Next week the Ohio state legislature is taking up a bill to require all professional sports team that play on a field to have fields that are at least 90% grass.

His new law, if passed, would affect only 1 team…the Bengals as the rest all play on grass already.

(07-26-2024, 07:26 AM)pally Wrote: Next week the Ohio state legislature is taking up a bill to require all professional sports team that play on a field to have fields that are at least 90% grass.

His new law, if passed, would affect only 1 team…the Bengals as the rest all play on grass already.

This screams an underhanded move by Jimmy Haslam knowing the Bengals just spent a million replacing the field.


Not exactly relevant but I'm pretty sure the Shoe is the biggest and highest grossing football stadium in Ohio and they use turf instead of grass now. 

(07-26-2024, 07:26 AM)pally Wrote: Next week the Ohio state legislature is taking up a bill to require all professional sports team that play on a field to have fields that are at least 90% grass.

His new law, if passed, would affect only 1 team…the Bengals as the rest all play on grass already.

I'm not sure they would even have standing to pass that law. Why should the legislature mandate what fields professional franchises play on? If it were public supported high schools or colleges I could see it. What a professional team does is really outside their scope. If passed, it will likely be overturned. 

(07-26-2024, 08:43 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I'm not sure they would even have standing to pass that law. Why should the legislature mandate what fields professional franchises play on? If it were public supported high schools or colleges I could see it. What a professional team does is really outside their scope. If passed, it will likely be overturned. 

I think you are probably correct. Amazing how many HS can afford the field turf. You hardly see grass anymore.

I thought the Bengals replaced their field this year to what is considered currently the "best"?

(07-26-2024, 10:43 AM)Stewy Wrote: I thought the Bengals replaced their field this year to what is considered currently the "best"?

they did but they replaced it with the best artificial turf not natural grass

Lord, this is just bordering on ridiculous.

This narrative that turf is somehow more "dangerous" than grass is just so tiring.

There is no data out there that substantially says that turf (especially the kind that the Bengals just installed) is more dangerous than grass. No to mention the product as a whole is 1000x better on turf. 

Its a joke the state is getting involved with this, not like they have better things to do than worry about sports teams playing surfaces. Good God. If somehow this passes, the state needs to 100% pay for the natural grass install now that the Bengals JUST finished with their new turn install.

(07-26-2024, 10:05 AM)sandwedge Wrote: I think you are probably correct. Amazing how many HS can afford the field turf. You hardly see grass anymore.

Thats because it makes zero sense to have grass. There are better alternative out there than grass. 

Not to mention the "professional team" would likely still play half their games on artificial turf in other stadiums in other states. Whoever authored this bill has to be a Browns fan.

(07-26-2024, 08:43 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I'm not sure they would even have standing to pass that law. Why should the legislature mandate what fields professional franchises play on? If it were public supported high schools or colleges I could see it. What a professional team does is really outside their scope. If passed, it will likely be overturned. 

This would most certainly be challenged as it seems to be arbitrary and with specific intent to target a private business.

Making a statement, the trend is towards no turf, this is politicians do

didn't we try grass fields earlier in the history of Paul Brown Stadium..it did not seem to thrive for whateverfreason

(07-26-2024, 07:05 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: didn't we try grass fields earlier in the history of Paul Brown Stadium..it did not seem to thrive for whateverfreason

Yes we did and it was bad! It looked like a bunch of landmines had gone off on the field. Craters everywhere. 

(07-26-2024, 07:05 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: didn't we try grass fields earlier in the history of Paul Brown Stadium..it did not seem to thrive for whateverfreason

The water table is so high in that area that keeping the field healthy and playable was impossible.

I would be surprised if this bill passes. Hopefully, Dewine would veto such a stinker as his ties are to southern Ohio rather than Cleveland.

One of the bill sponsors is from Cleveland

(07-26-2024, 08:43 AM)Sled21 Wrote: I'm not sure they would even have standing to pass that law. Why should the legislature mandate what fields professional franchises play on? If it were public supported high schools or colleges I could see it. What a professional team does is really outside their scope. If passed, it will likely be overturned. 

Agreed

That's crossing the line IMHO.

(07-26-2024, 10:05 AM)sandwedge Wrote: I think you are probably correct. Amazing how many HS can afford the field turf. You hardly see grass anymore.

In the long run, turf is much cheaper/ easier to maintain over grass. Especially in colder climates. 

(07-26-2024, 07:05 PM)ERIC1 Wrote: didn't we try grass fields earlier in the history of Paul Brown Stadium..it did not seem to thrive for whateverfreason

Yes. It was a disaster. Kind of like when we go play the Steelers every year and we are slogging through their POS field, slipping and tripping constantly. 

(07-26-2024, 10:26 PM)pally Wrote: The water table is so high in that area that keeping the field healthy and playable was impossible.

Is that really the reason? Adding a foot of topsoil is no major feat in the world of engineering and construction, especially over an area no larger than a football field.