Question about the football field...

[IUHDog]

Just curious what ya'll think about the condition of the turf at Ross Ade. With Purdue having a turf-grass science program, it would be tough to convert to a field-turf surface. Yet, in some games this year, the field and especially the sidelines were in pretty rough shape.

Would you like to see artificial turf in place of the real grass field? Or would you rather the field be improved from a drainage standpoint?

 

[Chi-Boiler]

I gotta figure based on this year it will come up with people who make those decisions that it might be time for a change. I love a natural grass field, but this year with the weather we had for a few games it really sucked.

 

[Tommaker]

Just curious what ya'll think about the condition of the turf at Ross Ade. With Purdue having a turf-grass science program, it would be tough to convert to a field-turf surface. Yet, in some games this year, the field and especially the sidelines were in pretty rough shape.

Would you like to see artificial turf in place of the real grass field? Or would you rather the field be improved from a drainage standpoint?

I thought there was a pretty extensive and hi-tech drainage system beneath the turf. The issue may be the grass? The last I knew, it was a Bermuda variety. We were the northern-most school that used it (Virginia Tech would be the next northern latitude). The issue is it goes dormant in November. In years past I'd thought I'd read they sowed the field with rye to keep the color green. But all that info is a few years (decade?) old so I don't know if it's still the same stuff and system. Personally, I'm always going to go for the grass.

 

[SIBoiler2]

Doesn't matter what kind of natural grass you plant. In late November in Indiana it's not green and thriving. Time to change. For clarification I am not a Turf Scientist but have slept in Holiday Inn Express and in the past have mowed acres of grass in or near Lafayette but never needed to do so in November.

 

[FirstDownB]

There have been several threads about the field, most recently:

https://purdue.forums.rivals.com/threads/field-looks-awful.181963/

My position is this is not a "one off" occurrence. There have been many years where the field has been in bad condition late in the season. It is not a badge of honor for our turf sciences program as some suggest. In the 70's, 80's, and 90's it was a great alternative to the natural and artificial surfaces of the time. But it is time to acknowledge the tremendous strides made in synthetics since the PAT was first installed (the 1970's astro turf was awful) and move on to modern field turf like the rest of the world.

 

[Courthouse Carp]

I thought there was a pretty extensive and hi-tech drainage system beneath the turf. The issue may be the grass? The last I knew, it was a Bermuda variety. We were the northern-most school that used it (Virginia Tech would be the next northern latitude). The issue is it goes dormant in November. In years past I'd thought I'd read they sowed the field with rye to keep the color green. But all that info is a few years (decade?) old so I don't know if it's still the same stuff and system. Personally, I'm always going to go for the grass.

I too prefer grass over artificial turf; while the bermuda grass at Ross-Ade Stadium is a cold-tolerant strain, it won't survive extreme freezing temperatures over a harsh winter and in fact goes dormant once temperatures reach 50 degrees (very early October):
https://weatherspark.com/m/14811/10...tober-in-West-Lafayette-Indiana-United-States

For those two reasons Bermuda grass is a poor choice and Kentucky Bluegrass needs to replace it at Ross-Ade Stadium.

 

[izakman]

I had to look this up; I knew 3 of the 4. Big 10 Natural grass: Purdue, Mich State, Northwestern & Penn State.
Also of note: Iowa State and Colorado. There may be others.

So, we are not alone with northern natural grass.

 

[Flot]

Just curious what ya'll think about the condition of the turf at Ross Ade. With Purdue having a turf-grass science program, it would be tough to convert to a field-turf surface. Yet, in some games this year, the field and especially the sidelines were in pretty rough shape.

Would you like to see artificial turf in place of the real grass field? Or would you rather the field be improved from a drainage standpoint?

Are you guys thinking of switching? I heard seagull crap is hard to get out of artificial turf.

 

[FirstDownB]

Speaking of MSU, thought this was interesting:

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/spartan-stadium-getting-new-playing-surface-for-2019-season

I could get on board with something like this. They identified the problem with their old outdated grass system and upgraded to extend the growing season.

Although the modular system was an innovation of its time nearly 20 years ago, Spartan Stadium is one of just two Division I schools continuing to use the framework. While the system has been successful, it has also provided challenges throughout the years, including weather. The soil in the modules warm up slowly in the spring and cool quicker in the fall, decreasing the already limited growing season in Michigan by about a month total.

 

[SIBoiler2]

Seems like the field is not the only issue at RA. Twice this season on rainy days the sidelines were underwater and/or muddy. Maybe a complete field level rework is needed. If you're trying to develop a championship level team with a flying offense poor field conditions should be removed from the equation.

 

[IUHDog]

Are you guys thinking of switching? I heard seagull crap is hard to get out of artificial turf.

Didn't realize seagulls were thriving in southern Indiana. With the obvious exception, thanks for the serious responses and opinions.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Natural turf fields are a thing of the past, just like many other things. It's time to rip it up and put down some fantastic plastic....and play on.

 

[izakman]

Are you guys thinking of switching? I heard seagull crap is hard to get out of artificial turf.

Well, if they did go to natural grass, at least it would be fertilized.

 

[Purdue85]

Just curious what ya'll think about the condition of the turf at Ross Ade. With Purdue having a turf-grass science program, it would be tough to convert to a field-turf surface. Yet, in some games this year, the field and especially the sidelines were in pretty rough shape.

Would you like to see artificial turf in place of the real grass field? Or would you rather the field be improved from a drainage standpoint?

Oh, h*ll no.

It's grass, it should always be grass.

People are making way too much over the turf. Continue to manage it and improve it? Yes.

There's nothing wrong with drainage. (Exception: I did see pooling on the NE corner, which was where the cheerleaders were, but not close to the playing area.)

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Oh, h*ll no.

It's grass, it should always be grass.

People are making way too much over the turf. Continue to manage it and improve it? Yes.

There's nothing wrong with drainage. (Exception: I did see pooling on the NE corner, which was where the cheerleaders were, but not close to the playing area.)

If Brohm wants speed, then it needs to be turf. It was an ugly field.

 

[Purdue85]

If Brohm wants speed, then it needs to be turf. It was an ugly field.

Couldn't disagree more. Every team wants speed. There's still lots of speed on natural grass. both teams play the game on the same field.

If speed was a problem on natural grass, we wouldn't see nearly half of all NFL teams playing on natural grass (per the latest info I've read). Take away the fixed-roof indoor stadiums, natural grass starts to become the majority.

Also, the NFL has long studied the effects of artificial turf and injuries, and players are much more prone to injury on artificial turf than natural grass (although, that point has been challenged by the artificial turf companies).

No. There's no compelling reason for Purdue to go to plastic grass.

 

[Wolegib]

I grew up in Wisconsin. Lambeau Field is grass! For the past 30+ years their teams have had a fairly decent passing attack. However, what has made their passing attack successful is NOT the speed of their receivers. But rather their ability to catch a pass and their ability to get yardage after the pass. Don Driver was not fast but could catch the ball. The same could be said for every other successful Packers receiver!

Looking back, the same could be said about every successful Purdue receiver of the past. What made Moore so successful? It wasn’t his speed, but rather his elusiveness and ability to get yardage after the catch.

If Purdue builds a team purely based on speed, it will fail.

Purdue has a grass field. Rather than trying to change it to take advantage of the speed offense, you need to change your offense and players to take advantage of what the stadium conditions offer. Taking advantage of their stadium features is what has made Green Bay so successful.

You build your team to take advantage of your field, not the other way around!

 

[Wolegib]

I have read about some grass fields that also have a template/grid of plastic turf on top that allows the grass to grow through the grid. This provides the effect of having a grass field and provides a better field conditions in colder weather.

 

[FirstDownB]

Oh, h*ll no.

It's grass, it should always be grass.

People are making way too much over the turf. Continue to manage it and improve it? Yes.

There's nothing wrong with drainage. (Exception: I did see pooling on the NE corner, which was where the cheerleaders were, but not close to the playing area.)

Do you have studies where only modern field turf was compared to grass or do they include 1970's astroturf in these studies? The fake stuff has come a LONG way. Also, do you think we could actually be any worse in the injury department than this year? Look at the field. Just look at it. You don't need an argument for field turf. You need a good argument against it.

 

[Hausta01]

Do you have studies where only modern field turf was compared to grass or do they include 1970's astroturf in these studies? The fake stuff has come a LONG way. Also, do you think we could actually be any worse in the injury department than this year? Look at the field. Just look at it. You don't need an argument for field turf. You need a good argument against it.

Since Purdue uses grass, you need an argument for field turf and against grass. And "it looks better on TV" isn't a deciding factor. Go to the games, is the field starting to brown a little? Yeah its almost December in Indiana, but even with the rain the field held together very well.

 

[Purdue85]

Do you have studies where only modern field turf was compared to grass or do they include 1970's astroturf in these studies? The fake stuff has come a LONG way. Also, do you think we could actually be any worse in the injury department than this year? Look at the field. Just look at it. You don't need an argument for field turf. You need a good argument against it.

Wow. Calm down.

You can make all the demands you like, I don't need to do any such thing. I don't need to make an argument for or against anything.

I made a general reference on NFL study(ies). I also indicated there's some dispute.

The natural grass vs plastic grass argument is really dumb, especially when considering there are many professional teams/programs who don't buy the argument for plastic grass over natural grass. I get it... this is a forum, the season is over, now people turn to other mundane arguments like this. It's what happens. It's still a really silly argument, and even more silly for people to get all blown up over it.

 

[FirstDownB]

Wow. Calm down.

You can make all the demands you like, I don't need to do any such thing. I don't need to make an argument for or against anything.

I made a general reference on NFL study(ies). I also indicated there's some dispute.

The natural grass vs plastic grass argument is really dumb, especially when considering there are many professional teams/programs who don't buy the argument for plastic grass over natural grass. I get it... this is a forum, the season is over, now people turn to other mundane arguments like this. It's what happens. It's still a really silly argument, and even more silly for people to get all blown up over it.

I'm completely calm. I was simply asking a question about the studies you were citing. I am genuinely curious if there has been a study on field turf versus grass on injuries because that seems to be the only cited advantage of grass other than aesthetics. I can't imagine any modern day turf presenting a more dangerous playing surface than a clod of ground giving away when you go to plant your foot. To me, the playing surface condition is unacceptable. Something should be done about it, and replacing the playing surface in the scheme of things isn't all that expensive when you consider the maintenance cost savings. If this is mundane conversation, simply refrain. It interests me and others.

I guess we will find out if Coach feels the same way.. I suspect he does. MSU just ripped up their entire field last summer because they were having similar problems late in the season. So then, if something must be done.. and eventually something will be done even if it is just a regrade and re-sodding a different type of grass. I just think we have seen enough iterations of grass and enough development of field turf to know that at this point nothing natural performs as well. Unless we know something that Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, and many others who "invest in the best" do not.

 

[Purdue85]

I'm completely calm. I was simply asking a question about the studies you were citing. I am genuinely curious if there has been a study on field turf versus grass on injuries because that seems to be the only cited advantage of grass other than aesthetics. And yes, to me, the playing surface condition is unacceptable. In my opinion something should be done about it, and replacing the playing surface in the scheme of things isn't all that expensive when you consider the maintenance cost savings. If this is mundane conversation, simply refrain. It interests me and others.

I guess we will find out if Coach feels the same way.. I suspect he does. MSU just ripped up their entire field last summer because they were having similar problems late in the season. So then, if something must be done.. and eventually something will be done even if it is just a regrade and re-sodding a different type of grass. I just think we have seen enough iterations of grass and enough development of field turf to know that at this point nothing natural performs as well. Unless we know something that Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, and many others who "invest in the best" do not.

It's all good.

I don't know that it's a "mundane" conversation, it's just seems really silly. And, I can have the opinion this is a silly conversation, yet "weigh-in" with my $.02. (The two aren't mutually exclusive.)

I'm not sure how coach Brohm "feels", nor do I really care. It's not "his" field. What's more, he can "up and leave" at a moment's notice, so the choice of field shouldn't be his. Does he have a voice? No doubt. I'm sure he's expressed his preference.

Additionally, I don't give a fat rat's arse what ND, OSU or UM want, or do, with their field. You cite them, but I've also cited the numerous NFL teams that have opted for natural grass. There is no greater driver of $$ in football than the NFL. If so many NFL teams have opted for real grass vs plastic grass, I'd bet a lot of money there are some really good reasons.

About 10-15 years ago we had a much more significant problem with the grass turf. Changes were made and the problem was corrected. I'd rather we do that than just follow what others (ND, OSU, UM) have done simply because they've done it.

 

[TheGunner]

Natural turf fields are a thing of the past, just like many other things. It's time to rip it up and put down some fantastic plastic....and play on.

The NFL doesn’t think natural turf is a thing of the past.

NFL stadiums, teams playing on natural turf in 2019

1. Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City Chiefs
2. Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte Panthers
3. Broncos Mile High Stadium, Denver Broncos
4. Dignity Health Sports Park, Los Angeles Chargers
5. FedEx Field, Washington Redskins
6. FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland Browns
7. Hard Rock Stadium, Miami Dolphins
8. Heinz Field, Pittsburgh Steelers
9. Lambeau Field, Green Bay Packers
10. Levi’s Stadium, San Francisco 49ers
11. Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia Eagles
12. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, L.A. Rams
13. M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore Ravens
14. Nissan Stadium, Tennessee Titans
15. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Oakland Raiders
16. Raymond James Stadium, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
17. Soldier Field, Chicago Bears
18. State Farm Stadium, Phoenix Cardinals
19. TIAA Bank Field, Jacksonville Jaguars

 

[NVboiler]

Oh yes, with an artificial field you can have a lovely blue field like Boise State. No need for it to be green.

 

[Purdue85]

The NFL doesn’t think natural turf is a thing of the past.

NFL stadiums, teams playing on natural turf in 2019

1. Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City Chiefs
2. Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte Panthers
3. Broncos Mile High Stadium, Denver Broncos
4. Dignity Health Sports Park, Los Angeles Chargers
5. FedEx Field, Washington Redskins
6. FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland Browns
7. Hard Rock Stadium, Miami Dolphins
8. Heinz Field, Pittsburgh Steelers
9. Lambeau Field, Green Bay Packers
10. Levi’s Stadium, San Francisco 49ers
11. Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia Eagles
12. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, L.A. Rams
13. M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore Ravens
14. Nissan Stadium, Tennessee Titans
15. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, Oakland Raiders
16. Raymond James Stadium, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
17. Soldier Field, Chicago Bears
18. State Farm Stadium, Phoenix Cardinals
19. TIAA Bank Field, Jacksonville Jaguars

Wow. That is a statement.

Add to the fact, out of 31 teams there are 8 indoor stadiums; 4 with a fixed roof, 4 with a retractable. The fixed roof can't grow grass, and only one of the 4 retractable has natural grass.

 

[FirstDownB]

It's all good.

I don't know that it's a "mundane" conversation, it's just seems really silly. And, I can have the opinion this is a silly conversation, yet "weigh-in" with my $.02. (The two aren't mutually exclusive.)

I'm not sure how coach Brohm "feels", nor do I really care. It's not "his" field. What's more, he can "up and leave" at a moment's notice, so the choice of field shouldn't be his. Does he have a voice? No doubt. I'm sure he's expressed his preference.

Additionally, I don't give a fat rat's arse what ND, OSU or UM want, or do, with their field. You cite them, but I've also cited the numerous NFL teams that have opted for natural grass. There is no greater driver of $$ in football than the NFL. If so many NFL teams have opted for real grass vs plastic grass, I'd bet a lot of money there are some really good reasons.

About 10-15 years ago we had a much more significant problem with the grass turf. Changes were made and the problem was corrected. I'd rather we do that than just follow what others (ND, OSU, UM) have done simply because they've done it.

I'm saying study all options, study the reasons schools like ND, UM, OSU have made the switch, and you are likely to come to the same conclusion. As time goes on this is only going to be more true as the synthetic continues to be improved. Why do you think so many have switched from grass to field turf but almost none of the new stadiums use natural grass? San Francisco and Arizona are notable exceptions, with ideal conditions for growing and maintaining grass. Any stadium in the south or west coast is incomparable to the midwest or north. Chicago's is notoriously the worst surface in the NFL. New England gave up on grass and switched to field turf mid season. Many of the remaining northern NFL teams with grass surfaces are at least considering the switch.

 

[PaBoiler78]

Oh yes, with an artificial field you can have a lovely blue field like Boise State. No need for it to be green.

we could have an old gold field, black end zones, and white lines.

 

[Purdue85]

I'm saying study all options, study the reasons schools like ND, UM, OSU have made the switch, and you are likely to come to the same conclusion. As time goes on this is only going to be more true as the synthetic continues to be improved. Why do you think so many have switched from grass to field turf but almost none of the new stadiums use natural grass? San Francisco and Arizona are notable exceptions, with ideal conditions for growing and maintaining grass. Any stadium in the south or west coast is incomparable to the midwest or north. Chicago's is notoriously the worst surface in the NFL. New England gave up on grass and switched to field turf mid season. Many of the remaining northern NFL teams with grass surfaces are at least considering the switch.

A couple of things:
1. It's clear this administration is constantly "study(ing) all options".
2. If it was such an issue in the NFL, they would have all (or, at least, MOST) moved to plastic grass. The technology isn't new. If it was so cut 'n dried, they would have all "given up". It's a VERY easy change to make.

I don't know ... maybe we switch to plastic grass sometime down the road. I hope not. If it happens, I hope that the fact the Jones's did it has NOTHING to do with it.

 

[TheGunner]

I'm saying study all options, study the reasons schools like ND, UM, OSU have made the switch, and you are likely to come to the same conclusion. As time goes on this is only going to be more true as the synthetic continues to be improved. Why do you think so many have switched from grass to field turf but almost none of the new stadiums use natural grass? San Francisco and Arizona are notable exceptions, with ideal conditions for growing and maintaining grass. Any stadium in the south or west coast is incomparable to the midwest or north. Chicago's is notoriously the worst surface in the NFL. New England gave up on grass and switched to field turf mid season. Many of the remaining northern NFL teams with grass surfaces are at least considering the switch.

Here, I will pare the list down to what I consider “cold” weather stadiums

1. Lambeau Field, Green Bay Packers
2. Soldier Field, Chicago Bears
   
3. Broncos Mile High Stadium, Denver Broncos
4. FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland Browns
5. Heinz Field, Pittsburgh Steelers
6. Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City Chiefs
7. Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia Eagles
8. M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore Ravens
9. FedEx Field, Washington Redskins
10. Nissan Stadium, Tennessee Titans

The number of teams in “cold weather” without domes that play on Field Turf are

1. NYG
2. NE Patriots
3. NYJets
4. Buffalo
5. Cincinnati

6. Seattle (maybe, but I would consider this cold or at a minimum RAINY)

At a minimum, the NFL considers this a 50/50 issue (if you think that only the top 5 in the first list are true cold weather stadiums). There certainly is not a preference for Field Turf in the NFL.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Couldn't disagree more. Every team wants speed. There's still lots of speed on natural grass. both teams play the game on the same field.

If speed was a problem on natural grass, we wouldn't see nearly half of all NFL teams playing on natural grass (per the latest info I've read). Take away the fixed-roof indoor stadiums, natural grass starts to become the majority.

Also, the NFL has long studied the effects of artificial turf and injuries, and players are much more prone to injury on artificial turf than natural grass (although, that point has been challenged by the artificial turf companies).

No. There's no compelling reason for Purdue to go to plastic grass.

Just looking at facts, both have different injuries and the same injuries. Here's an interesting bit about it
[QUOTE="FirstDownB. Something should be done about it, and replacing the playing surface in the scheme of things isn't all that expensive when you consider the maintenance cost savings.

Our HS just went to turf...$1.5 million guaranteed for 7 years. The band uses it, the soccer team uses it, the softball and baseball team uses it. It looks great, there's very little maintenence on it except cleaning and replaceing a few black balls every year. I'm guessing and pretty sure that it costs a hell of lot more to maintain a field that was ugly, torn up, and over-used.

It's a horrible advertisement for a turf management program that is supposed to be one of the best.

 

[Lineman1968]

Here, I will pare the list down to what I consider “cold” weather stadiums

1. Lambeau Field, Green Bay Packers
2. Soldier Field, Chicago Bears
   
3. Broncos Mile High Stadium, Denver Broncos
4. FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland Browns
5. Heinz Field, Pittsburgh Steelers
6. Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City Chiefs
7. Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia Eagles
8. M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore Ravens
9. FedEx Field, Washington Redskins
10. Nissan Stadium, Tennessee Titans

The number of teams in “cold weather” without domes that play on Field Turf are

1. NYG
2. NE Patriots
3. NYJets
4. Buffalo
5. Cincinnati

6. Seattle (maybe, but I would consider this cold or at a minimum RAINY)

At a minimum, the NFL considers this a 50/50 issue (if you think that only the top 5 in the first list are true cold weather stadiums). There certainly is not a preference for Field Turf in the NFL.

Soldier field is an embarrassment. Typically has to be re-sodded at least twice a season.

 

[FirstDownB]

Here, I will pare the list down to what I consider “cold” weather stadiums

1. Lambeau Field, Green Bay Packers
2. Soldier Field, Chicago Bears
   
3. Broncos Mile High Stadium, Denver Broncos
4. FirstEnergy Stadium, Cleveland Browns
5. Heinz Field, Pittsburgh Steelers
6. Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City Chiefs
7. Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia Eagles
8. M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore Ravens
9. FedEx Field, Washington Redskins
10. Nissan Stadium, Tennessee Titans

The number of teams in “cold weather” without domes that play on Field Turf are

1. NYG
2. NE Patriots
3. NYJets
4. Buffalo
5. Cincinnati

6. Seattle (maybe, but I would consider this cold or at a minimum RAINY)

At a minimum, the NFL considers this a 50/50 issue (if you think that only the top 5 in the first list are true cold weather stadiums). There certainly is not a preference for Field Turf in the NFL.

Fair argument. Counter argument is that, out of the newer stadiums, the trend is toward artificial turf. And digging deeper.. the ones that are sticking with grass have made significant investments to extend the growing season. Many of them (Cleveland, Denver, Green Bay) have heating elements beneath the field. Lambeau uses growing lights in the winter.

The playing surface is a Kentucky Bluegrass irrigated field, with a sand-soil root zone and an underground heating system that involves nine boilers and 40 miles (64 km) of underground piping. The heating system prevents the field from freezing and extends the growing season of the turf.

Now that doesn't exactly sound like the most cost effective option, but those NFL teams that are that are set on preserving the grass field, and have the money to keep the grass growing well into November, are going that direction, not resting on what they had in the 1970's. Fact is we do not have the budget to maintain a field like NFL teams do.

 

[TheGunner]

Fair argument. Counter argument is that, out of the newer stadiums, the trend is toward artificial turf. And digging deeper.. the ones that are sticking with grass have made significant investments to extend the growing season. Many of them (Cleveland, Denver, Green Bay) have heating elements beneath the field. Lambeau uses growing lights in the winter.

The playing surface is a Kentucky Bluegrass irrigated field, with a sand-soil root zone and an underground heating system that involves nine boilers and 40 miles (64 km) of underground piping. The heating system prevents the field from freezing and extends the growing season of the turf.

Now that doesn't exactly sound like the most cost effective option, but those NFL teams that are that are set on preserving the grass field, and have the money to keep the grass growing well into November, are going that direction, not resting on what they had in the 1970's. Fact is we do not have the budget to maintain a field like NFL teams do.

I’m not saying things shouldn’t be done to improve grass, growing season, etc, I’m just not in the camp of Field Turf looks great so let’s go with that.

 

[Purdue85]

Just looking at facts, both have different injuries and the same injuries. Here's an interesting bit about it
[QUOTE="FirstDownB. Something should be done about it, and replacing the playing surface in the scheme of things isn't all that expensive when you consider the maintenance cost savings.

Our HS just went to turf...$1.5 million guaranteed for 7 years. The band uses it, the soccer team uses it, the softball and baseball team uses it. It looks great, there's very little maintenence on it except cleaning and replaceing a few black balls every year. I'm guessing and pretty sure that it costs a hell of lot more to maintain a field that was ugly, torn up, and over-used.

It's a horrible advertisement for a turf management program that is supposed to be one of the best.

My kids' HS went to turf about 5 years ago. Agree with the multi-use. It's fantastic. The baseball team even uses it during the winter for outdoor workouts.

High School use of the HS football field is completely different than Purdue's football field.

It's subjective to write, "It's a horrible advertisement for a turf management program that is supposed to be one of the best." The Purdue turf management program IS one of the best, and people know that. A football field that shows wear during the season is irrelevant to that.

Most seasons the field is a beautiful field. If there's a problem, work the problem.

 

[FirstDownB]

I’m not saying things shouldn’t be done to improve grass, growing season, etc, I’m just not in the camp of Field Turf looks great so let’s go with that.

But at what cost? That's the question. And the answer, based on multiple seasons, it is apparently more than what Purdue is willing/able to shell out to keep the grass in tip top shape through November. Yes, for one, a torn up field comes across as low rent to most people (and don't say aesthetics do not matter - why else do programs throw millions of dollars at uniform redesigns, fancy scoreboards, jumbotrons, cushy performance centers, etc.). But it also can effect how you play. Solid, reliable footing that you can make cuts on is a baseline necessity for a timing based passing offense. That is what Brohm, and traditionally most successful coaches at Purdue, wants to run.

 

[Purdue85]

But at what cost? That's the question. And the answer, based on multiple seasons, it is apparently more than what Purdue is willing/able to shell out to keep the grass in tip top shape through November. Yes, for one, a torn up field comes across as low rent to most people (and don't say aesthetics do not matter - why else do programs throw millions of dollars at uniform redesigns, fancy scoreboards, jumbotrons, cushy performance centers, etc.). But it also can effect how you play. Solid, reliable footing that you can make cuts on is a baseline necessity for a timing based passing offense. That is what Brohm, and traditionally most successful coaches at Purdue, wants to run.

This is good discussion.

I don't know the right answer. I'm highly suspicious when you (or others) claim to know what Brohm wants.

There's some credible analysis out there, indicating the argument for cost savings of field turf is a gimmick.

Link from Forbes: How Taxpayers Get Fooled On The Cost Of An Artificial Turf Field

Pull quotes:
So why are some municipalities still spending big bucks to install artificial turf fields? Main reason: taxpayers have been getting hoodwinked by bogus analysis into thinking artificial turf fields are cheaper than natural grass.

But the reality is that non-partisan studies have shown the exact opposite--natural grass fields are a bargain compared to artificial turf due to the huge costs taxpayers get stuck with to maintain and replace artificial fields after their warrantees expire.

And...

Indeed, the Australian government did a comprehensive study dispelling the myth trumpeted by some politicians and artificial turf makers that artificial turf fields cost less than natural grass in the long term due to lower expenses for upkeep. But the politicians keep coming up with creative ways to fool the taxpayers into thinking they are going to save money in the long run with artificial turf.

Additionally, Duke had an article on turf vs grass, in which the claim there's no real benefit to artificial turf. In fact, they went so far as to say, Economically, artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass. Link: Turf vs Grass

Another organization shows the following graph, comparing costs of the two:

It's a real challenge to 'weed out' (pun intended) the organizations/companies who stand to gain with their own slanted data.

It's quite apparent, trying to win the argument of going to plastic grass based solely on economics is not a strong position.

 

[FirstDownB]

This is good discussion.

I don't know the right answer. I'm highly suspicious when you (or others) claim to know what Brohm wants.

There's some credible analysis out there, indicating the argument for cost savings of field turf is a gimmick.

Link from Forbes: How Taxpayers Get Fooled On The Cost Of An Artificial Turf Field

Pull quotes:
So why are some municipalities still spending big bucks to install artificial turf fields? Main reason: taxpayers have been getting hoodwinked by bogus analysis into thinking artificial turf fields are cheaper than natural grass.

But the reality is that non-partisan studies have shown the exact opposite--natural grass fields are a bargain compared to artificial turf due to the huge costs taxpayers get stuck with to maintain and replace artificial fields after their warrantees expire.

And...

Indeed, the Australian government did a comprehensive study dispelling the myth trumpeted by some politicians and artificial turf makers that artificial turf fields cost less than natural grass in the long term due to lower expenses for upkeep. But the politicians keep coming up with creative ways to fool the taxpayers into thinking they are going to save money in the long run with artificial turf.

Additionally, Duke had an article on turf vs grass, in which the claim there's no real benefit to artificial turf. In fact, they went so far as to say, Economically, artificial turf is more expensive than natural grass. Link: Turf vs Grass

Another organization shows the following graph, comparing costs of the two:

It's a real challenge to 'weed out' (pun intended) the organizations/companies who stand to gain with their own slanted data.

It's quite apparent, trying to win the argument of going to plastic grass based solely on economics is not a strong position.

It’s always good to bring stats to a discussion. So thank you. One issue I have with these is it paints all fields with a broad brush. I would assume there is a lot more variance in the maintenance cost of a high school grass surface versus the aforementioned NFL surfaces. Probably by an order of magnitude or more. I would actually tend to agree that in most cases, for most applications field turf is probably overkill Or hoodwink. But we’re talking power 5, D1 football, we should only be comparing to peers with similar expectations of the product. There again, I will defer to cold weather schools and pro outfits that have recently deliberated the same question. And most of them opted either to invest in solutions that prolonged the growing season or they opted for artificial turf. None of them chose to do what they were doing 40 years ago.

 

[Wolegib]

Something to also consider. Of the teams that have grass and are in the North, is there a bad team in the bunch? Maybe we should consider the success record of teams with grass and the reason they are successful. Has their grass field contributed to that success? I know the Bears would allow their grass to grow longer than normal to slow down other team’s receivers. It sure has made the Bears defense look good.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

Something to also consider. Of the teams that have grass and are in the North, is there a bad team in the bunch? Maybe we should consider the success record of teams with grass and the reason they are successful. Has their grass field contributed to that success? I know the Bears would allow their grass to grow longer than normal to slow down other team’s receivers. It sure has made the Bears defense look good.

They looked damn good last night. Screw the Cowboys.