Jump to content

Chicago Bears Grounds Crew Screws Up Field


Mac the Knife

Recommended Posts

Great googly moogly.

To take a more nuanced approach to the picture, what's really wrong with that field is that it appears to be in late November form in early September, and the U2 concert is only going to make it worse, and now that this is a team built around high-flying offense, it's not in their best interests to have a field that assists defenses in swallowing players alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great googly moogly.

To take a more nuanced approach to the picture, what's really wrong with that field is that it appears to be in late November form in early September, and the U2 concert is only going to make it worse, and now that this is a team built around high-flying offense, it's not in their best interests to have a field that assists defenses in swallowing players alive.

But that's the surface football is meant to be played on!!!!111one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great googly moogly.

To take a more nuanced approach to the picture, what's really wrong with that field is that it appears to be in late November form in early September, and the U2 concert is only going to make it worse, and now that this is a team built around high-flying offense, it's not in their best interests to have a field that assists defenses in swallowing players alive.

But that's the surface football is meant to be played on!!!!111one

Since when is football supposed to be played on a grass field with artificial turf weaved into it? Just a messy mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great googly moogly.

To take a more nuanced approach to the picture, what's really wrong with that field is that it appears to be in late November form in early September, and the U2 concert is only going to make it worse, and now that this is a team built around high-flying offense, it's not in their best interests to have a field that assists defenses in swallowing players alive.

But that's the surface football is meant to be played on!!!!111one

Football is meant to be played on grass, but at least at the NFL level, it's meant to be played on grass that receives some level of upkeep commensurate with the importance of the league. You can say "install fieldturf," but there's more to it. Soldier Field is an embarrassment to the team, city, and league. Enough has been said about the fact that it's a total eyesore on the lakefront, but not enough has been said about the fact that the drainage system is shoddily built, and the field is built on below-grade landfill. The whole thing was slapped together quickly and cheaply. If the Park District decided to put in FieldTurf--and it's their call, not the team's--they would just do a crappy job anyway, and it would present its own litany of problems. It would still be lumpy and waterlogged and cause too many injuries. A welcome mat on a mud puddle is what it would be, essentially, but it's a moot point: the CONCACAF exhibitions and so forth are apparently so lucrative that they can't be sacrificed.

I don't know where they'd put it or how they'd finance it, but the Bears need a new stadium altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great googly moogly.

To take a more nuanced approach to the picture, what's really wrong with that field is that it appears to be in late November form in early September, and the U2 concert is only going to make it worse, and now that this is a team built around high-flying offense, it's not in their best interests to have a field that assists defenses in swallowing players alive.

But that's the surface football is meant to be played on!!!!111one

Football is meant to be played on grass, but at least at the NFL level, it's meant to be played on grass that receives some level of upkeep commensurate with the importance of the league. You can say "install fieldturf," but there's more to it. Soldier Field is an embarrassment to the team, city, and league. Enough has been said about the fact that it's a total eyesore on the lakefront, but not enough has been said about the fact that the drainage system is shoddily built, and the field is built on below-grade landfill. The whole thing was slapped together quickly and cheaply. If the Park District decided to put in FieldTurf--and it's their call, not the team's--they would just do a crappy job anyway, and it would present its own litany of problems. It would still be lumpy and waterlogged and cause too many injuries. A welcome mat on a mud puddle is what it would be, essentially, but it's a moot point: the CONCACAF exhibitions and so forth are apparently so lucrative that they can't be sacrificed.

I don't know where they'd put it or how they'd finance it, but the Bears need a new stadium altogether.

Somewhere nice too... like Wrigley Field!

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great googly moogly.

To take a more nuanced approach to the picture, what's really wrong with that field is that it appears to be in late November form in early September, and the U2 concert is only going to make it worse, and now that this is a team built around high-flying offense, it's not in their best interests to have a field that assists defenses in swallowing players alive.

But that's the surface football is meant to be played on!!!!111one

Football is meant to be played on grass, but at least at the NFL level, it's meant to be played on grass that receives some level of upkeep commensurate with the importance of the league. You can say "install fieldturf," but there's more to it. Soldier Field is an embarrassment to the team, city, and league. Enough has been said about the fact that it's a total eyesore on the lakefront, but not enough has been said about the fact that the drainage system is shoddily built, and the field is built on below-grade landfill. The whole thing was slapped together quickly and cheaply. If the Park District decided to put in FieldTurf--and it's their call, not the team's--they would just do a crappy job anyway, and it would present its own litany of problems. It would still be lumpy and waterlogged and cause too many injuries. A welcome mat on a mud puddle is what it would be, essentially, but it's a moot point: the CONCACAF exhibitions and so forth are apparently so lucrative that they can't be sacrificed.

I don't know where they'd put it or how they'd finance it, but the Bears need a new stadium altogether.

Not only is it a mess, but it's also the smallest (by capacity) stadium in the NFL. And from what I've read, there's no room for expansion.

I've been wondering if the upcoming Olympic bid that Chicago is putting together would result in a new stadium for the Bears...they have to build an "Olympic Stadium" anyway, and maybe they could convert it into a new home for the Bears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the grass vs. field turf argument pretty much became moot once players started signing contracts for 10s or 100s of millions of dollars. There's too much on the line to put the faces of your franchise - the key marketing chips - the multi-million-dollar investments in any kind of unnecessary danger. It's all about safety for the players. If you can accomplish that with grass, then great. If not, put the turf in. I'm sure the insurance companies feel the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only is it a mess, but it's also the smallest (by capacity) stadium in the NFL. And from what I've read, there's no room for expansion.

It is and there isn't. A Yahoo Sports article ranking the NFL ownership groups had the McCaskeys at #30, below everyone but Al Davis and Mike Brown (the Bengals owner, not the defensive back that gets injured every year). Worse than the Fords, worse than the Yorks, worse than the Lerners, worse than almost everybody, and I largely agree. The crux of the author's argument was that the Bears could exploit their market to unforeseen proportions, and yet they're mostly content to go about business in their own insular sclerotic way:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-ownerrankingspartone09020&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

From a business perspective, no franchise in sports underachieves like this one. The Bears have a storied history, the NFL?s second-largest market all to themselves and, for the first time in forever, a saleable franchise quarterback in Jay Cutler. The brand should be booming; sponsorship revenues should be raining down upon Halas Hall like M.J.?s fadeway jumpers in the mid-?90s. ?They could take that thing and run it to the moon,? one owner says. ?But they get less for what they?ve got than any team in our league.?

Obviously the point of the new Soldier Field is to sell more luxury boxes, but demand for the Bears is such that they could sell another 19,000 seats with relative ease (but good luck finding a place to park). Oh well. At least we'll never have to worry about a blackout! Suck on that, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Oakland, Detroit, half of the league this year.

I've been wondering if the upcoming Olympic bid that Chicago is putting together would result in a new stadium for the Bears...they have to build an "Olympic Stadium" anyway, and maybe they could convert it into a new home for the Bears.

d897a366cc2a27a8465c0d68977a8af8.jpg

"I've sold Olympic stadiums to Montreal, Athens, Beijing, and North Haverbrook."

"Is there a chance the roof could fail to retract and cost the city a billion dollars?"

"I call the big one Bitey."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering if the upcoming Olympic bid that Chicago is putting together would result in a new stadium for the Bears...they have to build an "Olympic Stadium" anyway, and maybe they could convert it into a new home for the Bears.

Sounds better than the current plan of building the Olympic Stadium, then demolishing most/all of it to become a park or outdoor auditorium or something (I forget what)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering if the upcoming Olympic bid that Chicago is putting together would result in a new stadium for the Bears...they have to build an "Olympic Stadium" anyway, and maybe they could convert it into a new home for the Bears.

Sounds better than the current plan of building the Olympic Stadium, then demolishing most/all of it to become a park or outdoor auditorium or something (I forget what)

Demolishing (actually dismantling) most of it to become...wait for it... a smaller stadium.

it's moot anyway, sice Chicago isn't getting the Olympics. Looks like you're stuck bitching about Soldier Field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been wondering if the upcoming Olympic bid that Chicago is putting together would result in a new stadium for the Bears...they have to build an "Olympic Stadium" anyway, and maybe they could convert it into a new home for the Bears.

Sounds better than the current plan of building the Olympic Stadium, then demolishing most/all of it to become a park or outdoor auditorium or something (I forget what)

Demolishing (actually dismantling) most of it to become...wait for it... a smaller stadium.

it's moot anyway, sice Chicago isn't getting the Olympics. Looks like you're stuck bitching about Soldier Field.

I wouldn't be too sure. I doubt the IOC wants to be party to the total and complete immolation of the Brazilian economy, and hosting both the World Cup and a summer Olympiad within a two-year span would likely do just that.

Pragmatism trumps sentimentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.