grass vs field turf
- Thread starter bigjim
- Start date
Field turf is hot, natural grass is cool....
I'd like Iowa to go back to real grass but I don't see that happening. Outside of painting it every so often I don't imagine there is much maintenance involved. At least Iowa's looks pretty good. Some schools, like Minnesota, looks awful but they'll be getting a big upgrade now that the Vikings are using it for a few years. Even small colleges and high schools are going to field turf, especially in regions with cold fall weather.
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
They tried natural grass for a while and found Kinnick Stadium has major drainage problems. I think that Iowa vs. Iowa State game they played in a giant puddle was the last of the natural grass.
eveningnewsteam
Well-Known Member
Ridiculous Kinnick Stadium can't maintain a natural surface. It would be different if there were high school games, concerts, etc....but there are not. 7 football games per year. Field turf sucks
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
If you read old accounts of games at Kinnick, it's always had a drainage problem both in and around the stadium. Accounts right after it was built had major complaints about the whole area being a bog. People would lose their shoes in the muck around the stadium.
OakRaiders
Well-Known Member
Prove it. I have never heard this claim. I believe it was a year or so ago coaches were all mad at Mizzou for having lame field turf and tons of guys losing ACLs
hawkeyebob62
Well-Known Member
Q: What's the difference between grass and field turf?
A: Have you ever smoked field turf? (rim-shot)
A: Have you ever smoked field turf? (rim-shot)
OakRaiders
Well-Known Member
All that said nothing looks better than natural grass. I feel like playing on grass could be an advantage for iowa if they went back to it. Slow down some of the speed of the other teams and allow the game to be won lost in the trenches.
In 7 games a field at any location should be able to sustain grass. It just requires some people who know what they are doing.
In 7 games a field at any location should be able to sustain grass. It just requires some people who know what they are doing.
I am not sure if you can access these links, but this one suggests lower injury incidence and severity on FieldTurf vs. natural grass in a 3-year prospective study on college football lower-extremity injuries. This one shows the same thing in a five-year study on women's college soccer. Some studies from professional sports have found similar results, but like all of science, there are also some studies that disagree.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Ever since watching the Outback 'Mud Bowl', PSU vs. Florida Jan. 1, 2011, I've been for field turf over grass.
HawkeyeMHA
Well-Known Member
I like a little grass on the turf as long as it's neatly trimmed
Doublewide
Well-Known Member
I have nothing to back this up but I would think grass would be safer than field turf for lower leg injuries. My only basis would be that turf will at least give way (like taking a divot playing golf). Field turf doesn't give way like that.
Doublewide
Well-Known Member
All they would have to do is improve drainage or install a vacuum type system under the field. Blamo problem solved. Iowa would certainly have the money to do either of those improvements.
ICHawk24
Well-Known Member
eveningnewsteam
Well-Known Member
The problem with the field at Kinnick for that ISU game in 08 was the drainage system was crap. It was clogged with sand. When they installed the new field they also installed a drainage system that can handle 20 inches of rain per hour. It was also designed to construct a natural surface with good drainage underneath if they decided to go that route again. Tear out the turf and put in grass.
eveningnewsteam
Well-Known Member
Natural grass at Kinnick is a thing of beauty:
