Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Post by Tony Lombar » Mon, 30 Dec 1996 04:00:00


I just got done watching the Steelers beat the ***
out of Indianapolis.  Throughout the game, players
were slipping during cuts, or even when they just
tried to stop.  A wet carpet is the stupidest thing
in the world to be playing football on.

People argue that grass gets wet and slippery too.  
The difference is that players can put on longer
cleats to dig in--this can't be done for the fake
stuff.

Football was meant to be played on grass.  Many
owners don't like grass because it costs more to keep
up--but as one owner said (sorry, can't remembr which
one), the money that is spent on maintaining the
grass is saved and then some by having his players
free from turf-caused injuries (which don't receive
enough attention).

 
 
 

Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Post by Jerome Jahn » Tue, 31 Dec 1996 04:00:00

 > People argue that grass gets wet and slippery too.  

Quote:
> The difference is that players can put on longer
> cleats to dig in--this can't be done for the fake
> stuff.

Huh?? Did you watch the Eagles/Niners game on Sunday? Tune into the
Packers/Niners game this saturday. They were wearing 3/4 inch cleats
yesterday and still not being able to make cuts. To be honest folks get
hurt more on turf not becuase it is hard to fall on, but becuase when you
make a turn or a cut you stick a lot better, and as such, instead of the
carpet giving your knee or ankle does, and this is why the stuff should be
outlawed.

Also, anyone who has ever played on either knows you play faster, i.e. run
and turn faster on carpet than you do on turf.

Jer,

--
Jerome Jahnke
Biological Sciences Division/ Office of Academic Computing
University of Chicago

 
 
 

Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Post by Henry Loui » Tue, 31 Dec 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> I just got done watching the Steelers beat the ***
> out of Indianapolis.  Throughout the game, players
> were slipping during cuts, or even when they just
> tried to stop.  A wet carpet is the stupidest thing
> in the world to be playing football on.

> People argue that grass gets wet and slippery too.
> The difference is that players can put on longer
> cleats to dig in--this can't be done for the fake
> stuff.

> Football was meant to be played on grass.  Many
> owners don't like grass because it costs more to keep
> up--but as one owner said (sorry, can't remembr which
> one), the money that is spent on maintaining the
> grass is saved and then some by having his players
> free from turf-caused injuries (which don't receive
> enough attention).

Completely agreed...

Owners should also realize that teams with home games on turf have habitually done worse in the
standings...For 1996, home turf teams finished with a 105-135 (.438) record...This record is even
worse when you look at domed teams at 50-78 (.391)...Admittedly, domed teams don't have to worry
about wet artificial turf BUT the fact remains that no domed team had ever even appeared in the
Super Bowl...

Are these mere coincidences???...

 
 
 

Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Post by Scott Pett » Tue, 31 Dec 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


> > I just got done watching the Steelers beat the ***
> > out of Indianapolis.  Throughout the game, players
> > were slipping during cuts, or even when they just
> > tried to stop.  A wet carpet is the stupidest thing
> > in the world to be playing football on.

> > People argue that grass gets wet and slippery too.
> > The difference is that players can put on longer
> > cleats to dig in--this can't be done for the fake
> > stuff.

> > Football was meant to be played on grass.  Many
> > owners don't like grass because it costs more to keep
> > up--but as one owner said (sorry, can't remembr which
> > one), the money that is spent on maintaining the
> > grass is saved and then some by having his players
> > free from turf-caused injuries (which don't receive
> > enough attention).

> Completely agreed...

> Owners should also realize that teams with home games on turf have habitually done worse in the
> standings...For 1996, home turf teams finished with a 105-135 (.438) record...This record is even
> worse when you look at domed teams at 50-78 (.391)...Admittedly, domed teams don't have to worry
> about wet artificial turf BUT the fact remains that no domed team had ever even appeared in the
> Super Bowl...

> Are these mere coincidences???...

I think it is.  Just look at the teams with domes.  Atlanta, Houston,
and NO.  Did I leave anyone out?  Anyway, I had heard that Dallas is, or
was planning to put in natural grass in Texas Stadium, is this still the
plan?  Does anyone know?  It would be pretty stupid to put in new turf
and then turn around an rip it up and put in grass.
 
 
 

Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Post by Frank Raymond Michae » Thu, 02 Jan 1997 04:00:00

<< an erudite and moving sermon on the Evils of Astroturf which should
nominate him for Canonization as a Saint in the Church of his choice>>
<< well, maybe not, but I agree with him ;-) >>

Quote:

> Football was meant to be played on grass.  Many
> owners don't like grass because it costs more to keep
> up--but as one owner said (sorry, can't remembr which
> one), the money that is spent on maintaining the
> grass is saved and then some by having his players
> free from turf-caused injuries (which don't receive
> enough attention).

Amen, Brother -- and while we're at it, let's not forget the
shortening of players' careers because of long-term joint injury from
playing on 'turf. Astroturf is, essentially, asphalt with some green
plastic sticking out of it. It doesn't "give" like grass and dirt does
when a player runs or makes sharp turns or digs in against another
lineman. This lack of give transmits the shock of impact into the
players' joints, and the accumulated wear and injury can shorten a
career by up to 4 years (I forget where I originally heard this
figure, but I think it was a recent issue of _Inside Sports_).
        I know the story: "But grass won't grow under a dome." Well... then
rip the domes off! What are we, moles? Some of my fondest childhood
memories are freezing to death with my Dad in the mezzanine of Shea
Stadium back when the Jets played there (if you've never been there,
Shea Stadium is *windy* in December).
        Grass and dirt. There was something primal and satisfying about a
mud-spattered uniform and helmets with clumps of sod sticking out of
them. Rip up Astroturf, not players. Thanks for reading my rant, I
feel better now.
--------------------------------
Frank Raymond Michaels
 
 
 

Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Post by George Matthew Regne » Thu, 02 Jan 1997 04:00:00

On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:46:03 -0500, Scott Petty

Quote:

>> Owners should also realize that teams with home games on turf have habitually done worse in the
>> standings...For 1996, home turf teams finished with a 105-135 (.438) record...This record is even
>> worse when you look at domed teams at 50-78 (.391)...Admittedly, domed teams don't have to worry
>> about wet artificial turf BUT the fact remains that no domed team had ever even appeared in the
>> Super Bowl...

>> Are these mere coincidences???...
>I think it is.  Just look at the teams with domes.  Atlanta, Houston,
>and NO.  Did I leave anyone out?  Anyway, I had heard that Dallas is, or
>was planning to put in natural grass in Texas Stadium, is this still the
>plan?  Does anyone know?  It would be pretty stupid to put in new turf
>and then turn around an rip it up and put in grass.

The Seattle Seahawks play in the Kingdome, the Minnesota Vikings play
in the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, the Detroit Lions play in the
Pontiac Silverdome, and that's all I can think of right now.  But I
must say, I think grass is much better than a carpet.

--
George M. Regnery | "Geschichte ist keine Abfolge von Daten sondern ein sich
------------------+ ueber die Dimension der Zeit erstreckendes Netz in welchem
Vergagenheit, Gegenwart & Zukunft zusammengewoben sind als Schicksal."-- Cusco
Links for Corporate Information: http://www.netcom.com/~regnery/corporate.html

 
 
 

Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Post by Mark Mey » Fri, 03 Jan 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>> Owners should also realize that teams with home games on turf have
habitually
>> done worse in the standings...For 1996, home turf teams finished with a
>> 105-135 (.438) record...This record is even worse when you look at domed
>> teams at 50-78 (.391)...Admittedly, domed teams don't have to worry
about wet
>> artificial turf BUT the fact remains that no domed team had ever even
>> appeared in the Super Bowl...
>> Are these mere coincidences???...

On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 19:46:03 -0500, Scott Petty

Quote:

> I think it is.  Just look at the teams with domes.  Atlanta, Houston,
> and NO. ...

> The Seattle Seahawks play in the Kingdome, the Minnesota Vikings play
> in the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, the Detroit Lions play in the
> Pontiac Silverdome, and that's all I can think of right now.  But I
> must say, I think grass is much better than a carpet.

You left out the Indianapolis Colts, who play in what used to be called the
Hoosier Dome but is now some stupid corporate sponsor's name.

So, that's seven teams out of 30 (23%) that play in domes.  However, out of
this year's playoff teams, only two out of twelve (17%) play in domes
(Indianapolis and Minnesota).  And they were both the low seeds in their
respective conferences.  And both of these teams got pasted in their
respective playoff games.

Sure, you may say the dome teams weren't any good anyway, but consider the
Vikings and the Colts.  They play in domes now, but they didn't use to.
The Vikings have played (but lost) four Super Bowls (when did they move to
the Metrodome?), and the Colts are 1 for 2 in Super Bowls.  They used to be
good.

Look again at this year's playoffs.  Of the four divisional games coming up
this weekend, _three_ (Denver, Green Bay, New England) are in cold-weather
venues.

With that, I leave you this week's debate topic:

    Claim: Playing in domes makes a football team soft.  Discuss.

--

Texas Instruments, Inc.  Plano, TX         ICBM: 33d3'55"N 96d41'41"W
My opinions.  Mine!  How many times do I gotta explain it?
 "I want watch Bab'lon 5 now, please." -- my daughter (I'm so proud!)

 
 
 

Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Post by Jonathan C. Ensli » Fri, 03 Jan 1997 04:00:00

Quote:
>>> Owners should also realize that teams with home games on turf have
>habitually
>>> done worse in the standings...For 1996, home turf teams finished with a
>>> 105-135 (.438) record...This record is even worse when you look at domed
>>> teams at 50-78 (.391)...Admittedly, domed teams don't have to worry
>about wet
>>> artificial turf BUT the fact remains that no domed team had ever even
>>> appeared in the Super Bowl...
>>> Are these mere coincidences???...

(snip...snip)

Quote:
>Sure, you may say the dome teams weren't any good anyway, but consider the
>Vikings and the Colts.  They play in domes now, but they didn't use to.
>The Vikings have played (but lost) four Super Bowls (when did they move to
>the Metrodome?), and the Colts are 1 for 2 in Super Bowls.  They used to be
>good.

>Look again at this year's playoffs.  Of the four divisional games coming up
>this weekend, _three_ (Denver, Green Bay, New England) are in cold-weather
>venues.

I believe playing in a dome makes a team soft because they have an
inability to adapt to playing outdoors in the elements when on the road.
 Not only has no dome team played in the Super Bowl, no dome team has
ever hosted a conference championship.  Heck, ever since the six team per
conference playoff system, I believe that only one dome team has ever
received a first round bye.  (Detroit in 1991-92 who promptly got pasted
by the Redskins in the NFC Championship.)

Jon

 
 
 

Artificial Turf takes away from the game

Post by Jerry Donova » Sat, 04 Jan 1997 04:00:00

...

Quote:
> Football was meant to be played on grass.  

I'll second that.  And I'll add that it is about time to stop
having all the Super Bowls in warm climates and/or domed
stadiums as well.  Football was meant to be played in any
weather condition and outdoors, so the championship game
should be played like that as well.  Sure it could be a little
bit chilly in Green Bay or Denver toward the end of January, but
so what!

Jerry  (remember watching the "Ice Bowl", it was great)