Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

In theory, why couldn't the Bills have a real grass field?  What's the science that says it wouldn't work?  

 

Posted

The design of the stadium makes it very hard.   The stadium is built 50-75′ down into bedrock which makes creating a new grass field more difficult.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Obvioulsy the sample size in this article is way to small as is the margin of error for the sample size to actually conclude anything here. The study is very  incomplete and reduced to mere talking point.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
5 hours ago, PUNT750 said:

The study is simple.  They are just comparing the NFL fields that use artificial turf and the injuries ratios.  NO factors like wind, rain, cold etc.  Of those teams Buffalo with A-Turf is rated the worst.  What can I say!!!  Cincinnati uses Shaw Sports Momentum Pro turf and obviously it falls between Dallas and Buffalo!!!  New England uses Field Turf and the same is true for them!!

The “simplicity” of the study is the problem! You say so yourself that no other factors are taken into consideration. In other words, the study did not control for a single variable! From the standpoint of empirical research this renders the findings, essentially, useless.

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted

Given the tiny sample size (one stadium each) and the failure to control for extraneous variables (weather, etc.), I don't see where they get their 95%  confidence figure.

 

And the thread title is vague and misleading.

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Solution....

 

Build a downtown stadium, with PSLs and all, leaving Erie County out of the future turf decision.  And yeah I would be a little more upset if Erie county sent tax payers $$ to non local business.

Posted

The other issue with this post is that the study being referenced used games played and practices. The quote in the OP says that the turf area will be used for 'warm-up, post-workout, and flexibility work.”

 

So the data isn't relevant to the use of this turf for this role. If I carpet my living room in this stuff, I am not likely to duplicate the injury ratios for games/practices.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dpberr said:

In theory, why couldn't the Bills have a real grass field?  What's the science that says it wouldn't work?  

 

They certainly can do it. Just more expensive, and more expensive to maintain. As an aside, I believe most of the complaints about the field are about footing, slipping on the turf. Maybe it’s a drainage issue? Has the product been updated or improved in any way ? I’m not sure on either of those things. 

Edited by Boatdrinks
Posted
6 hours ago, Buffalo Junction said:

It is tough to tell if the cold weather in Buffalo has put a difficult spin on the Ralph Wilson Stadium turf

 

Exactly.    I'd bet the injuries that do occur have more to do with the cold than the composition of the turf.   

 

This comparison would have to be weather-adjusted to be conclusive.   Hitting a frozen field is way more painful / dangerous than when it's not.    

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

i don't think you understand statistics. at all.  although i admit that statement is based on a pretty small sample of ill informed posts.

 

don't worry though, you are in good company

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, PUNT750 said:

Both NY teams, Bengals, Patriots and Seattle which is kind of a Northern climate!  The facts don't lie!  A-Turf is bad - worse than other surfaces.

AND - I love the BILLS!   Spending $18 mil on training facilities is wonderful.  I just don't get letting Erie County buy our field turf with a national bad reputation for injuries through a local vendor who has donated money to the County Executive over the years.  Get it!!!

I think you have pretty much summed things up. Terry’s moral compass seems skewed to his checkbook.

Edited by iinii
×
×
  • Create New...