Silly turf question

So I'm checking out a photo of the Superdome playing surface, and it looks even more streaked with the black filler material than ever. I've never liked that look, and I'm wondering why manufacturers don't just paint the filler green to match the field. To me, it looks like they just got through playing one of those games that had just enough rain to ruin the appearance but not enough for a mud bowl.

I doubt anyone else cares, but it just seems like if you're going to spend some money on a synthetic (not artificial, as micropolitan guy would lecture you!) surface, why not make it look as green as possible? I know some people say it looks more natural to have the occasional "flying dirt" when players make their cuts, but I think the overall appearance would look better if the filler were green.

Does anybody agree?

 

The black filler is old tires that are ground up.

I don't think it looks great either. But it usually does settle down and look more normal after the first year.

 

The Patriots spent a ton of time figuring out what color their field should be and even had the filler media be a light brown as to more accurately simulate a real playing surface color.

 

I'm sure in the future it will be a different color, but personally, I love watching replays and seeing that rubber shit fly up in slow motion.

 

If the Patriots really wanted it to look like a natural field there as much as possible, the "filler media" should've made up 80 percent of the field.

 

(guiltily) me too.