Why would NYCFC want the field widened? The narrow field has been sanctioned by MLS, and it gives them a huge home field advantage. Why would they give that up for a final?
NYCFC would not want the pitch widened. The team's great home record has been mentioned a few times. The mound thing is just symbolic. By contrast, NYCFC's inability to play the final on their normal home ground is a serious consequence of the Yankees' neglect and mismanagement of one of their assets.
Yeah, I can agree that the Yankees seem to be absentee owners. They half ass provided their stadium and that's the end of it.
Rutgers isn't involved--it's Princeton vs. Dartmouth. They don't have room in their schedules to move it to another date, so the only thing that could theoretically happen would be for the Yankees to find a way to cancel the contract and send the game back to Dartmouth where it was originally supposed to be their home game.
actually, no this is not the Yankees fault. The football game was scheduled over 2 years ago. At that time the MLS regular season stretched to the end of October. The playoffs would be two legs, and MLS Cup was played in December. The new schedule and playoff format was decided just this past January. Also, flattening the mound for a one of game is one thing. Having to continually flatten and replace the mound 15+ times a year would not be good for the Yankees, the primary tenant of Yankee Stadium. The Yankees play 81 games at Yankee stadium each season at a minimum. As to why the Yankees would want to be a part owner of an MLS team??? The extra 17 dates that NYCFC play there is extra income for them, and also helps them pay off the stadium, as well as give more work dates for its employees at Legends Entertainment (further building that business). Not to mention the extra content for the YES network......and when they eventually get a SSS built in NYC, that's even more income for them, with another venue for Legends Entertainment, international soccer friendlies, more college football games, etc..
Ah, thanks for the correction. I must have been thinking of the time a couple years ago when a Rutgers game at Yankee Stadium was cancelled because it conflicted with a Yankee playoff game. I see. Then that's exactly what they should have done. Doesn't matter. The Rutgers game from a couple years ago was scheduled before Yankees knew they'd need that date for the playoff game. When the higher priority need for the date became apparent, the Rutgers rental was cancelled, and the university's rental fee was refunded. The Dartmouth rental should have been handled likewise. Just as the Yankees take precedence over everything else, the team of which the Yankees are part owners ought to take precedence over any outside entities. A dubious claim. First of all, repeatedly removing and replacing a pitcher's mound has been done at Major League ballparks since at least the 1950s. Secondly, it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of flattening and replacing the thing. Surely by now groundskeepers have developed a system whereby the mound can be built on some sort of platform, and can be removed and replaced as a single unit. So my only point is: if NYCFC is a thing of value to the Yankees, then one may reasonably expect that the Yankees will treat that thing as though it had value.
Some of the minor league baseball parks that share with USL have hydraulic mounds. They sink it into the ground, put some kind of hard cover over it to create a flat surface, and put in temporary sod.
The big question imo is if they will use the apple during their game at Citi That's what I want to focus my energy on.
I dunno, maybe you should ask that question to Bob Kraft and his imbecile son, Uday. Well, they did decide to hire Arena, so I guess we can't completely say that any more...
I believe RFK had a mound on a hydraulic system when the Nats came to to town and shared with DC United. If they can do it there, there's no reason a "state of the art" place like Yankee Stadium couldn't manage that. The other reason they might consider it is that it instantly turns a much higher percent of the stadium into better seats, with no weird angles. I remember reading about a couple of other NY stadiums where the Polo Grounds held 38,000 people, and it was the 2nd largest BB stadium (after the Braves). Then the Yankees built their place across the river and it held 65,000. The Giants increased their capacity to 55,000, but there wasn't room to put the extra seats in a place where they'd be good for baseball. A lot of the extra seats were in the far reaches of the outfield 5-600 feet from home plate. No one ever sat there unless the place was sold out. NYCFC just might get bigger crowds if people could buy good seats
The Yankees' advancing has no impact on the location of MLS Cup on Nov. 10. It does increase the likelihood of the second round game after NYCFC's bye being moved to Citi Field.
They tried that at first. It was a disaster. They went to the removal/replace method shortly after baseball started.
Yeah, I thought several stadia has pitcher mounds in what amounts to a tray the crew just pick up and move when not wanted.
I don't follow baseball. To someone who doesn't it is super surprising that something as simple as a pitcher's mound is so hard to just rebuild. I would think they have to abide to strict rules on size and height and would all be essentially the same. Also it seems sitting out in the elements and game usage (for 80 games or whatever) would require constant rebuilding anyway. Again I am not a follower of the sport so don't blast me but just seems like a very trivial thing for a team to say "it can't be taken down for 17ish dates."
They are made of a special type of clay and have to be shaped to some precise specs. You are correct that they require constant maintenance, but it's a lot easier to patch up the normal wear and tear at the end of every game than to tear it up and rebuild it every other week. The big issue is switchover time. The time required to convert from one sport to the other becomes a dead zone when the stadium can't be used, limiting scheduling flexibility. If they have to tear up the mound with shovels and then rebuild from scratch, that takes more time, and also might encourage rush jobs that leave it in poor quality and make the pitchers upset. So if they can have a system to remove it intact or sink it with hydraulics, that's a good idea if they can make it work.
The first time they removed the mound for another event in season, pitchers from both teams complained. They might still do it now and then for special events, but the Yankees would have a tough time signing free agent pitchers if they told them they were going to mess with the mound 17 times a year.
. . . The mound had a 15-inch elevation in 1968, and in 1969 it was only 10 inches, a huge change akin to expanding the nets in hockey. Gibson’s microscopic E.R.A. for the St. Louis Cardinals is to blame . . . https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/sports/baseball/19gibson.html
You could put dog crap on the Yankee Stadium mound and the Yankees would have no more difficulty recruiting free agents than they ever have. Players want championships and the Yankees are the most likely franchise to bring a player a championship, dog crap or not.