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

[PhillyB]

6 minutes ago, The Huddler said:

TBH, I trust Tepper to build the Panthers brand. If turf, a dome, a new stadium... whatever he wants to do makes the panthers more popular, successful.. helps the city grow..  

..I'm all for it. 

 

Let the guy that grows money on trees grow the Panthers accordingly

my litmus test is that if mr scot is wailing about it it's probably a good move 

[The Huddler]

4 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

my litmus test is that if mr scot is wailing about it it's probably a good move 

yup

[Mhedrick]

2 minutes ago, Kuhndog94 said:

That's, uh.... not how statistics work

 No math or statistics lesson needed......

 

Satire, humor, sarcasm, you get my point......I hope....

[Growl]

2 hours ago, rayzor said:

Looks like you are trying to veer into another discussion with that first statement, but to your second...turf definitely isn't a detriment to teams getting in and winning superbowls. Grass is better for health and aesthetics, but it won't interfere with our chances to win.

 

so it’s ultimately irrelevant to success, thanks for driving the point home

[PhillyB]

1 minute ago, Growl said:

so it’s ultimately irrelevant to success, thanks for driving the point home

that is the exact point that all the massive babies unencumbered by brains bawling in the other thread about it need hammered between their ears 

[Growl]

2 hours ago, PhillyB said:

huh?

right, all the grandstanding about “heritage” and “tradition” in your OP wasn’t meant to frame this as a discussion of old school types “clinging” in opposition to enlightened forward change, forgive my projection 

[Growl]

5 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

that is the exact point that all the massive babies unencumbered by brains bawling in the other thread about it need hammered between their ears 

most of those posts seem to relate to on field health and player interests, mine included

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Growl

[PhillyB]

Just now, Growl said:

most of those posts seem to relate to on field health and player interests, mine included

i

they aren't made in good faith. they're using player health as props to bleat about meaningless heritage. we know this because they categorically resist all attempts to improve player safety.

they are crying over grass.

[Growl]

2 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

they aren't made in good faith. they're using player health as props to bleat about meaningless heritage. we know this because they categorically resist all attempts to improve player safety.

they are crying over grass.

perhaps but the complaint against putting out a willfully inferior product with legitimate concerns over the health of the entity that sells the tickets because Dave needs just a few more billions is valid

[Floppin]

3 minutes ago, Growl said:

perhaps but the complaint against putting out a willfully inferior product with legitimate concerns over the health of the entity that sells the tickets because Dave needs just a few more billions is valid

Not really, as I've pointed out in the other thread. The stress on a natural field with all the added events and two major sports is likely to worsen conditions fairly significantly. I'd argue that having an artificial surface with consistent conditions is by far the superior option for all products that use the surface until there are separate venues.

If it was just a football field these overzealous concerns would be warranted but as it stands theyre just cover for some other bullshit agenda.

Edited April 29, 2021 by Floppin

[Growl]

5 minutes ago, Floppin said:

Not really, as I've pointed out in the other thread. The stress on a natural field with all the added events and two major sports is likely to worsen conditions fairly significantly. I'd argue that having an artificial surface with consistent conditions is by far the superior option for all products that use the surface until there are separate venues.

If it was just a football field these overzealous concerns would be warranted but as it stands theyre just cover for some other bullshit agenda.

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.

[BrianS]

I do actually wonder if there is something to it.  Is turf an advantage?  Thinking in terms of the regular season setting up the post season.  Do teams that play on turf win / have a better record in the regular season, smoothing their post season path?

I don't know, just thinking out loud.

Edited April 29, 2021 by BrianS

[Floppin]

6 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.

Lol I have no idea where you got that idea from. I haven't watched a soccer game outside of the WC in my entire life.

[Floppin]

Also, I don't like the change exactly but I understand it's practicality and think it's probably the safest move for all concerned considered all factors. It's at best a shoulder shrug for me.