practice time...etc...) were more critical in respect to priorities.
The "cost" argument is pretty much a canard.....in other words bullcrap.
I do not buy for ONE SECOND that there is an overwhelming "cost" issue. The cost for installing and maintaining a grass field, although more than turf, is NOT in any way daunting or would come even close to seriously impacting the bottom line.
There are a lot of numbers thrown around as to the cost difference in installing (and replacing every so often) a turf field as compared to the ongoing cost to maintain a grass field.
The differences are not that great. According to this article, "Costs: Grass vs Synthetic Turf"....the conclusion is....."Synthetic turf costs more to install, ALMOST as much to maintain, and HAS TO BE replaced once it wears out."
The estimates to install grass field in each stadium, a report by Forbes said....
Yes, cold weather stadiums would have to change the grass more often and more difficult to maintain. Indoor stadiums present a challenge but not that much with the advent of advanced LED technology. Gee....they have been growing marijuana (and other less critical plants….the Associated Press reported the cost for each one would be “roughly $500,000 for demolition, new rock underlayment and irrigation (drainage could be reused) and another $350,000 for lay-and-play sod.”
Let’s see.
That’s $850,000 overall.) indoors for decades, a little grass (yes, the grass that is played on) would present more maintenance cost but it is extremely possible and realistic.
As the article above states, the difference in maintaining a grass vs turf field is not that great....For arguments sake, let's say it would cost $2M more annually to maintain grass over turf.
Forbes also annually publishes some extremely interesting numbers of each NFL team's worth, revenue and "operating income"...better known as PROFIT.
The numbers are eye opening.
Average Worth - $5.1B
Average Revenue - $581M
Average Profit - $126M
Highest Worth - Dallas - $9B
Lowest Worth - Cincy - $3.5B
Highest Revenue - Dallas - $1.14B
Lowest Revenue - Detroit - $495M (only two teams below $550M - Cincy - $498)
Highest Profit - Dallas - $504M
Lowest Profit - Detroit - $51M
Only 13 Teams with profit under $100M (Minny - $99M, Pittsburgh - $96M, KC - $95M)
Bills Worth - $3.7B
Bills Revenue - $503M
Bills Profit - $119M
$581M in Revenue...the average for NFL teams - if spend $2M on Grass (.34%)
Equivalent as a family with $100,000 income - spending $344.23
You would think that NFL owners, all of which became wealthy well before they bought or owned (if passed down within the family) would want to protect THE most valuable asset they have. THE PLAYERS!!!!
I suspect that they do not believe, for whatever reason, that grass field will not effect injuries in a substantial way. Studies are mixed on that subject.
What is NOT "mixed" is that players HATE PLAYING ON TURF. They may not get injured, but it is UNDENIABLE that their bodies take a MUCH worse beating with turf than grass.
Whenever the "it costs to much" argument comes up, it's bullcrap!!! When the NFLPA raises the priority of grass field, over or close to the subject of percentage of the overall revenue (and what constitutes sharable revenue) grass field will become the norm.
In addition to it being en vogue at the time, this is the reason the Bills put artificial turf into Rich Stadium, and why they never changed to grass over the last 50 years:
sahlensguy (02-12-2024)
Here's a better illustration.
Opening day, 1971.
Rained like hell. My first regular season game.
Watch how the field deteriorates as the game goes on.
The Bills then have to play on it for another seven games, lol.
Still haven’t seen any LED grown grass surfaces that could stand up to NFL play. Soccer perhaps but that’s not an equivalent. As of now there are no football stadiums that are domes with real grass NOT on a removable”Tray” setup.I have no idea what it will take. I suspect that other issues (percentage of shared revenue....reducing practice time...etc...) were more critical in respect to priorities.
The "cost" argument is pretty much a canard.....in other words bullcrap.
I do not buy for ONE SECOND that there is an overwhelming "cost" issue. The cost for installing and maintaining a grass field, although more than turf, is NOT in any way daunting or would come even close to seriously impacting the bottom line.
There are a lot of numbers thrown around as to the cost difference in installing (and replacing every so often) a turf field as compared to the ongoing cost to maintain a grass field.
The differences are not that great. According to this article, "Costs: Grass vs Synthetic Turf"....the conclusion is....."Synthetic turf costs more to install, ALMOST as much to maintain, and HAS TO BE replaced once it wears out."
The estimates to install grass field in each stadium, a report by Forbes said....
Yes, cold weather stadiums would have to change the grass more often and more difficult to maintain. Indoor stadiums present a challenge but not that much with the advent of advanced LED technology. Gee....they have been growing marijuana (and other less critical plants
As the article above states, the difference in maintaining a grass vs turf field is not that great....For arguments sake, let's say it would cost $2M more annually to maintain grass over turf.
Forbes also annually publishes some extremely interesting numbers of each NFL team's worth, revenue and "operating income"...better known as PROFIT.
The numbers are eye opening.
Average Worth - $5.1B
Average Revenue - $581M
Average Profit - $126M
Highest Worth - Dallas - $9B
Lowest Worth - Cincy - $3.5B
Highest Revenue - Dallas - $1.14B
Lowest Revenue - Detroit - $495M (only two teams below $550M - Cincy - $498)
Highest Profit - Dallas - $504M
Lowest Profit - Detroit - $51M
Only 13 Teams with profit under $100M (Minny - $99M, Pittsburgh - $96M, KC - $95M)
Bills Worth - $3.7B
Bills Revenue - $503M
Bills Profit - $119M
$581M in Revenue...the average for NFL teams - if spend $2M on Grass (.34%)
Equivalent as a family with $100,000 income - spending $344.23
You would think that NFL owners, all of which became wealthy well before they bought or owned (if passed down within the family) would want to protect THE most valuable asset they have. THE PLAYERS!!!!
I suspect that they do not believe, for whatever reason, that grass field will not effect injuries in a substantial way. Studies are mixed on that subject.
What is NOT "mixed" is that players HATE PLAYING ON TURF. They may not get injured, but it is UNDENIABLE that their bodies take a MUCH worse beating with turf than grass.
Whenever the "it costs to much" argument comes up, it's bullcrap!!! When the NFLPA raises the priority of grass field, over or close to the subject of percentage of the overall revenue (and what constitutes sharable revenue) grass field will become the norm.
Then you are not looking close enough....or more likely, you do not have enough knowledge about LED lighting.
I do.
The last 16 years of my career was in photo/video lighting. The company I worked for also produced and sold LED lighting for agricultural use.
Not only is it possible to grow "grass surfaces that could stand up to NFL play", the ability to precisely control the color wavelength output of LED lights make it better suited than relying on fickle sunshine in cold weather cites, even in open air stadiums.
Baltimore was the second city to use artificial lighting (after Green Bay) to ensure a healthy grass field (Green Bay uses a hybrid that is mostly grass but fortified with synthetic fibers....the field is heated as well, like the Bills field will be), suitable to stand up to NFL play, when late in the year, there is diminished amount of sunshine....along with sometimes too much water and too cold temperatures.
The ability to completely control light, water and temperature could provide domed stadiums with extremely good field surfaces.
Additionally, new sod surfaces can be and ARE changed regularly and artificial lighting is perfectly suitable to assist in maintaining a good field surface. All it takes is a little bit more money.
The Athletic (who else....best sports media site in the US) had this tidbit in a story about how the field was prepared for the Super Bowl....
THAT is the attitude that is missing from too many NFL owners.Allegiant Stadium is a domed stadium that utilizes a field tray that enables the Raiders to play on natural grass. Using an artificial turf field would be more convenient, but owner Mark Davis insisted on natural grass because that’s what the majority of NFL players prefer. On Wednesday, the NFLPA revealed it surveyed about 1,700 players to ask whether they preferred to play on grass or turf.
The field surface in last years SB, in Arizona, was TERRIBLE, despite the fact that they use the same tray system as Las Vegas. This years' field was perfect.
George Toma, the longtime groundskeeper of every Super Bowl until he retired after last year's debacle (at the age of 94) had choice words for NFL field director, Ed Mangan, who reportedly screwed up in the care of the field.
Not surprisingly, Ed Mangan was replaced by the NFL and hired Nick Pappas last March to prepare for this years SB surface.
The point is that proper CARE for a grass field is what matters. Domed stadiums could ALL have grass fields if they are forced to do so.
I understand the lighting. But your examples of Baltimore and GB are outdoor facilities in the cold north. There has yet to be a football played indoor grass surface that I am aware of (other than the rail-tray systems.)
im not saying that it may not be possible in the future it’s just not ready yet.
Uhhhh....you certainly suggested as much.
It IS possible TODAY!!!! NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER.
It's a matter of will and money.
BTW...the examples of Baltimore and Green Bay are perfectly applicable is so much as the conditions of those cites in winter is much more difficult than inside a dome for both light and temperature.
A completely controlled environment as to amount and colr spectrum (and wavelength) of light, water and temp all favor doing so inside a dome.
LED lighting has been in use for agricultural use for many years. Here is an article discussing it back in 2018....
Growing the future
High-tech farmers are using LED lights in ways that seem to border on science fiction
Mike Zelkind stands at one end of what was once a shipping container and opens the door to the future.
Thousands of young collard greens are growing vigorously under a glow of pink-purple lamps in a scene that seems to have come from a sci-fi movie, or at least a NASA experiment. But Zelkind is at the helm of an earthbound enterprise. He is chief executive of 80 Acres Farms, with a plant factory in an uptown Cincinnati neighborhood where warehouses sit cheek by jowl with detached houses.
Since plants emerged on Earth, they have relied on the light of the sun to feed and grow through the process of photosynthesis.
But Zelkind is part of a radical shift in agriculture — decades in the making — in which plants can be grown commercially without a single sunbeam. A number of technological advances have made this possible, but none more so than innovations in LED lighting.
“What is sunlight from a plant’s perspective?” Zelkind asks. “It’s a bunch of photons.”
Diode lights, which work by passing a current between semiconductors, have come a long way since they showed up in calculator displays in the 1970s. Compared with other forms of electrical illumination, light-emitting diodes use less energy, give off little heat and can be manipulated to optimize plant growth.
In agricultural applications, LED lights are used in ways that seem to border on alchemy, changing how plants grow, when they flower, how they taste and even their levels of vitamins and antioxidants. The lights can also prolong their shelf life.
“People haven’t begun to think about the real impact of what we are doing,” says Zelkind, who is using light recipes to grow, for example, two types of basil from the same plant: sweeter ones for the grocery store and more piquant versions for chefs.
….snip…
In addition to shaping the plants, LEDs allow speedy, year-round crop cycles. This permits Zelkind and his team of growers and technicians to produce 200,000 pounds of leafy greens, vine crops, herbs and microgreens annually in a 12,000-square-foot warehouse, an amount that would require 80 acres of farmland (hence the company’s name).
….snip….
Production in the Cincinnati location began in December 2016. In September, the company broke ground on the first phase of a major expansion 30 miles away in Hamilton, Ohio, that will eventually have three fully automated indoor farms totaling 150,000 square feet and a fourth for 30,000 square feet of vine crops in a converted factory. (The company also has indoor growing operations in Alabama, North Carolina and Arkansas, which acted as proving grounds for the technology.)
A reminder....a NFL football field is 57,600 sq feet.
The ability to grow food with more control as to their output, taste and even their levels of vitamins and antioxidants is more difficult than growing something as simple as grass.
All that is needed is light, water and relatively warm temp.
I miss the days of old Municipal Stadium in Cleveland with the painted dirt.
Historian (02-14-2024)
That was before the minimum salary for a NFL player in his third year is over $1M, and the best QB's demand between $40M (the 3 tied for 10th highest APY salary...Daniel Jones, Stafford and Prescott) and $55M (Joe Burrow).
You mean the days when they put down the indoor/outdoor carpet on the concrete?
notacon (02-14-2024)
I went to a couple of concerts at Rich Stadium in the 70's sitting on the field with little more than a tarp on it.
It was, in fact, just like sitting on concrete. Thankfully, my grass consumption mitigated the pain and discomfort.
The turf fields have gotten much better than the bad days of "indoor/outdoor carpet on the concrete", but none of them can compares to a structurally sound, carefully designed, well maintained grass field.
There is a reason why the FIFA has banned artificial turf for all World Cup games, and the US stadiums that do not have grass will change install it just to get the games.
So, sukie has to resort to dishonestly "quoting" me, and changing the quote.
If you use the "reply with quote" feature, adjusting the quote is dishonest. Please don't do that.
Let's go over what I ACTUALLY wrote and your lame response.
I wrote this...
"Uhhhh....you certainly suggested as much (that installing and maintaining a grass field in a dome may not be possible)
It IS (installing and maintaining grass field in a dome) possible TODAY!!!! NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER.
It's a matter of will and money."
And you dishonestly inserted your own silly response....
"Someone would have the will somewhere if it was viably possible"
What convoluted, lazy and false logic.
It IS "viably possible" TODAY as I clearly illustrated with the FACT that indoor growing of FOOD (which is MUCH harder to grow than grass) has been "viably possible" for YEARS!
Just because NFL franchises have not done it yet, somehow proving that it's NOT "viably possible" is totally lacking in any reasonable sense of logic.
Installing and maintaining a grass field in a dome IS in FACT, already going to take place in FIVE domes in North America (FOUR in the US and one in Canada) when the FIFA World Cup commences in 2026, which requires grass fields (up to the standards that they set) in order to host these games.
Of course you are the guy that is doubting that EV's are "viably possible"....so the lack of foresight is a thing with your mindset.
I mistakenly replied in the [quote] box.
mistake. not a purposeful change in your thought stream.
sue me.
notacon (02-16-2024)
[QUOTE=sukie;5084157]I mistakenly replied in theBelieve me...if it was possible to get any money I would sue you.box.
mistake. not a purposeful change in your thought stream.
sue me.
Indoor growing of food is different than turf that may take the rigors of soccer but not the grinding abuse of football or even Rugby.
a company that could pull it off would do well in partnering with an NFL Guinea Pig just to make a name for itself.
That is specious at best and (I believe the facts prove) not accurate in the least.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote