CaptainHook Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 (edited) Indianapolis Capitol Improvement Board has decided to replace the AstroTurf field in the RCA Dome. It was voted the worst field in the league this year in a poll of 1500 players. $800,000 has been set aside as well as $900,000 hard cover to protect the field for other events. It has not been decided which brand will be chosen, but it will be the same artificial variety that has gained popularity in the last few years. The change from AstroTurf in Indy leaves St. Louis as the only other team to have it. Edited February 16, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I'm guessing it'll be similar to what they put in Ford Field. I walked on the turf there when it was new and it was very strange. I think they actually used a bunch of the old Firestone tires that caused all the problems a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 (edited) Good news for Indianapolis! AstroTurf is SO outdated and injuries are SO much more common on it than the newer synthetic products. I marvel at the fact that some high schools in San Diego have better synthetic turf than a few NFL clubs. I'm even more amazed that the NFL players have not lobbied for the best playing surface all along. I mean this is their livelihood we're talkin' about here!! An injury can end a career in the NFL!! Kudos to the Colts! Edited February 16, 2005 by Chargerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I also find it amazing that Astro Truf is still in use by even any colleges, never mind pro stadiums. Between football and baseball, I think the old turf in Philly, with those seams must have hurt more pro athletes than any other single thing or person in sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 16, 2005 Author Share Posted February 16, 2005 (edited) The Colts AstroTurf was almost brand new. I think it was only a few years old. The Colts do not decide what happens in the RCA Dome. The Indianapolis Capitol Improvement Board does. The Field Turf craze was just starting when they voted to replace the AstroTurf. I believe, at the time, Field Turf had not yet been used in a domed stadium. Everyone was concerned how it would hold up to the varioius events held in domes; tractor pulls, rodeo's, etc. You could roll up the AstroTurf for those events. You cannot roll up Field Turf. I've been on the dome floor for a halftime contest. It was surprisingly spongy. Of course, I was not tackled by a 300 lb. DT. Edited February 16, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I wonder how this will affect their stats and the speed of the game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'canes2004 Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I wonder how this will affect their stats and the speed of the game 699668[/snapback] My thoughts as well. Marvin looks pretty quick on that stuff and not so fast on grass. My dynasty team will be looking on. Actually even if they changed the field to mud I wouldn't give up Marvin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 I wonder how this will affect their stats and the speed of the game 699668[/snapback] That's what I was wondering as well. Could have completely changed the Denver game.....Okay maybe not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpin Johnies Posted February 16, 2005 Share Posted February 16, 2005 That's what I was wondering as well. Could have completely changed the Denver game.....Okay maybe not! 700156[/snapback] I was wondering the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 25, 2005 Author Share Posted February 25, 2005 (edited) Turf shopping Dungy and other members of the Colts were expected to analyze this afternoon several options for a new surface that will replace the AstroTurf in the RCA Dome for the 2005 season. "We've got four or five companies in here today," he said. "All of our players will appreciate that." However, the Colts will walk away from the AstroTurf with mixed feelings. While the playing surface was voted the worst in the NFL in 2004 in a survey of players conducted by the NFL Players Association, it also contributed to the team's recent successes. The Colts are built for speed, which is accentuated on AstroTurf. Since Dungy's arrival in 2002, the Colts are 34-14 overall in the regular season and 17-7 at home. The AstroTurf, Dungy said, "was pretty good to us in the three years I've been here. But progress is progress." link Edited February 25, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutrun Jellies Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 I wonder how this will affect their stats and the speed of the game 699668[/snapback] Hmmm ... I've wondered about this and here's my theory. Say a fast player (1), a medium speed (2), and a slow guy (3) race each other. It's a "fast track" ... so they finish 1, 2, 3 ... with really good time. Then they race again, but it's a "slow track". Don't they still finish 1, 2, 3, even if their individual times are not as crisp? Soooo, I'd say the stats should be relatively the same, as the speed in terms of ability to get by a defender is within the player ... but the overall "speed" of the game may slow slightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czarina Posted February 26, 2005 Share Posted February 26, 2005 I should think that a track that is slower might take a little adjusting to...but in the long run will help the Colts with the transition to their away games. Unless of course, they decide to go with the painted concrete floor option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 Too bad they didn't replace it before the combine. That kid Incognito got his knee caught up on the turf yesterday and had to be carted off. Another potential payday killed by astroturf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 27, 2005 Author Share Posted February 27, 2005 Too bad they didn't replace it before the combine. That kid Incognito got his knee caught up on the turf yesterday and had to be carted off. Another potential payday killed by astroturf. 713704[/snapback] I honestly don't believe that. I think that as long as their are not a ridiculous amount of seams in the carpet, such as the Vet in Philly, you are no more likely to get an injury on AstroTurf than grass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 I honestly don't believe that. I think that as long as their are not a ridiculous amount of seams in the carpet, such as the Vet in Philly, you are no more likely to get an injury on AstroTurf than grass. 713723[/snapback] We're going to have to agree to disagree then. Astroturf has a definate "grip" to it, and when players try to stop short and cut, their shoes don't release from the playing surface. The players body momentum shifts but their lower legs don't release. That's why you see all the ankles and knees collapse. It's been shown time and time again. Grass and fieldturf have release when you cut, you can see it clearly with the fieldturf because you get the black debris from the rubber that flies up when they run, cut, or drag their feet. If Astroturf wasn't the cause of injuries, than why the rush to replace it? There's a reason the RCA dome was voted the worst surface in the league. I will agree with you that the RCA dome is light years away from what the old Vet turf, but the days of the carpet are over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers Posted February 27, 2005 Share Posted February 27, 2005 Granted, it was eons ago, but ONE time I played on astro turf.... the way it gripped my feet had me playing scared. Based on that unscientific personal experience, I have always thought it was a much more dangerous surface. If I recall correctly though, there were many studies that showed the incidence of leg injuries was statistically no worse...... but I still think it is in fact a surface that is not as safe as others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 27, 2005 Author Share Posted February 27, 2005 (edited) I just have seen many times players get hurt on grass the same way they get hurt on AstroTurf. The reason they are in a "hurry" to replace it is that it is a "harder" surface. Colts players who have been asked about it complaing more about the soreness from playing on it. They also really hate the "rug burns". Edge tore up his knee on grass in KC. The Colts lost two player to ACL injuries this year. Both on grass. Shaun Alexander just about blew his knee up early in the year on the new artificial surface due to his foot catching in the turf. Now there have been some guys who used a "jump cut" to make moves who have blown their knees out on AT, Jamal Anderson, for example. But studies have shown there are not more injuries on artificial surfaces than grass. But anytime there is an injury on AstroTurf, it is blamed on the artificial surface. Edited February 27, 2005 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 i say that if the team is having success on the AstroTurf and not too many injuries are occurring to THEM, then they should keep the A-Turf. It's just home field advantage, too bad if the other 31 teams hate it. If the Colts think it works for them, keep it. The organization should take a poll of the players asking if they really feel that the A-turf is the reason to many of their injuries and if they think it gives them an advantage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 28, 2005 Author Share Posted February 28, 2005 The Colts practice facility has outdoor and indoor fields. The indoor field was replaced with the new FieldTurf last year. All of the players have commented that they like it better. They feel they have less muscle and joint soreness on the new synthetic fields. And they seriously hate the "burns" they get from AstroTurf. The scars last for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraftykraft Posted February 28, 2005 Share Posted February 28, 2005 The Colts practice facility has outdoor and indoor fields. The indoor field was replaced with the new FieldTurf last year. All of the players have commented that they like it better. They feel they have less muscle and joint soreness on the new synthetic fields. And they seriously hate the "burns" they get from AstroTurf. The scars last for years. 713969[/snapback] My experience on playing on astroturf is the same. The harder surface makes for more sore joints and bruises from the impact. Turf burn is painful too. I never really had problems with twisting knees or ankles when I was playing (soccer) on turf, but the different feel of the surface does take some getting used to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.