natural grass football fields

[Ben Zing]

This topic may fit better in another forum, but this one gets the most traffic so i just figured i'd put it here.

I understand that money, as usual, is the main driver for so many schools and pro teams switching to artificle surface. And i know that the new synthetic fields are way better than old astro turf.

But it bugs the heck out of me.

There is something about watching a great football game, college especially, between 2 teams in sweet uniforms, on a nice grass field.

(Actually, if doesn't even need to be so nice. I'll take a beat down field with brown spots over a fake field.)

Like the USC-ND game last year. Perfect game. It would be less so if it was on synthetic grass.

And its partly why the SEC is so great. Only 1 team (i think), with turf. The games always look good. And lets face it, as probably eveyone on this board knows, sports is mostly about the competition, but the asthetic aspects enhance the experiene.

I almost get paranoid that soon enough everyone will be switching to the synthetic surfaces. On that note, i've just read that Ohio St and Colorado are both considering the change. Depresses me more than it reasonably should.

On the NFL level, because they have the $, i seriously think the league should recognize that much of it's image is based on old school football on real grass, and they should subsidize teams to make sure they don't change to fake grass. They should even encourage existing teams with fake grass to switch.

Any thoughts? Anyone have this same paranoia i have?

[KevinMcD]

I don't mind the new "fake stuff" but the astroturf stuff drives me crazy. I like natural grass the best, but the new fake stuff is OK.

[EatSleepJeep]

How are you going to entice an NFL team that plays indoors to switch?

[HatManTC]

you can really feel the difference when running on "grassy turf" than runnning on the real stuff and astroturf. i really liked playing on UNC's intermurial fields because of that "grass turf", i really felt faster on that field than i did on real grass. i hated astroturf. i felt it in my knees for a few weeks later.

[pcgd]

When you consider how hard it is to keep a lush green grass, how much money that costs, its no surpirse teams above the mason dixie line would go to astroplay (fake grass)

I went to the first bears game, and they have good groundskeepers. But the grass just looked awful! This is a pro team in september. Its not easy even with all the modern technologies to keep a good true grass turf in the northern half of the country.

I played football on astro play. sure the uniform doesn't get grass stains (instead replaced by little bits of rubber) but I loved how nice it was. It performed just as good as grass, if not better in some cases. Our team injuries were cut in half (vs. natural grass) and you got the exact same footing in the rain as you did in dry conditions.

[lilgump]

fieldturf > Astroplay

Ive played onboth FieldTurf and Astroplay... and to be honest Astroplay is really bad compared to Fieldturf. Maybe it was just the venue we played in (Memorial Stadium in the Seattle Center) But the astroplay felt and played like just long blades of astroturf. It was stringy and hard, not like grass at all. The fieldturf at our home stadium is so much nicer and more true to real grass than astroplay.

I would like it for as many NFL stadiums to have real grass though as possible. Its just the way the game should be played. And you would think they could use their money to keep the grass in good enough shape, but it seems to be a problem. Maybe the owners dont have that on their main agenda, but it should.

[Geoff]

I've only played football with my friends and we only have access to grass, but I have marched on the fieldturf at Tropicana Field. While, it may be good for football, it's too springy for marching. I've read that it's supposed to feel like real earth but the Trop's fied doesn't.

[lilgump]

To the best of my knowledge they can change the composition of the infill(rubber/sand mix stuff) to make it better suited for different playing experiences. Different mixes will make the ball bounce truer for different sports such as soccer and football, baseball is most likely the same.

[winghaz]

Think of it this way: If it weren't for artificial turf, Boise State wouldn't ...

Aw, heck, you know the rest.

[unl22]

This topic may fit better in another forum, but this one gets the most traffic so i just figured i'd put it here.

I understand that money, as usual, is the main driver for so many schools and pro teams switching to artificle surface.  And i know that the new synthetic fields are way better than old astro turf.

But it bugs the heck out of me.

There is something about watching a great football game, college especially, between 2 teams in sweet uniforms, on a nice grass field.

(Actually, if doesn't even need to be so nice.  I'll take a beat down field with brown spots over a fake field.)

Like the USC-ND game last year.  Perfect game.  It would be less so if it was on synthetic grass. 

And its partly why the SEC is so great.  Only 1 team (i think), with turf.  The games always look good.  And lets face it, as probably eveyone on this board knows, sports is mostly about the competition, but the asthetic aspects enhance the experiene.

I almost get paranoid that soon enough everyone will be switching to the synthetic surfaces.  On that note, i've just read that Ohio St and Colorado are both considering the change.  Depresses me more than it reasonably should.

On the NFL level, because they have the $, i seriously think the league should recognize that much of it's image is based on old school football on real grass, and they should subsidize teams to make sure they don't change to fake grass.  They should even encourage existing teams with fake grass to switch.

Any thoughts?  Anyone have this same paranoia i have?

Colorado is not new to having an artificial surface. From 1971 till 1999 the field went through three different installations of types of astro-turf. With Hawkins now the coach ("Smurf-turf" Boise State's former coach) I could see why they may toy with the idea of changing back to artificial turf.

[Nick 1733]

This topic may fit better in another forum, but this one gets the most traffic so i just figured i'd put it here.

I understand that money, as usual, is the main driver for so many schools and pro teams switching to artificle surface.  And i know that the new synthetic fields are way better than old astro turf.

But it bugs the heck out of me.

There is something about watching a great football game, college especially, between 2 teams in sweet uniforms, on a nice grass field.

(Actually, if doesn't even need to be so nice.  I'll take a beat down field with brown spots over a fake field.)

Like the USC-ND game last year.  Perfect game.  It would be less so if it was on synthetic grass. 

And its partly why the SEC is so great.  Only 1 team (i think), with turf.  The games always look good.  And lets face it, as probably eveyone on this board knows, sports is mostly about the competition, but the asthetic aspects enhance the experiene.

I almost get paranoid that soon enough everyone will be switching to the synthetic surfaces.  On that note, i've just read that Ohio St and Colorado are both considering the change.  Depresses me more than it reasonably should.

On the NFL level, because they have the $, i seriously think the league should recognize that much of it's image is based on old school football on real grass, and they should subsidize teams to make sure they don't change to fake grass.  They should even encourage existing teams with fake grass to switch.

Any thoughts?  Anyone have this same paranoia i have?

Colorado is not new to having an artificial surface. From 1971 till 1999 the field went through three different installations of types of astro-turf. With Hawkins now the coach ("Smurf-turf" Boise State's former coach) I could see why they may toy with the idea of changing back to artificial turf.

You think they might go with a goldish yellow or black colored field turf?

[NJTank]

I like Grass and think it all football fields should be grass even when it turns to mud its natural and how it was meant to be played, and funner to watch on TV.

[sacker12]

fieldturf > Astroplay

Ive played onboth FieldTurf and Astroplay... and to be honest Astroplay is really bad compared to Fieldturf. Maybe it was just the venue we played in (Memorial Stadium in the Seattle Center) But the astroplay felt and played like just long blades of astroturf. It was stringy and hard, not like grass at all. The fieldturf at our home stadium is so much nicer and more true to real grass than astroplay.

I would like it for as many NFL stadiums to have real grass though as possible. Its just the way the game should be played. And you would think they could use their money to keep the grass in good enough shape, but it seems to be a problem. Maybe the owners dont have that on their main agenda, but it should.

I agree. Astroplay was just a very cheap version of Fieldturf. The only reason we went with Astroplay than Fieldturf is because it was a lot cheaper than the actual Fieldturf. However, ProGrass is a great alternative to Fieldturf because, I think, it is just as good as Fieldturf but cheaper. In fact, the blades on ProGrass are thicker than the blades for Fieldturf. But, I think that Astroplay's blades were thinner than Fieldturf's blades.

Needless to say, the maker of Astroplay, SRI Sports, went bankrupt several years back.

[NickNickNick]

My favourite is the newer turf @ the Rogers Centre. Went there in August for a ball game - looked brilliant. Watched the Argos today - beautiful.

They were playing a 93 World Series game on ESPN Classic and had a live Jays game on at the same time, and the difference between the turf they have now and the crappy bright green stuff they had before is amazing. It looks wonderful.

[dfwabel]

fieldturf > Astroplay

Ive played onboth FieldTurf and Astroplay... and to be honest Astroplay is really bad compared to Fieldturf.  Maybe it was just the venue we played in (Memorial Stadium in the Seattle Center)  But the astroplay felt and played like just long blades of astroturf.  It was stringy and hard, not like grass at all.  The fieldturf at our home stadium is so much nicer and more true to real grass than astroplay.

I would like it for as many NFL stadiums to have real grass though as possible.  Its just the way the game should be played.  And you would think they could use their money to keep the grass in good enough shape, but it seems to be a problem.  Maybe the owners dont have that on their main agenda, but it should.

I agree. Astroplay was just a very cheap version of Fieldturf. The only reason we went with Astroplay than Fieldturf is because it was a lot cheaper than the actual Fieldturf. However, ProGrass is a great alternative to Fieldturf because, I think, it is just as good as Fieldturf but cheaper. In fact, the blades on ProGrass are thicker than the blades for Fieldturf. But, I think that Astroplay's blades were thinner than Fieldturf's blades.

Needless to say, the maker of Astroplay, SRI Sports, went bankrupt several years back.

1-Ben, welcome to the board.

2-While the intitial cost of turf is more for most colleges, in the long run it is similar to natural grass. Around $500,000 or more for a new turf. it still has o be disinected. Remember sports like field hockey prefer the old school astro furf due to th e better roll of the ball. The exception is that the school does not need to pay the cost and labor for the maintenance. In most cases, these will be state employees= state benefits and additional costs. Most state universities or AG schools should have natural grass fields.

3-When the Raven originally moved, Memorial Stadium had a turf called "Sportgrss". To my memory, it was grass seed "weaved" into the turf. so tat it had a better and longer lasting life. i have looked for their produc at my curretn jub, but it seems as if their product did not catch on.

4- Paul Brown Stadium had issues with the heater under the original grass field so they moved to the fieldturf or similar product. In fact, they had an additional cost add-on so that the field would be FIFA standard. Regardless, the 10 games for the Bengals were the priority. Michigan had issues with their grass, specifically between the 30s, and so have other schools. If you don't own a lawn, it is somewhat harder to keep it green even when it is regualarly watered and fertilized

[1991]

i know that missouri state has the newest field turf (just put in august) and 2 springfield high schools also, and their main reason is because they use the fields for more than football such as soccer, field hockey, concerts, etc. and in the long run it will cost less with less metnaince.

[Ben Zing]

there is something psychologically comforting about a game on grass.

[Stampman]

While Commonwealth Stadium has a grass field--the dirt underneath is crap...

[whitedawg22]

I like the look of the game on grass better, too. But groundskeeping-wise, it is impossible to keep a grass field in good shape when you have 22 300-pound men running and sliding all over it for 30 hours (give or take) every fall. Even the best-maintained grass fields show significant wear and tear by the end of the season.

From a play standpoint and injury standpoint, this is even more significant. Next-gen artificial turf (the kind being installed all over now) is more consistent than grass, with similar give, which leads to fewer injuries. Plus, it looks way more similar to grass than the old bright-green 1970s vintage AstroTurf.

Factor in the maintenance cost savings, and there's a reason why so many teams are switching.

[CoryB]

While Commonwealth Stadium has a grass field--the dirt underneath is crap...

They're now actually talking about removing the grass. As long as I remember (since it opened in '78) they had never entertained the thought of replacing the grass. They mentioned something about cost effectiveness, but I honestly haven't heard much about it.