DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Grass fields

There was a lot of talk about going back to grass fields after Tua's concussion. The players want it. See Milk's post for more info. However, the owners don't want it because they want to use the fields for multiple events to generate more revenue. The player safety thing is a croc.

In many to maybe most cases stadiums are city/county owned...or a big part. I can understand them wanting multi-use. It is foolish to not.

I am not saying I don't agree on grass, but with the stadiums being demanded by the NFL, it's not feasible to have a football only field any longer. Our stadium might have been the last, or at least one of the last cheapo stadiums built.

Everyone gets the "why." My point is that I don't want to hear how they care about player safety.

I would actually like to know for a fact who has the final say as to the surface of a stadium. Jerry Jones paid for his own stadium and owns it outright so he would certainly have the final say. Other than him stadiums for the most part are actually owned by municipalities. So who actually has the final say on which surface is to be used in those stadiums? Cities most certainly want multi use stadiums and it's easy to see why. So who actually has the final call?

I'm struggling to understand how grass would make these stadiums less useful.

Because it might rain or snow? Cover it with a tarp, duh. Not trying to be a wise-guy, but with technology I'm more than sure there is a way to get this done. Proper drainage system, proper coverage system, proper maintenance... done deal.

It's places like this where Roger would get a lot more respect for his (mostly misused) Imperial Chancellor persona... "All grass fields by 2025, no excuses. And so it is law" (bangs gavel)

I'm really not sure to be honest with you. But on the surface one would think that having an audience on the floor, changing over to an ice surface, heavy foot traffic and other such things would be much easier to convert to having a solid base rather than grass and then also easier and quicker changing back to an artificial surface. That's yet another question one would have to know and understand. Who makes the call on which turf is used in these stadiums and why or why wouldn't they use grass?

I'm just concerned at this point people may be pointing the finger towards the NFL when it may not even be their call to have a grass surface in these stadiums. I simply don't know.

I can understand the decision. With 2 teams playing on the same field, grass would have little recovery time. It could turn in to a mud pit in a hurry.

Tough look.

Interesting.

Mike Brown won't be happy.

Politicians just can't keep their noses out of anything. So much for smaller government.

I think this was introduced by Cleveland representative's in an effort to keep the Browns in an outdoor stadium. Maybe someone should introduce a bill that protects fans from the risk of skin cancer and prohibit fans from sitting in sunlight. Maybe include preventing hypothermia and not allowing fans to sit in temps below 50 degrees.

Obvious solution: Build the dome, add grass field. But do it underground.

Does Pittsburgh need a dome? Do the Bungles? How many big events, on a year by year basis, would a domed stadium attract in Cleveland?

Why is CBS so bad? Honest question....

I would prefer grass. I am not sure how well that would do in a cold climate city like Cleveland. That would pose problems. I suppose a glass type dome might work.

I am not sure what you mean by doing it underground?

How hard is it to grow grass indoors? I started doing it in 1995 or so.
The Haslem's just need to hire the right company. These guys seem to be growing grass indoors just fine.

Half-joking. Underground dome could open roof Parking above facility. I was thinking like Montreal's underground city, trains, food, shops. Think might offer some advantages for heating/cooling and "stadium +" ideas. Portland has a feel for a fix!

Yes. The Browns can get ahead of the curve within their division or end up playing from behind.
There are already 11 teams with domed stadiums and more all the time. The choice is to embrace the future or cling to the past. And from the Browns response to the city it seems obvious they plan to embrace the future. The only other option will be trying to fix up a stadium beyond its time. None of that actually makes any sense.

You're probably right, but it seems odd that a stadium that is only 26 years old is obsolete. Things change fast I guess.

I don't think it's as simplistic as that. It could be but as I look at it from a big picture perspective I don't think so. It wasn't until February of 1996 that the NFL announced that the Browns would get a new expansion team in 1999. That gave a little over three and a half years to first find the funding for and then build such a stadium. That's a rather tight timeline and you can't construct a stadium you neither have the funding for or the time to build. I think not only was the expansion team a rush job but the stadium built was as well. We're just now beginning to see the consequences of that.

This 100, Lamp.

There wasn't enough time, patience, planning or foresight to really build "longevity" into the project. Combine that with the construction methods of driving pylons through landfill to support the weight and it was mission:impossible to ever add the weight of a dome retrofit later.

I understand your point, but who wants to sit in a greenhouse?

It's because it was built in a hurry which means on the cheap. Fixing it now for a $billion is getting it slightly better than it should have been from the get go.

The leaders in Cleveland government have a Wal-Mart mentality. Wal-Mart is a great place to shop if you are looking for duct tape, super glue and a pair of overalls.

Good to see you back posting, Vers. It has been a while.

That post is pushing two years old.

I’ve also heard that Lake Erie has really taken a toll on it.