2010 NCAA Football Thread

[HedleyLamarr]

I think the red turf is hilarious. I mean, come on. Eastern Washington could of went with a plain old regular turf.

Nothing against you, but I think it's ridiculous and an abomination to college football. Same goes for Boise State's field. It's a clear advantage to the home team and should have never been allowed. You play under the same controlled circumstances as everyone or don't compete. I just don't find the humor or appreciation for it.

Both are also horrendously ugly. Oh, and cheap and gimmicky.

OK, I'll bite.

How does the color of the field negatively impact the opponent alone.

And I'll add this, are both teams running around constantly looking at the ground or something?

It's a big slab of synthetic grass. Both teams are playing under the same "controlled circumstances." Other than making it hard for the fans to see the players, what's the difference between blue or red, and plain old green turf?

The easy answer is familiarity. Yeah, the game conditions are the same for both teams, but one team practices and uses the field a whole lot more than the others. It's like the basketball court at the old Boston Garden...sure, the conditions for the game were the same, but the Celtics players knew where all the dead-spots were on the court.

The more difficult answer is vision. One team has played on nothing but green fields their entire lives, and one team has played on a red/blue turf just about every week since July/August, when practice began. I'm not an expert on how the eyes work, but isn't the color red the first color the eyes pick up? That one nano-second could be the difference between catching the ball, making a tackle, etc.

[rams80]

I think the red turf is hilarious. I mean, come on. Eastern Washington could of went with a plain old regular turf.

Nothing against you, but I think it's ridiculous and an abomination to college football. Same goes for Boise State's field. It's a clear advantage to the home team and should have never been allowed. You play under the same controlled circumstances as everyone or don't compete. I just don't find the humor or appreciation for it.

Both are also horrendously ugly. Oh, and cheap and gimmicky.

OK, I'll bite.

How does the color of the field negatively impact the opponent alone.

And I'll add this, are both teams running around constantly looking at the ground or something?

It's a big slab of synthetic grass. Both teams are playing under the same "controlled circumstances." Other than making it hard for the fans to see the players, what's the difference between blue or red, and plain old green turf?

The easy answer is familiarity. Yeah, the game conditions are the same for both teams, but one team practices and uses the field a whole lot more than the others. It's like the basketball court at the old Boston Garden...sure, the conditions for the game were the same, but the Celtics players knew where all the dead-spots were on the court.

The more difficult answer is vision. One team has played on nothing but green fields their entire lives, and one team has played on a red/blue turf just about every week since July/August, when practice began. I'm not an expert on how the eyes work, but isn't the color red the first color the eyes pick up? That one nano-second could be the difference between catching the ball, making a tackle, etc.

But how is this any different than any other team's home field advantage? Also, the color of the field isn't an issue when you aren't going to be looking at the field.

------------------------------------------------------

Did Ohio just stop playing football in November or something? Also, can we officially say Illinois is the worst Division I-A football team in the state this season?

[FiddySicks]

I think the red turf is hilarious. I mean, come on. Eastern Washington could of went with a plain old regular turf.

Nothing against you, but I think it's ridiculous and an abomination to college football. Same goes for Boise State's field. It's a clear advantage to the home team and should have never been allowed. You play under the same controlled circumstances as everyone or don't compete. I just don't find the humor or appreciation for it.

Both are also horrendously ugly. Oh, and cheap and gimmicky.

OK, I'll bite.

How does the color of the field negatively impact the opponent alone.

And I'll add this, are both teams running around constantly looking at the ground or something?

It's a big slab of synthetic grass. Both teams are playing under the same "controlled circumstances." Other than making it hard for the fans to see the players, what's the difference between blue or red, and plain old green turf?

The easy answer is familiarity. Yeah, the game conditions are the same for both teams, but one team practices and uses the field a whole lot more than the others. It's like the basketball court at the old Boston Garden...sure, the conditions for the game were the same, but the Celtics players knew where all the dead-spots were on the court.

The more difficult answer is vision. One team has played on nothing but green fields their entire lives, and one team has played on a red/blue turf just about every week since July/August, when practice began. I'm not an expert on how the eyes work, but isn't the color red the first color the eyes pick up? That one nano-second could be the difference between catching the ball, making a tackle, etc.

I'm not sure I buy that. I know that this could be considered comparing apples to oranges, and in some ways it probably is, but just look at baseball as an example. It's a sport which is played on fields that all have different dimensions yet nobody cries that the green monster, or the altitude in Denver, or the Ivy in Chicago is an abomination to the sport. It's just certain quirks that the sport has. This doesn't even toy with the size of the playing surface so it's even less of an issue in my opinion. Basketball as well has some interesting court designs that even distract from the boundary lines and I've never heard anyone bring up the issue. Look at Oregon's new court. The tree design looks like it'd be pretty distracting around the sidelines much more than a red field with clearly visible markings.

[infrared41]

Did Ohio just stop playing football in November or something?

Yes.

[Lights Out]

The blue turf/Inferno turf is no different than Texas A&M's "12th Man" thing - both aspects of the stadium meant to make life harder on the opponents. Why is nobody trying to force TAMU to ban loud fans from their stadium?

Don't want to get caught off guard by colored turf? Get your own colored turf or shut up and stop making excuses. That's all it is, really - "they blend into the turf" is a common excuse for losing to Boise, and Boise's turf is a different shade of blue than the uniforms.

[Seadragon76]

The blue turf/Inferno turf is no different than Texas A&M's "12th Man" thing - both aspects of the stadium meant to make life harder on the opponents. Why is nobody trying to force TAMU to ban loud fans from their stadium?

Don't want to get caught off guard by colored turf? Get your own colored turf or shut up and stop making excuses. That's all it is, really - "they blend into the turf" is a common excuse for losing to Boise, and Boise's turf is a different shade of blue than the uniforms.

OK.. You are seriously asking that question? Boise's smurf turf and Eastern Washington's Menstrual Mat (BTW, that's funny as hell. I like that one. Thanks, smzimbabwe) are gimmicky, but to say that a tradition as old as Texas A&M's 12th man is no different then those two is an actual disservice to the fans of Texas A&M.

There are gimmicks and there are traditions. What Boise and EWU have are gimmicks. What Texas A&M has is a tradition and you don't screw with tradition.

[Sport]

It's probably true that Boise dressing in all blue has led to a few interceptions over the years that wouldn't have happened on a normal field because it allows their defenders to "hide", so to speak. I don't think however that the blue turf is the reason for Boise's home dominance. That has a lot more to do with a good team playing a weak home schedule. Also, it's called home field advantage for a reason and nobody's stopping anyone else from moving to a colored field.

Nobody ever says the same thing when Michigan State wears all green on a green field. Really, we're all just used to green and the blue (fake) grass is just different. I love it though.

[bigmike]

The blue turf/Inferno turf is no different than Texas A&M's "12th Man" thing - both aspects of the stadium meant to make life harder on the opponents. Why is nobody trying to force TAMU to ban loud fans from their stadium?

Don't want to get caught off guard by colored turf? Get your own colored turf or shut up and stop making excuses. That's all it is, really - "they blend into the turf" is a common excuse for losing to Boise, and Boise's turf is a different shade of blue than the uniforms.

That is completely different, every stadium has loud fans if they are passionate about their team, thats like telling the fans to just not come to the game.

I think the blue and red turf is fine, sure it may give you a headache but like McCarthy said its no different then Michigan State wearing all green on green turf, we are just not used to seeing blue and red fields all the time.

[jkrdevil]

Good gracious...these bowl game names sure have gotten sucky over the last couple years. But I know--it's all about the $$$. Somehow I feel like someone should draft a quiz: this bowl game used to be called what???

fake edit: there's a Military Bowl? And what tha eff is a Kraft Hunger Bowl?

Here you go:

http://www.sporcle.com/games/jkrdevil/name_bowls

[Kevin W.]

That is completely different, every stadium has loud fans if they are passionate about their team, thats like telling the fans to just not come to the game.

Yeah, but only a few are as loud as Kyle Field.

[Lights Out]

Exactly. Kyle Field, Tiger Stadium, and Ben Hill Griffin are in a class of their own in terms of noise. LSU fans actually caused a minor earthquake with their cheers after one game. How is that easier on an opposing team than colored turf?

[bigmike]

Yeah stadiums are supposed to be loud, why would fans go to a game if they aren't going to cheer, you go to any SEC stadium except Vandy or maybe Ole Miss and they are extremely loud, fans being loud has been in football far longer then colored turfs. Like I said I have no problem with the turfs but the turf's color is completely different then fans cheering for their teams.

[Lights Out]

Not really, they're both stadium-related distractions to the opposing team.

[tBBP]

Which do you function better with--your eyes or your ears?

Your answer to that probably determines which of those fkucs with you more.

[Cola]

I think a clear advantage is vision on the field for Boise State. Offensively and defensively, because the team having to read the opposition (who is blending in) will have a more difficult time...errors in judgment, delays, missed assignments, etc.

If you're an opposing QB looking for receivers and having to make 1/2 second decisions, while the field isn't completely camouflaging the Boise State defenders...I am sure it causes some errors in judgment at times and confuses things. Same for a defensive back or linebacker trying to read what all is going on in the backfield with Boise, it could get confusing and play with your timing and read ability. As for Boise, they are looking for white objects moving against a blue background.

Do I think it is a HUGE advantage and the reason for Boise's success? No way...it doesn't make up for when Boise State hangs 56 to the opponents 3.

My point is that I feel it certainly is an advantage and shouldn't have a place in college football. As a fan, I can't imagine embracing a field like that...a pain to watch and again, I'd feel like my team was being cheap and gimmicky.

As for comparing the loudness of fans to this situation, totally different. If I asked you to hit a moving target, painted black, in the middle of a field at midnight...which would you rather give up, your vision or your eyes?

[crashcarson15]

I think a clear advantage is vision on the field for Boise State. Offensively and defensively, because the team having to read the opposition (who is blending in) will have a more difficult time...errors in judgment, delays, missed assignments, etc.

If you're an opposing QB looking for receivers and having to make 1/2 second decisions, while the field isn't completely camouflaging the Boise State defenders...I am sure it causes some errors in judgment at times and confuses things. Same for a defensive back or linebacker trying to read what all is going on in the backfield with Boise, it could get confusing and play with your timing and read ability. As for Boise, they are looking for white objects moving against a blue background.

Do I think it is a HUGE advantage and the reason for Boise's success? No way...it doesn't make up for when Boise State hangs 56 to the opponents 3.

My point is that I feel it certainly is an advantage and shouldn't have a place in college football. As a fan, I can't imagine embracing a field like that...a pain to watch and again, I'd feel like my team was being cheap and gimmicky.

As for comparing the loudness of fans to this situation, totally different. If I asked you to hit a moving target, painted black, in the middle of a field at midnight...which would you rather give up, your vision or your eyes?

So just out of curiosity, are you against Michigan State being allowed to wear green jerseys at home? 'Cause they could blend in with the grass...

[infrared41]

For what it's worth, Boise State's QBs can lose sight of their own "hidden" receivers in all the blue just as easily as the opposing QB can lose sight of "hidden" Boise defenders. It's not like the Boise State offense wears special glasses to make their own players stand out amongst all the blue. And like McCarthy said, if blue turf is an advantage for Boise State then green turf is an advantage for Michigan State.

Blue, red, green, whatever, it's a -ing football field. My guess is that if Oregon or Auburn rolled into town to play Eastern Washington, that red turf wouldn't pose much of a problem for either one them. Same thing with Boise State. If Boise played Auburn at home there's a good chance Auburn would beat them. If Boise State pulled off the win against Auburn at home it wouldn't be because of the blue turf.

[rams80]

The blue turf/Inferno turf is no different than Texas A&M's "12th Man" thing - both aspects of the stadium meant to make life harder on the opponents. Why is nobody trying to force TAMU to ban loud fans from their stadium?

Don't want to get caught off guard by colored turf? Get your own colored turf or shut up and stop making excuses. That's all it is, really - "they blend into the turf" is a common excuse for losing to Boise, and Boise's turf is a different shade of blue than the uniforms.

OK.. You are seriously asking that question? Boise's smurf turf and Eastern Washington's Menstrual Mat (BTW, that's funny as hell. I like that one. Thanks, smzimbabwe) are gimmicky, but to say that a tradition as old as Texas A&M's 12th man is no different then those two is an actual disservice to the fans of Texas A&M.

There are gimmicks and there are traditions. What Boise and EWU have are gimmicks. What Texas A&M has is a tradition state-sponsored cult and you don't screw with tradition religious fanatics.

Fixed. Aggies are nutbars, pure and simple.

Seriously though, if you want scientifically "controlled" conditions, you need to ban fans from the stadium. The field color is small change and an equal opportunity distractor for all

[FiddySicks]

Here's the thing people have to realize when talking about how Boise State blends in with the field. When we see Boise State play we are constantly looking at them from a view that is above the playing surface and pretty far back. On the field, it really doesn't matter what the color of the playing surface is. From the perspective of the player, the only distraction caused by the turf is the length of the grass.

[pianoknight]

Most of the players I know complain not about Boise's blue field, but rather the bright blue sideboards of the stadium walls. As Bucfan suggested, we see a top-down view on tv, which the players don't get. But those sideline boards are in direct sight for players on the field.