Field Turf

[SonomaCat]

I can’t believe this, back in the olden days/macho mentality. As I alluded to before, if playing in leather helmets or no helmets was the best way to play the game, we’d still be playing in them.

In an effort to try and get some of you to think outside your comfort zone, let me rephrase my question. If there were an improvement that could be done to the football facilities that would

1. put the team in a position to enhance and exploit one of its biggest assets…speed
2. reduce the number of injuries…perhaps Matakas would still be the starting NT
3. give the coach an advantage in recruiting over other schools…who play on grass or other less forgiving surfaces
4. not to mention the potential savings in maintenance and upkeep that could be used elsewhere…like in recruiting

why would you not be in favor of such an undertaking?

When did grass become an unforgiving surface?

I see the cost aspect -- it would be cheaper to maintain, and some recruits might prefer it right now to real grass, but I think we are already seeing this is a bit of a fashionable thing. How many pro franchises are going back to grass if they possibly can (meaning they don't play indoors)?

In many ways, this debate reminds me of the dome stadium thing of the 70s. Wasn't the ultimate in facilities to have a dome back then? Now what do we think of them?

I see the advantages and disadvantages of the plastic grass. I think a lot of people still really like real grass -- not only because we are stuck in the olden days, but because it is a basic aesthetic quality of outdoor sports.

That, and we probably don't have the cash for the one-time cost to roll the stuff out right now.

I wouldn't be against getting it if the powers that be came up with the money and desire to do it, but going back to 62G's comments, it does seem silly for any real sports fan to mock a program for having natural grass as a playing surface. After all, natural grass is the natural ideal -- fake grass will always be fake grass.

[CelticCat]

I can’t believe this, back in the olden days/macho mentality. As I alluded to before, if playing in leather helmets or no helmets was the best way to play the game, we’d still be playing in them.

In an effort to try and get some of you to think outside your comfort zone, let me rephrase my question. If there were an improvement that could be done to the football facilities that would

1. put the team in a position to enhance and exploit one of its biggest assets…speed
2. reduce the number of injuries…perhaps Matakas would still be the starting NT
3. give the coach an advantage in recruiting over other schools…who play on grass or other less forgiving surfaces
4. not to mention the potential savings in maintenance and upkeep that could be used elsewhere…like in recruiting

why would you not be in favor of such an undertaking?

1. If every team was still playing on grass, this wouldn't matter. And you have to think from the other side too. Teams that still play on grass have an advantage over those who don't. Just look at JMU vs UM. Colts vs the Pats. Dome teams, when taken out of their comfort zone, often fair poorly. It's the same when you are used to playing on a perfect surface, then playing on real grass.
2. Injuries happen on any surface. Statistically (and I haven't seen proof yet) more injuries may occur on grass, but I can't see how it would be such a huge difference. Roosevelt tore his ACL in that crappy ISU dome last year, which I'm sure wouldn't have happened on real grass.
3. Again, if everyone still played on grass this wouldn't be a problem. And despite what you say, a lot of players have that olden/days macho mentality you speak of. Otherwise there wouldn't be any grass stadiums left in the pros. Ask any fan of the Packers or Pats, etc, and they will be damn proud I'm sure to still play the game on grass.
4. I'm sure it is cheaper to upkeep the turf, but it's not free. And especially it's not free to "upgrade" to this turf, so how many years down the road is it before we actually start saving money? 10? 20? After how man years of debt to repay the cost of installing the fake grass?

I agree with an earlier post. I'd rather see the money that would buy the turf used for educational purposes, or better bleachers. Playing football on fake grass is last on the list.

There may be more benefits than not for playing on fake grass, but I'm sorry, I like football to be played in the elements, on real grass. Call me old fashioned or macho, whatever you want. This is a man's sport, after all.

Since when did grass become this horrible surface no one wants to play sports on?

[gtapp]

I believe the price tag on the turf Missoula installed was close to $1M. That is a lot of money toward replacing something we allready have (a playing surface). I believe that is also the $ amount needed to close in the one end zone. Which would you rather have (assuming you can't have both)?

[CARDIAC_CATS]

I can’t believe this, back in the olden days/macho mentality. As I alluded to before, if playing in leather helmets or no helmets was the best way to play the game, we’d still be playing in them.

In an effort to try and get some of you to think outside your comfort zone, let me rephrase my question. If there were an improvement that could be done to the football facilities that would

1. put the team in a position to enhance and exploit one of its biggest assets…speed
2. reduce the number of injuries…perhaps Matakas would still be the starting NT
3. give the coach an advantage in recruiting over other schools…who play on grass or other less forgiving surfaces
4. not to mention the potential savings in maintenance and upkeep that could be used elsewhere…like in recruiting

why would you not be in favor of such an undertaking?

1. If every team was still playing on grass, this wouldn't matter. And you have to think from the other side too. Teams that still play on grass have an advantage over those who don't. Just look at JMU vs UM. Colts vs the Pats. Dome teams, when taken out of their comfort zone, often fair poorly. It's the same when you are used to playing on a perfect surface, then playing on real grass.
2. Injuries happen on any surface. Statistically (and I haven't seen proof yet) more injuries may occur on grass, but I can't see how it would be such a huge difference. Roosevelt tore his ACL in that crappy ISU dome last year, which I'm sure wouldn't have happened on real grass.
3. Again, if everyone still played on grass this wouldn't be a problem. And despite what you say, a lot of players have that olden/days macho mentality you speak of. Otherwise there wouldn't be any grass stadiums left in the pros. Ask any fan of the Packers or Pats, etc, and they will be damn proud I'm sure to still play the game on grass.
4. I'm sure it is cheaper to upkeep the turf, but it's not free. And especially it's not free to "upgrade" to this turf, so how many years down the road is it before we actually start saving money? 10? 20? After how man years of debt to repay the cost of installing the fake grass?

I agree with an earlier post. I'd rather see the money that would buy the turf used for educational purposes, or better bleachers. Playing football on fake grass is last on the list.

There may be more benefits than not for playing on fake grass, but I'm sorry, I like football to be played in the elements, on real grass. Call me old fashioned or macho, whatever you want. This is a man's sport, after all.

Since when did grass become this horrible surface no one wants to play sports on?

Exactly, I agree on all points. I believe in tradition and maybe I'm old school, but grass is awesome. Artificial turf was created for DOMES, not outdoor facilities. Montana is a beautiful state and what better way to accent MSU's campus/stadium than to have a beautiful natural grass field out there on a beautiful fall day beneath the mountains. There is nothing like going into the stadium (early in the season) on a beautiful fall day and smelling burger/brats/freshly cut grass?

So with all that .... are we all ready for some football yet? Only 4 month more left

Maybe these people that love plastic have allergies?

[Cat Pride]

I believe the price tag on the turf Missoula installed was close to $1M. That is a lot of money toward replacing something we allready have (a playing surface). I believe that is also the $ amount needed to close in the one end zone. Which would you rather have (assuming you can't have both)?

Given this option, I'd much rather have a closed in end zone.

[mslacat]

I believe the price tag on the turf Missoula installed was close to $1M. That is a lot of money toward replacing something we allready have (a playing surface). I believe that is also the $ amount needed to close in the one end zone. Which would you rather have (assuming you can't have both)?

Not to argue but I am pretty sure the cost of the turf was closer to $150,000 to 200,000.

BTW A new "College Grade" (that is actually how they grade them) wood baketball court (floor only) is around $90,000 -$120,000

[jagur1]

Only one correction BAC said the pro's are going grass. That was the trend 10 years ago. Now the trend is going to spin turf. IE Giant Stadium, Seahawks, Dallas...all the new turfs put in have been spin turf or some variation. Also, the NC game is going turf next year so the Griz get the advantage over the grass team next time. PS The Pitt should really go Spin to becouse the grass they have is bad. Plus, they have 2 teams playing on the field. Panthers and Steelers.

[SonomaCat]

True, but those teams all had artificial turf previously as well, so they were just going from one fake grass to another, except the Giants/Jets (who tried natural grass for a season or two after tearing up their previous plastic). Since their stadium is built in a swamp and is used by several teams, they probably can't maintain real grass very well.

Nearly every new stadium, except those in really wet (Seattle) climates is going away from artificial and using natural grass, even those in cold climates. Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincy, Baltimore, etc. Clearly, natural grass is held in pretty high esteem to many people, contrary to some of the messages from earlier in the thread.

[BozoneCat]

I can’t believe this, back in the olden days/macho mentality. As I alluded to before, if playing in leather helmets or no helmets was the best way to play the game, we’d still be playing in them.

In an effort to try and get some of you to think outside your comfort zone, let me rephrase my question. If there were an improvement that could be done to the football facilities that would

1. put the team in a position to enhance and exploit one of its biggest assets…speed
2. reduce the number of injuries…perhaps Matakas would still be the starting NT
3. give the coach an advantage in recruiting over other schools…who play on grass or other less forgiving surfaces
4. not to mention the potential savings in maintenance and upkeep that could be used elsewhere…like in recruiting

why would you not be in favor of such an undertaking?

You have got to get some "facts" straight here.

1.) This is a good argument. Turf would definitely accentuate our speed advantage on this year's team. However, Montana teams are generally not renowned for their team speed. How this plays out down the road is hard to tell. I would like to think this is changing.

2.) No way in hell you see more injuries on grass compared to turf - of any kind. Grass is the most forgiving surface that exists. Injuries happen regardless because of the nature of the sport. I don't see any of the injuries we have had resulting from a poor surface - they really have just been bad luck. Hopefully, God will smile on us this fall and that will change. I guarantee that you would see a lot more injuries if we played on Idaho State's crappy turf. The new generation of turfs are good, but are still too new to statistically compare rates of injury vs. real grass - but my educated guess would be that they are pretty darn close.

3.) I don't really see how the playing surface would give a coach a significant recruiting advantage. I would think that schools like ISU and NAU are at a disadvantage because they still play on the old carpet turf, but I seriously doubt that real grass is any kind of disadvantage. Have you seen MSU's field??? I think we have one of the best and most beautiful real grass fields anywhere in the country.

4.) Very poor argument. Installing a SprinTurf surface (or the like) would be a huge financial cost, both long- and short-term. Short-term, I believe the cost is estimated around a million bucks, depending on the amount of work that has to be done prep-wise. With MSU's current field, I would guess that would be significant because of the high pitch of the field which would likely have to be leveled out somewhat. Contrary to popular belief, turfs still require a good deal of upkeep. They have to be regularly painted, they require general upkeep, and they wear down and have to be replaced. My guess would be that maintaining our current grass playing field is a heck of a lot cheaper than installing turf, with very little possible benefits. I say we spend our money on better things...

[2Cats]

A man is a man and football is football no matter what surface it's played on. I'm not proposing change for change sake. My point is why not take advantage of something that would give MSU football an advantage over other teams in terms of performance, player health and player recruiting?

Check out the following.

http://physics.unl.edu/outreach/fp_media/turf.html

http://www.fieldturf.com/index.cfm?page ... tureID=118

Surley you are in favor of giving our players every advantage possible.

[CARDIAC_CATS]

A man is a man and football is football no matter what surface it's played on. I'm not proposing change for change sake. My point is why not take advantage of something that would give MSU football an advantage over other teams in terms of performance, player health and player recruiting?

Check out the following.

http://physics.unl.edu/outreach/fp_media/turf.html

http://www.fieldturf.com/index.cfm?page ... tureID=118

Surley you are in favor of giving our players every advantage possible.

Take advantage of every advantage possible? As far as I remember, both teams play on the same field during the game? Plus if you read that 2nd report, field turf had way more knee/ligament injuries than real grass did? All I know is the Griz had players falling left and right in the Cat/Griz game last year and we were playing them on sprint turf? or was it just that our guys were more physical?

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

I consider myself old school and have always hated domes and fake grass.

Before the SprinTurf had been installed, and after a mid-December playoff game in Missoula, I went down to the field to shake the players hands and visit. The first thing I noticed was the poor condition of the field. Granted, I didn't have cleats on but it was all I could do not to fall on my arse. It was exactly like walking on ice. Did this give the Griz players an advantage over the opponent? Probably. However, I'll bet if you asked the players who played on both, they would prefer the SprinTurf. I know I've talked to a couple that have stated that.

I've walked on Wash/Grizzly stadiums turf many times since then and I have to say it's pretty nice. I highly recommend that if you happen to take in a game there (God forbid... ), that you go down on the field afterwards just to check it out.

Here's how I look at it. If it's in good shape and you and can keep it that way throughout the season, I prefer grass. However, the Sprinturf isn't necessarily a bad thing unless you get a face full of rubber. hmmmm, tastes like Goodyear!

[Cat Grad]

...ah geez...take it back to Butte and play on crushed gravel Only now linemen can wear goggles so it doesn't get in each others eyes when they throw it in each others face...

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

Here's a pretty interesting article on the turf subject which gives many details on the it including costs and durability....

http://www.artificialturf.org/display.cfm?newsID=680

[CelticCat]

You have to keep in mind in that second article, one of the main reasons is they have 3 football games per weekend on that turf. Natural grass can simply not handle that wear, so that is the reason that their maintenance costs for the field are so high. If MSU, BHS, and a middle school (sorry don't know the names of any in Bozeman) all played football at our stadium, it would get torn to pieces and cost a lot more to repair.

If football wasn't meant to be played on grass, how come all these new turfs are trying to copy grass as close as they can? They all claim to look, feel, and play like natural grass. They are trying to create a safer natural grass, and that is commendable, but I just come from a outdoor background.

I just don't see how playing on a fake field is appealing. Football, a lot of may or may not realize, is a lot about tradition. The forward pass, touchdowns, and outdoors on grass are all traditions in football. You never saw pro baseball players switch to aluminum bats (I could be wrong). Those were supposedly the best thing to happen to baseball, but new studies are showing they are just more dangerous.

Besides, why would you want to ruin the beauty of our turf and the surroundings by putting something fake into it?

Oh well, if you want our field to be fake, then do something about it, and spend some of your money, because I'm not paying to play on fake grass.

Besides, I love the look of a player getting up with a huge chunk of grass and dirt in his helmet.

[gtapp]

According to the U of M web site the Sprinturf was about $700,000. I have a call into their athletic dept to confirm. Many MN schools have this product including dozens of high schools and that number seems about right.

[Champcat]

First off, before I begin my refute of this matter, I have never once replied to a post on this sight. Mainly because I never had any reason to...until now. The premise of the original post had some interesting points that A) the administration had better be aware of, and B) the fans need to be cognizant of as well. Collegiate athletics in the United States today has become an arms race for who can get the best equipment/apparel/facilities/etc.. for the ATHLETES! The theory behind this being (borrowed from a great Kevin Costner flick) "if you build it, they will come." Meaning, create an atmosphere that will lure better athletes that would not have considered Montana State had you not dangled a carrot in front of them. The original poster hit the nail right on the head. Field Turf(which is what it is called), is PROVEN to be a faster surface(although not quite as fast as astroturf, but whoever created that needs to be shot), DOES decrease the likelyhood of injuries because it is a more forgiving surface, and the biggest thing, which is what I think the original poster was getting at, is it is MAJOR recruiting tool!

I do not understand the logic behind some of these posts that declare "artifical turf is made for domes" and "grass smells better"...Are you serious?! Since when did the sensations(i.e. Sight and smell) of fans dictate the prefererence of the ATHLETES? The websight that was given earlier at fieldturf.com is pretty interesting. Notice that the majority of the colleges that have field turf(which is a lot!) do so because it is advantageous for them because of their respective climate. Granted we dont see the Southern Cal or Florida schools with fieldturf, but last I checked Montana is not a hop, skip, and jump form Cali or Florida.

Personally, I like natural grass, but only when it is in the right condition. However, where I played college football(the second school in the Pac-10 to install FieldTurf behind UW) the weather did not always create the "perfect" condition. In fact, we had three different types of surfaces to practice on depending on what the opponent of that week had. The team HATED the days we practiced on astroturf, put up with the days on the grass, but LOVED the days on the FieldTurf.

Montana State has the makings of being a National player within the next couple of years. Dont you think of it to be lucrative for the football department to give them the best and quickest solution possible to get them to that next rung? Even if it means tearing out the supposed "precious" grass!

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

...Field Turf(which is what it is called)...

There's FieldTurf and there's SprinTurf. Both are different types of artificial surfaces.

[CelticCat]

350,000 - 700,000 dollars to replace a something that is perfectly acceptable just seems a waste of money to me. If we had the extra cash, I wouldn't totally be against it, but since we do not, I would rather see parts of the stadium itself improved.

Name one other powerhouse in IAA football besides the Griz that use turf? Most of them still play on natural grass. Why? Probably because they cannot afford to pay for turf. But they still manage to compete nationally at this level for championships.

We don't always have to follow what our neighbors down the road do. Would I like the facilities the Griz have? Sure. Do I feel it necessary to compete? Not by any means. The Griz have nicer facilities than any other school in IAA, and yes they are dominate, but have they become any more dominant since they had grassy turf? Did it bolster there program so much they are favorites every year to win the NC? Teams in IAA who play on field that would be embarassing to a good high school program manage to win NC's a lot in IAA (basically any team that isn't the Griz comes from playing on a subpar field).

If we were in IA I would definately agree that having top-notch facilities in every facet would defininately play a role (not 100% necessary) in recruiting and winning games, but we aren't IA. Face it, our facilities are in the top 1/4 of IAA I would venture to say.

I read a report online about switching to a newer type of turf, and the professor said he felt the biggest reason institutions switch to the turf is aesthetic reasons.

The biggest advantage in my mind for the turf is "less" major injuries, but almost every report said that turf causes more minor injuries.

I feel that artificial turf gives the players of today a slight advantage over the players from decades ago. Should records be broken due to technological advancements?

[El_Gato]

...I highly recommend that if you happen to take in a game there (God forbid... ), that you go down on the field afterwards just to check it out...

And when security isn't looking? Relieve yourself.

(#2 if you feel the urge)