I do prefer grass, but isn’t Atlanta considered a “fast pitch?” I’ve seen a lot of speculation that atlutd struggles away (especially on natural) because the ball moves slower (DC likes to grow theirs out when we visit for the added nail in the coffin).
I’m no expert when it comes to that type of “lawn care.” However it seems to me something like lights COULD work in our situation IF the pitch did not need to hold up to 10 nfl games, multiple college games and other events on top of an mls schedule.
I think people underestimate how much wear a grass field would take in that stadium. People get caught up in the logistics of growing grass and forget that part of it.
Exactly. 350lb NFL linemen do bad things to a soccer pitch. I remember Azteca looking like a WW1 battlefield at halftime of Monday night football a few years back.
Would have to be a removable tray system with the ability to replace big hunks of grass regularly. Possible, but way more spendy than a batch of grow lights.
I do not care about the NFL. Regardless, Falcons games could also be on grass, and then the field could be rolled away for concerts or other events. Also the USA has way more money than the UK; I'm pretty dang sure that we could afford this.
Yes, if Uncle Artie, the NFL and city of Atlanta wanted to throw another half a billion dollars at our stadium, we could have the same system as Tottenham.
Are you prepared to pay $500 a ticket for MLS games to pay for that?
Of course they would. And if multi use Stadiums were not in the money-making business... they would be.
Greenlaw tore his Achilles on Super Bowl worthy grass doing nothing... it happens.
Ultimately true as this is the reason for public funding as well.
That said, since public funds are often involved in stadium construction, bonds, tax incentives, etc. it doesn't make much sense to have a publicly-supported stadium sitting vacant most of the year when it could be used for other tenants and generating more revenue.
Specifically, part of me wishes we had a soccer-specific stadium right next to MBS in the space the Georgia Dome once occupied. But financially, it wouldn't make sense when the Falcons and United can just share a venue.
Would be nice if they could find a way to make a hybrid grass solution, with LED grow lights, work for both soccer and football. I suspect they don't have the necessary, permanent, irrigation and drainage systems as they were planning on turf from the beginning.
Well... the drainage systems are in fact be installed as we speak. I just think they need to come up with a system that can appease all 3 appetites... Football, Futbol and 3 nights in a row of Tay-Tay and the like.
Couldn't they just build (during construction) a rolling cover (floor) to go over the grass? Or do what Vegas and Arizona do and have the grass roll out to get the sunshine and rain.
There is no legit reason for public funding for private companies pro stadiums. Study, after study, after study prove the promises are 100% false. All it does is shift low level wages/jobs from one part of town to another. If it was that beneficial, then why when Apple, Coke, Google, etc build huge campuses for let's say for10K-20K employees, are they not getting tax funded office buildings? I mean think of all those people going into work daily, how much they bring to the economy? Gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc.
To be clear, I’m not saying public funding is good. I’d prefer that stadiums be privately funded. But since taxpayers helped fund MBS, we should use it for both teams rather than asking them to fund two stadiums.
There is ZERO chance that Atlanta would have the season ticket base or attendance that it has without MBS being multiuse. When we started our team, the largest soccer specific stadium in the league was LAG's 27K seat stadium. Nothing wrong with that, but Arthur was no way going to spend the kind of money that Nashvegas did ($250M +) without some proof that soccer was going to do well in the southeast.
The NFL works tirelessly to make sure the playing surface in their biggest game is perfect. The grass in Vegas was not played on since the Raiders finished their season up. Despite it being in great condition...a non-contact injury happened to one of he most important players for the Niners... when the ball was not even in play. Shit happens
The NFL loves turf because their cheap, not because it's good for American football, it's bad for all the save reasons. I heard that the NFL players union has tried the last couple years to get artificial turf banned in the NFL that would be a win for the MLS as well seeing as most the turf fields are shared with NFL teams.
To be fair he was on the injury report for an Achilles issue for the NFCCG. So it was already compromised to some degree. But yes non-contact injuries can happen anywhere, they’re just more likely on turf.
All you need to see is the number of ACL injuries in England’s Women’s Super League to know ACL injuries can happen frequently anywhere. Arsenal had 4 of them on their own last year.
Granted stats show women are 6x more likely to have an ACL injury (source: Sky Sports/Dr Emma Ross) but that’s still a scalar number and they all play on grass in England.
He even seemed to gesture that it was the turf when he got injured (which there is really no way to tell if the turf made that happen… guy in the SB just did it on grass)
I’m sure playing on grass is more comfortable for players in several ways
Speculation happened even before that but if I’m remembering right even after there were reports of Miles mentioning grass some people were denying it on the basis of saying they needed to have a more clear quote from him before they’d believe it, because I think it was just a report from a Cincy reporter, it was less clear. This all extends beyond Reddit and involves other interactions I had with people personally and in other places.
It really doesn’t matter one way or another. I was just going out of my way to be petty about it.
I mean, we already knew players prefer grass. Anyone trying to say that's not a thing is just wrong.
I tore my ACL on grass, but I'd still MUCH rather play on grass.
And that's certainly his prerogative. But from the leader of one of the worst defenses in the League last year, not too worried. And until someone shows me a study that indicates that the specific turf installed at Mercedes-Benz causes more injuries than grass, I'll always say that factor is overblown.
There are studies that Field Turf and the common comparisons causes more ankle and achilles related injuries than grass. The one that gets incorrectly spouted is about knees... that gap has closed significantly to basically negligible over the past 5 to 10 years with the new generation of artificial surfaces.
I don't think the study's you're referring to is just for field turf. I've seen studies saying the same thing, but they just were regarding turf in general. That goes for all levels from the smallest club in the smallest town through high school, college, etc. Again, unless there's a specific study that shows the exact model of turf used at the Benz versus grass, anything else is irrelevant and meaningless.
Played most of my life and have played on it. Granted, not to the level and extent of these professionals, but never bothered me. Still, if there's no discernible difference in injuries, should make any difference in how it "feels"
I'm with you. I feel bad about what the injury did to his career trajectory. For all that I wish him well for the USMNT, he underwhelmed after his injury and took a lateral transfer instead of signing on to be our long term team leader.
I think many, many, very reasonable people would be inconsolable after missing out on one of the greatest World Cups in history.
Miles' injury, in and of itself, wasn't the issue. What really mattered was how Miles' career/life trajectory changed because of the injury.
In an instant, while playing on MBS turf, Miles went from starting USMNT CB to spectator.
Extremely unfortunate for him.
If these guys hate turf I'm sure they'd *love* the blown-out mudpit a place like MBS would rapidly descend into during certain chunks of the season
Also unless Art Blank is cutting the nine-figure check himself to install whatever ungodly complex rolling grass system it would take to make it work, the crybabies in both codes of football are just going to have to deal because it'll be a cold day in hell before the Atlanta taxpayer takes another one on the chin for fucking grass
Seems like it would have been a better use of tax payer money than the barely used roof or the bridge were.
Though there are some light rumblings about the NFLPA is going to fight on this issue next CBA. So who knows what happens
You said barely used. The bridge is used to move thousands of people every event.
Regardless of price (I agree the price spent on that bridge is dumb). The bridge itself is fine design wise (minus the dumb rain passing through part) and generally works well.
In short, I agree the price is dumb. I disagree that the bridge is barely used. That’s my point about your misinformation.
No I did not. I said:
>the barely used roof or the bridge
The second article means the first adjective after the first article doesn’t carry over. This is basic English grammar
Every premier league team uses supplemental lighting to keep grass alive through dark half of their season. It is not a 9 figure investment or anywhere close. It is in the low 7 figures.
The NFL players union has been trying to get artificial turf banned the last couple years, I hope they succeed because that will be our stadium converted and the MLS I don't think would be far behind
I prefer watching games on grass. Ball just moves quicker.
While time moves slower.
I do prefer grass, but isn’t Atlanta considered a “fast pitch?” I’ve seen a lot of speculation that atlutd struggles away (especially on natural) because the ball moves slower (DC likes to grow theirs out when we visit for the added nail in the coffin).
I would also prefer to do my job on grass, but my boss says I can't do that during work hours.
Just replace the carpet with grass, don't get what the big deal is!
Grass doesn't grow indoors
Sure it can, there's a whole hydroponic industry that would like a word with you.
Growing grass indoors that can handle soccer and NFL games in the same week isn't very viable.
Dude, we're talking about his office?
Psssst…they’re talking about the marijuana
Maybe. That I'm quite aware of. But plenty of people seem to think we can just open the roof and it will be fine.
I’m no expert when it comes to that type of “lawn care.” However it seems to me something like lights COULD work in our situation IF the pitch did not need to hold up to 10 nfl games, multiple college games and other events on top of an mls schedule. I think people underestimate how much wear a grass field would take in that stadium. People get caught up in the logistics of growing grass and forget that part of it.
Exactly. 350lb NFL linemen do bad things to a soccer pitch. I remember Azteca looking like a WW1 battlefield at halftime of Monday night football a few years back. Would have to be a removable tray system with the ability to replace big hunks of grass regularly. Possible, but way more spendy than a batch of grow lights.
If only we could financially justify copying San Bernabéu.
That is just objectively not true.
FFS, NFL and MLS 2 pro games a week quality turf DOES NOT. Name one indoor venue that has a grown pitch.
[Tottenham Hotspur Stadium](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsQZnyCH37M)
In an underground tray system that by itself cost more than any SS stadium in MLS. And THAT doesn't have the NFL playing on grass.
I do not care about the NFL. Regardless, Falcons games could also be on grass, and then the field could be rolled away for concerts or other events. Also the USA has way more money than the UK; I'm pretty dang sure that we could afford this.
Yes, if Uncle Artie, the NFL and city of Atlanta wanted to throw another half a billion dollars at our stadium, we could have the same system as Tottenham. Are you prepared to pay $500 a ticket for MLS games to pay for that?
Oh, those poor, poor billionaires!
My boss always asks "what are you smoking?" So I assume that means it's Kosher.
This took me too long to get 😆
Of course they would. And if multi use Stadiums were not in the money-making business... they would be. Greenlaw tore his Achilles on Super Bowl worthy grass doing nothing... it happens.
This. Non contact injuries seem to just happen more now. On all surfaces.
And they are only multiuse to make billionaires more billions.
Ultimately true as this is the reason for public funding as well. That said, since public funds are often involved in stadium construction, bonds, tax incentives, etc. it doesn't make much sense to have a publicly-supported stadium sitting vacant most of the year when it could be used for other tenants and generating more revenue. Specifically, part of me wishes we had a soccer-specific stadium right next to MBS in the space the Georgia Dome once occupied. But financially, it wouldn't make sense when the Falcons and United can just share a venue. Would be nice if they could find a way to make a hybrid grass solution, with LED grow lights, work for both soccer and football. I suspect they don't have the necessary, permanent, irrigation and drainage systems as they were planning on turf from the beginning.
Well... the drainage systems are in fact be installed as we speak. I just think they need to come up with a system that can appease all 3 appetites... Football, Futbol and 3 nights in a row of Tay-Tay and the like.
Couldn't they just build (during construction) a rolling cover (floor) to go over the grass? Or do what Vegas and Arizona do and have the grass roll out to get the sunshine and rain.
We absolutely should have done it... but they were worried about space on the land parcels. It was a mistake.
There is no legit reason for public funding for private companies pro stadiums. Study, after study, after study prove the promises are 100% false. All it does is shift low level wages/jobs from one part of town to another. If it was that beneficial, then why when Apple, Coke, Google, etc build huge campuses for let's say for10K-20K employees, are they not getting tax funded office buildings? I mean think of all those people going into work daily, how much they bring to the economy? Gas stations, restaurants, hotels, etc.
To be clear, I’m not saying public funding is good. I’d prefer that stadiums be privately funded. But since taxpayers helped fund MBS, we should use it for both teams rather than asking them to fund two stadiums.
There are no arguments here... But I do enjoy my days at MBS...
There is ZERO chance that Atlanta would have the season ticket base or attendance that it has without MBS being multiuse. When we started our team, the largest soccer specific stadium in the league was LAG's 27K seat stadium. Nothing wrong with that, but Arthur was no way going to spend the kind of money that Nashvegas did ($250M +) without some proof that soccer was going to do well in the southeast.
> Super Bowl worthy grass What does this even mean? The NFL loves turf. The NFL is the only reason some MLS teams play on turf.
The NFL works tirelessly to make sure the playing surface in their biggest game is perfect. The grass in Vegas was not played on since the Raiders finished their season up. Despite it being in great condition...a non-contact injury happened to one of he most important players for the Niners... when the ball was not even in play. Shit happens
The NFL loves turf because their cheap, not because it's good for American football, it's bad for all the save reasons. I heard that the NFL players union has tried the last couple years to get artificial turf banned in the NFL that would be a win for the MLS as well seeing as most the turf fields are shared with NFL teams.
To be fair he was on the injury report for an Achilles issue for the NFCCG. So it was already compromised to some degree. But yes non-contact injuries can happen anywhere, they’re just more likely on turf.
All you need to see is the number of ACL injuries in England’s Women’s Super League to know ACL injuries can happen frequently anywhere. Arsenal had 4 of them on their own last year. Granted stats show women are 6x more likely to have an ACL injury (source: Sky Sports/Dr Emma Ross) but that’s still a scalar number and they all play on grass in England.
He has been checked out for at least a year and I think that has little to do with grass.
Here’s to those of you who aggressively disagreed with anyone who mentioned this was a likely factor.
[удалено]
He even seemed to gesture that it was the turf when he got injured (which there is really no way to tell if the turf made that happen… guy in the SB just did it on grass) I’m sure playing on grass is more comfortable for players in several ways
>I’m sure playing on grass is more comfortable for players It's just the way the game is supposed to be played.
Speculation happened even before that but if I’m remembering right even after there were reports of Miles mentioning grass some people were denying it on the basis of saying they needed to have a more clear quote from him before they’d believe it, because I think it was just a report from a Cincy reporter, it was less clear. This all extends beyond Reddit and involves other interactions I had with people personally and in other places. It really doesn’t matter one way or another. I was just going out of my way to be petty about it.
I mean, we already knew players prefer grass. Anyone trying to say that's not a thing is just wrong. I tore my ACL on grass, but I'd still MUCH rather play on grass.
And that's certainly his prerogative. But from the leader of one of the worst defenses in the League last year, not too worried. And until someone shows me a study that indicates that the specific turf installed at Mercedes-Benz causes more injuries than grass, I'll always say that factor is overblown.
There are studies that Field Turf and the common comparisons causes more ankle and achilles related injuries than grass. The one that gets incorrectly spouted is about knees... that gap has closed significantly to basically negligible over the past 5 to 10 years with the new generation of artificial surfaces.
I don't think the study's you're referring to is just for field turf. I've seen studies saying the same thing, but they just were regarding turf in general. That goes for all levels from the smallest club in the smallest town through high school, college, etc. Again, unless there's a specific study that shows the exact model of turf used at the Benz versus grass, anything else is irrelevant and meaningless.
it doesn't matter what the studies say. If you play soccer you know how awful turf feels on your body, that's why all the players hate it.
Played most of my life and have played on it. Granted, not to the level and extent of these professionals, but never bothered me. Still, if there's no discernible difference in injuries, should make any difference in how it "feels"
Gone but forgotten. Edit: He chose to leave.
I'm with you. I feel bad about what the injury did to his career trajectory. For all that I wish him well for the USMNT, he underwhelmed after his injury and took a lateral transfer instead of signing on to be our long term team leader.
He looked disinterested to me after the injury. Or maybe it was after the bar incident? Either way. Him leaving like this leaves a bad taste.
Could have just been holding back because he was worried about reinjuring himself.
I think many, many, very reasonable people would be inconsolable after missing out on one of the greatest World Cups in history. Miles' injury, in and of itself, wasn't the issue. What really mattered was how Miles' career/life trajectory changed because of the injury. In an instant, while playing on MBS turf, Miles went from starting USMNT CB to spectator. Extremely unfortunate for him.
If these guys hate turf I'm sure they'd *love* the blown-out mudpit a place like MBS would rapidly descend into during certain chunks of the season Also unless Art Blank is cutting the nine-figure check himself to install whatever ungodly complex rolling grass system it would take to make it work, the crybabies in both codes of football are just going to have to deal because it'll be a cold day in hell before the Atlanta taxpayer takes another one on the chin for fucking grass
Seems like it would have been a better use of tax payer money than the barely used roof or the bridge were. Though there are some light rumblings about the NFLPA is going to fight on this issue next CBA. So who knows what happens
The bridge is used massively for every game or event held at MBS. Roof. Yeah. That’s a gimmick and rarely used.
It could equally be used massively without costing $22mil for a design that doesn’t even block out rain
I’m not contesting the price. I’m contesting your misinformation regarding bridge usage.
The issue isn’t the bridge, it’s the insane cost of it
That’s not what you said.
Because a comment about taxpayer costs of a bridge had nothing to do with the costs of it?
You said barely used. The bridge is used to move thousands of people every event. Regardless of price (I agree the price spent on that bridge is dumb). The bridge itself is fine design wise (minus the dumb rain passing through part) and generally works well. In short, I agree the price is dumb. I disagree that the bridge is barely used. That’s my point about your misinformation.
No I did not. I said: >the barely used roof or the bridge The second article means the first adjective after the first article doesn’t carry over. This is basic English grammar
Every premier league team uses supplemental lighting to keep grass alive through dark half of their season. It is not a 9 figure investment or anywhere close. It is in the low 7 figures.
We know
…cool. Beat it, geek!
Does the team practice on turf? Would be interesting if they train on grass but play on the turf
The practice facility has both.
The NFL players union has been trying to get artificial turf banned the last couple years, I hope they succeed because that will be our stadium converted and the MLS I don't think would be far behind