madlithuanian Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/...-use-fieldturf/ NFL can, and should, force the Bears to use FieldTurf Posted by Mike Florio on August 10, 2011, 1:19 PM EDT Getty ImagesThe real vs. fake debate continues in Chicago, regarding the playing surface at Soldier Field. Sean Jensen of the Chicago Sun-Times makes a great case for switching from grass (or something that once was grass) to FieldTurf. A far more persuasive case eventually could be made by 280 Park Avenue. Lost in the talk regarding whether the Bears should or will rip up their grass (or something that once was grass) and install FieldTurf is the fact that the NFL has the absolute ability to force the Bears to do it. As explained during today’s PFT Live, the NFL Game Operations manual provides as follows: “Each home club is responsible for having the playing surface of its stadium well maintained and suitable for NFL play. The League may require improvements to ensure compliance and such improvements will be at the Club’s expense. Failure to maintain a playing field properly is considered a competitive issue and clubs that fail to do so may be subject to discipline.” The key words are “competitive issue.” Surely, Bears management believes that, despite the complaints from the team’s players, the Bears are better suited to deal with the field than the visiting team. And so, for Bears management, it’s about obtaining a competitive advantage. That has to be the reason. Although Bears chairman George McCaskey claims that grass is safer (or, as Jensen explained it, that “there aren’t any studies that support that grass isn’t the safest playing surface for football”), the real question is whether a crappy, uneven, choppy grass field is safer than FieldTurf. Our guess is that FieldTurf is safer than the place that in all fairness should be referred to as TurdField. And it’s definitely not about the money. As Jensen points out, FieldTurf would cost $750,000 with no annual maintenance fees. The grass surface costs $500,000 per year. So, basically, the Bears could put in new FieldTurf every second or third year and still come out ahead financially. Clearly, it’s about giving the Bears an edge, and an unfair edge. For that reason alone, the NFL should immediately order the Bears to install FieldTurf. Permalink 50 Comments Latest Stories in: Chicago Bears, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories Email Previous: Trent Williams’ Silverback nickname makes John Thompson uncomfortableNext: Coughlin: A “long haul” until Steve Smith is back50 Responses to “NFL can, and should, force the Bears to use FieldTurf” benh999 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:20 PM Maybe they should try the stuff you cover your head with. 1424 i Rate This jtam963 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:21 PM Better do this by regular season start! 2916 i Rate This offsideburns says: Aug 10, 2011 1:24 PM but most bears play on real grass in meadows, not fake grass 685 i Rate This zn0rseman says: Aug 10, 2011 1:24 PM They should make the Cowboys have a flat field too. 4219 i Rate This wellthatsaloadofcrap says: Aug 10, 2011 1:24 PM I thought I heard that the field isn’t the Bears responsibility, and that the state parks department actually has control of the stadium and field. I could be wrong. 1411 i Rate This everydayimfumbilin says: Aug 10, 2011 1:25 PM stop whining and play the damn game 3817 i Rate This lrt79 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:26 PM Can the NFL make the city of Chicago instead FieldTurf? Since, you know, the city of Chicago owns Solider Field? More specifically, the parks department? 383 i Rate This Deb says: Aug 10, 2011 1:27 PM It can’t be that much of a competitive advantage if they have to cancel practice and their own players risk injury every time they step on the field. But would the NFL order the Bears to install FieldTurf without ordering the remaining grass teams to convert? How many teams currently play on grass? And could they convert before the season starts? 145 i Rate This damnyoulinelliot says: Aug 10, 2011 1:28 PM If Butkus played on that crap, Urlacher can play on that crap. 4111 i Rate This baned0n says: Aug 10, 2011 1:28 PM How long would it take for FieldTurf to be installed? Is it something that would have to be an offseason thing, or could it be done in-season? 44 i Rate This baned0n says: Aug 10, 2011 1:29 PM Also, how would FieldTurf affect other events that occur there? MLS, concerts, etc? 53 i Rate This achap39 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:30 PM So once again, the taxpayers of Chicago have to foot the bill for another stadium/field project….because the NFL office in New York says so. How many ways can my tax-paying ass say “hell no?” 1432 i Rate This PackersHome.com says: Aug 10, 2011 1:30 PM Bears were one of the healthiest teams last season, so that field can’t be too bad. 374 i Rate This paulitik74 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:30 PM They need to get their fatass QB to quit stuffing his fat diabetic face whith deep dish and Krispy Kremes and go mow the damn lawn. The turf better be in pristine condition for Sept 11, so my Falcons can take them Bears apart. 1254 i Rate This fcs34 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:30 PM Since both teams play on the same surface how is this an advantage for the Bears ? Or do they have some kind of super cleat no other team has ? 186 i Rate This slizzyslizz says: Aug 10, 2011 1:31 PM …awaiting the PFT case to make Heinz Field utilize FieldTurf as well… 120 i Rate This beastofeden says: Aug 10, 2011 1:32 PM Actually there are studies that show grass is safer. 80% of torn ACL’s occur on the turf, not Natural grass. And another point: This website was sooooo adamant about “paying the employees affected by the lock out”…..So now you want to put in FieldTurf and fire the grounds grew at Soldier Field? 121 i Rate This lacharger2112 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:32 PM Then do the field at the Black Hole! That’s a muddy mess too. Chargers will be playing at Farmers Field in a few years. 20 i Rate This 4dabears says: Aug 10, 2011 1:32 PM Amen brotha! 11 i Rate This gulaid26 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:33 PM As a Steelers fan, I miss when their turf was so bad balls would get stuck in the sod. but in all seriousness how hard is it to get GOOD grass? 40 i Rate This ronniemexico says: Aug 10, 2011 1:33 PM Turd Field? Isn’t that trademarked in Cincinnati? 54 i Rate This bearfan51 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:33 PM Advantage? Really? A lot of high school kids (in the non rich communities) play or practice on horrible sh!tty grass fields. These overpaid divas can surely play in mud, dirt, and grass like kids do… If slipping on grass is a problem then they are not much of an athlete… Football is supposed to be played outside, in the weather. It is a game for tough men. Not cry babies that complain about the grass being too slippery. What a joke. What is next? Do the fans in Seattle need to be quiet during the game? The 12th man is also an advantage to their home team… 76 i Rate This sowcrates says: Aug 10, 2011 1:33 PM Chicago can’t block very well in the trenches and their speed on both sides of the ball is their best asset. I’m pretty sure they aren’t sticking with grass to cultivate a home field advantage. I’ll offer $50 to the first person who can find footage of a game where an opponent has come to Soldier Field and slipped and slid everywhere while Chicago’s players had zero trouble. I’m sure the Bears’ familiarity with the crappy field can help, but it’s not like their opponents are slipping on banana peels while the Bears gracefully glide across the field with ease. Correlation is not causation, but it’s true that Chicago was one of the healthiest teams in football; there is some evidence that catastrophic knee injuries are still more common on artificial surfaces. Chicago has one of the lowest capacity stadiums in the NFL and the Bears’ ownership does not own the field. Maintaining a grass field does mean maintaining jobs and status (in this case, a very crappy status) for the Chicago park district, and I think the politics of that do make a difference. 150 i Rate This dsigrey says: Aug 10, 2011 1:33 PM The worst field in the league is in Houston. No doubt about it. They could put in a new field in a week. New England did it after getting beat by the Jets in a muddy field at home. 60 i Rate This slizzyslizz says: Aug 10, 2011 1:34 PM @baned0n Pats did their change mid-season in a week or two a couple years back when it was getting as bad as Soldier/Heinz Field 11 i Rate This clark54bears says: Aug 10, 2011 1:35 PM Lifetime Bears fan and I say Amen to installing field turf. I’ve seen our receivers and DBs slip out of breaks too many times. 21 i Rate This jtam963 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:35 PM Fat qb? Cutler is tougher and more athletic then Matt Ryan who stands in the pocket all day. Cutler takes hits and dives into the endzone while getting hit. Bears will eat Matt Ryan up Week 1. Bear Down! 128 i Rate This johnnyb216 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:35 PM Why can’t they just learn how to properly grow grass?! 70 i Rate This theace18 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:35 PM The Packers didn’t have a problem winning the NFC Title at Soldier Field. All putting FieldTurf in will do will give the Bears a nicer surface to do nothing with. 64 i Rate This footballfan420 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:36 PM Not really sure how the statement you provided from the NFL Game Operations manual says the NFL can madate FieldTurf on a team, forcing them to make improvements or otherwise face discipline doesn’t mean they have to rip up and put artificial surface in, just make the grass better. Not to mention . . . has the NFL even ever threatened the Bears on this issue? The decision not to play on it last week came from the Bears themselves not the NFL. 30 i Rate This adogdc says: Aug 10, 2011 1:37 PM Wow…Just Wow! Irresponsible Journalisim at its finest. There was a sceintific study on FieldTurf, at it was proved to have cancerous qaulities in those small pellets. The study is 3/4 years old, but I still remember it due to the controversy in DC Public Schools having the same turf installed. I will be back to post the article if I can find it again…. BTW – They only messed a team scrimmage, there was NOTHING comeptitvely going on last week at the Bears Stadium, so the NFL currently has no control of the situation. 33 i Rate This polishrod says: Aug 10, 2011 1:37 PM Game gets cancelled in the Vet a few years ago (for deservedly so) crappy field conditions. Bears have a similiar issue (gaps in the playing surface) and because it’s grass, the perception is its safer. Getting your foot caught in a rut, is gonna blow out your knee on grass or turf. Maybe if Urlacher drops in their first pre-season home game they’ll change their mind. Otherwise, I assume the league will turn a blind eye to a clear case of “home-field advantage”. Whats sick is the Bears just paid all this money to re-do the staidum and left that crappy turf behind 30 i Rate This derekjetersmansion says: Aug 10, 2011 1:37 PM @ baned0n I believe the Pats went to FieldTurf during the season. So it took around 2 weeks. Also, the Eagles still play on grass. You don’t hear a peep from them about it. 00 i Rate This chobes68 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:39 PM Don’t his beloved Steelers play on grass as well? If I remember correctly, there grass is pretty shoddy too. They need to install what GB and Denver have, where its a synthetic base, with grass. It was a preseason practice, who cares? The field will be fine for the first game. Fake turf sucks, this is football, not tennis. 10 i Rate This spacincasen says: Aug 10, 2011 1:41 PM Grass is the traditional football surface. If it was good enough for Butkus, It should be good enough for today’s players. The issue here isn’t grass vs. Fieldturf– it’s that the Chicago Park District is not doing their damn job. Let’s see if it improves now that the Bears have decided to take the matters into their own hands. If it doesn’t, then OK… I’ll be lobbying for Fieldturf right along with you. To say they are keeping it strictly for a home-field advantage is a stretch… possible, yes, but a stretch. 21 i Rate This jblosser7 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:42 PM Rex Ryan would also like the League to force all players to play barefooted. 40 i Rate This cmarsh64 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:42 PM Anyone knows that the home team on a grass field has the advantage. Tou know where there maybe a high on low spot,plus you know what length of cleats to wear at the start of the game.As you can see thats a huge advantage. As a football coach at the midget level we play on both surfaces and the fieldturf creates a level playing field for both teams. Our team has grass and everyone knows the high and low spots on our field,plus our field is rented out by our district and gets beat up bad.Fieldturf would be great but we can’t afford it. 00 i Rate This baned0n says: Aug 10, 2011 1:42 PM achap39 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:30 PM So once again, the taxpayers of Chicago have to foot the bill for another stadium/field project….because the NFL office in New York says so. How many ways can my tax-paying ass say “hell no?” I know you likely won’t read this, because you clearly didn’t read the article, but it will cost taxpayers less over time than the grass costs. It will save your tax-paying ass money. 10 i Rate This cdsaints says: Aug 10, 2011 1:43 PM @paulitik74 As much as it pains me as a Saints fan to compliment a Falcons fan (and give his comment thumbs up), I laughed pretty hard when I read that. Good form. 00 i Rate This thetooloftools says: Aug 10, 2011 1:43 PM Hello Bears, this is the 21st century calling. Mind getting on board? 10 i Rate This hooks024 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:43 PM Btw- ditching grass in all stadiums is ridiculous, as you have to look at climatic conditions and what they do to grass vs. turf. And to the dumb dumb who mentioned soccer and concerts, if you can stand on it, you can build a stage for concerts, and this is america, where we have sports that don’t suck, so who cares about foot fairies faking shin injuries for 3 hours to end in a 0-0 tie. I’d rather watch the bills play the browns. 00 i Rate This mike83ri says: Aug 10, 2011 1:44 PM The Patriots switched to Turf in like 2 days before their 2006 season opener against the Bears because of how badly the field was messed up from concerts/etc. It really wasn’t hard. 20 i Rate This richardmb52 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:49 PM sowcrates says: Aug 10, 2011 1:33 PM Chicago can’t block very well in the trenches and their speed on both sides of the ball is their best asset. I’m pretty sure they aren’t sticking with grass to cultivate a home field advantage. I’ll offer $50 to the first person who can find footage of a game where an opponent has come to Soldier Field and slipped and slid everywhere while Chicago’s players had zero trouble. I’m sure the Bears’ familiarity with the crappy field can help, but it’s not like their opponents are slipping on banana peels while the Bears gracefully glide across the field with ease. Correlation is not causation, but it’s true that Chicago was one of the healthiest teams in football; there is some evidence that catastrophic knee injuries are still more common on artificial surfaces. Chicago has one of the lowest capacity stadiums in the NFL and the Bears’ ownership does not own the field. Maintaining a grass field does mean maintaining jobs and status (in this case, a very crappy status) for the Chicago park district, and I think the politics of that do make a difference. Watch Gale Sayers 00 i Rate This realitypolice says: Aug 10, 2011 1:49 PM adogdc says: Aug 10, 2011 1:37 PM Wow…Just Wow! Irresponsible Journalisim at its finest. There was a sceintific study on FieldTurf, at it was proved to have cancerous qaulities in those small pellets. The study is 3/4 years old, but I still remember it due to the controversy in DC Public Schools having the same turf installed. ===================== That study has been largely discredited, and most turf is made with a different infill than the one in question in that study. @derekjetersmansion- The Eagles field is artificial turf. One last thing, from someone who is in a related industry- calling it “FieldTurf” is like saying everyone who owns a car has a Ford. FieldTurf is a brand name of one of dozens of types of artificial field surfaces. 00 i Rate This richardmb52 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:50 PM LOL of course I think that was at Wrigley Field. 00 i Rate This mvp43 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:50 PM Competitive advantage? Try blocking and tackling better then your opponent for once. Try not throwing stupid pics…… 00 i Rate This darthvincent says: Aug 10, 2011 1:51 PM most of you have missed the point: “Each home club is responsible for having the playing surface of its stadium well maintained and suitable for NFL play…” duh Bears are ultimately responsible for their field. However, I do agree with George McCaskey, no bears were hurt on that field last year, not even Cutler. 00 i Rate This jimmymcnultysbottleofjameson says: Aug 10, 2011 1:51 PM Heinz Field is worse, but the league would never make their privileged baby do anything they didn’t want to. 00 i Rate This opie333 says: Aug 10, 2011 1:52 PM I think they should give them what they want! May be they will be playing flag football next year. They should give them pink uniforms with rainbows on them! Trade in the cleats for slippers! Walter Payton would roll over in his grave if he herd this bs! 10 i Rate This shaggytoodle says: Aug 10, 2011 1:53 PM If they do switch the turf how are the Bears old slow LBs going to be able to make tackles against speedsters without them losing thier footing. 00 i Rate This Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Do people legitimately think that this grass gives the Bears an advantage? They run a speed defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 Do people legitimately think that this grass gives the Bears an advantage? They run a speed defense. balta obviously the people have not watched one of our veteran CBs slipping on several occassions through his tenure on this turf. And for those who have no idea what happens politically in Chicago,don't embarrass yourselves by speculatingI live in the burbs and have access to the Chi-town news media and still don't have a grasp of why things work the way they do in the city. IMO it seems finacially irresponsible to keep resodding a field over and over again when you have a(VENUE) that is used for more than just 20 days out of a calendar year. You host a big college game the Sat before the Bears play=poor field conditions. Numerous rock concerts throughout the Spring and Summer what does that do to the grass? HS football games also contribute to this facility not truly belong to the Bears but the Bears just being one of many with access to use of this field. I fault the Bears and the NFL for contributing to this when it is clear neither has control over the events and up keep of the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyBear Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 As for knowing the Politics of Chicago is why I think Rahm had this done on purpose, Make an issue of a situation or emergency and then at the last minute get what you want as Mayor. Thats Chicago Politics. I think the best Field we could have is the ones that the Packers have, A mixture of real grass and turf. Its also the cheapest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 I thought I remember reading/ hearing that the City was wanting the Bears to use the Field Turf but the team refused per their contract. This article make sense from the stand point why the league has not stepped in a pressured the Bears to at least put in the field like GB. I also disagree the field give the Bears an advantage unless being shitty for both teams is an advantage? I emailed this topic off to the ESPN raido heads (M&M, Cowheard and SVP) to see if they can get some national attention on this subject. There really is no excuse to have the worst natural surface in the league. Hopefully they will talk about this issue which may at least limit the amount of time they spend every day talking about TEBOW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunkntailgater Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 I think the NFL should step in on the Bears and the Steelers and make them put in the Field Turf. It was an embarrassment for the NFC Championship to be played on that slop. Our Defense is set up to move fast and so is our Offense under the Mike Martz system. It is ridiculous that the McCaskey's are so damn bent on sticking with this slop we call natural grass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 I think the NFL should step in on the Bears and the Steelers and make them put in the Field Turf. It was an embarrassment for the NFC Championship to be played on that slop. Our Defense is set up to move fast and so is our Offense under the Mike Martz system. It is ridiculous that the McCaskey's are so damn bent on sticking with this slop we call natural grass. Are we actually certain that this is the McCaskey's? If so, why are they doing it? It certainly appears that the real grass is more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 As for knowing the Politics of Chicago is why I think Rahm had this done on purpose, Make an issue of a situation or emergency and then at the last minute get what you want as Mayor. Thats Chicago Politics. I think the best Field we could have is the ones that the Packers have, A mixture of real grass and turf. Its also the cheapest. Some media pundits have said that the field the packers use is good only if you limit the events on it. Lambeau doesn't host as many events as Soldier Field and basically is used just for packer games. I have no idea how true that is but it may be the real reason why that surface stays in such great condition so late in the season. We also have no idea how it looked after the Bears played up there since the packers spent the post season on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Some media pundits have said that the field the packers use is good only if you limit the events on it. Lambeau doesn't host as many events as Soldier Field and basically is used just for packer games. I have no idea how true that is but it may be the real reason why that surface stays in such great condition so late in the season. We also have no idea how it looked after the Bears played up there since the packers spent the post season on the road. Here is an interesting tidbit. It seems that the field at Bradley-Bourbonnais HS is field turf. So lets see a HS in the south suburbs has a artificial surface but a multi-million dollar professional team still insists on practicing and playing on grass. Hmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balta1701-A Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 In all the discussions about replacing the grass at Soldier Field, I never hear a field of DD Grassmaster discussed. That is the hybrid field used in Green Bay and other northern climates around the world. What is your view of this surface? -- Ike, Manalapan, N.J. It's the best surface out there for football in a northern climate. The problem is it doesn't hold up well in multiple use facilities. It's fine for Lambeau Field, which only stages 10 events a year (this year it was 11 with a June concert), but it wouldn't be fine for Soldier Field, which might stage more than twice as many events. Pompeii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Given the very above-board history of Chicago politics, I'm sure none of this has any bribery or back-door deals involved... Here is an interesting tidbit. It seems that the field at Bradley-Bourbonnais HS is field turf. So lets see a HS in the south suburbs has a artificial surface but a multi-million dollar professional team still insists on practicing and playing on grass. Hmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Goerge put his face and name on it. So, if it's not him, he's more than willing to be the figurehead for it. Are we actually certain that this is the McCaskey's? If so, why are they doing it? It certainly appears that the real grass is more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Curses! Breen Gay gets to have it becasue nothing ever goes on there, whereas because Chicago is a real city and more goes on here, we get stuck with a sandbox! Pompeii Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitownhustla Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Goerge put his face and name on it. So, if it's not him, he's more than willing to be the figurehead for it. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/29187164.html http://www.surfacesolutionsna.com/ddgrassmaster_info.asp http://www.surfacesolutionsna.com/default.asp Here is some info on the Field turf the cheesedicks have. Funny thing is the Steelers use the same turf and i thought they had problems with their field? Maybe the problems they had were before the Turf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 Thanks for the post. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/29187164.html http://www.surfacesolutionsna.com/ddgrassmaster_info.asp http://www.surfacesolutionsna.com/default.asp Here is some info on the Field turf the cheesedicks have. Funny thing is the Steelers use the same turf and i thought they had problems with their field? Maybe the problems they had were before the Turf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/29187164.html http://www.surfacesolutionsna.com/ddgrassmaster_info.asp http://www.surfacesolutionsna.com/default.asp Here is some info on the Field turf the cheesedicks have. Funny thing is the Steelers use the same turf and i thought they had problems with their field? Maybe the problems they had were before the Turf. Great post and now that I think about it They did have a number of players on IR. I wonder how many were on their home field. BTW Waddle and Silvy are broadcasting live right now at Soldier Field on the turf and Waddle confirms that the field is playable right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParkerBear7 Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/29187164.html http://www.surfacesolutionsna.com/ddgrassmaster_info.asp http://www.surfacesolutionsna.com/default.asp Here is some info on the Field turf the cheesedicks have. Funny thing is the Steelers use the same turf and i thought they had problems with their field? Maybe the problems they had were before the Turf. I have actually walked on the field at Invesco here in Denver and had no idea it was the same that thew packers use. The Broncos have one of the best looking playing surfaces in the NFL. No reason why the bears do not have this DD GrassMaster field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 No reason why the bears do not have this DD GrassMaster field. Nope. There is a good reason the Park District doesn't use that as a surface: It's not a football only stadium. Because they host concerts and whatnot, the surface has to be completely replaceable at a reasonable cost. In other words, that hybrid system is quite a bit more expensive to reinstall if it gets all torn up during a concert with a huge stage and scaffolding infrastructure. Their only options are a completely fake or completely real surface because those can more easily be redone in sections at a reasonable price whereas the hybrid repair costs are much much higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Boxer Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 the field sucked again last night...something needs to be done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.