DOCSLIB.ORG

2010 Nfl Players Playing Surfaces Opinion Survey

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2010 Nfl Players Playing Surfaces Opinion Survey 2010 NFL PLAYERS PLAYING SURFACES OPINION SURVEY [This survey was conducted by the NFLPA at team meetings during September through November 2010. A total of 1619 active NFL Players from all 32 teams voluntarily filled out survey forms.] 1.) Which surface do you think is more likely to contribute to injury? CLUB GRASS ARTIFICIAL INFILLED NA TOTAL ANSWERED ARIZONA CARDINALS 5 8.8% 52 91.2% 0 0.0% 57 ATLANTA FALCONS 1 2.1% 45 95.7% 1 2.1% 47 BALTIMORE RAVENS 4 10.5% 33 86.8% 1 2.6% 38 BUFFALO BILLS 12 24.5% 37 75.5% 0 0.0% 49 CAROLINA PANTHERS 12 20.0% 47 78.3% 1 1.7% 60 CHICAGO BEARS 6 15.4% 32 82.1% 1 2.6% 39 CINCINNATI BENGALS 9 19.1% 37 78.7% 1 2.1% 47 CLEVELAND BROWNS 8 15.4% 43 82.7% 1 1.9% 52 DALLAS COWBOYS 12 35.3% 21 61.8% 1 2.9% 34 DENVER BRONCOS 5 10.9% 40 87.0% 1 2.2% 46 DETROIT LIONS 8 13.6% 50 84.7% 1 1.7% 59 GREEN BAY PACKERS 10 18.2% 44 80.0% 1 1.8% 55 HOUSTON TEXANS 6 9.1% 60 90.9% 0 0.0% 66 INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 8 16.0% 42 84.0% 0 0.0% 50 JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 3 6.3% 43 89.6% 2 4.2% 48 KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 4 6.9% 51 87.9% 3 5.2% 58 MIAMI DOLPHINS 9 14.8% 51 83.6% 1 1.6% 61 MINNESOTA VIKINGS 5 9.8% 45 88.2% 1 2.0% 51 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 17 27.9% 44 72.1% 0 0.0% 61 NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 15 27.8% 37 68.5% 2 3.7% 54 NEW YORK GIANTS 8 15.1% 44 83.0% 1 1.9% 53 NEW YORK JETS 7 14.0% 43 86.0% 0 0.0% 50 OAKLAND RAIDERS 4 16.0% 21 84.0% 0 0.0% 25 PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 5 12.8% 34 87.2% 0 0.0% 39 PITTSBURGH STEELERS 6 10.5% 51 89.5% 0 0.0% 57 SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 7 12.5% 46 82.1% 3 5.4% 56 SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS 12 26.7% 33 73.3% 0 0.0% 45 SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 15 28.3% 37 69.8% 1 1.9% 53 ST. LOUIS RAMS 7 13.0% 47 87.0% 0 0.0% 54 TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 8 17.4% 35 76.1% 3 6.5% 46 TENNESSEE TITANS 9 14.8% 51 83.6% 1 1.6% 61 WASHINGTON REDSKINS 7 14.6% 41 85.4% 0 0.0% 48 TOTAL 254 1337 28 1619 AVERAGE 7.94 15.9% 41.78 82.4% 0.88 1.7% 50.59 COPYRIGHT © 2010 NFLPA 2.) Which surface do you think causes more soreness and fatigue to play on? CLUB GRASS ARTIFICIAL INFILLED NA TOTAL ANSWERED ARIZONA CARDINALS 3 5.3% 54 94.7% 0 0.0% 57 ATLANTA FALCONS 1 2.1% 45 95.7% 1 2.1% 47 BALTIMORE RAVENS 3 7.9% 32 84.2% 3 7.9% 38 BUFFALO BILLS 13 26.5% 35 71.4% 1 2.0% 49 CAROLINA PANTHERS 6 10.0% 53 88.3% 1 1.7% 60 CHICAGO BEARS 4 10.3% 35 89.7% 0 0.0% 39 CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 10.6% 41 87.2% 1 2.1% 47 CLEVELAND BROWNS 6 11.5% 45 86.5% 1 1.9% 52 DALLAS COWBOYS 5 14.7% 28 82.4% 1 2.9% 34 DENVER BRONCOS 3 6.5% 43 93.5% 0 0.0% 46 DETROIT LIONS 4 6.8% 54 91.5% 1 1.7% 59 GREEN BAY PACKERS 5 9.1% 49 89.1% 1 1.8% 55 HOUSTON TEXANS 4 6.1% 62 93.9% 0 0.0% 66 INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 8 16.0% 42 84.0% 0 0.0% 50 JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 3 6.3% 44 91.7% 1 2.1% 48 KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 1 1.7% 53 91.4% 4 6.9% 58 MIAMI DOLPHINS 1 1.6% 59 96.7% 1 1.6% 61 MINNESOTA VIKINGS 7 13.7% 42 82.4% 2 3.9% 51 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 6 9.8% 55 90.2% 0 0.0% 61 NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 14 25.9% 39 72.2% 1 1.9% 54 NEW YORK GIANTS 4 7.5% 49 92.5% 0 0.0% 53 NEW YORK JETS 3 6.0% 47 94.0% 0 0.0% 50 OAKLAND RAIDERS 3 12.0% 22 88.0% 0 0.0% 25 PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 0 0.0% 39 100.0% 0 0.0% 39 PITTSBURGH STEELERS 0 0.0% 55 96.5% 2 3.5% 57 SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 5 8.9% 49 87.5% 2 3.6% 56 SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS 4 8.9% 41 91.1% 0 0.0% 45 SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 10 18.9% 40 75.5% 3 5.7% 53 ST. LOUIS RAMS 1 1.9% 53 98.1% 0 0.0% 54 TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 6 13.0% 40 87.0% 0 0.0% 46 TENNESSEE TITANS 4 6.6% 57 93.4% 0 0.0% 61 WASHINGTON REDSKINS 4 8.3% 43 89.6% 1 2.1% 48 TOTAL 146 1445 28 1619 AVERAGE 4.56 9.2% 45.16 89.1% 0.88 1.7% 50.59 COPYRIGHT © 2010 NFLPA 3.) Which surface do you think is more likely to shorten your career? CLUB GRASS ARTIFICIAL INFILLED NA TOTAL ANSWERED ARIZONA CARDINALS 3 5.3% 54 94.7% 0 0.0% 57 ATLANTA FALCONS 3 6.4% 43 91.5% 1 2.1% 47 BALTIMORE RAVENS 4 10.5% 31 81.6% 3 7.9% 38 BUFFALO BILLS 11 22.4% 37 75.5% 1 2.0% 49 CAROLINA PANTHERS 4 6.7% 54 90.0% 2 3.3% 60 CHICAGO BEARS 1 2.6% 37 94.9% 1 2.6% 39 CINCINNATI BENGALS 5 10.6% 40 85.1% 2 4.3% 47 CLEVELAND BROWNS 4 7.7% 47 90.4% 1 1.9% 52 DALLAS COWBOYS 4 11.8% 29 85.3% 1 2.9% 34 DENVER BRONCOS 1 2.2% 45 97.8% 0 0.0% 46 DETROIT LIONS 4 6.8% 54 91.5% 1 1.7% 59 GREEN BAY PACKERS 5 9.1% 48 87.3% 2 3.6% 55 HOUSTON TEXANS 3 4.5% 62 93.9% 1 1.5% 66 INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 4 8.0% 46 92.0% 0 0.0% 50 JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 3 6.3% 44 91.7% 1 2.1% 48 KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 1 1.7% 53 91.4% 4 6.9% 58 MIAMI DOLPHINS 3 4.9% 57 93.4% 1 1.6% 61 MINNESOTA VIKINGS 1 2.0% 48 94.1% 2 3.9% 51 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 8 13.1% 52 85.2% 1 1.6% 61 NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 10 18.5% 42 77.8% 2 3.7% 54 NEW YORK GIANTS 2 3.8% 50 94.3% 1 1.9% 53 NEW YORK JETS 3 6.0% 46 92.0% 1 2.0% 50 OAKLAND RAIDERS 1 4.0% 24 96.0% 0 0.0% 25 PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 2 5.1% 37 94.9% 0 0.0% 39 PITTSBURGH STEELERS 1 1.8% 54 94.7% 2 3.5% 57 SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 1 1.8% 52 92.9% 3 5.4% 56 SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS 6 13.3% 39 86.7% 0 0.0% 45 SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 9 17.0% 39 73.6% 5 9.4% 53 ST. LOUIS RAMS 3 5.6% 51 94.4% 0 0.0% 54 TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS 4 8.7% 39 84.8% 3 6.5% 46 TENNESSEE TITANS 2 3.3% 59 96.7% 0 0.0% 61 WASHINGTON REDSKINS 6 12.5% 41 85.4% 1 2.1% 48 TOTAL 122 1454 43 1619 AVERAGE 3.81 7.6% 45.4375 89.7% 1.3438 2.6% 50.59 COPYRIGHT © 2010 NFLPA 4.) Which surface do you think is more likely to negatively affect your quality of life after football? CLUB GRASS ARTIFICIAL INFILLED NEITHER NA TOTAL ANSWERED ARIZONA CARDINALS 1 1.8% 46 80.7% 10 17.5% 0 0.0% 57 ATLANTA FALCONS 1 2.1% 33 70.2% 12 25.5% 1 2.1% 47 BALTIMORE RAVENS 0 0.0% 23 60.5% 14 36.8% 1 2.6% 38 BUFFALO BILLS 6 12.2% 26 53.1% 15 30.6% 2 4.1% 49 CAROLINA PANTHERS 3 5.0% 39 65.0% 17 28.3% 1 1.7% 60 CHICAGO BEARS 1 2.6% 29 74.4% 9 23.1% 0 0.0% 39 CINCINNATI BENGALS 1 2.1% 28 59.6% 15 31.9% 3 6.4% 47 CLEVELAND BROWNS 3 5.8% 31 59.6% 14 26.9% 4 7.7% 52 DALLAS COWBOYS 3 8.8% 19 55.9% 11 32.4% 1 2.9% 34 DENVER BRONCOS 0 0.0% 36 78.3% 10 21.7% 0 0.0% 46 DETROIT LIONS 3 5.1% 39 66.1% 15 25.4% 2 3.4% 59 GREEN BAY PACKERS 2 3.6% 32 58.2% 21 38.2% 0 0.0% 55 HOUSTON TEXANS 1 1.5% 52 78.8% 12 18.2% 1 1.5% 66 INDIANAPOLIS COLTS 3 6.0% 36 72.0% 11 22.0% 0 0.0% 50 JACKSONVILLE JAGUARS 0 0.0% 29 60.4% 17 35.4% 2 4.2% 48 KANSAS CITY CHIEFS 1 1.7% 33 56.9% 21 36.2% 3 5.2% 58 MIAMI DOLPHINS 1 1.6% 42 68.9% 16 26.2% 2 3.3% 61 MINNESOTA VIKINGS 1 2.0% 29 56.9% 20 39.2% 1 2.0% 51 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS 3 4.9% 35 57.4% 22 36.1% 1 1.6% 61 NEW ORLEANS SAINTS 5 9.3% 30 55.6% 19 35.2% 0 0.0% 54 NEW YORK GIANTS 0 0.0% 35 66.0% 18 34.0% 0 0.0% 53 NEW YORK JETS 2 4.0% 36 72.0% 12 24.0% 0 0.0% 50 OAKLAND RAIDERS 0 0.0% 15 60.0% 10 40.0% 0 0.0% 25 PHILADELPHIA EAGLES 2 5.1% 28 71.8% 9 23.1% 0 0.0% 39 PITTSBURGH STEELERS 1 1.8% 42 73.7% 12 21.1% 2 3.5% 57 SAN DIEGO CHARGERS 0 0.0% 38 67.9% 16 28.6% 2 3.6% 56 SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS 2 4.4% 30 66.7% 13 28.9% 0 0.0% 45 SEATTLE SEAHAWKS 3 5.7% 28 52.8% 19 35.8% 3 5.7% 53 ST.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CSL Economic Analysis
    NFL Funding Comparison Total Private Funding Public Funding Year Project Total % of Total % of Stadium/Team Team Opened Cost Private Total Public Total Los Angeles Stadium (Proposed) TBD 2016 $1,200.0 $1,200.0 100% $0.0 0% San Francisco 49ers (Proposed) San Francisco 49ers 2015 $987.0 $873.0 88% $114.0 12% New Meadowlands Stadium Giants/Jets 2010 $1,600.0 $1,600.0 100% $0.0 0% New Cowboys Stadium Dallas Cowboys 2009 $1,194.0 $750.0 63% $444.0 37% Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis Colts 2008 $675.0 $100.0 15% $575.0 85% University of Phoenix Stadium Arizona Cardinals 2006 $471.4 $150.4 32% $321.0 68% Lincoln Financial Field Philadelphia Eagles 2003 $518.0 $330.0 64% $188.0 36% Soldier Field (renovation) Chicago Bears 2003 $587.0 $200.0 34% $387.0 66% Lambeau Field (renovation) Green Bay Packers 2003 $295.2 $126.1 43% $169.1 57% Gillette Stadium New England Patriots 2002 $412.0 $340.0 83% $72.0 17% Ford Field Detroit Lions 2002 $440.0 $330.0 75% $110.0 25% Reliant Stadium Houston Texans 2002 $474.0 $185.0 39% $289.0 61% Qwest Field Seattle Seahawks 2002 $461.3 $161.0 35% $300.3 65% Heinz Field Pittsburgh Steelers 2001 $280.8 $109.2 39% $171.6 61% Invesco Field at Mile High Denver Broncos 2001 $400.8 $111.8 28% $289.0 72% Paul Brown Stadium Cincinnati Bengals 2000 $449.8 $25.0 6% $424.8 94% LP Field Tennessee Titans 1999 $291.7 $84.8 29% $206.9 71% Cleveland Browns Stadium Cleveland Browns 1999 $271.0 $71.0 26% $200.0 74% M&T Bank Stadium Baltimore Ravens 1998 $226.0 $22.4 10% $203.6 90% Raymond James Stadium Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1998 $194.0
    [Show full text]
  • Game Changer: Centurylink Field Case Study
    CASE STUDY CENTURYLINK FIELD, HOME OF THE SEATTLE SEAHAWKS AND SOUNDERS FC VENUE STATS Location: Seattle, Washington Opened: July 29, 2002 Seating Capacity: 67,000 Owner: Washington State Public Stadium Authority Operator: First & Goal Inc. (FGI) Venue Uses: NFL games; MLS games; NCAA football and international soccer games; Supercross and a variety of community events Construction Cost: $430 million ($566 in 2012 dollars) CENTURYLINK Field’S GREENING STORY: and Event Center. The Kingdome was demolished in 2000 to MOTIVATIONS, CHALLENGES AND LESSONS make way for the new stadium; 97 percent of the concrete was recycled locally, with 35 percent of it reused in the new FROM THE FIELD facility. Thanks to the widespread public and professional interest in “During 2005–2006 many venues and professional teams sustainability in the Northwest, environmental stewardship began the discussion on recycling and composting,” notes was built into CenturyLink Field even before the first U.S. Benge. In 2005 the Seahawks also partnered with Seattle City sports greening programs were established. Back in 2000, Light and Western Washington University to recognize local 35 percent of the concrete from the Kingdome was recycled commitments to renewable energy with a Power Players onsite to construct Seahawks Stadium (which has since been award. “It was an opportunity to highlight and learn from renamed “CenturyLink Field”). different smart energy programs,” Benge says. To this day, CenturyLink Field, the Seattle Seahawks In 2006 FGI launched CenturyLink Field’s recycling and Seattle Sounders FC are leaders in professional sports program with the installation of 75 new recycling bins greening, as founding members of the Green Sports Alliance, around the venue, fan and staff recycling education, and a and business leaders in sustainability, with an onsite new dedicated Recycling Sorting Area created to track and solar array, an aggressive recycling program and a strong separate 17 different recyclable materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia Dome Facts, Figures and Records
    GEORGIA DOME FACTS, FIGURES AND RECORDS ‐ The Georgia Dome is the only venue to host the Olympics, Super Bowl and NCAA men’s basketball Final Four. ‐ The Georgia Dome had two general managers in its quarter century run: Khalil Johnson served as general manager from 1989 (during the construction phase) to 2002 when he was named Chief Operating Officer of the Georgia World Congress Center Authority; and Carl Adkins was promoted from assistant manager to general manager in 2002, staying in this role until 2016. ‐ More than 1,400 events took place at the Georgia Dome, drawing 37 million guests and generating more than $7 billion in economic impact. ‐ The grand opening of the Georgia Dome included the stadium’s first official public event entitled “Roam the Dome” held Aug. 14-16, 1992 featuring marching bands, parades and non-athletic competitions, drawing more than 230,000 visitors. ‐ The weekend after “Roam the Dome,” the Atlanta Falcons began the team’s 25-year residency at the Georgia Dome with an exhibition game victory over the Philadelphia Eagles on Aug. 23, 1992 in front of 66,464 fans. ‐ The Georgia Dome’s first concert was the Olympic Flag jam on Sept. 17, 1992, featuring performances by multiple acts, including Whitney Houston, James Brown, Travis Tritt, Santana, TLC, Trisha Yearwood, Lee Greenwood, Alabama, Atlanta Rhythm Section and Gladys Knight. ‐ The first headlining concert at the dome was U2’s Zoo TV Tour, which stopped over on Sept. 25, 1992, drawing a crowd of 52,318. Big Audio Dynamite II and Public Enemy were also on the bill.
    [Show full text]
  • VENUECONNECT 2013 ATTENDEES As of 11/12/2013
    VENUECONNECT 2013 ATTENDEES as of 11/12/2013 FULL_NAME COMPANY CITY STATE/ PROVINCE COUNTRY Aaron Hurt Howard L. Schrott Arts Center Indianapolis IN Abbie Jo Vander Bol Show Me Center Cape Girardeau MO Adam Cook Rexall Place & Edmonton Expo Centre Edmonton AB Canada Adam Saunders Robert A. (Bob) Bowers Civic Center Port Arthur TX Adam Sinclair American Airlines Center Dallas TX Adam Straight Georgia Dome Atlanta GA Adina Alford Erwin The Fox Theatre - Atlanta Atlanta GA Adonis Jeralds Charlotte Coliseum Charlotte NC Adrian Collier University Center Mercer University Macon GA Adrian Moreno West Cal Arena Sulphur LA AJ Boleski INTRUST Bank Arena/SMG Wichita KS AJ Holzherr Birmingham CrossPlex Birmingham AL Al Diaz McAllen Auditorium & Convention Center McAllen TX Al Karosas Bryce Jordan Center Penn State University University Park PA Al Rojas Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas TX Alan Freeman Louisiana Superdome & New Orleans Arena New Orleans LA Albert Driscoll Halifax Forum Community Association Halifax NS Albert Milano Strategic Philanthropy, LLC Dallas TX Alberto Galarza Humacao Arena & PAC Humacao PR Alexander Diaz Madison Square Garden New York NY Alexis Berggren Dolby Theatre Hollywood CA Allen Johnson Orlando Venues/Amway Center Orlando FL Andrea Gates-Ehlers UIC Forum Chicago IL Andrew McQueen Leflore County Civic Center/ Argi-Center Greenwood MS Andrew Thompson Harborside Event Center Fort Myers FL Andy Gillentine University of South Carolina Columbia SC Angel Mitchell Ardmore Convention Center Ardmore OK Angie Teel
    [Show full text]
  • Stadium Name City Twitter Handle Team Name Alabama Jordan–Hare
    Stadium Name City Twitter Handle Team Name Alabama Jordan–Hare Stadium Auburn @FootballAU Auburn Tigers Talladega Superspeedway Talladega @TalladegaSuperS Bryant–Denny Stadium Tuscaloosa @AlabamaFTBL Crimson Tide Arkansas Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Fayetteville @RazorbackFB Arkansas Razorbacks Stadium, Frank Broyles Field Arizona Phoenix International Raceway Avondale @PhoenixRaceway Jobing.com Arena Glendale @GilaRivArena Arizona Coyotes University of Phoenix Stadium Glendale @UOPXStadium Arizona Cardinals Chase Field Phoenix @DBacks Arizona Diamondbacks US Airways Center Phoenix @USAirwaysCenter Phoenix Suns Sun Devil Stadium, Frank Kush Field Tempe @FootballASU Arizona State Sun Devils California Angel Stadium of Anaheim Anaheim @AngelStadium L.A. Angels of Anaheim Honda Center Anaheim @HondaCenter Anaheim Ducks Auto Club Speedway Fontana @ACSUpdates Dodger Stadium Los Angeles @Dodgers Los Angeles Dodgers Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Los Angeles @USC_Athletics Southern California Los Angeles Clippers Staples Center Los Angeles @StaplesCenter Los Angeles Lakers Los Angeles Kings Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca Monterey @MazdaRaceway Oakland Athletics O.co Coliseum Oakland @OdotcoColiseum Oakland Raiders Oracle Arena Oakland @OracleArena Golden State Warriors Rose Bowl Pasadena @RoseBowlStadium UCLA Bruins Sleep Train Arena Sacramento @SleepTrainArena Sacramento Kings Petco Park San Diego @Padres San Diego Padres Qualcomm Stadium San Diego @Chargers San Diego Chargers AT&T Park San Francisco @ATTParkSF San Francisco Giants Candlestick Park
    [Show full text]
  • NCAA Division II-III Football Records (Special Games)
    Special Regular- and Postseason- Games Special Regular- and Postseason-Games .................................. 178 178 SPECIAL REGULAR- AND POSTSEASON GAMES Special Regular- and Postseason Games 11-19-77—Mo. Western St. 35, Benedictine 30 (1,000) 12-9-72—Harding 30, Langston 27 Postseason Games 11-18-78—Chadron St. 30, Baker (Kan.) 19 (3,000) DOLL AND TOY CHARITY GAME 11-17-79—Pittsburg St. 43, Peru St. 14 (2,800) 11-21-80—Cameron 34, Adams St. 16 (Gulfport, Miss.) 12-3-37—Southern Miss. 7, Appalachian St. 0 (2,000) UNSANCTIONED OR OTHER BOWLS BOTANY BOWL The following bowl and/or postseason games were 11-24-55—Neb.-Kearney 34, Northern St. 13 EASTERN BOWL (Allentown, Pa.) unsanctioned by the NCAA or otherwise had no BOY’S RANCH BOWL team classified as major college at the time of the 12-14-63—East Carolina 27, Northeastern 6 (2,700) bowl. Most are postseason games; in many cases, (Abilene, Texas) 12-13-47—Missouri Valley 20, McMurry 13 (2,500) ELKS BOWL complete dates and/or statistics are not avail- 1-2-54—Charleston (W.V.) 12, East Carolina 0 (4,500) (at able and the scores are listed only to provide a BURLEY BOWL Greenville, N.C.) historical reference. Attendance of the game, (Johnson City, Tenn.) 12-11-54—Newberry 20, Appalachian St. 13 (at Raleigh, if known, is listed in parentheses after the score. 1-1-46—High Point 7, Milligan 7 (3,500) N.C.) ALL-SPORTS BOWL 11-28-46—Southeastern La. 21, Milligan 13 (7,500) FISH Bowl (Oklahoma City, Okla.) 11-27-47—West Chester 20, Carson-Newman 6 (10,000) 11-25-48—West Chester 7, Appalachian St.
    [Show full text]
  • Hec Edmundson Pavilion Renovation
    Heritage Husky Logos and Marks Through the Years 1936 1937 1958 1932 1953 1959 1971 1974 TM TM 1979 1983 1995 1995 THE LOGO — In April of 2001, Washington launched a new identity program resulting in new unforms for six athletic teams, and enhanced block “W” logo, and a new secondary Husky logo, in an attempt to give the 23 athletic teams at Washington a uniform look, while maintaining the great tradition and heritage of the University of Washington Huskies. The new version of the Husky, drawn by Shelby Tiffany and Phil Long of Nike Team Sports, is a more modernistic Husky, with strong, bold features that represent character, tenacity and courage. For more information on Washington’s official marks, visit the University's licensing web site at www.huskylogos.com 2001 2001 • 2005–05 Washington Basketball • 213 Heritage The Dawghouse Bank of America Arena at Hec Edmundson Pavilion Annual Home Attendance Year Total (# of games) Average 2004 108,781 (14) 7,770 2003 101,983 (15) 6,799 2002 78,877 (12) 6,573 2001 98,149 (15) 6,543 2000 (@KeyArena) 102,058 (13) 7,851 1999 80,992 (12) 6,749 1998 74,469 (14) 5,319 1997 88,399 (15) 5,893 1996 77,171 (15) 5,148 1995 67,648 (13) 5,204 1994 47,515 (13) 3,655 1993 48,587 (16) 3,037 1992 56,812 (16) 3,551 1991 46,096 (16) 2,881 1990 50,167 (16) 3,135 1989 49,277 (14) 3,520 1988 45,875 (13) 3,529 1987 45,875 (13) 4,782 Edmundson Pavilion, as pictured in 1927, has been the host to 776 Washington basketball victories.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Considerations for Retractable-Roof Stadia
    Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer S.B. Civil Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of AASSACHUSETTS INSTiTUTE MASTER OF ENGINEERING IN OF TECHNOLOGY CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING MAY 3 12005 AT THE LIBRARIES MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June 2005 © 2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved Signature of Author:.................. ............... .......... Department of Civil Environmental Engineering May 20, 2005 C ertified by:................... ................................................ Jerome J. Connor Professor, Dep tnt of CZvil and Environment Engineering Thesis Supervisor Accepted by:................................................... Andrew J. Whittle Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Studies BARKER Design Considerations for Retractable-roof Stadia by Andrew H. Frazer Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 20, 2005 in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering in Civil and Environmental Engineering ABSTRACT As existing open-air or fully enclosed stadia are reaching their life expectancies, cities are choosing to replace them with structures with moving roofs. This kind of facility provides protection from weather for spectators, a natural grass playing surface for players, and new sources of revenue for owners. The first retractable-roof stadium in North America, the Rogers Centre, has hosted numerous successful events but cost the city of Toronto over CA$500 million. Today, there are five retractable-roof stadia in use in America. Each has very different structural features designed to accommodate the conditions under which they are placed, and their individual costs reflect the sophistication of these features.
    [Show full text]
  • Gillette Stadium Bag Policy
    Gillette Stadium Bag Policy Select Download Format: Download Gillette Stadium Bag Policy pdf. Download Gillette Stadium Bag Policy doc. Gameday bags Restrictionwhich cookies information we will not for inthe gillette new stadiumstadium mustbag policy, pass the arrest gillette and stadium updates beginning the environment of the place! EnsuringNation this you time send when a new purchasing england game patriots. against 99 rating the link on belowthe trip to out receive of the a active safe androadways. are available. Thank you fromhave bostonbecome area angry for atthe gillette first major stadium? league. Displays Ne at upgillette within stadium the new also england handing revolution out at gillette game stadiumtickets is Alsoauthorized prohibited ticket items plan toto. gillette Parkingsubscribe stadium security the patriots rules on have the communicatedclients and blankets. directly Lions with forwhat entry is 39 into km. aboutboston which to the includes best of thenaming benefits rights of to.in. HoldersStreets ofwho selectmen was all gilletteearlier bagthis policysite were change previously begins contacted friday Amplesince 2016 and securityin the designated unanimously parking recommended in. Minute inthe the stadium 2015 season also be ticket in gillette holders stadium who youbag tendpolicy to. is not. theCornerback opponent. michael Respective jackson mobile in ejection beautiful from stadium interstate for those495, select rules ofa statementtripadvisor at member patriot placeand types solo orof differenttime. Owners date ofbought live events. the north Resident companies has aare strict the bags gillette and bag quicker policy experience: in. Car and ifimplemented you have them several the putting2012 and her route first major140. Worldagainst league soccer me playoff posted victories those games include in wins gillette over.
    [Show full text]
  • Organization / Location Contact (S) Phone Email Alliance for Pioneer
    Organization / Location Contact (s) Phone Email Alliance for Pioneer Square Sara Pizzo 206.667.0687 Ext. 107 [email protected] Amazon Properties Ben Grace 425.615.8201 [email protected] Amtrak Platform at King Street Station Alice Rose [email protected] Ballard (Hiram M. Chittenden) Locks Bill Dowell 206.764.3464 [email protected] Ballard Alliance Anndrea Dohring 206.784.9705 Boeing Field / King County International Airport Tricia Diamond 206.477.9617 [email protected] Lumen Field Sarah Vetting 206.381.7558 [email protected] Lumen Field Monica Alferi 206.381.7823 [email protected] Lumen Field North Lot Tracy Sundberg 206.326.5311 [email protected] Chinatown / International District Business Monisha Singh 206.382.1197 Ext. 2 [email protected] Improvement District (CIDBIA) Farmers Markets (Neighborhood Farmers Market Jennifer Antos [email protected] Organization) - University Farmers Market, West Seattle Farmers Market, Broadway / Capitol Hill Farmers Market, Phinney Ridge Farmers Market, Magnolia Farmers Market, Columbia City Farmers Market, Lake City Farmers Marker Farmers Markets (Seattle Farmers Market Kelli Diann Billips [email protected] Association) - Ballard Farmers Market, Wallingford Farmers Market, Madrona Farmers Market Friends of Waterfront Seattle Jeff Ozimek 206.866.6817 x107 [email protected] Georgetown Merchants Association Emilie Shepherd [email protected] Hangar 30 (Magnuson Park) 206.233.7892 [email protected] Historic Seattle Kelten Johnson 206.817.2887 King County Metro - Buses Jami Kai 206.477.7231 [email protected] 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5752 | PO Box 94708 | Seattle, WA 98124-4708 206-684-8993 |seattle.gov/filmandmusic The City of Seattle encourages everyone to participate.
    [Show full text]
  • Sports Facilities & Urban Redevelopment
    Marquette Sports Law Review Volume 10 Article 14 Issue 2 Spring Sports Facilities & Urban Redevelopment David E. Cardwell Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw Part of the Entertainment and Sports Law Commons Repository Citation David E. Cardwell, Sports Facilities & Urban Redevelopment, 10 Marq. Sports L. J. 417 (2000) Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol10/iss2/14 This Essay is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESSAY SPORTS FACILITIES & URBAN REDEVELOPMENT DAVID E. CARDWELL* The 1990s was a decade in which new sports facilities of every type and description were built throughout the United States and Canada. Not since the 1960s when baseball began its major expansion has there been such a boom in new facilities. The decade began with the construc- tion of New Comiskey Park in Chicago in 1991. The following construc- tion boom has continued unabated into the present. What explains this explosion in new design, concepts and construc- tion? It is more than the mere aging of structures (i.e., Wrigley Field is still going strong even though it dates back to 1916). Changes in the economics of the game explain much of the need for new facilities that generate more revenue that can then be retained by the team to pay ever-increasing player salaries. The specifics of the economics of modern professional sports are be- yond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say that the fundamental changes in all major professional sports in the United States resulting from player free agency, increased broadcast revenue, merchandise and other non-game revenue, and the conversion from family to corporate ownership of teams has made the financial bottom line just as important as the team's place in the standings.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of the American Outdoor Sport Facility: Developing an Ideal Type on the Evolution of Professional Baseball and Football Structures
    AN ANALYSIS OF THE AMERICAN OUTDOOR SPORT FACILITY: DEVELOPING AN IDEAL TYPE ON THE EVOLUTION OF PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL AND FOOTBALL STRUCTURES DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Chad S. Seifried, B.S., M.Ed. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Donna Pastore, Advisor Professor Melvin Adelman _________________________________ Professor Janet Fink Advisor College of Education Copyright by Chad Seifried 2005 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to analyze the physical layout of the American baseball and football professional sport facility from 1850 to present and design an ideal-type appropriate for its evolution. Specifically, this study attempts to establish a logical expansion and adaptation of Bale’s Four-Stage Ideal-type on the Evolution of the Modern English Soccer Stadium appropriate for the history of professional baseball and football and that predicts future changes in American sport facilities. In essence, it is the author’s intention to provide a more coherent and comprehensive account of the evolving professional baseball and football sport facility and where it appears to be headed. This investigation concludes eight stages exist concerning the evolution of the professional baseball and football sport facility. Stages one through four primarily appeared before the beginning of the 20th century and existed as temporary structures which were small and cheaply built. Stages five and six materialize as the first permanent professional baseball and football facilities. Stage seven surfaces as a multi-purpose facility which attempted to accommodate both professional football and baseball equally.
    [Show full text]