Field Turf

2Cats · Post by **2Cats** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:18 pm

Does anyone know if there's been any administrative discussion on installing Field Turf in the stadium? After the scrimmage Saturday, I was down on the field and had a first hand look at how much winter damage had occured. Of course the grass will grow back. But If there were something better, why not go there.

Field Turf makes sense given the overall team speed that I saw Saturday. Speed kills and it appears that this years edition has that in abundance.

Why not take advantage of a surface that would complement our speed and perhaps enhance the teams performance? There is also the aspect of fewer injuries that is said can be attributed to Field Turf. Finally, what a great inducement to those recruits. Ask any player if they'd rather play on grass or field turf and 99 percent will tell you the field turf.

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:22 pm

I say have to say "No" very sternly on this subject.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:28 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:I say have to say "No" very sternly on this subject.

I agree ... NO! Real grass is where football should be played on. The game day experience is so much better/smell/color of the real grass. As far as injuries go I don't really think there is a correlation between sprint turf and regular grass at all. The Grizzlies have had just as many injuries over the past 2-3 years as the Bobcats have etc. Also, a messy field can also give a big advantage in the playoffs if your used to practicing/playing on it in the cold as well. I hope MSU does not go that way and keeps the natural turf as it is. That field was beautiful last year and there was a link on this forum praising the groundskeepers from last year etc. They did a heck of a job last year. Keep it up!

Post by **kmax** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:34 pm

I agree that real grass just seems more appropriate somehow, but I don't know that I would be that opposed to one of the new artificial surfaces. I believe that Fields has said more than once that he would like to put in Sprintturf or an equivalent in hopes of being able to use the facility for more things such as high school championship games(if they ever go to neutral sites) and such.

wbtfg · Post by **wbtfg** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:38 pm

longhorn_22 wrote:I say have to say "No" very sternly on this subject.

Since we practice on natural grass, I think that it would probably be a good idea to also play on natural grass.

Robcat · Post by **Robcat** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:38 pm

I love grass. I am not sure that statment is politically correct.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:42 pm

That statement is perfectly PC at dUMb; aka the School of Modern Dance...

mquast53000 · Post by **mquast53000** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:44 pm

I liked playing on grass, but that spinturff is some good stuff....

62GRIZ · Post by **62GRIZ** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 5:56 pm

I've been going to the Litterbox for forty years and I didn't even know you had grass!

It always appeared to be frozen concrete and the players always reported it to be harder than a frozen cat t*rd. And, you are completely wrong about the number of injuries - SprinTurf is much more forgiving. I hope you keep the concrete - it is great for recruiting!

longhorn_22 · Post by **longhorn_22** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:23 pm

I wouldn't mind sprint turf or what they call "real grass," (as the Dallas Cowboys use) but I like the grass they have and it is only really hard when it is frozen, which is towards the very end of the season.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 6:28 pm

62GRIZ wrote:I've been going to the Litterbox for forty years and I didn't even know you had grass! It always appeared to be frozen concrete and the players always reported it to be harder than a frozen cat t*rd. And, you are completely wrong about the number of injuries - SprinTurf is much more forgiving. I hope you keep the concrete - it is great for recruiting!

Frozen concrete ... that's funny. Cold stuff is hard [heh heh, heh heh].

Who would have thought we'd see the day when people would talk smack against natural grass? What's next, a plea for more mini-domes and a demand that the NL start using designated hitters?

MSU01 · Post by **MSU01** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:21 pm

We seem to be doing just fine in recruiting with the frozen concrete we've got now. I still can't fathom how anyone could possibly criticize a school for playing football on natural grass. While the artificial grass stuff is certainly nice, MSU has more important things to spend their money on once the debt issue is resolved.

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:30 pm

FTG. Who cares what that bunch thinks? We'd have to start giving out pink jerseys like they do in Mazzola, and, man don't get me started on all things politically incorrect today...

2Cats · Post by **2Cats** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 10:11 pm

I guess there won't be an edge found here. I wonder how long it took the football team to change over from leather helmets?

Cat Grad · Post by **Cat Grad** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:41 am

...first, you had to convince the Butte kids they needed helmets, just like on a motorcycle

Then you had to convince them they'd do better if they played the game sober...I guess that's why around 1900 their were over 100 kids killed playing the game.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 8:48 am

62GRIZ wrote:I've been going to the Litterbox for forty years and I didn't even know you had grass! It always appeared to be frozen concrete and the players always reported it to be harder than a frozen cat t*rd. And, you are completely wrong about the number of injuries - SprinTurf is much more forgiving. I hope you keep the concrete - it is great for recruiting!

You obviously weren't at any home games last year. Field was beautiful.

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:28 am

CARDIAC_CATS wrote:
62GRIZ wrote:I've been going to the Litterbox for forty years and I didn't even know you had grass! It always appeared to be frozen concrete and the players always reported it to be harder than a frozen cat t*rd. And, you are completely wrong about the number of injuries - SprinTurf is much more forgiving. I hope you keep the concrete - it is great for recruiting!
You obviously weren't at any home games last year. Field was beautiful.

And on its worst day, is 10x better than the old Wash-Griz turf. Now that is a stadium definitely needed a turf upgrade. Good thing they have a sugar daddy in Cliff Edwards.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:44 am

The day every fan demands football be playing on something other than natural grass is the day I lose all respect for fans.

Why don't we start playing baseball on something nice and soft, you can get nasty rasberries sliding you know.

While were at it, golfing on grass is kind of stupid as well. I think I'd like to try golfing on rubber, that sounds fun.

Some sports are meant to be played on grass, plain and simple. The fact that Griz fans are pushing us down for playing on natural grass just goes to show how soft they have become over there. "I don't want us to play on natural grass, we might hurt ourselves!!" Give me a break.

You want us to end up like the AFL?

2Cats · Post by **2Cats** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 9:58 am

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?

Cat Pride · Post by **Cat Pride** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:12 am

2Cats wrote: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?

I'd definitely be in favor of it. The field would always look as if it had a fresh coat of paint on it, it would definitely help out with recruiting, and the savings you get in reduced maintenance is very substantial. I understand the arguements against the stuff - but to argue that "football should be played on grass"... that doesnt hold any water for me.

I am not for having the school pay for the stuff though. Lets get some big time booster to give it up. If there is one thing that I am critical of Peter Fields, it is that he doesnt seems to be very aggressive in persuing these sort of avenues.

Field Turf

Field Turf

Interesting!