If the problem has been identified publicly, then there is a liability problem. Deepest pockets for a litigant is/are obviously MLSE and/or City of Toronto.
“it's not the strongest who survive nor the most intelligent but the ones most adaptable to change.’ Charles Darwin
The question by Mightygoose was "how many professional teams play on 2 DIFFERENT surfaces?" not how many share a stadium.
The Giants haven't played at Yankee stadium since 1973. But the Raiders and the As do share a stadium, until next year, but they both play on the same surface - of natural "bluegrass". Dolphins and the Marlins from 95 to 02 at Joe Robbie and both played on astro turf.
For what it's worth, at NFL stadiums - there are hybrid surfaces that combine aspects of real grass and artificial turf. ... Right now, 17 of the 31 NFL stadiums have real grass.
Let's face it we are unique because of the 150 yard long field, the NFL field at 130 yards long is ideal for a soccer field and vice versa. Pretty easy to play an NFL game on the soccer field a Wembley in London but they wouldn't be able to have a CFL game there.
Actually, Matthew's examples are not bad ones. I over looked than teams played on grass and dirt surfaces at the same time. The Raiders are the only ones left, it only happens until baseball season is over plus the Raiders will be in Vegas in a couple years as well so there is a solution coming.
Does NYCFC play partially on dirt at Yankees Stadium? Either way, the soccer team in planning on a new stadium which is not happening in Toronto anytime in the near or far future.
Not sure of any teams playing on grass and turf at the same time.
Adapting to challenging field conditions has always been part of the game. Football is a risky sport to play and field conditions sometimes make it riskier, but that's what you sign up for as a player. They didn't cancel the last Grey Cup on account of the icy field which could have caused more injury. It's all about which team adapts to the field conditions better, through better footwear and better play selection.
If there was a blindingly obvious solution available that wouldn't cost much or cause any collateral issues, I'd agree there's no excuse. But there is no obvious solution at hand, and anything they do is going to either have a sizeable cost attached or cause issues elsewhere. I'm confident this will get solved, but it's not going to happen overnight and it's not going to be simple.
Year of the Rocket: John Candy, Wayne Gretzky, a Crooked Tycoon, and the Craziest Season in Football History (https://sutherlandhousebooks.com/pro...of-the-rocket/)
Bouncing Back: From National Joke to Grey Cup Champs (https://bit.ly/3fvip5x)
YOTR YouTube https://bit.ly/37jtG4f
BB YouTube https://bit.ly/2TSYPs7
My response was to the acceptance of the situation as is. IE don't need to make changes, the players can make the changes to their footwear and playcalling, and style of play etc...For me the status quo is not acceptable. Having said that there is no quick fix and I don't expect to see anything until next year at the earliest. Like so many other things with this organization off the field, the last two years have been mishandled. At least the TV numbers are up. I would like to know what the organization has cooked up to draw people to the stadium. Since they are good at that with respect to TFC they should put some plans into practice and see what happens.
GO ARGOS!!!
Yes. Until they talk all things Argo and give a damn about our team. Yes. There is a decades old media bias against the Argos that needs to be reversed and overcome. I am not naive to think that can happen overnight if at all. But I want to see an honest effort by MLSE to change that narrative. I include Bell in this too. It is not unlike 25 years ago when Eastern Bloc countries overthrew communism. It took a generation to become productive for those societies and learn to be free without looking over your shoulder. I am an optimist but know it will take effort and hard work by people who care.
GO ARGOS!!!
Good comment.
I agree that the media bias against the Argos will take time to reverse - if it happens at all.
Bell can claim that their TSN contract with the CFL shows their commitment to the league at least.
I am most curious to see how the CFL, Rogers, and Bell approach the next date for TV rights negotiations.
Does the CFL want to broaden its reach by splitting the broadcasts between Canada's two dominant sport networks, or does it want to keep the entire package in one entity? (I hope the former.)
Does Rogers want a share of the broadcast rights, or are they still uninterested in the CFL? I have noticed at least a "thawing" in the cold shoulder that Rogers used to give the CFL. At least they now show highlights of games, and mention upcoming games on their broadcasts.
Does Bell still want to carry the load for the broadcast rights?
Getting rid of the north stands will simply not happen. tFc and the Argos share the same venue and same owner now but trust me TFC calls the shots. Franchise has a value of 250 million.
cfl sadly is simply dying in Canada's three biggest markets. Cant see it going on much longer, especially after TSN's contract ends in 2021 (only thing keeping the league afloat). Its not a coincidence as well that all three of those markets have MLS franchises now, sucking up even more oxygen in the sporting landscape during the summer/fall months. Their schedules are almost identical (cfl and mls).
Bookmarks