Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by NashBuff, Jul 13, 2010.
Anyone feel the same way?
from a cost basis it makes total sense, but i like the natural grass.
Doesn't matter to me. If the team likes it better than grass that's all that matters.
I do prefer grass though, just because games in the snow aren't the same or in the mud. Sloppy football is awesome.
I vote for the grass. The Field Turf company has told CU that they are unsure of how their surface will hold up if the field is still used for events like graduation and the Boulder Boulder.
Plus grass just looks better and is much better to play on. We have one of the best fields in all of football.
Turf -v- Grass
Grass passes the eye test. There is something appealing about a pattern cut, freshly painted field of living grass. There is a down side is when the turf is poorly maintained and ends up with brown spots and divots. I hand it to CU's groundkeepers, because Folsom Field has consistently looked beautiful and has been a non-factor in determining the outcome of any games.
The Mizzou fifth down game 20 years ago provides an example where a slippery field surface was a problem. CU's short cleats slipped on an overly sandy surface, causing Bienemy to fall without being touched.
Real grass also gets abused by bad weather and multi-use. (i.e. concert or beach volleyball within the same week as a football game.) I do not like seeing football being played on a field that has soccer/Lacross markings or a baseball diamond underneath a grid-iron. I have no patience for divots that result from freshly laid turf that hasn't had sufficient time to take root.
That said, a good old fashion muddy game is fun to watch, so long as no one gets injured.
I can understand how players and coaches might like sport turf when a faster playing surface allows teams to open up the play book. When the sport turf contributes to a crisply run, perfectly timed pass route that turns an offense into a scoring machine, it's hard to complain.
But faster playing surfaces might also contribute to more violent collisions and more concussions. The safety of the player has to be the primary decission making factor.
I saw an article last season about cleaning sport turf. Some teams might skimp on the cleaning schedule, or foul up the cleaning mixture. When this happens, the millions of tiny surface areas can become mildly toxic or become a breeding ground for bacteria. The author, whom I forget, was arguing that a real grass field is more sanitary than artificial surfaces because grass is a living organism that fights bacteria better than non-living plastics. While grounds keepers might adhere to a strict maintenance schedule and keep sportturf in great shape, there simply isn't the same pride of ownership that comes from an honest to God turf doctor who strives for a perfectly manicured lawn.
i like the real stuff, but wasn't there some talk about the City or Bolder Boulder buying sport grass for Folsom to offset the insurance costs of hosting the event on the grass? a couple years ago maybe...
It's Boulder. Grass is fitting.
I like the natural grass. Football should be played on grass. I have to run the chains on that sport turf stuff. At first, I thought it was kind of cool. I don't think so anymore. Those rubber pellets get into your shoes.
Maintenance on grass is pretty basic - cut, water, fertilize, repeat. Maintenance on the artificial stuff is more complicated. They won't let you chew sunflower seeds on the artificial stuff because it's hard to clean off the shells.
Stick with grass. It's time-tested.
grass here too!
Grass, gas or ass is what I always say.
I've played rugby on the sport turf stuff a bunch. It getting into your shoes is the least of your concerns. That **** gets everywhere!
that **** gets ridiculously hot too and it feels like your running on jello
Great. You run on Jello and that other guy eats tube socks. WTF.
At least the Pac-12 South has four other schools that play on grass. Utah would be the lone exception.
i'm sure the players would be loving that idea on an early season indian summer gameday in folsom...
I would be really bummed if we got rid of our grass field. The game is meant to be played on grass, and it adds to the beauty of Folsom.
I like grass. I'd like to see USC or ASU playing a November game on the floor of Folsom, with sleet and snow neutralizing their speed, muddying up their uni's, and making them wish they had invited San Diego State into their league. My guess is that grass is one of the reasons that Hawkins can still win a few games -- if they're at home, that is.
natural grass beats field turf hands down.
daytime ambient temperature is unbearable for play on field turf, especially during early season games
contrary to popular belief, field turf requires significant maintenance
if field turf is damaged or defaced, it needs to be completely replaced...it doesn't grow back...
field turf smells bad. natural grass smells good.
field turf contributes to the carbon footprint of the campus. natural grass negates the carbon footprint.
those are off the top of my head...
Give me the fake stuff. Some rationale:
-CU's record on artificial surfaces is really, really good.
-It made the team faster in the '90s, made our unis look better.
-CU's home record has been pretty average since switching to grass.
Not to mention all those Buff fans exhaling that dangerous carbon dioxide during games!
I vote for grass. Folsom's surface is consistently one of the best-looking ones in the country.
"-CU's record on artificial surfaces is really, really good."
...but we haven't won a game on the fake stuff since 2007
I didn't realize that field turf requires much if any maintenance. I thought that was the big advantage of it, that you had a large initial cost but that would soon pay for itself due to little if any maintenance required for it. So what kind of maintenance is required on it? Obviously you don't need to water, fertilize, or cut it. :huh:
I love all this talk about "playing in the mud/snow in November".
When's the last time that happened?
That is one reason why we should stick with grass for good. The SoCal and Arizona schools will have it. Right now it seems like only A&M and OU have grass playing surfaces.
Field truf needs to be raked, and if there's any major damage the whole thing needs to be replaced. It's a pain in the ass and needs to be replaced after a few years. Only place it belongs is in a dome. We have the most beautiful stadium in college football. So why do we want to put a __ckin carpet in it.
Whatever helps us win. I have fond memories of the old turf.
When those football dudes sweat, bleed and spit on artificial surfaces, it just stays there. Same thing with the hair and skin flakes. If you get a cut or rug burn on astro turf, the risk of infection is higher than on real grass.
You can't exactly roll the stuff up and put it in a washing machine. The process to disinfect the artificial surface involves chemicals and a power jet. The lackey that does the job of cleaning astroturf isn't going to have half the pride as a grounds keeper who tends live grass.
Have you ever torn up carpet? The underside is pretty nasty thanks to mold and mildew. Same thing with astro turf.
I didn't say that turf would make Hawkins a winner... but you're forgetting winning @ Texas Tech two seasons ago.
Separate names with a comma.