Super Bowl record of teams with turf on their home fields since 2010

[Floppin]

13 minutes ago, Growl said:

aren’t you one of this boards bigger soccer fans? I’m inclined to believe you just like the change because it’s being made with the fc in mind.

I would like to point out that you just revealed your true reason for your position. You're anti soccer. Also, why do you think it's with the FC in mind? Is turf some sort of superior as urgace for soccer than I'm heretofore unaware of?

Edited April 29, 2021 by Floppin

[Growl]

8 minutes ago, Floppin said:

I would like to point out that you just revealed your true reason for your position. You're anti soccer. Also, why do you think it's with the FC in mind? Is turf some sort of superior as urgace for soccer than I'm heretofore unaware of?

I don’t care about the FC, positively or negatively,  I’m merely pointing out that agendas come in all shapes and sizes, and I’d say your reaction would validate that you have one

also it’s been pretty well accepted, and I believe even stated by the organization that the turf is being put in because of the FC and the cost of upkeep of grass, not because of the benefit it provides them on the field (I’m guessing it’s probably hazardous to their health as well) but because of them all the same
 

watching you shill for a billionaire because he wants to save a few thousand on lawn maintenance though is certainly a character break, thus my supposition that you have your own agenda 

[Floppin]

13 minutes ago, Growl said:

I don’t care about the FC, positively or negatively,  I’m merely pointing out that agendas come in all shapes and sizes, and I’d say your reaction would validate that you have one

also it’s been pretty well accepted, and I believe even stated by the organization that the turf is being put in because of the FC and the cost of upkeep of grass, not because of the benefit it provides them on the field (I’m guessing it’s probably hazardous to their health as well) but because of them all the same
 

watching you shill for a billionaire because he wants to save a few thousand on lawn maintenance though is certainly a character break, thus my supposition that you have your own agenda 

I thought of commenting that I'm well aware of the irony of basically two socialists in Philly and me apparently staning for a billionaire. Except that's not exactly the case. I see the turf as probably a safer alternative for both sports teams than the poo show that a constantly resodded natural field would inevitably be. The savings are inconsequential to my argument and I'm fairly certain they are to Tepper as well but I honestly could not care in the least. I'm more just trying to take people to task who are being actual hypocrites wrt player safety and using it as bullshit cover for their anti soccer, natural field heritage, or anti Tepper agendas.

And their reasoning for the turf isn't exactly blamed on cost but rather the significant task of maintenance and quality that would be required. People are just choosing to boil that down to dollars for their own argument.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Floppin

[Floppin]

While I'm pointing out irony - I'm also fully aware of the delicious slice of irony that exists within a bunch of devoted capitalists having a fuging meltdown over something that (if their opinions were correct) is basically the definition of capitalistic practice.

[frankw]

Billionaires have feelings too you guys stop being so mean gosh.