NFL  > Chicago Bears  > Soldier Field Needs Artificial Turf
August 7, 2011, 08:46 AM
Family Fest was cancelled because of the poor condition of Soldier Field. Brian Urlacher publicly complained and called it the worst field in the NFL. The city has neglected to keep the field in good condition by not watering it enough during these hot dry days of summer. Urlacher urged the city to install Field Turf.
August 8, 2011  01:15 PM ET

Yup.

August 8, 2011  08:48 PM ET

I think there are more interesting topics to discuss than the condition of Soldier Field.

August 8, 2011  09:08 PM ET
QUOTE:

Maybe the city of Chicago should talk to the groundskeepers at Lambeau Field. The field at lambeau is always in good condition and they have a worse climate than Chicago.

The Green Bay Packers Organization takes great pride in the condition of their field while the city of Chicago considers it a nuisance to make Soldier Field playable.

August 8, 2011  09:15 PM ET
QUOTE:

Won't Field Turf cause more injuries in colder weather?

21 of 32 NFL teams now play or practice on Field Turf which is much improved over the artificial turf that was first installed in NFL stadiums.

August 8, 2011  09:17 PM ET

The Bears do not own nor have anything to do with Solider's Field. The Park District owns and maintain's Solider Field. Someone needs to email Rahem Emanuel.

August 8, 2011  09:20 PM ET
QUOTE:

I don't see why the city of Chicago doesn't care enough to have a decent field in their stadium. The team is paying these players millions of dollars and you'd think they would not want to risk injury to their best players.

The politicians that run the city of Chicago could give a rat's behind on the condition of Soldier Field. Many of them are still upset that the Chicago Bears didn't fund all the improvements done on that stadium.

August 8, 2011  09:21 PM ET
QUOTE:

If Field turf is fairly safe to play on then, Chicago should have it installed. No up keep necessary, win/win!

Tell that to their useless new Mayor.

August 8, 2011  09:23 PM ET
QUOTE:

I think the Bears organization needs to send the Park District a memo.

They'd probably throw it away!

August 8, 2011  09:27 PM ET
QUOTE:

Don't mince words Old, tell me how you really feel....

That field isn't fit for NFL football.

August 8, 2011  09:34 PM ET

Yes. Chicago field sucks. But the Park district won't renovate it unless it is profitable to them.

August 8, 2011  09:39 PM ET
QUOTE:

Don't the Steelers have similar issues with their field?

I'm not familiar with the condition of the field at Pittsburgh. Did you hear something negative about it?

Comment #21 has been removed
August 9, 2011  10:47 AM ET
QUOTE:

I think the Bears organization needs to send the Park District a memo.

A memo.

That should do the trick...

August 9, 2011  10:51 AM ET
QUOTE:

It seems to me that having a decent playing surface for a football team is the most basic requirement for any team/city. The Bears organization surely is profitable, they should give the Park District a share of each games revenue over a two year period to pay them back for a new field. seems like an easy solution.

That would take revenue out of the city's pocket. Not going to happen.

August 10, 2011  03:48 AM ET

Until enough pressure is put ON the right people BY the right people, Chicago will ALWAYS have one of the worst fields in the NFL. If say the Mayor realized that he would start losing votes over this or something else simular, pressuring someone to get a change done, NOTHING WILL BE DONE!!! This is a disgrace and is a problem that needs to be corrected.

Comment #28 has been removed
August 10, 2011  11:19 AM ET
QUOTE(#28):

No Hell no..They need to get all of the other activities off the field, which tears it up.It is a proven fact, that less injuries take place on natural grass...anyone that does not understand it, has never had knee injuries.

Field Turf is the surface most players prefer.

August 11, 2011  08:10 AM ET

I really wonder if the grass field has extended the careers of Urlacher etc. Maybe it has and BGDUECE is exactly right it's the other activities that are the problem. Now the question to me is to ask is, how do you stop these other activities? Knowing the monetary lure for the City, is the only answer that Bears own their own field? If that's the case I'm afraid we will never have a good playing surface for the Bears to play on.

August 11, 2011  09:12 AM ET
QUOTE(#30):

is the only answer that Bears own their own field? If that's the case I'm afraid we will never have a good playing surface for the Bears to play on.

You nailed it. This will be the case until the day comes when the Bears get new ownership.

 
August 11, 2011  09:26 AM ET
QUOTE(#31):

You nailed it. This will be the case until the day comes when the Bears get new ownership.

The Bears need an owner with deep pockets that will build a new stadium the fans can be proud of. I would prefer an outdoor venue instead of a domed facility.

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    D'Antoni's newest 'blunder'
    Views
    2709
    Comments
    866
  2. 2
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    2880
    Comments
    810
  3. 3
    Baseball's top 2015 free agent
    Views
    2380
    Comments
    527
  4. 4
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    4911
    Comments
    329
  5. 5
    The NHL's model franchise?
    Views
    2218
    Comments
    139

SI.com

SI Photos