Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Should Folsom go back to artificial turf?

Should Folsom go back to artificial turf?

  • No

  • Yes

Results are only viewable after voting.
Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
I believe that it's less expensive for operating costs and is better for the environment (saves water). It also allows more usage and versatility for the facility. On the other hand, I prefer natural grass.
 
I've heard the argument that turf allows for more usage of Folsom, but they just held a bunch of events there despite it being real grass so what's the problem? Is it getting trashed during these events?
 
Given that the PAC-12 will have a sustainability conference coming up, it would make sense to switch to turf. Only San Diego State has grass in the MWC at this point and then fove Pac-12 schools. ASU is rumored to be switching to turf as part of their renovation of Sun Devil Stadium.

Given that CU does zero waste and still plays on water, wouldn't that pose some conflict in the message CU is trying to send? I haven't seen anything about how CU would recycle the water used at Folsom Field.

If the scarcity of water is an issue, we should start with the athletic fields.

And that tweet was perfect: you can't make money in an empty stadium.
 
The OP argument that Synthetic is best for the environment is very debatable. Water usage savings is not going to save a wild river and prevent a new dam or reservoir from being built. I'd argue the opposite is true, or perhaps a draw.

It comes down to investment and ROI.

I like grass and feel it's worth it.
 
The water usage arguements are silly, unless there is some broader case to be made about AstroTurfing Farrand, the Quad, and the other acreage of grass on campus.

The debate comes down to player preference, safety, and economics.

From a fan perspective, no surface looks and smells better than grass that is meticulously manicured by CU's ground crew.

Not a fan of the heat nor rubber pellets nor chemical smell of the fake stuff.
 
Turf is a beating on the body. I know it's improved since the porch carpet over concrete that Folsom had in 1988 (and. replaced in 1989-with more artificial turf), but even the best of the new stuff is still laid over concrete and gets those little beads all over you. Even coaching on those fields i was dumping those jokers out of my shoes.
 
Buffnik said:
I believe that it's less expensive for operating costs and is better for the environment (saves water). It also allows more usage and versatility for the facility. On the other hand, I prefer natural grass.
Click to expand...

The bolded is patently false...see urban heat island effect....

While it is true that artificial turf doesn't require irrigation to grow the grass, perimeter irrigation systems are usually installed in an attempt to cool the surface during events, which can reach temperatures in excess of 160-degrees F. The east stands on a sunny fall afternoon are reasonably comfortable (but still hot) with the current natural grass surface, I think Folsom would feel like an oven for the first half of the season if they replaced it with artificial turf.

If the rest of the PAC goes to artificial turf I also think we could have a slight competitive advantage on game day in Folsom. We can practice and play on either surface in Boulder now with the IPF being artificial turf, other schools in our conference won't have that versatility.

I recently attended a Sports Turf Manager's Association event in Folsom and Jason DePaepe (Associate AD, Facilities and Game Day Ops) and his crew presented some of the challenges associated with setting up and tearing down for the Bolder Boulder and Dead & Co. There is actually very little turfgrass loss when the surface is covered for those events and they do a great job of managing the field. I know for a fact they don't want to make the change to artificial surface...I mean, look at this...

IMG_20170517_133252626 (Medium).jpg

IMG_20170517_134456876_HDR (Medium).jpg

Turfgrass is resilient and self healing, if a section is damaged to the point that it won't grow back it is easy and inexpensive to replace it with new sod whereas replacing sections of artificial surface is very costly and time consuming. Plus you have to wash off the blood, puke, and other bodily fluids that find their way onto the field during events with artificial turf...they tend to dissipate into the soil on a natural surface.

From my perspective, the advantages of natural grass over artificial turf are significant...it's a no brainer.
 
Last edited:
Grass - only advantage I see to "turf" is cost in the long term. ie. maintenance, water, etc. Football should be played on grass IMO.
 
When I played rugby at CU, digging artificial turf pellets out of my skin and emptying them out of my cleats was annoying. I definitely prefer grass.
 
Spent a lot of time during my college career on that field. Love that it is grass and hope they keep it that way. Only improvement I would make to the field, would be to remove a couple rows of seats so they can widen the sidelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top