CFL and Argos looking at solution for BMO end zone turf and attendance problems

[DoubleBlue_Red]

This is a bunch of fake news - gives the media something to talk about.

What are they supposed to do? Plant grass all the way to the back of the endzone?? For the Argos 9 home games.

The south seam is covered by stands for soccer so there is no way grass is going there, even if they were to plant grass in the north endzone.

I am baffled as to how people can't understand that TFC played at the stadium for a decade before the Argos arrived and how the likes of Dunigan and co can complain about the field configuration. Wise up people.

[PullTogether73]

I don't understand the big deal about the endzone. It's a stadium quirk, like the Green Monster. Both teams know it's there, both teams have to deal with it. Artificial turf is not unsafe. When you're playing at that end you have to take it into consideration and adjust your footwork accordingly. What is the frigging problem?

You'll have to describe "adjust your footwork accordingly" for me here.

Slow down your running to adjust for the change in turf?
Stop short of the area where the turf changes?
Stop at the goal line, change one's footwear, resume route?

I trust that you are aware that, while "Artificial turf is not unsafe", it requires different treads on the shoes to reduce slipping.

[AngeloV]

I don't understand the big deal about the endzone. It's a stadium quirk, like the Green Monster. Both teams know it's there, both teams have to deal with it. Artificial turf is not unsafe. When you're playing at that end you have to take it into consideration and adjust your footwork accordingly. What is the frigging problem?

Having played on both grass and turf, I can say that it is a problem. Players wear different cleats depending on the surface with grass cleats being longer than turf cleats. It really is possible to tear and ankle wearing grass cleats on turf. I still can't help but wonder if there is any way the Argos can put an entire turf field over the grass at BMO for there games, without doing damage to the grass underneath. In 2004 at Skydome, the Argos brought in their own field turf for games, while the Jays at the time still played on Astro turf. I know players prefer grass to turf, but I also know they prefer one surface over two.

[RB957]

I don't understand the big deal about the endzone. It's a stadium quirk, like the Green Monster. Both teams know it's there, both teams have to deal with it. Artificial turf is not unsafe. When you're playing at that end you have to take it into consideration and adjust your footwork accordingly. What is the frigging problem?

I agree completely. Both Mike Reilly of the Esks and Greg Ellingson said as much. Ellingson even said that offensive players can use it to their advantage as much as disadvantage. The only issue is whether the switch makes it inherently unsafe. If a player slips that is one thing, if they get injured, it's another.

As far as complaining that the endzones are not the correct size, look at Percival Molson stadium in Montreal, with the corner of the endzone hacked off because of the track. That's just the way it is. Both teams face it and have to adapt. Same with BMO until a long-term fix can be found. If that means that some TFC fans get ticked off, so be it.

[Mightygoose]

This is a bunch of fake news - gives the media something to talk about.

What are they supposed to do? Plant grass all the way to the back of the endzone?? For the Argos 9 home games.

The south seam is covered by stands for soccer so there is no way grass is going there, even if they were to plant grass in the north endzone.

I am baffled as to how people can't understand that TFC played at the stadium for a decade before the Argos arrived and how the likes of Dunigan and co can complain about the field configuration. Wise up people.

Considering this was brought to light again by a play caused by the turf. A play that may have changed the outcome of the game, how can this be considered fake news?

How many other professional teams play on 2 different surfaces? There's no easy solution that's going to satisfy everyone, but considering MLSE's investment is with both clubs, the past decade alone will not factor in what they decide.

[paulwoods13]

The south seam is covered by stands for soccer so there is no way grass is going there, even if they were to plant grass in the north endzone.

The south stand does appear to be permanent. Planting grass in the north end zone (which would mean moving north stands back permanently) would allow for grass on the entire playing surface of both sports. It seems unlikely that a full 20-yard end zone can be accomplished in the current building config, but I can live with 17-yard end zones, especially if it's real grass at both ends. CFL history is full of fields that didn't have standardized end zones. At one point 25 yards was the standard, and we survived going to 20. And we have survived with angled-off corners in Molson and at one time in Commonwealth (and the original Empire, I assume). Three yards shorter does not in any truly significant way change the game IMO.

[DoubleBlue_Red]

The south stand does appear to be permanent. Planting grass in the north end zone (which would mean moving north stands back permanently) would allow for grass on the entire playing surface of both sports. It seems unlikely that a full 20-yard end zone can be accomplished in the current building config, but I can live with 17-yard end zones, especially if it's real grass at both ends. CFL history is full of fields that didn't have standardized end zones. At one point 25 yards was the standard, and we survived going to 20. And we have survived with angled-off corners in Molson and at one time in Commonwealth (and the original Empire, I assume). Three yards shorter does not in any truly significant way change the game IMO.

The south end has retractable rows that are in place for TFC games (where people have seasons tickets for 12+ years). How in the world are they going to put grass under those stands?

There is a better chance in the north end that is basically used as a beer garden during TFC games. But they still sell standing room tickets there as folks can stand right behind the net.

Its a simple opportunity cost for MLSE. They risk losing ticket sales if they try to accommodate a seamless CFL field.

[Shipyard]

just dig up the concrete and plant 100% grass.

The beer garden is only out there for 17 days for a couple hours. the 100 seats they have in the beer garden are never filled anyways, just put more standing room.

The 6 rows of retractable seats in the other endzone that roll out isn't going to hurt the grass that much. Its only out for couple hours for 17 days a year.

[halifaxguy]

Having played on both grass and turf, I can say that it is a problem. Players wear different cleats depending on the surface with grass cleats being longer than turf cleats. It really is possible to tear and ankle wearing grass cleats on turf. I still can't help but wonder if there is any way the Argos can put an entire turf field over the grass at BMO for there games, without doing damage to the grass underneath. In 2004 at Skydome, the Argos brought in their own field turf for games, while the Jays at the time still played on Astro turf. I know players prefer grass to turf, but I also know they prefer one surface over two.

I don't think you can lay Field turf over a grass surface it has to be on a concrete base. I doubt MLSE would ever spend a couple of million dollars on field turf to roll out for Argo games, you also have the problem of storing it somewhere.
I think the only answer is to live with it, find the right sized spikes and have teams do a pre-game running back and forth from grass to turf to get used to it.

[Neely2005]

The south stand does appear to be permanent. Planting grass in the north end zone (which would mean moving north stands back permanently) would allow for grass on the entire playing surface of both sports. It seems unlikely that a full 20-yard end zone can be accomplished in the current building config, but I can live with 17-yard end zones, especially if it's real grass at both ends. CFL history is full of fields that didn't have standardized end zones. At one point 25 yards was the standard, and we survived going to 20. And we have survived with angled-off corners in Molson and at one time in Commonwealth (and the original Empire, I assume). Three yards shorter does not in any truly significant way change the game IMO.

They tested out 20 yard endzones once, at the very first preseason game ever played at BMO Field. The problem is that having 20 yard endzones leaves no room for a buffer between the endzone and the wall.

[ArgoZ]

Real grass can not be covered up. Go put a piece of plywood on your lawn for only a day and see the result. Only way it could work is if the stands were slightly elevated, even only 6 inches to let grass breath, and then retracted immediately after the game. The artificial field surface looks subpar. A better artificial turf would be an huge upgrade. The hybrid turf could withstand being covered up more than natural grass (still would need elevated).

As for the endzones, if no one told us, we would be hard pressed to figure out they are 17-18 yards. They look fine. As others mentioned, Edmonton, Hamilton, and Montreal had cut off endzones for decades. If you want to talk ridiculous, Memphis had 8 yard endzones in the corners and bubbled out to around 15 in the middle.

[paulwoods13]

The south end has retractable rows that are in place for TFC games (where people have seasons tickets for 12+ years). How in the world are they going to put grass under those stands?

There is a better chance in the north end that is basically used as a beer garden during TFC games. But they still sell standing room tickets there as folks can stand right behind the net.

Its a simple opportunity cost for MLSE. They risk losing ticket sales if they try to accommodate a seamless CFL field.

I was not aware that the south stand is retractable, thought it was only the north stand that wheels in and out. Am I wrong on this? I don't see making any changes to the south stand, but would advocate moving north stand back for TFC to where it is now for Argos. TFC could probably have some sort of field-level standing area on the north end zone grass if it's too painful for its supporters to sit so far back.

[1971GreyCup]

Real grass can not be covered up. Go put a piece of plywood on your lawn for only a day and see the result. Only way it could work is if the stands were slightly elevated, even only 6 inches to let grass breath, and then retracted immediately after the game. The artificial field surface looks subpar. A better artificial turf would be an huge upgrade. The hybrid turf could withstand being covered up more than natural grass (still would need elevated).

As for the endzones, if no one told us, we would be hard pressed to figure out they are 17-18 yards. They look fine. As others mentioned, Edmonton, Hamilton, and Montreal had cut off endzones for decades. If you want to talk ridiculous, Memphis had 8 yard endzones in the corners and bubbled out to around 15 in the middle.

I wonder if elevated stands in the north end zone could be retrofitted underneath with compact fluorescent lighting (ironically acronym cfl) to accommodate the stands and continue grow the hybrid end zone grass when covered??

https://gpnmag.com/article/shedding-...hting-options/

[paulwoods13]

I wonder if elevated stands in the north end zone could be retrofitted underneath with compact fluorescent lighting (ironically acronym cfl) to accommodate the stands and continue grow the hybrid end zone grass when covered??

https://gpnmag.com/article/shedding-...hting-options/

Elevated stands is kind of what I was thinking as well -- might there be a way to install a platform a foot or two above the grass, say on some type of spikes that would have a small and reparable impact on the grass below, and maybe with some sort of suspension cables sharing the load? The platform would be installed only for soccer games. Just spitballing here; no doubt engineers will be able to explain why this would be impossible or unlikely to work.

[1971GreyCup]

In 1993, the Colorado Rockies used a removable East Stand with 11,000 seat capacity in order to temporarily accommodate MLB in a NFL stadium. Reading material on the stand, it appears that both teams shared a natural grass field as well. This structure was 13 stories high and cost $25 million. It worked. Adapting BMO Field would hardly be the Manhattan Project. However, they would need to commit to the task.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mile_High_Stadium
https://www.denverpost.com/2010/08/1...ands-engineer/

[Shipyard]

I wonder if elevated stands in the north end zone could be retrofitted underneath with compact fluorescent lighting (ironically acronym cfl) to accommodate the stands and continue grow the hybrid end zone grass when covered??

https://gpnmag.com/article/shedding-...hting-options/

we are only talking about for 2 hours 17 times a year.
Even if the grass is damaged a bit by rolling out 15 feet of southend stands were are talking about part of the field that is barely used (so it is strong and can take punishment). In the south endzone, its just the final few yards that are in play and need to be sodded.

They can use the same protective barrier they use for the player sidelines in the north endzone bar area. North endzone has to be a no brainer, except for the cost of removing any concrete under north endzone. There should be 6 inches of gravel fill under the fieldturf anyways to allow drainage. Again, you just need to sod the part that is in play.

[Ron]

Don't think its as simple as we think. .

It's never as simple as fans think.

[1971GreyCup]

I was just looking for a stadium where they needed temporary seating and we’re dealing with natural grass. Denver seemed to be an overachiever in this regard.

Given that the city owns BMO Field and the current configuration is known to be unsafe, doesn’t it seem that the potential liability lies with the city? Doesn’t that follow that the city should be pursuing a solution. Any lawyers in this site?

[halifaxguy]

I was just looking for a stadium where they needed temporary seating and we’re dealing with natural grass. Denver seemed to be an overachiever in this regard.

Given that the city owns BMO Field and the current configuration is known to be unsafe, doesn’t it seem that the potential liability lies with the city? Doesn’t that follow that the city should be pursuing a solution. Any lawyers in this site?

But is it "known to be unsafe" ?? no known injuries just a couple of slips. One offensive player who slipped down but the defenders didn't have a problem or the other receivers in the area. We have seen more players slipping down on field turf.
It's a matter of getting used to the transition.

The second part of the title of this thread "and attendance problems" - ??? I think people have discussed it to death and the reasons.

[AngeloV]

But is it "known to be unsafe" ?? no known injuries just a couple of slips. One offensive player who slipped down but the defenders didn't have a problem or the other receivers in the area. We have seen more players slipping down on field turf.
It's a matter of getting used to the transition.

The second part of the title of this thread "and attendance problems" - ??? I think people have discussed it to death and the reasons.

It's pretty obvious that you have never played on both surfaces. As I mentioned earlier, cleat lengths on grass and turf are different. It is not a stretch to believe someone can do serious damage to an ankle or knee when you have the wrong cleats on turf. No it hasn't happened yet, but do we really have to wait for a possible career changer to admit it's a problem?