This has bothered me for a long time and I want other peoples opinions on it.
I know it is cheaper to use synthetic turf than real grass, and they say "the difference between grass and synthetic turf is neglegible." but games are so much more fun to watch when the players are playing on real grass, not too mention that I also find players perform better on real grass.
To me there is no excuse, if your team plays in an outdoor stadium, they should be using real grass. Edmonton got it right, but montreal, sask, calgary, winnepeg, why they hell do play on that crap ass turf.
And last year I got really pissed when the New England Patriots from the NFL switched to turf halway through the season. Artificial turf is ruining the sport of football. Who cares if real grass is more expesive, its natural, and nothing we as humans make can ever compare to it.
That was my little rant.
Long live real grass feilds.
Ever watched a game in Edmonton in the rain? Winter? Snow? I remember one game in particular where the first half consisted of players falling down constantly due to how slippery the field was. It was pathetic, the least entertaining CFL game I’ve ever seen.
When the focus is on the footwear the players are switching to midgame in order to stay standing rather then on the game itself, its not quality football.
As opposed to a game on FieldTurf, where the players can stay standing even if the field is wet or frozen. Long live FieldTurf!
Plus, alot of the stadiums you refer to are public facilities, meaning it makes sense to maximize their use. In Regina, high school football, junior football and CIS football all play at Mosaic. Plus, the Riders would not practice on it if it was grass. They can when it's turf. They even held their camp on their own field this spring.
NONE of that would happen if the field was natural grass, meaning the place would sit empty way more often.
Don't forget the fact that synthetic fields are much easier to sell advertising space on because the field doesn't deteriorate during the course of play. The logo's stay perfectly visible for 60 minutes + (aside from the occasional snow fall)
Grass fields are too labour intensive and not cost effective at all. Today's football leagues strive for large television contracts and advertising revenue, and both of these are more inclined to the uniform look of a synthetic field.
I don't mean indoor stadiums like the Cowboys because yes, its not practical.
But there is no excuse for outdoor stadiums. And the fields that teams practice on are never on the same feild that they play on, that is why they have practice facilities.
Besides we live in canada, rain, and snow and all the other elements only add to game of football. Take away real grass and take away an element.
If a football team can't fight through a little bad weather and then they really aren't that great of a team.
Back a few years ago when the Oakland Raiders played New England in the playoffs in a blizzard, that was probably the best pro football game I had ever seen, and it was on real grass.
Football has been played for over a hundred years on real grass, and if they get rid of those retarted domed stadiums and all used real grass every player and team would be on equal footing(pardon the pun).
In Europe, soccer is always played on grass, and they play in all weather not matter what it is, and they do a hell of a lot more running, and you don't really hear them complain about.
grass is what we are meant to play on.
There is no better way to play football then when its been raining in the middle of fall and field is wet and muddy, or when there is an inch of snow on the field. That is what football is about. And yah if the weather is poor and your team loses, ofcourse you hate it, you have to blame something for your teams performance.
Its not about the money, its about the sport, the passion in the players eyes.
As far as I'm concerened there shouldn't even be any adds on the field, just the lines. Put the adds on the sidlines or on the backs of the seats but not the field. I go to games to watch football(and cheerleaders) not adds.
P.S. Dallas is thinking of switching to real grass now that they have that fancy new roof of theirs.
Love pictures of the Mud Bowl though, back in the 50's. I think someone was drowning if it weren't for an official who pulled the guy's head out of the mud. Priceless but honestly, I can live without mud bowls.
What! is canada full of a bunch of wussies or something. We can't handle a little bad weather when we play a sport? Are we too afraid of Grass? Is is going to jump up and bite us in the ass if we run on it? Seriously, its grass! Not pointy rocks. Have you ever noticed that they try make turf as close to grass as possible? They seem to be missing one key thing, grass aint sitting 2 feet about concrete like turf.
We are Canadian, we can handle a little wet grass. Wether we play on grass, rain is rain, snow is snow, wind is wind. Synthetic turf is just as slippery when wet as grass, but at least your cleats dig into something when your on grass.
If we think that turf is better, then it is because we are told to think that turf is better.
Unfortunately i know i will lose this argument because its all about the money, its not about the sport anymore. And that really sucks.
Grass, if kept in good shape, during a nice sunny day in July or August, is awesome. No doubt about it. But the football season extends well past these months. And in Canada the grass stops growing in October and November, so you end up playing on concrete during these (important) months of football. As you mentioned, playing on concrete is bad. Actually concrete is not really correct - it's more like playing on a block of ice.
Many other reasons why turf is better, but I believe anything that enhances the quality of play is a must. We can't take a step backwards into the last century. Think progressive!
Actually, I completely understand where bboru is coming from on this.
I think a lot of teams would use grass instead of turf if they could.
And I miss the mud and the ice and agree that real football is played in the elements.
Unfortunately, the reality is, cost, durability, as some mentioned, advertising, the turf looks better on TV, etc., etc., all outweigh any aesthetic value the grass has.
In Regina, for example, I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of 300 events are held annually on Taylor Field.
All the high school football, soccer, etc., are held there, plus the Rams and Riders.
If just the Riders were playing on the field, great--the grass can stand a game every two weeks.
But it is impossible to stand up to as many games as there are.
And unfortunately, comparing the strain on a grass field caused by soccer, is nothing compared to the pounding you get from football.
So bboru, my heart agrees with you 100%.
But the head says it isn't practical.
the person paying the bill would still be making more money than it costs to upkeep grass. I understand why the CFL uses turf, but I am actually more pissed a the NFL. They make a hell of a lot more money, so don't tell me they can't afford it. And just because the CFL makes less doesn't mean they can't afford it either.
Oh I disagree. Case in point, the last Cup played in Edmonton where the Als won (2002?). That game was a joke. The skill players were taken right out of the game. No foot ware (unless they had skates) would allow them to keep their balance.
If that gets you off more than watching the best 2 teams squaring off and displaying the skill that brought them to this point, then all the power to you. I prefer the latter.