92% of NFL players want grass fields

[sukie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[notacon]

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.

Yes, many of your arguments are applicable to all grass fields especially when you dismiss the fact that major soccer leagues around the world mandate it's use and the fact that several domed stadiums in the US are installing grass to hold the 2016 FIFA World Cup

The use of grow lights is NOT speculative. It's been done for years.

The more you put out these lame arguments the more you illustrate constipated mindset that narrow minded fools have shown for decades (and in reality, centuries).

[notacon]

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.

It's ALL about the money. Period.

[sukie]

Seems Vegas is saying it’s about being green vs energy intensive grow lights.

besides you seem to think swapping out turf every couple of weeks is a wash as far as money goes.

[notacon]

Seems Vegas is saying it’s about being green vs energy intensive grow lights.

besides you seem to think swapping out turf every couple of weeks is a wash as far as money goes.

That is SO DUMB.....incredibly imbecilic.

Phoenix and Las Vegas (the two stadiums that use a tray system) are ranked #1 and #3 in MOST SUNNIEST CITES IN THE U.S. It's not about "being green" it's about all that "free" sunshine!!! Using grow lights in these two cites would be stupid beyond measure.

Many NFL stadiums ALREADY "swap out turf every few weeks" and doing so in a dome would be no different.


Like I said, it's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!!

Your arguments are silly and not very convincing.....unless one is a cheapskate owner or a Luddite.

[sukie]

So money to swap out is the same outdoors or indoors … why have expensive tray rail systems when grow lights are just as effective?

Vegas chose to not use lighting. There has to be a reason other than green energy requirements.

if you are seapping out turf on a tray or in open air stadiums that is a wash. Why the trays ? Can’t say money is the root of this. Notarized grow lighting systems have to be less expensive to use verses moving the entire mass of the field outdoors.

[sukie]

So… the fact that the newest dome chose not to
use grow lights is my evidence that grow lights aren’t the same as sunlight in maintaining football turf .

your evidence that dome stadiums can maintain turf using grow lights is what exactly? The owners are greedy?

[notacon]

Jesus sukie, you are going round and round with the same failed arguments. I've already refuted all your lame arguments many times over. You simply refuse to accept the facts and reality.


You lost this one. Take the loss and move along.

[sukie]

You have not. Why did Vegas opt for the expense of a tray rail field system when a grow light system would be just as good?

is Chicago even thinking about real turf in its plans for downtown stadium?

why has it not been attempted inside a dome anywhere other than temporarily for word cup events?

(your own words would be fine.)

[notacon]

You have not. Why did Vegas opt for the expense of a tray rail field system when a grow light system would be just as good?

is Chicago even thinking about real turf in its plans for downtown stadium?

why has it not been attempted inside a dome anywhere other than temporarily for word cup events?

(your own words would be fine.)

Yes, I have. Just stop it.

[sukie]

All you said was owners are greedy.

I’m all for natural grass and glad Bills will be playing on it but there will be no league mandate unless it includes exemptions for domed stadiums.

[notacon]

Great article from Rich Florio stating the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS....

NFL is committed to safety — when it doesn’t cost money to be

As momentum was building over the weekend for a ban on the hip-drop tackle, a current head coach made an important observation.

Basically, as the league wraps itself in the “player safety” flag, it continues to ignore the basic fact that playing on grass is better for the human body than playing on an artificial surface.

It’s undeniable. The forces, on a grass field, go into the ground. On a turf field, they bounce back into the body. Anyone who has ever played on an artificial surface knows that. The NFL nevertheless tries to concoct a phony debate, and to bolster the pro-turf position with warped and misleading stats.

Frankly, the NFL supports safety only when it doesn’t cost any money to do so. And, alternatively, when it doesn’t get in the way of the ongoing obsession to maximize revenue.

Grass fields in all stadiums would create an expense that the league doesn’t want to incur, especially at a time when it’s pinching pennies with NFL Network programming and luring long-time employees to take buyouts and leave.

The NFL also will not hesitate to make the inevitable push for an 18-game regular season. That’s coming. It’s just a question of when. And when it does, it will result in more revenue. Regardless of whether it’s good for the players to play 18 regular-season games.

That’s a safety issue that doesn’t matter, because making it matter would mean making less money. Thus, look for any and all ongoing safety advancements to be made only as to items that aren’t hazardous to the health of Big Shield’s bottom line.

[sukie]

It is glaringly obvious that playing on grass is superior. No one is arguing that point. Especially when avid horticulture expert and Uber successful hydroponics enthusiast Mr Florio weighs in with bold fonts and stuff.

[notacon]

It is glaringly obvious that playing on grass is superior. No one is arguing that point. Especially when avid horticulture expert and Uber successful hydroponics enthusiast Mr Florio weighs in with bold fonts and stuff.

As usual, you miss the point entirely.

Yes it IS "glaringly obvious that playing on grass is superior", but the POINT is that glaringly obvious that THE reason that owners and NFL is pushing back against doing what IS glaringly obvious to better ensure player health and safety is ABOUT MONEY.

The other point is that the NFL and NFL owners supposedly being "committed to safety" ONLY when it does not cost money.

What else is glaringly obvious is that you inexplicably are taking the side and defending filthy rich owners and parroting their specious dishonest baloney so they can retain even more of their obscene wealth.

[sukie]

I am not missing the point. The one you side stepped by not mentioning Domes. Any proclamation to play on grass would hold an asterisk for Minnesota, Detroit, NO, Atlanta And Indy plus whatever fully domed stadium I am missing.

[Historian]

Yes it IS "glaringly obvious that playing on grass is superior", but the POINT is that glaringly obvious that THE reason that owners and NFL is pushing back against doing what IS glaringly obvious to better ensure player health and safety is ABOUT MONEY.

The other point is that the NFL and NFL owners supposedly being "committed to safety" ONLY when it does not cost money.

What else is glaringly obvious is that you inexplicably are taking the side and defending filthy rich owners and parroting their specious dishonest baloney so they can retain even more of their obscene wealth.

Key word: Obscene.

This is what I don't get, and I agree with you 100% on this.

How would this even affect their pocketbooks?

The teams split the tv money equitably, and that money pays all salaries and operational costs. (At least I thought it did)

Most stadiums are built and maintained with taxpayer funds in the first place. (aka corporate welfare)

This league makes BILLIONS. How does any of this hurt their revenues?

Seems to me that it would be a drop in the bucket to do the right thing.