That's because they don't have a real choice. players don't like the seams they just hate it less than artificial turf.
Right... and so if the only two options at the stadium right now are "this" vs. artificial turf, they're choosing to stick with "this". I'm on board for a hybrid solution... possibly one that involves either larger pallets or better maintenance... but to say "just go to turf" isn't that simple when the players and coaches thus far prefer to stick with what they have.
Heard on 790 some general caller call in regards to a particular turf that they use in europe and in some nfl stadiums. its a hybrid of some sort. i forgot what it was called. mega turf or something like that. supposely its real grass but maintained a certain way. idunno. sounded legit tho.
They also use something at MMP that is able to withstand low light/retractable roof conditions... but I believe most of those still require a contiguous surface (i.e. - no pallets). Not sure they can do a permanent surface at Reliant year-round... especially with the rodeo taking up 3 months. A retrofit of the stadium to one that allows an entire grass field to be carted in could be looked at.... hell, that space that the astrodome is currently occupying would be a perfect place to store a grass field (if they could find a way to tunnel it under the existing reiliant structure to where the Astrodome currently is).
I just don't think that's possible. They would have to carve out a slit from the stadium itself. I can't imagine the nightmare that would be or if it would even be possible.
You have cited Bill Belichick as a major source for why you think the NRG Stadium field is so awful. He said that in 2010 so I find it odd that you will base so much of your opinion over what a coach said in 2010 and not what the players said. 1,600 players were polled through the players association. NRG was ranked 7th out of 18 in the grass fields. Considering that %70 of players would rather play on a natural grass field, it's reasonable to conclude that NRG would be rated highly even when including all the turf stadiums. I hardly think you can dismiss this as an "unscientific poll" since it accounts for almost all of the players in the league. http://www.stma.org/sites/stma/files/pdfs/2010_NFL_Survey.pdf
Leave it up to the engineers. The Astrodome floor is underground (lower than reliant field level), so there's space down there if they wanted to do a total underground solution. I'm sure it would be very costly and require some major work to be done under the east sideline side of the stadium... But if it's any way possible, it could be a mutual solution to the grass problem along with what to do with some of the Astrodome space (even keep some of the metal trusses around it so it looks like the field is within the astrodome at some point).
Denver and Green Bay use a hybrid system using artificial fibers along with real grass. Anyone watching the Green Bay game last week might have noticed that it looked a lot more green than it normally does this time of year. Essentially, it's a synthetic turf that's made much more sparse with a backing that allows for root growth. You put dirt over it and cut it at a height just above the height of the synthetic. This way, there's more stability and it looks better year round. This is not a system that would work in NRG. Once it's in, you can't take it out. It could be incorporated in the tray system..but what would be the point of that? Because of the rodeo, the options are the current system or a full synthetic system that is mobile (like the one in Arlington)...at least not without a major engineering and architectural change to the stadium to put in something that could move in and out in one full piece of which the team would never see a ROI. At least with synthetic, there is typically a definitive ROI depending on local costs.
Did you guys know that photosynthesis requires sunlight to work? Yeah, and grasses that will take a lot of wear and tear, take a lot of sun to grow enough to repair the damage. So really you have two choices, expose your grass to a lot of sunlight, or don't use grass.
Most grass football fields outside of California and Florida are hard to maintain throughout the season due to the weather fluctuations. Just take a look at what will be in Pittsburgh tonight, and that's an "upgrade" over what they've had in years past. Again, this is more about the "seams" than it is about the actual grass quality (which does suck as the year goes on, but could be concievably fixed by fresh trays put in on a more regular basis.... and less use from "other" games, something the field turf was supposed to be used for).
All you have to do is make bigger squares. 8x8 Now there will be no more holes at midfield. Yes there are still seams. But this plan doesn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars, or boring a 100yd contiguous tunnel under the stadium, and it can be done rather quickly. 16x16
this does not get close to solving the problem.. as you said, "yes there are still seams". the goal is to have a field with no seams.
Watching the Panthers and Cardinals game and man the Panthers have a really solid field. After a full season and bad damp conditions that field is looking pristine.
The "goal" is really a "grass field with no seams", which really isn't an option. You either have grass with seams or turf with no seams. Pick your poison. Players still seem to prefer grass. In light of that, reducing the number of seams (since you can't get rid of them entirely) is a step in the right direction.
Sure, bigger trays would mean fewer seams. You do get to a point of where logistics becomes a problem. How do you get them to the field? 16' wide trays would now require a "wide load" designation (anything over 8'-6" in the US) and more trucks (bigger and heavier = fewer per truck) to transport them from where they're stored. Then, how do you get them off the truck? What's the clearance for the doors to get to the field? Will your equipment actually be able to lift them or do you have to now invest in all new, heavier duty equipment to lift and move them? It's not as simple as saying "just use bigger trays". Theoretically, yes, fewer seams are better. That's a mantra repeated throughout the synthetic turf industry, too. Fewer seams on the playing surface means a stronger and safer field. Doesn't matter a whole bunch if you can't physically move them to and from.
My point was you can't grow grass inside a roofed stadium, there is not enough sunlight even if you leave the roof open. The sides are all too steep (partially what makes the seating in NRG so good) Also most all of the structure of grass is built from CO2 from the air. You need air movement too. So it's crappy seams or artificial turf. Winter fields these days have fabric fibers within the soil to keep them from ripping up, under drainage to suck out rainwater and are over seeded with winter grasses for color. 20 years ago , Heinz would have been a quagmire.
If a bunch of stoners can do this: surely we can find a way to make the grass grow at NRG...without the player smoking it, of course. :grin:
not to mention the turf is simply held together with velcro, larger pallets seems like an immediate fix to an overrated problem.. any injury that happens in that building is blamed on the grass..
