You had earlier mentioned Houston, a stadium similar in structure to MetLife with a retractable roof but in an area with a much more favorable growing season. The low angle of the sun in the fall and winter with shorter daily sunshine periods cannot deliver sufficient light energy to support adequate photosynthesis. Despite their long struggle with real grass, even to the extent that the grass on trays was used only for the Texans while other games used artificial turf over the same time period, they finally gave up and have gone to an artificial surface as the grass caused too many problems. The field in Las Vegas is too new to be judged and the field in Arizona, on rails, is not without its problems even with near ideal weather year round. Despite many attempts in many places I find no success stories for what you advocate. With even food crops being raised indoors it would seem the technology should exist to allow grass to thrive in a stadium environment but until it is actually proven the investment cannot be justified. I would suggest that the players may know what surface they prefer to play on but are not equipped to decide which is the most playable or safest surface. As far as I know each player chooses his own shoes to meet his own standards rather than to match most safely with any particular field; that may need some examination.
Red Bulls stadium in Harrison has beautiful grass until Dec, when the soccer season ends. Retractable roof is not a detriment, nor is it indoors - it is to only be used as an aid, like during games when it rains/snows or during floods. Also - did you see the details of each stadium surface in the link, majority of the stadiums do have grass, including KC and Pitts, even harsher weather. How can you conclude no success stories, when majority of NFL has grass? Plus a pro soccer stadium a few miles away in the same climate. Retractable roof again is to benefit the process when necessary, not to make this indoors. I think it can and should be done to make us more competitive and roof benefitting the fans as well. I do agree as far as no evidence of higher risk and using special shoes for safety, but the point is rather moot: 90%+ of players disagree, and what gives an advantage is providing the environment they feel is the best.
I can conclude no sustained success stories in stadiums with rooves, retractable or not, because there aren't any in use in the NFL with any long term success with the exception, possibly, of Arizona but that grass spends most of its time outside in full sunlight in a warm climate. KC and Pittsburgh are very good examples of bowl type stadiums with much more exposure to the sun and KC, at least, also has heaters under the surface. Right now the Jets play at MetLife, that's what we're talking about, and there is no similarly designed and located stadium with a grass field in use in the NFL. How do you make grass work at MetLife? You keep going on and on about the roof when it is the walls that are the main problem with getting sun to the field.
Retractable roof means you can retract it and there is no roof. This is to aid, not to limit. But we are going nowhere with this quick. I have showed you majority of the stadiums in NFL having some sort of grass. The soccer stadium a few miles away has grass. 1000s of soccer stadiums with all different climates have grass. And yet the conclusion you made is that due to the walls of stadiums (in spite of 1000s of soccer stadiums with walls mind you having grass and majority in NFL), the grass cannot be done. Metlife is not some unicorn design that does not allow sun. I get your point about previous failure in old Giants Stadium 25 years ago, but that old approach can be improved in a way I described to repeat the success of majority of NFL and 1000s of grass soccer fields around the country and world, including Harrison one near by. But yeah, if you still think walls are the problem for stadiums in general to grow grass in spite of overwhelming evidence I referenced, best we stop here.
I never commented about the "old Giants Stadium" - it appears you are arguing with yourself and not responding to what I wrote. If you wish to continue please tell us how you suggest getting sufficient sunlight to the playing surface during the football season at MetLife. In doing so you must recognize that more vertically oriented stadiums do not receive the same degree of sunlight as more horizontally oriented bowl type stadiums regardless of their intended use. " How do you make grass work at MetLife? You keep going on and on about the roof when it is the walls that are the main problem with getting sun to the field."
No need. I believe we can close it here. Unless you want to tell me who concluded sun was the main problem at MetLife? Is it also a fragment of your imagination like pretending you have not commented on Giants stadium or there is actual science behind it?
Well, you got me there - I did remark on Giants Stadium - a month ago! Of course that was to fill in some historical background of failed experiments, as I have more recently for NRG Stadium, a building similar in structure to MetLife, but I keep talking about the present and future and you refuse to direct your comments in that direction. Only now is sun a problem? Do you really believe it has not been since the Astrodome was built? There is absolutely no reason to continue this discussion any further however as long as you refuse to recognize that growing grass, among virtually all other green plants, can only be accomplished by recognizing the process of photosynthesis as a necessity and the part that sunlight, real or artificial, plays in that process. You've made it very clear that you are not interested in an open dialogue by not responding to direct questions so feel free to carry on alone. Enjoy your soccer stadiums.
Yes, I will enjoy all these 1000s of soccer stadiums and most NFL stadiums, where (unlike unicorn Metlife) photosynthesis rules supreme. Heck, I might even check out inferior Metlife photosynthesis first hand at the Copa games soon.
