My Annual White Sox Marketing & Game Experience Complaint List

[Senerch23]

When are they going to take down the 2005 WS sign that faces the Ryan? I think it is beyond time to pull that one down.

[KingXerxes]

You learn something new every day I guess.

It's natural grass with synthetic fibers woven into the sod. Not sure how you weave synthetic fibers into grass - but I'll take Wikipedia for its word.

OK - I'll take grass with synthetic fibers for Soldier Field then.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jinx

I never said I expected the Sox to get reimbursed for it. If I knew I was living in a rental unit for 40+ years at a time and really wanted a stainless steel fridge, then I would go out and buy it. By the time the Sox lease is up a new scoreboard would be obsolete anyway so it isn't like it matters if they are renting or own their own place. They will get no additional money for it at the end of time anyway.

Why would the Sox buy the new scoreboard? They will get a new one in a couple of years on the state. They aren't exactly cheap.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by KingXerxes

You learn something new every day I guess.

It's natural grass with synthetic fibers woven into the sod. Not sure how you weave synthetic fibers into grass - but I'll take Wikipedia for its word.

OK - I'll take grass with synthetic fibers for Soldier Field then.

Basically they shoot the synthetic fibers into the ground under the sod, the idea being as the sod grows, the roots attach to the fibers and "anchors them."

The technology is used a lot in Europe but hasn't caught on as much in America, only 3 stadiums in the USA use this method that I know of (all NFL): Green Bay, Philadelphia, and Denver.

I'm guessing Soldier Field's turf problems are more to do with the excessive use the stadium gets (does Lambeau get used for anything other than Packers games? Can't imagine there's anything else to draw 80,000 people to Bumble****, Wisconsin) and the angle of sunlight... I don't recall Soldier Field's playing surface ever having problems before the renovation to the stadium, which drastically heightened the structures around the field (and therefore, cut into the amount of natural light reaching it). I'm guessing the park district probably has a horticulturist on staff who has probably told them that reinforced turf would still struggle to take root at Soldier Field and you'd end up paying more to re-sod and re-reinforce the field.

Probably the only real alternative is the FieldTurf ****, which is still very expensive to maintain at NFL standards and, as far as I know, has not shown to be much safer than standard artificial turf. I have no problem with the Bears preferring to stick with safer natural grass, even at the expense of a few style points on TV. The Steelers have won 2 Super Bowls since they opened Heinz Field, whose natural grass surface generally regarded as the worst in the league. As long as they're not handing out points for field condition, it's not a big deal to me.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Basically they shoot the synthetic fibers into the ground under the sod, the idea being as the sod grows, the roots attach to the fibers and "anchors them."

The technology is used a lot in Europe but hasn't caught on as much in America, only 3 stadiums in the USA use this method that I know of (all NFL): Green Bay, Philadelphia, and Denver.

I'm guessing Soldier Field's turf problems are more to do with the excessive use the stadium gets (does Lambeau get used for anything other than Packers games? Can't imagine there's anything else to draw 80,000 people to Bumble****, Wisconsin) and the angle of sunlight... I don't recall Soldier Field's playing surface ever having problems before the renovation to the stadium, which drastically heightened the structures around the field (and therefore, cut into the amount of natural light reaching it). I'm guessing the park district probably has a horticulturist on staff who has probably told them that reinforced turf would still struggle to take root at Soldier Field and you'd end up paying more to re-sod and re-reinforce the field.

Probably the only real alternative is the FieldTurf ****, which is still very expensive to maintain at NFL standards and, as far as I know, has not shown to be much safer than standard artificial turf. I have no problem with the Bears preferring to stick with safer natural grass, even at the expense of a few style points on TV. The Steelers have won 2 Super Bowls since they opened Heinz Field, whose natural grass surface generally regarded as the worst in the league. As long as they're not handing out points for field condition, it's not a big deal to me.

The Park District did offer the Bears the same turf used in GB. They said no. They still think injuries are less common on all natural surfaces, even if it is coming up and uneven everywhere. That said, for the horrid condition the Soldier Field turf is supposed to be in, it's like an Augusta green the week before the Masters compared to a high school field.

[BainesHOF]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

That said, for the horrid condition the Soldier Field turf is supposed to be in, it's like an Augusta green the week before the Masters compared to a high school field.

Now you're defending the Soldier Field turf? Sheesh. When Rongey leaves as the pregame/postame host, I encourage you to send in your resume.

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by BainesHOF

Now you're defending the Soldier Field turf? Sheesh. When Rongey leaves as the pregame/postame host, I encourage you to send in your resume.

If you ever get a chance to walk on the Soldier Field turf in December, give it a try. It blows a high school field away. I'm sure it is horrible compared to other NFL teams, and I don't inderstand why they don't go to field turf, but it is not as bad as one would think it is by all the comments. These guys are used to playing on near perfect fields.

[skobabe8]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

If you ever get a chance to walk on the Soldier Field turf in December, give it a try. It blows a high school field away. I'm sure it is horrible compared to other NFL teams, and I don't inderstand why they don't go to field turf, but it is not as bad as one would think it is by all the comments. These guys are used to playing on near perfect fields.

I don't think any NFL organization wants to say "Hey, at least our field is better than most high schools."

Never mind the fact that a lot of high schools, including my alma mater, now have Field Turf, so Soldier Field in December probably isn't as good as Munster High School.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

I don't inderstand why they don't go to field turf

Player safety

[dickallen15]

Originally Posted by skobabe8

I don't think any NFL organization wants to say "Hey, at least our field is better than most high schools."

Never mind the fact that a lot of high schools, including my alma mater, now have Field Turf, so Soldier Field in December probably isn't as good as Munster High School.

You are probably wrong because frozen field turf is brutal. Soldier Field has heaters under the field per NFL rules.

All I said was the field is not as bad as Robbie Gould would have you believe. I think if you walked on it, like I have, you would be a little shocked.

[skobabe8]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

You are probably wrong because frozen field turf is brutal. Soldier Field has heaters under the field per NFL rules.

All I said was the field is not as bad as Robbie Gould would have you believe. I think if you walked on it, like I have, you would be a little shocked.

I've never played on FT. But I will give you the fact that I assume my old high school did not install heaters.

You can't compare walking on a field to playing an NFL football game. Obviously the footing is paramount and you can't test it unless you run and cut in cleats at full speed. The fact that the Bears would have to re-sod the field multiple times like they did in 2012 is a problem.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by Boondock Saint

The point isn't that the promotions are stupid, (that's an entirely different discussion) but rather that the only place/time to learn about these deals is while watching the game, or by signing up to an email list. Why not advertise it on other networks when the game isn't on?

This is the weekly email blast I got from the Sox a few minutes ago:

http://view.ed4.net/v/LXGDB1/ON8MVV/...3455-582491873

Seems to be a pretty big promotion for the Save of the Week

[Jerry_Manuel]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Player safety

That's what the Bears have said from the research on player injuries on grass vs. the turf.

I find it odd that the Bears practice a lot at Hallas Hall in th bubble that has field turf of course. I know the guys aren't going full speed, but they are on that field to practice far more often then the 8 game days at Soldier Field.

[Mr. Jinx]

Originally Posted by dickallen15

Why would the Sox buy the new scoreboard? They will get a new one in a couple of years on the state. They aren't exactly cheap.

Why would the Sox do anything to improve their stadium then? The entire point of this thread was to discuss things the team could do better.

Did something come out saying the state was going to buy them a new scoreboard in a few years? If that is the case, I agree on waiting then. Otherwise, is that just a wild guess?

[bunkaroo]

Just gotta laugh at this stuff.

I got the email just now about the survey. I click the link - "survey is closed".

You can't make this stuff up.