Field at Paycor

[Stewy]

(03-30-2023, 02:53 PM)Nepa Wrote: I haven't seen the statistics to be able to determine the facts versus anecdotal reports. 

The NFLPA and some players says the statistics show the field used at Paycor and similar stadiums provide greater risk to players. For the Giants, their former team captain said, "the stats have shown we are on one of the worse fields in the league, " and the NFLPA says  the type of field at Paycorr "has statistically higher in-game injury rates compared to all other surfaces."  (both from the links provided above.) 

But others dispute this. One should be able to produce the research. Whatever enhances player safety. If we are going anecdotal, Buffalo Bills are always among the least injured teams in the league and their big injury last year, Von Miller, was on the Detroit field with its surface similar to Paycor.

It also is encouraging that that the new MetLife stadium surface was substantially tested by Penn State's Center for Sports Surface Research. I would hope the Bengals, when they do change the field, go to the one with the best safety rating for players.

I'm a bit confused.  There were no statistics provided?  Just XField with XTurf was bad, and all turf of that type is bad?  Were there statistics on every field with the same turf provided to prove the point?  Also, did the study take into account the quality of drainage?  Weather?  Frequency and type of multi-use (baseball, football, monster truck rallies, etc.)?  All of that has to contribute to how well the turf holds up and it's condition at the end of the day.

If it's pure analog data (X Truf is bad - period) with no other considerations, then I don't blame the owners for ignoring the NFLPA.