5 Things To Look Forward To and Five Things To Worry About

[77buff]

It won't. The university won't use Folsom for more concerts regardless of the surface. When we had turf before we had 3 concerts the last five years we had turf, we passed on the Rolling Stones tour in 1989, and for several years they wouldn't even use folsom for spring graduation to "protect" the turf. And the city threw a fit after the Paul McCartney show in 1993, and stadium tours are rarer and rarer, etc. And remember, if the turf take a couple of million to install, the yearly depreciation on the turf would almost cancel out the reduced maintenance costs. And the new turf, while less evil than the old kind, takes more maintenance.

Besides, that d*** turf cost us a chance at the national title in 1995 when Koy Detmer tore up his knee non-contact against Texas A&M.

Excellent point - I remember the AD was pissed about the condition of the turf after the concerts. Also, saving around a million, and I doubt it's that much, over the course of six or seven years, that's about $142,000 a year, is a drop in the bucket. CU's budget was 41 million for 2007. The big reason alot of schools have it is the fact that you have pretty much the same footing sun, rain or snow, and you don't have to maintain it like real grass, but you lose a part of the game like playing in a dome. The weather is taken out of the competition. I hate domes and turf.

 

[BuffsRising]

I see your point. But i don't think the turf will be as expensive to maintain than grass. Wasn't it a couple of years ago when some kind of mold infected the entire field? I believe they had to resod the entire field over again. I don't see that being too cheap. If FieldTurf was more expensive than grass then why would other colleges switch to turf? There are some pretty big time schools on the fieldturf list. Even some NFL teams.

I also thought the Counting Crows concert was at Folsom? No?

I didn't say grass was cheaper than turf, I said that turf won't save us much money, as it still costs money to maintain and it is a depreciable asset. And most of the teams switching to Fieldturf are artificial turf teams like Nebraska or teams with much worse weather than Folsom.

And again, we hardly had any concerts the last few years Folsom had turf, and switching back to turf won't change that. Invesco Field has had more concerts the last few years and they have grass. The old Mile Hi hosted more concerts than turf-era Folsom and it had grass. Putting fieldturf into Folsom won't mean more concerts. When we had turf the university couldn't use the stadium for several years for spring graduation because the athletic dept. was afraid of the wear and tear, and that was old school artificial turf. The university finally got them to bend in 1992 by agreeing to put down carpet wear people would be walking or sitting on the plastic grass.

The bottom line is, I still don't think increased wear and tear on the athletes is worth the negligible financial gain from fieldturf.

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

Your right on the concerts. But I still think it we'll see field turf in CU's future. It saves us money. Maybe not a ton. But it still saves the AD money. I'm sure they already have it in the practice bubble. Marolt is no longer our AD. I think the turf is coming sooner than we think.

 

[FChairbanks]

Your right on the concerts. But I still think it we'll see field turf in CU's future. It saves us money. Maybe not a ton. But it still saves the AD money. I'm sure they already have it in the practice bubble. Marolt is no longer our AD. I think the turf is coming sooner than we think.

if they make the change the fans, players and coaches better be ready to bake in those september afternoon games...

field turf gets hot

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

if they make the change the fans, players and coaches better be ready to bake in those september afternoon games...

field turf gets hot

That is a drawback. But this can be solved by watering the field down. At least imo. But remember, people also bitch the same way about our black jerseys.

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2008/02/27/news/news797.txt

When compared to natural grass, the annual maintenance cost of an artificial surface is about $47,000 less per year. FieldTurf estimates that for an 80,000-square-foot field, only $5,000 per year would be spent between labor, equipment and fuel and material for re-striping field lines, while a natural grass field costs approximately $52,500 per year between mowing, watering, fertilizing and aerating.

A 10-year cost analysis by the company suggests the artificial surface will cost $730,000 compared to $1.025 million for a grass field.

It is also estimated that the artificial turf field would be used about three times as much as the grass field over the 10-year period because of the material’s durability and reliability throughout much of the year.

Its not a huge chunk of change. But it adds up.

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

And remember. This isn't the same astroturf the Buffs were using in the nineties.

 

[FChairbanks]

That is a drawback. But this can be solved by watering the field down. At least imo.

not for very long...

water was used to cool the surface of the natural and artificial turf. It was determined that the natural turf did not heat up very quickly after the irrigation so only the artificial turf was tracked at five and twenty minutes after wetting. The results of the preliminary study are shocking. The surface temperature of the synthetic turf was 37º F higher than asphalt and 86.5º F hotter than natural turf. Two inches below the synthetic turf surface was 28.5º F hotter than natural turf at the surface. Irrigation of the synthetic turf had a significant result cooling the surface from 174º F to 85º F but after five minutes the temperature rebounded to 120º F. The temperature rebuilt to 164º F after only twenty minutes.

how many irrigation breaks do we want to endure in a typical football game?

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

not for very long...



how many irrigation breaks do we want to endure in a typical football game?

So that's one bad thing on fieldturf. how about the other negatives? Injuries? Maybe on the old school astroturf. But i really don't see anything to support the theory of increased injuries on fieldturf opposed to grass.

 

[RalphieMalph]

So that's one bad thing on fieldturf. how about the other negatives? Injuries? Maybe on the old school astroturf. But i really don't see anything to support the theory of increased injuries on fieldturf opposed to grass.

The one injury that I've noticed a lot with field turf is players will get chunks of recycled tires (one of the constituents of the stuff) kicked up into their eyes when they dive on the ground. I can't imagine that's a very pleasant experience... I just hope they don't use steel belted treads, that'd be a truly heinous way to get some involuntary lasik done.

 

[BuffsRising]

That is a drawback. But this can be solved by watering the field down. At least imo. But remember, people also bitch the same way about our black jerseys.

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2008/02/27/news/news797.txt


Its not a huge chunk of change. But it adds up.

So if the company that makes fieldturf says its cheaper it must be true? Gee I'm sure that fieldturf wouldn't make exaggerated claims to sell their product. And yeah, fieldturf isn't as bad as the old artificial turf, but it also isn't as low maintenance, despite what Fieldturf or some dimwit high school administrator might say.

An agronomist from the University of Kentucky, who isn't trying to sell Fieldturf, came up with a different conclusion.
http://:www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=151825

If we were some high school that had four games a week on one field, this might make sense. But we don't.

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

Those evil fieldturf guys:devil::lol:

 

[buf]

Doesn't the NCAA have a new rule in place not allowing turf color to be anything other than green? So when Boise St. has to replace their turf i believe they have to switch back to green.

Actually BSU has the right to retain their blue color with any change of turf. They have already done it once since the new rule. I think that they are the only team that is grandfathered in on this.

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

So if the company that makes fieldturf says its cheaper it must be true? Gee I'm sure that fieldturf wouldn't make exaggerated claims to sell their product. And yeah, fieldturf isn't as bad as the old artificial turf, but it also isn't as low maintenance, despite what Fieldturf or some dimwit high school administrator might say.

An agronomist from the University of Kentucky, who isn't trying to sell Fieldturf, came up with a different conclusion.
http://:www.athleticturf.net/athleticturf/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=151825

If we were some high school that had four games a week on one field, this might make sense. But we don't.

You make good points. I'm not saying you're wrong. But i've heard people at CU talk about it. I don't think they'd consider it if it wasn't going to save them money. jmho.

Maybe we should call Mike Bohn and tell him to remove it from the practice bubble. That's where the majority of practices will be held.

 

[FChairbanks]

You make good points. I'm not saying you're wrong. But i've heard people at CU talk about it. I don't think they'd consider it if it wasn't going to save them money. jmho.

Maybe we should call Mike Bohn and tell him to remove it from the practice bubble. That's where the majority of practices will be held.

it's the perfect application for inside the bubble...just not in folsom stadium imho...

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

it's the perfect application for inside the bubble...just not in folsom stadium imho...

How's that? I thought having fieldturf is shortening our athletes careers?

 

[FChairbanks]

How's that? I thought having fieldturf is shortening our athletes careers?

i'll admit i havent read all of the links; so that may be showing up on some of the studies but i havent seen or read them...

my comment was based on the application of the artificial surface vs natural grass in an interior vs exterior application. maintaining natural grass inside a dome or bubble is more difficult than fieldturf. conversely, fieldturf can be virtually unplayable on a hot day outside without providing special maintenance and cooling techniques.

the cost differential probably favors fieldturf applications in an indoor setting and natural grass in an outdoor setting, especially when you consider playability.

another consideration with fieldturf; if it gets damaged from abuse such as grafitti, fire, etc. it must be completely replaced. natural grass is much more durable and forgiving in those conditions. plus it is really hard to keep clean when you consider trash, puke, blood, and other things that tend to find their way onto a D1 football surface.

i also can't believe that the fieldturf is a faster surface than natural grass. if you have ever run on the stuff it almost feels like running in sand, especially when it is newly installed. not that that has much to do with this discussion, but it is an observation from having been involved with projects where both surfaces are specified.

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

Field Turf or Grass i'm fine. I'll still be watching our Buffs kicking ass this fall.:gobuffs:

 

[77buff]

Field Turf or Grass i'm fine. I'll still be watching our Buffs kicking ass this fall.:gobuffs:

You are now playing both sides of the fence. If you are not, you should be a politician.:lol:

 

[Sexton Hardcastle]

You are now playing both sides of the fence. If you are not, you should be a politician.:lol:

I've said that i've always liked the grass. But i wouldn't be against the turf if it saved us money. BuffRising says it won't be enough to justify the switch to turf. You say grass is an important part of the game. Your both correct. I'm not trying to argue with you guys. But i don't think the athletic dept would consider it unless it saved us a considerable amount of cash. And the AD has been considering it.

 

[92Buff]

Back on topic...

I only look forward to one thing each day...Looking in the mirror since I get better looking every day.


:smile2: :wow: :smile2:

 

[77buff]

I've said that i've always liked the grass. But i wouldn't be against the turf if it saved us money. BuffRising says it won't be enough to justify the switch to turf. You say grass is an important part of the game. Your both correct. I'm not trying to argue with you guys. But i don't think the athletic dept would consider it unless it saved us a considerable amount of cash. And the AD has been considering it.

I was just having a little fun - you don't seem like a bad guy. One thing seems to have been overlooked, and I hope the AD takes it into serious consideration, and that's how the players feel about it. I really can't imagine that they would rather play on truf. The better the player - the more he's going to want real grass - he's got a professional career to consider. Why blowup your body on some chicken **** carpet, just to save the school a small amount of money. Besides, the weather isn't that bad in Boulder - you don't need a carpet like in Laramie. Folsom Field is the most beautiful stadium in the country - why put a dirty artificial used bits of rubber tires surface in this natural setting.