Giants/Jets new endzones

[FirearmofMutiny]

soldier field had artificial turf in the 1970s - late 1980s.

thats not grass payton is running on.

According to Wiki, they went to grass in 1988; did it have something to do with their bid to host World Cup games in 1994? I thought there was one other venue that went from AstroTurf to natural grass due to soccer-related reasons. Giants Stadium, maybe? I know Giants Stadium had natural grass for a few years, and that held up terribly, so they went from grass to FieldTurf.

[BBTV]

Deserving to see a real game is why they shouldn't have to watch everyone freeze their asses off and slip around on the turf. Playing in a frigid pile of slop is all well and good for a meaningless Bears game on some idle November afternoon, but a neutral-site championship game shouldn't be compromised by pesky elements.

Then we'd better stop holding them in Miami.

I've heard this complaint before, but I don't understand the perspective. Elements the don't "compromise" a game, they are an essential part of the game. This isn't basketball, designed to be played in a 68-degree windless arena.

In addition to my fundamental disagreement with your opinion, it's important to note that the SB is also the SB of gambling, and I doubt Vegas (or the local bookmakers) would like it if anyone was hesitating to put down a bet because the forecast is for a foot of snow and arial games could be neutralized and players will just be slipping all around. I'd bet (not intended) that the gambling community would always prefer an element-free game, and let's face it - their opinion counts for a lot.

[njmeadowlanders]

In addition to my fundamental disagreement with your opinion, it's important to note that the SB is also the SB of gambling, and I doubt Vegas (or the local bookmakers) would like it if anyone was hesitating to put down a bet because the forecast is for a foot of snow and arial games could be neutralized and players will just be slipping all around. I'd bet (not intended) that the gambling community would always prefer an element-free game, and let's face it - their opinion counts for a lot.

This is true.

However the NFL has it's head in the sand when it comes to gambling. They know all about it, we know all about it, they know that we know they know all about it, but they don't acknowledge it.

You'll NEVER get the NFL to admit that point, as correct as it may be.

[Gothamite]

The NFL doesn't get any of that money, so I don't think they really care all that much. Yes, gambling stirs interest and ratings in the games. But so does fantasy football. And when we're talking about the Super Bowl, so do the commercials.

I doubt that even Vegas has enough pull to dictate the Super Bowl location based on some supposed fear of weather conditions limiting the number of bets. If they did, then it wouldn't keep going back to Miami.

[sacker12]

soldier field had artificial turf in the 1970s - late 1980s.

thats not grass payton is running on.

According to Wiki, they went to grass in 1988; did it have something to do with their bid to host World Cup games in 1994? I thought there was one other venue that went from AstroTurf to natural grass due to soccer-related reasons. Giants Stadium, maybe? I know Giants Stadium had natural grass for a few years, and that held up terribly, so they went from grass to FieldTurf.

That venue was Legion Field in Birmingham, AL. It was converted from AstroTurf to natural grass to host soccer for the 1996 Olympics based in Atlanta. However, they have since switched to FieldTurf due to the field being in poor condition during the state high school football championships.

[winters in buffalo]

Deserving to see a real game is why they shouldn't have to watch everyone freeze their asses off and slip around on the turf. Playing in a frigid pile of slop is all well and good for a meaningless Bears game on some idle November afternoon, but a neutral-site championship game shouldn't be compromised by pesky elements.

Then we'd better stop holding them in Miami.

I've heard this complaint before, but I don't understand the perspective. Elements the don't "compromise" a game, they are an essential part of the game. This isn't basketball, designed to be played in a 68-degree windless arena.

In addition to my fundamental disagreement with your opinion, it's important to note that the SB is also the SB of gambling, and I doubt Vegas (or the local bookmakers) would like it if anyone was hesitating to put down a bet because the forecast is for a foot of snow and arial games could be neutralized and players will just be slipping all around. I'd bet (not intended) that the gambling community would always prefer an element-free game, and let's face it - their opinion counts for a lot.

BS reasoning, if you ask me. Counterargument... the Kentucky Derby. Huge betting event, weather is often a big factor.

[Mings]

Besides, people would totally gamble on what the weather is supposed to be like, how much snow, etc....

They do already.

[BBTV]

Deserving to see a real game is why they shouldn't have to watch everyone freeze their asses off and slip around on the turf. Playing in a frigid pile of slop is all well and good for a meaningless Bears game on some idle November afternoon, but a neutral-site championship game shouldn't be compromised by pesky elements.

Then we'd better stop holding them in Miami.

I've heard this complaint before, but I don't understand the perspective. Elements the don't "compromise" a game, they are an essential part of the game. This isn't basketball, designed to be played in a 68-degree windless arena.

In addition to my fundamental disagreement with your opinion, it's important to note that the SB is also the SB of gambling, and I doubt Vegas (or the local bookmakers) would like it if anyone was hesitating to put down a bet because the forecast is for a foot of snow and arial games could be neutralized and players will just be slipping all around. I'd bet (not intended) that the gambling community would always prefer an element-free game, and let's face it - their opinion counts for a lot.

BS reasoning, if you ask me. Counterargument... the Kentucky Derby. Huge betting event, weather is often a big factor.

Well, I didn't ask you , but I'd say that horse racing is much more of a crap shoot anyway, and that it's in a sense sort of a game of chance (I know nothing about horse racing, so I could be totally wrong about that, but I just always thought that a lot of the people who bet are either just having fun and don't know what they're doing, or are addicts who don't care, as long as they have action.)

[WSU151]

In addition to my fundamental disagreement with your opinion, it's important to note that the SB is also the SB of gambling, and I doubt Vegas (or the local bookmakers) would like it if anyone was hesitating to put down a bet because the forecast is for a foot of snow and arial games could be neutralized and players will just be slipping all around. I'd bet (not intended) that the gambling community would always prefer an element-free game, and let's face it - their opinion counts for a lot.

This is true.

However the NFL has it's head in the sand when it comes to gambling. They know all about it, we know all about it, they know that we know they know all about it, but they don't acknowledge it.

You'll NEVER get the NFL to admit that point, as correct as it may be.

Heck, the only reason for the detailed weekly injury reports is to please the gambling community.

[Viper]

Deserving to see a real game is why they shouldn't have to watch everyone freeze their asses off and slip around on the turf. Playing in a frigid pile of slop is all well and good for a meaningless Bears game on some idle November afternoon, but a neutral-site championship game shouldn't be compromised by pesky elements.

Then we'd better stop holding them in Miami.

I've heard this complaint before, but I don't understand the perspective. Elements the don't "compromise" a game, they are an essential part of the game. This isn't basketball, designed to be played in a 68-degree windless arena.

In addition to my fundamental disagreement with your opinion, it's important to note that the SB is also the SB of gambling, and I doubt Vegas (or the local bookmakers) would like it if anyone was hesitating to put down a bet because the forecast is for a foot of snow and arial games could be neutralized and players will just be slipping all around. I'd bet (not intended) that the gambling community would always prefer an element-free game, and let's face it - their opinion counts for a lot.

BS reasoning, if you ask me. Counterargument... the Kentucky Derby. Huge betting event, weather is often a big factor.

Well, I didn't ask you , but I'd say that horse racing is much more of a crap shoot anyway, and that it's in a sense sort of a game of chance (I know nothing about horse racing, so I could be totally wrong about that, but I just always thought that a lot of the people who bet are either just having fun and don't know what they're doing, or are addicts who don't care, as long as they have action.)

Horse racing is pretty much a made-for-gambling sport anyway. It probably would have died out long ago, or at least been exiled into relative obscurity alongside sports like curling and box lacrosse, if people didn't bet on it. And yet, there has never been a big hue and cry to do anything to take bad weather out of horse racing. On the other hand, that may have as much to do with practicality as anything else; it's not as though they can build a dome over Churchill Downs.

As for a Meadowlands (or any other cold-weather) Super Bowl, from what I gather the knock against that idea has less to do with making the teams playing in cold, miserable and potentially nasty conditions, than with making spectators (read: corporations and super-wealthy individuals who might decide they have better uses for their money than buying tickets to sit shivering for 3+ hours) sit through those same conditions. The Super Bowl is the NFL's centerpiece event and for a host of reasons (empty seats look bad on TV, they don't want a local blackout, etc.) they really want every seat in the stadium filled. Not just sold out, but filled.

Another problem with a cold-weather Super Bowl is the havoc it could wreak with the halftime show. Nowadays Super Bowl halftime shows are big productions that are announced and planned months in advance. The first time they have to cancel the show because nasty weather conditions prevented them from getting the stage set up (or worse yet, prevented them from taking the stage down, and otherwise getting the field completely clear for the 2nd half) is likely the last time the NFL ever considers putting the Super Bowl in a northern outdoor stadium.

Yet another problem that's locale-specific is that the Super Bowl falls smack dab in the middle of Nor'easter season. What does the NFL do if NYC/NJ gets socked by one during Super Bowl week?

[cheo25]

In addition to my fundamental disagreement with your opinion, it's important to note that the SB is also the SB of gambling, and I doubt Vegas (or the local bookmakers) would like it if anyone was hesitating to put down a bet because the forecast is for a foot of snow and arial games could be neutralized and players will just be slipping all around. I'd bet (not intended) that the gambling community would always prefer an element-free game, and let's face it - their opinion counts for a lot.

This is true.

However the NFL has it's head in the sand when it comes to gambling. They know all about it, we know all about it, they know that we know they know all about it, but they don't acknowledge it.

You'll NEVER get the NFL to admit that point, as correct as it may be.

Heck, the only reason for the detailed weekly injury reports is to please the gambling community.

And fantasy football -- injury reports give fantasy team owners a heads-up on who might be limited, unavailable, etc.

The NFL doesn't say too much about gambling because it's one of the things that helps the popularity of the league. But they can't come out and overtly embrace it because the moral police would get upset and there would be backlash, though not as much as years ago because our society continues to become more tolerant of things once considered seedy.

But fantasy football is a major reason why the NFL has pulled away from the pack as the most popular sport in America. The percentage of football fans who play fantasy football is probably higher than the percentage of football fans who gamble on point spreads.

[pcgd]

I find it hard to believe that they will NEVER put a synthetic surface especially if the field keeps getting completely wrecked every year and injuries start to mount.

Concern over injuries will cause them to switch to a surface associated with an increase in ACL injuries?

Where is this research? Unless I'm missing a link I've never seen Field Turf associated with an increase in knee injuries. I know when my college team installed it, injuries dropped significantly the that season. Small sample size I know...

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen research one way or the other. I've only experienced both actually playing football and although grass is better when perfectly manicured, turf is so much better than even average grass.

From earlier in the thread, the research comes courtesy of the NFL.

The NFL's Injury and Safety Panel presented a study today finding that anterior cruciate ligament injuries happened 88 percent more often in games played on FieldTurf than in games played on grass

The panel also found that sprained ankles happen more frequently on FieldTurf

FieldTurf is associated with with an increase in sprained ankles and ACL injuries. If I was running an NFL team, I wouldn't install it until more research had been done (and not by FieldTurf).

Thank you. Although it says further research is needed that's the first time I've seen real research in any direction.

[pcgd]

I find it hard to believe that they will NEVER put a synthetic surface especially if the field keeps getting completely wrecked every year and injuries start to mount.

Concern over injuries will cause them to switch to a surface associated with an increase in ACL injuries?

Where is this research? Unless I'm missing a link I've never seen Field Turf associated with an increase in knee injuries. I know when my college team installed it, injuries dropped significantly the that season. Small sample size I know...

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't seen research one way or the other. I've only experienced both actually playing football and although grass is better when perfectly manicured, turf is so much better than even average grass.

From earlier in the thread, the research comes courtesy of the NFL.

The NFL's Injury and Safety Panel presented a study today finding that anterior cruciate ligament injuries happened 88 percent more often in games played on FieldTurf than in games played on grass

The panel also found that sprained ankles happen more frequently on FieldTurf

FieldTurf is associated with with an increase in sprained ankles and ACL injuries. If I was running an NFL team, I wouldn't install it until more research had been done (and not by FieldTurf).

[Gothamite]

Another problem with a cold-weather Super Bowl is the havoc it could wreak with the halftime show.

See, you keep coming up with reasons why a Meadowlands Super Bowl is a good idea.

[Buster]

Another problem with a cold-weather Super Bowl is the havoc it could wreak with the halftime show. Nowadays Super Bowl halftime shows are big productions that are announced and planned months in advance. The first time they have to cancel the show because nasty weather conditions prevented them from getting the stage set up (or worse yet, prevented them from taking the stage down, and otherwise getting the field completely clear for the 2nd half) is likely the last time the NFL ever considers putting the Super Bowl in a northern outdoor stadium.

That's not a problem to me...judging by their history of halftime performers...a shortened performance would be a GREAT thing!

[scottysprings]

Heck, the only reason for the detailed weekly injury reports is to please the gambling community.

And fantasy football -- injury reports give fantasy team owners a heads-up on who might be limited, unavailable, etc.

You think the NFL fined the Jets $125,000 for not placing Brett Favre on the injury reports last year as retribution for gamblers and fantasy owners?

[Gothamite]

No, I think the NFL fined the Jets because Roger Goodell doesn't like it when teams lie to him. The League called the Jets when media reports first surfaced about Favre being hurt, and they flat-out lied about it.

If the NFL really cared about gamblers and fantasy owners, they'd come down hard on Bill Belichick for his finessed injury reports.

[WSU151]

Every coach manipulates the injury report - Belichick just happens to be the best at it because he doesn't give a damn about catering to the league.

[powersurge]

Another problem with a cold-weather Super Bowl is the havoc it could wreak with the halftime show.

See, you keep coming up with reasons why a Meadowlands Super Bowl is a good idea.

Just clothe the 55+ year old rockers with Parkas and you'll be fine. Bring on the cold.

[Gothamite]

Every coach manipulates the injury report - Belichick just happens to be the best at it because he doesn't give a damn about catering to the league.

He just walks a very fine line. The Jets lied outright. There's a difference.