U of M to get heating coils under TCF Stadium field. Vikings to pay for it

Donate To GopherHole
station19 said:
You people do realize Iowa installed heating coils at Kinnick Stadium about 2 or 3 years ago. After about two weeks of fall practice they decided to remove them because the Hawkeyes were constantly tripping over them.
Click to expand...

Well done, "19"!
 

station19 said:
You people do realize Iowa installed heating coils at Kinnick Stadium about 2 or 3 years ago. After about two weeks of fall practice they decided to remove them because the Hawkeyes were constantly tripping over them.
Click to expand...

And too many Iowa Cheerleaders were getting electrocuted from grazing on the roots of turf at Kinninck Stadium
 

The NFL season used to end much earlier. The last game of the 1960 season was December 18th. The infamous Ice Bowl was played on December 31st. The conference championship games last season were played on January 22nd. The Grey Cup is played in late November due to the cold Canadian weather. As the seasons extended deep into winter, there was more need for heating coils.

Heating coils are not realyl necessary, but nice to have. If the Vikings want to pay for them, that's great.
 

Mulligan said:
Huh? You do realize where the Vikings first played?
Click to expand...

I went to my first Vikings game in 1964, in the early 70's the games I did attend were either preseason or after the end of November, free tickets were plentyfull when the weather got cold. My high school football team played a game at the Met in late November, temperature in the teens, that field was warmer and softer than a babies blanket.
 

I think the biggest thing to remember about the heating coils at TCF is this: TCF had already been winterized and nothing had been done to care for the field prior to the Vikes/Bears game. If they would have known about this well ahead of time, a tarp would have been put over the field/other maintenance would have occured. It still wouldn't have been perfect and perhaps still would have had many complaints just to complain (crazy weather of cold & heat & cold again which led to people having to chip out ice out of the turf prior to the Iowa game), but it wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal as it was made out to be. They pretty much had to get it up & running in short order.

That said, if the Vikes think it's necessary and are paying for them, it's not a bad thing for the U. Now with games being extended a week later into Thanksgiving weekend being a permanent thing, it's not a negative to have.
 


So will this mean a new turf surface as well? I assume they will have to remove the current FieldTurf to install the coils. I hope they keep the stitched in logos if that's the case and don't go to paint so they can put temporary Viking logos on the field like at the dome.
 

Ski U Master said:
So will this mean a new turf surface as well? I assume they will have to remove the current FieldTurf to install the coils. I hope they keep the stitched in logos if that's the case and don't go to paint so they can put temporary Viking logos on the field like at the dome.
Click to expand...

Do you have to even wonder about this issue? There is no way the Vikings and the NFL are going to play TV games with college names and logos on the field.
 

Go4Broke said:
Do you have to even wonder about this issue? There is no way the Vikings and the NFL are going to play TV games with college names and logos on the field.
Click to expand...

Did the Bears when they were playing in the Illinois stadium for a season?
 




I haven't seen any evidence that there will be new turf without the U's logo. I don't think the U would agree to that.
 

Ski U Master said:
So will this mean a new turf surface as well? I assume they will have to remove the current FieldTurf to install the coils. I hope they keep the stitched in logos if that's the case and don't go to paint so they can put temporary Viking logos on the field like at the dome.
Click to expand...

I would assume it mean's new turf but who knows. In any case, field turf by design is the "stiched in" product. They won't move to paint b/c that's not how the product works.
 

Go4Broke said:
Do you have to even wonder about this issue? There is no way the Vikings and the NFL are going to play TV games with college names and logos on the field.
Click to expand...

That's why the Bears played on an unaltered Illinois field?
 

GoAUpher said:
In any case, field turf by design is the "stiched in" product. They won't move to paint b/c that's not how the product works.
Click to expand...

That's how it worked in the Metrodome. All logos were painted on the FieldTurf for the Gophers and Vikings and then scrubbed off with a machine between games and repainted. The Gophers went with stitched in option because it looks better, is less maintenance, and is permanent.
 



Ski U Master said:
That's how it worked in the Metrodome. All logos were painted on the FieldTurf for the Gophers and Vikings and then scrubbed off with a machine between games and repainted. The Gophers went with stitched in option because it looks better, is less maintenance, and is permanent.
Click to expand...

I recalled them being different versions of the same general product versus the same thing painted over so my bad. In any case, unless the Vikes were paying for a new stitched in version to go in after they moved I can't see the U going that route. They aren't going to take on the extra costs and effort for the years to come just so the Vikings aren't inconvenienced for one (maybe 2) seasons.
 

GoAUpher said:
That's why the Bears played on an unaltered Illinois field?
Click to expand...

I am guessing the Bears did not tear up the Illinois field to install heating coils. When the Vikings tear up the field at the Gophers Stadium they will replace it with the best field money can buy that will allow them to change the names and logos between the Vikings and Gophers. If I am wrong I will stop posting in GopherHole forever.
 

Go4Broke said:
I am guessing the Bears did not tear up the Illinois field to install heating coils. When the Vikings tear up the field at the Gophers Stadium they will replace it with the best field money can buy that will allow them to change the names and logos between the Vikings and Gophers. If I am wrong I will stop posting in GopherHole forever.
Click to expand...

It's not like they are digging up live turf or some crappy dome astroturf. I'm sure they can reuse the top of the line turf they take up.

That, and you suggested the NFL would never allow NCAA branding, which they obviously did for an entire Bear's season.
 

Go4Broke said:
I am guessing the Bears did not tear up the Illinois field to install heating coils. When the Vikings tear up the field at the Gophers Stadium they will replace it with the best field money can buy that will allow them to change the names and logos between the Vikings and Gophers. If I am wrong I will stop posting in GopherHole forever.
Click to expand...

was illinois' memorial stadium a grass field or field turf when the bears played there? i know they are field turf now, but wasn't sure what it was back then. thanks
 


Go4Broke said:
I am guessing the Bears did not tear up the Illinois field to install heating coils. When the Vikings tear up the field at the Gophers Stadium they will replace it with the best field money can buy that will allow them to change the names and logos between the Vikings and Gophers. If I am wrong I will stop posting in GopherHole forever.
Click to expand...

The best field money can buy that works for the Gophers. The U doesn't want to be on the hook for the costs/effort of repainting for the rest of time. There is a reason they went with the product they did the first time. And the Vikings aren't going to want to pay that ongoing cost (obviously).
 

BTW, Gold Vision is right. You're moving the goal posts when proven wrong.
 

They pulled the turf up for the U2 concert. Anyone know if they put the old turf back down or did they replace some or all of it?
 

GoAUpher said:
BTW, Gold Vision is right. You're moving the goal posts when proven wrong.
Click to expand...

1. Illinois had awful, rock hard ugly old style artificial turf for as long as I can remember prior to the newer style turf going in 10 years ago or so. My guess is that grass went out of U of I Memorial stadium around 1969. Thankfully our Memorial stadium only endured that awful turn from 69? to 1976, then they put grass back in.

2. The turf at TCF Bank Stadium cannot be "pulled up" for an event. They covered the field up for the U2 concert.

3. They will put in new turf after the coils are put in. I'd be fine with a less is more logo scheme, but they did a pretty decent job with what is there now. (block M not gopher head is good, but, maybe more green in the end zones would be nice)
 

oak_street1981 said:
1. Illinois had awful, rock hard ugly old style artificial turf for as long as I can remember prior to the newer style turf going in 10 years ago or so. My guess is that grass went out of U of I Memorial stadium around 1969. Thankfully our Memorial stadium only endured that awful turn from 69? to 1976, then they put grass back in.

2. The turf at TCF Bank Stadium cannot be "pulled up" for an event. They covered the field up for the U2 concert.

3. They will put in new turf after the coils are put in. I'd be fine with a less is more logo scheme, but they did a pretty decent job with what is there now. (block M not gopher head is good, but, maybe more green in the end zones would be nice)
Click to expand...

That is what I thought.

When the Vikings are done playing at TCF, I fully expect the field to be the same as it is now or better. No way will the U accept a field that is less than what it is now. If the Vikings want a 'paintable' field when they are playing at TCF they may or may not be given that option. Not sure if the Vikings want to pay for heating coils, a new field to show Vikings logo, and then pay for another new field to put TCF back to original condition.

ILLINIOS does not say Bears but MINNESOTA does say Vikings. I expect there will be no Vikings logo or colors on the field. JMO.
 

I thought I remember Illinois keeping their field down. These websites would surely suggest that:

http://www.nfl-pictures.com/Stadiums-Old/stbears.html

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/8075246.jpg

http://www.lapayne.com/prodimages/SP_NFL_020_LG.jpg

I can't imagine that TCF would have paintable or separate fields when the Vikings play. Way too much effort and lack of quality field/image for the Gophers when we play on Saturdays. perhaps the Vikings requested a few things like this, but the U said no in exchange for the $3M (vs more like they could have charged?)
 

If it isn't in the contract, I can't see the U agreeing to a field without the block M as a permanent part of it.
 

RodentRampage said:
If it isn't in the contract, I can't see the U agreeing to a field without the block M as a permanent part of it.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't the U do it for money? I can see the Vikings agreeing to pay for the right to have their logo on the field for a season or two. It can't possibly be that big of a deal for the Gophers to have a stiched logo versus the next best thing if they are paid for it. Fields have to be replaced periodically anyway.
 

Go4Broke said:
Why wouldn't the U do it for money? I can see the Vikings agreeing to pay for the right to have their logo on the field for a season or two. It can't possibly be that big of a deal for the Gophers to have a stiched logo versus the next best thing if they are paid for it. Fields have to be replaced periodically anyway.
Click to expand...


Sure, they would do it if there was enough money. But it isn't in the contract, which indicates that there is no agreement at this time to have a field without the M sewed on. Why would the Vikings pay for the new turf? I really don't think it is worth the money to the Vikings just to not have the Block M on the field. FieldTurf comes with an 8 year warranty, so it needs to be replaced eventually, but not that often. Unless there is a statement from the U or from the Vikings, there is every reason to believe that the Block M will be on the field when the Vikings play there.
 

Go4Broke said:
Why wouldn't the U do it for money? I can see the Vikings agreeing to pay for the right to have their logo on the field for a season or two. It can't possibly be that big of a deal for the Gophers to have a stiched logo versus the next best thing if they are paid for it. Fields have to be replaced periodically anyway.
Click to expand...

If the Vikings are picking up the tab for the years following the Vikes playing there then ok, maybe I could see it. But if not, then I don't see the U taking on extra costs and efforts just because. Fields do have to be periodically replaced, we're talking in 5+ years at least. Also, if the Vikings were paying explicitly for the right to have their logo make it on the field then that information will be publicly available since they have to sign a contract agreeing to what they are paying and what it is going for.
 

Mulligan said:
Huh? You do realize where the Vikings first played?
Click to expand...

Yeh, If there were coils at the Met, which their weren't, then Grant would refuse to use them anyway, although I believe they did use those gas powered push heaters on the field. Just like he refused to allow heaters at the bench. It was a different approach back then, Grant's philosophy was you play with the conditions mother nature gave you, don't like it hit the road.
 

It wasn't just a different approach. Until 1968, the latest the Vikings played home games was December 8th. When they started making the playoffs, they played later into December. Today, games are played in late January. If the Vikings were playing home games in late January, I think that Grant would have been all in favor of heating coils.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom