Sign in to follow this  
pianoknight

Debate: Standard Field Sizes versus Unique?

Recommended Posts

I learned recently that the PBA tour plays on different surface bowling lanes. Oils and waxes and woods and whatever change tournament to tournament. I always thought bowling was the same everywhere so I guess that makes it slightly more interesting. 

 

 

I like how baseball fields have always been different. If Fenway Park came out today we'd call it gimmicky and stupid, but it's been around forever and so it's just an accepted part of the game. I would kind of like it if football fields were different sizes. I'm a fan of quirks. Imagine going into Green Bay knowing you have to defend against Aaron Rodgers and he has a 20 yard deep endzone to work with? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, lopernv said:

I shouldn't have assumed ;).

 

I agree with you, @2001mark, that the NHL has to some point move to a bigger ice surface. The transition will be interesting! Going to older buildings and being forced to play small... would add a whole new dimension to the league.

Won't happen. I'll cost a ton of money just to do it, and they wouldn't get that money back, because they'll have less seats... the revenue from two or three whole rings of seats is a lot, and definitely not worth losing for a little bit larger playing size. Especially in the OITGDNHL... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, McCarthy said:

I learned recently that the PBA tour plays on different surface bowling lanes. Oils and waxes and woods and whatever change tournament to tournament. I always thought bowling was the same everywhere so I guess that makes it slightly more interesting. 

 

 

I like how baseball fields have always been different. If Fenway Park came out today we'd call it gimmicky and stupid, but it's been around forever and so it's just an accepted part of the game. I would kind of like it if football fields were different sizes. I'm a fan of quirks. Imagine going into Green Bay knowing you have to defend against Aaron Rodgers and he has a 20 yard deep endzone to work with? 

I dont know if I would like that. Things change, but the scoring aspects have remained constant for most sports. THe posts in soccer, footy, the baseball distance between bases and such.

 

Now, a 20 yard wider field for him is something to think about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually quite bummed that Houston got rid of Tal's Hill.  The little variation that exists in MLB today is just that -- too little.  Why does every CF fence have to be 399 or 400 feet?  I'd love to see one field out of 30 that's like 425 feet or farther, like the old Polo Grounds (which was 483 feet to center and between 260-275 down to the fair poles in either RF or LF, respectively).  Unique stadiums is part of the charm in baseball.

 

Other sports could take a hint.  I really don't think results would change that much... for example, even if one soccer field is larger than the next, the goals are the same size and the rules are the same, so aren't goals scored in the same frequency?  And as long as you can't change the dimensions on a whim, it'd be cool.  If a poor-passing NFL team suddenly gets an accurate QB and can make the sidelines wider the same season, that wouldn't be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, ShinyHubCaps said:

I'm actually quite bummed that Houston got rid of Tal's Hill.  The little variation that exists in MLB today is just that -- too little.  Why does every CF fence have to be 399 or 400 feet?  I'd love to see one field out of 30 that's like 425 feet or farther, like the old Polo Grounds (which was 483 feet to center and between 260-275 down to the fair poles in either RF or LF, respectively).  Unique stadiums is part of the charm in baseball.

 

Other sports could take a hint.  I really don't think results would change that much... for example, even if one soccer field is larger than the next, the goals are the same size and the rules are the same, so aren't goals scored in the same frequency?  And as long as you can't change the dimensions on a whim, it'd be cool.  If a poor-passing NFL team suddenly gets an accurate QB and can make the sidelines wider the same season, that wouldn't be fair.

Im with you on the hill part. Although I was happy to see the flagpole go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chcarlson23 said:

Won't happen. I'll cost a ton of money just to do it, and they wouldn't get that money back, because they'll have less seats... the revenue from two or three whole rings of seats is a lot, and definitely not worth losing for a little bit larger playing size. Especially in the OITGDNHL... 

 

That's why I said:

Quote

The transition will be interesting! Going to older buildings and being forced to play small... would add a whole new dimension to the league.

... as in newer buildings would have to change to the larger ice surface and older buildings would be grandfathered in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ShinyHubCaps said:

I really don't think results would change that much... for example, even if one soccer field is larger than the next, the goals are the same size and the rules are the same, so aren't goals scored in the same frequency?

 

No.  

 

Penalty kicks are the same, but the rest of the game is quite different and shaped by the size of the field.   Soccer is a game of movement and flow.  It's not about the person right in front of the goal kicking the ball in, but how that person gets the ball.   A wider field gives the wingers so much more room to come down the pitch.  Just think about the defenders - if they have a wider patch of grass to cover, that will undoubtedly change their formations and tactics.  

 

The size of the field changes the flow of a soccer game significantly, and that can't help but impact scoring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching the Saskatchewan-Montreal (CFL) game and I just noticed the end zones corners are cut. If I remember correctly, I think the Toronto Argonauts have end zones at 18 yards instead of being the standard 20 yards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DNAsports said:

Watching the Saskatchewan-Montreal (CFL) game and I just noticed the end zones corners are cut. If I remember correctly, I think the Toronto Argonauts have end zones at 18 yards instead of being the standard 20 yards.

Yeah, I think that's been the norm esp ever since their ill fated American expansion - I think some of those end zones were the shortest ever.

There seem to be different corners cut out in some CFL & CIS end zones to accomodate the stadiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 2001mark said:

Yeah, I think that's been the norm esp ever since their ill fated American expansion - I think some of those end zones were the shortest ever.

There seem to be different corners cut out in some CFL & CIS end zones to accomodate the stadiums.

I thought of this as soon as I saw the thread--stadiums with tracks have the clipped corners.

If the CFL were to change to 15 yard endzones I believe they could all be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this