-

Originally Posted by
chisportsfan
I understand, but I'm a traditionalist. I like seeing grass stains and stuff. I read recently that they are linking injuries to field turf too. Don't remember if there were any significant findings, just that it's being looked at.
I lived in Indy for 13 years and was disappointed when they built another dome. Something about outdoors and grass = football to me.
I'm with you as a 'traditionalist" and love the pure grass field, BUT the reaity is becuase of the weather a grass field just isn't viable in chicago. I like the Degrasso 'blend" used as a few stadiums that has the grass and synthetic blend togther this way get the look and benefits w/o the frost and no grow problems of the winter. Think the pressure from the players will finally "tilt" this offseason to finally switching over after years of dragging ther feet by the park's dep't and team
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
-
I hope your right DB. They just need something where traction doesn't become a detriment.
-

Originally Posted by
Riczaj01
I hope your right DB. They just need something where traction doesn't become a detriment.
When saw the park dep't guy say they would be open to a Switch and angelo/phillips saying also open to look at it again,, And then the barrage of "field sucks" stuff from the players, IMO wasn't a subtle pitch to make sure it does happen. and with the millions you potentially lose if a torn knee on a bad spot on field, the cost/benefit makes sense. Not to mention the Publcicty to just stopping the 'worst field" stuff
-