PDA

View Full Version : NFL Players vote Heinz as having worst grass surface in NFL


Atlanta Dan
02-03-2011, 05:30 PM
NFL Players vote Heinz as having worst grass surface in NFL.:thumbsup:

Three days before they play Green Bay in Super Bowl XLV, the Steelers have been declared No. 1 in the National Football League again in a dubious sort of manner.

Heinz Field again was voted the worst grass surface in the National Football League in a poll of 1,619 players the past season. Like Super Bowls, Pittsburgh has been there before.:chuckle:

The players conduct a poll of fields every two years and Heinz has reigned in most of those surveys in its decade of existence. The NFL Players Association, which conducts the poll, released the results this afternoon.

The four other grass fields cited as worst after Heinz were those in Oakland, Chicago and Miami.

Players voted Arizona as having the best grass field and Indianapolis as having the best artificial surface. Minnesota earned the award as worst artificial surface.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11034/1122801-66.stm

There was some trash talk coming out of Chicago about Soldier's Field possibly being a threat as worst field in the league, but Heinz Field is a bad turf dynasty that has won another well deserved title

steeltheone
02-03-2011, 08:06 PM
Oh boy, What a surprise!

palasport
02-04-2011, 05:30 AM
Who cares SCREW EM!! We love it artificial turf sucks and ends carrers!

plenewken
02-04-2011, 05:40 AM
Not surprised, it's a piece of sh*t!
As for the lower risk of injury, look at our IR, and you tell me.
Last, remember that the Steelers practice on artificial turf, so if someone can explain to me the rationale for having a different surface at HF, I'm all ears ........

By the way, I've never liked HF and miss 3 Rivers. I think HF looks cheap and unfinished (North end), and it should have offered more seats. Who really cares about the view of Downtown skylight? The games are either at night or in crappy weather, plus it's not like you want to look elsewhere when the Steelers play, unlike PNC Park.

TRH
02-04-2011, 07:45 AM
Not surprised, it's a piece of sh*t!
As for the lower risk of injury, look at our IR, and you tell me.
Last, remember that the Steelers practice on artificial turf, so if someone can explain to me the rationale for having a different surface at HF, I'm all ears ........

By the way, I've never liked HF and miss 3 Rivers. I think HF looks cheap and unfinished (North end), and it should have offered more seats. Who really cares about the view of Downtown skylight? The games are either at night or in crappy weather, plus it's not like you want to look elsewhere when the Steelers play, unlike PNC Park.

I disagree, i've been to a number of the NFL stadiums and think Heinz Field is one of the nicer looking stadiums (like way up there....) in the NFL.
Also, alot of visitors and TV crews eat that downtown view up like ice cream....so its very important, actually.

TRH
02-04-2011, 07:47 AM
the turf thing i don't understand why they just can't get it right. It's a known fact, our turf sucks, yet they seem to find good turf/grass elswhere. Why can't we?

plenewken
02-04-2011, 08:00 AM
I disagree, i've been to a number of the NFL stadiums and think Heinz Field is one of the nicer looking stadiums (like way up there....) in the NFL.
Also, alot of visitors and TV crews eat that downtown view up like ice cream....so its very important, actually.

I don't give a f*ck about aesthetics, although I would question what's so nice about the North End stand.
HF has one of the smallest capacity in the NFL, it's very windy, lots of seats are not protected from the elements (that's why a lot of people stand under the rotundas), and the surface sucks.
Yes the view of Downtown is spectacular but do you go to HF for the view or for the game? If you had the choice of more seats/less wind vs. keep the view, what would you pick?

Curtain_of_Steel
02-04-2011, 10:03 AM
Cool, we won something already.

Did skippy lead the campaign from SF?lol

Kanata-Steeler
02-04-2011, 10:09 AM
I vote for "Heinz Field" into the "Hall Of Fame"

TRH
02-04-2011, 01:24 PM
I don't give a f*ck about aesthetics, although I would question what's so nice about the North End stand.
HF has one of the smallest capacity in the NFL, it's very windy, lots of seats are not protected from the elements (that's why a lot of people stand under the rotundas), and the surface sucks.
Yes the view of Downtown is spectacular but do you go to HF for the view or for the game? If you had the choice of more seats/less wind vs. keep the view, what would you pick?


the "downtown view" isn't up to you and whether you like it or not....the view is part of the appeal and is breathtaking for a lot of out-of-towners and TV viewers (not to mention plenty of in state residents as well). That was a carefully thought out plan when in design. It's no accident that we get more, ALOT more, downtown views and "thru-the-end-of-stadium" views for the national audience than any other team on Sunday and Monday night football games.
I do agree with you about the field...its horrible and its amazing they can't just get it fixed ONCE, rather than screwing with it over and over. Other teams don't have a problem getting the right surface in and we shouldn't either.
I've been to the stadiums in Atlanta, NY, Baltimore, Chicago, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Titans stadium, Indy, Cincy, and Cleveland and i find Heinz to be best of the bunch (out of those).

Atlanta Dan
02-04-2011, 02:54 PM
the turf thing i don't understand why they just can't get it right. It's a known fact, our turf sucks, yet they seem to find good turf/grass elswhere. Why can't we?

Rooneys refuse to go to artifical turf although with the speed on defense and at WR I think it would help the Steelers - hard to grow grass in the North and Midwest after October, especially if you also have it used for non-NFL events. Apparently being near the river is a further complication (Bengals initially went to grass but had to switch to artificial turf at Paul Brown Stadium)

As opposed to the nonsense the Steelers go through every year to resod the field in early winter after the 4 WPIAL games finish off the grass/mud, Ravens-Steelers was played on a fast track in Baltimore on a Sunday night in Decembr the day after 4 high school games had been played on the same field

Goodell made the Patriots take their field up several years ago and install artificail turf - if Goodell made his boy Kraft tear up that field I am surprised the Steelers and Bears can get away with holding out for having rotten grass fields

plenewken
02-04-2011, 03:45 PM
the "downtown view" isn't up to you and whether you like it or not....the view is part of the appeal and is breathtaking for a lot of out-of-towners and TV viewers (not to mention plenty of in state residents as well). That was a carefully thought out plan when in design. It's no accident that we get more, ALOT more, downtown views and "thru-the-end-of-stadium" views for the national audience than any other team on Sunday and Monday night football games.
I do agree with you about the field...its horrible and its amazing they can't just get it fixed ONCE, rather than screwing with it over and over. Other teams don't have a problem getting the right surface in and we shouldn't either.
I've been to the stadiums in Atlanta, NY, Baltimore, Chicago, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Titans stadium, Indy, Cincy, and Cleveland and i find Heinz to be best of the bunch (out of those).

I appreciate your perspective but you didn't answer my question so I'm going to ask it again.

If you had the choice of more seats/less wind vs. keep the view, what would you pick?

plenewken
02-04-2011, 03:49 PM
Rooneys refuse to go to artifical turf although with the speed on defense and at WR I think it would help the Steelers - hard to grow grass in the North and Midwest after October, especially if you also have it used for non-NFL events. Apparently being near the river is a further complication (Bengals initially went to grass but had to switch to artificial turf at Paul Brown Stadium)

As opposed to the nonsense the Steelers go through every year to resod the field in early winter after the 4 WPIAL games finish off the grass/mud, Ravens-Steelers was played on a fast track in Baltimore on a Sunday night in Decembr the day after 4 high school games had been played on the same field

Goodell made the Patriots take their field up several years ago and install artificail turf - if Goodell made his boy Kraft tear up that field I am surprised the Steelers and Bears can get away with holding out for having rotten grass fields

Let's hope Goodell puts pressure on the Rooneys to solve the problem once for good.

Atlanta Dan
02-04-2011, 04:03 PM
I appreciate your perspective but you didn't answer my question so I'm going to ask it again.

If you had the choice of more seats/less wind vs. keep the view, what would you pick?

I think the Steelers are savvy enough business people that they did not intend to exceed 64,000 seats when the stadium was designed in the late 1990s so the open end was as much for not wanting to fill in that end of the field with seats as any skyline view/aesthetic concerns. As far as the wind is concerned I would be surprised if they tried to develop computer models that were sufficiently sophisticated to account for that factors.

Why limit to 64,000? You can sell a lot more tickets when times are good but you have to assume times wil not alwys be good, as illustrated by this conversation between The Chief ansd Bills owner Ralph Wilson

Art Rooney Sr. told me the story of how Ralph Wilson proudly showed him around shortly after the stadium opened, replacing the decrepit War Memorial. The Steelers did not play in the new stadium until 1978, so it might have been then. As Wilson wound down his grand tour with The Chief, Rooney turned to him and said something such as, “Nice place, Ralph. How ya gonna fill it if you don’t win?’’

That story goes a long way into the thinking behind why the Steelers, when they built Heinz Field, kept seating capacity under 65,000 (it has since been slightly expanded to seat 65,050, plus some SRO). The Steelers right now could sell out 80,000 every game but, it’s always better to have more demand than supply. Just ask Art Rooney Sr. – and now Ralph Wilson.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nbTTxN6zJa0J:plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/steelers/106615-ed-wind-bad-brad-a-the-chief+bouchette+rooney+ralph+wilson+seats&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

plenewken
02-04-2011, 04:36 PM
I think the Steelers are savvy enough business people that they did not intend to exceed 64,000 seats when the stadium was designed in the late 1990s so the open end was as much for not wanting to fill in that end of the field with seats as any skyline view/aesthetic concerns. As far as the wind is concerned I would be surprised if they tried to develop computer models that were sufficiently sophisticated to account for that factors.

Why limit to 64,000? You can sell a lot more tickets when times are good but you have to assume times wil not alwys be good, as illustrated by this conversation between The Chief ansd Bills owner Ralph Wilson

Art Rooney Sr. told me the story of how Ralph Wilson proudly showed him around shortly after the stadium opened, replacing the decrepit War Memorial. The Steelers did not play in the new stadium until 1978, so it might have been then. As Wilson wound down his grand tour with The Chief, Rooney turned to him and said something such as, “Nice place, Ralph. How ya gonna fill it if you don’t win?’’

That story goes a long way into the thinking behind why the Steelers, when they built Heinz Field, kept seating capacity under 65,000 (it has since been slightly expanded to seat 65,050, plus some SRO). The Steelers right now could sell out 80,000 every game but, it’s always better to have more demand than supply. Just ask Art Rooney Sr. – and now Ralph Wilson.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nbTTxN6zJa0J:plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/steelers/106615-ed-wind-bad-brad-a-the-chief+bouchette+rooney+ralph+wilson+seats&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Considering the number of people on the waiting list for season tickets, I don't think the Rooneys would take any risk if they increased the capacity to 75,000 seats. HF is one of the smallest stadiums and we have never faced a black-out.