Looks like the decision had been made!!!!!!!!!

bgmaggot00 · Post by **bgmaggot00** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:22 pm

I'm happy. I'll enjoy, and applaud the improvements.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:25 pm

jeebus wrote:oh c'mon hammb, if they installed field turf in secret you'd probably never notice it...it just doesnt get muddy.

Do I really seem dumb enough to not notice the field that doesn't get muddy?

From watching other games played on FieldTurf I don't think the traction is as good as well maintained grass. The turf also seems to have a lot of elasticity that makes the speedy players run faster...I suppose that's not inherently a bad thing, but it seems to favor a different type of athlete than natural grass.

I'm a tradiionalist, I like Grass fields. I think that's the way the sport was meant to be played, and I don't think man can ever invent anything that is better.

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:27 pm

hammb wrote:Whatever, to each their own, I suppose. The game is not as good on FieldTurf than it is on good grass. It's not even debateable. Field Turf is an improvement over what we had at the Miami game.

Domed stadiums totally blow and that has little to do with why we won't get a superbowl. Cleveland will never get a superbowl for the same reason Detroit will never get another one. Where the game is played is irrelevant; everyone bitched to high heaven about it being in a cold weather city last year. So if you want to relocate Cleveland to the south shore of Lake Okeechobee you'll get a superbowl, otherwise you will not. The only game I've ever been to Ford field was the MCB, football indoors totally sucks, IMO. If Cleveland ever built a domed stadium they could kiss good bye to all of their best fans.

Man cannot outdo mother nature when it comes to turf. Unfortunately we cannot seem to take care of our grass and are forced to move towards this artificial crap. They'll be saving a lot of money with this versus grass, I'm sure, so they will not miss my donations.

Good to see you're keeping the interest of the student-athlete in mind.

jeebus · Post by **jeebus** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:34 pm

Do I really seem dumb enough to not notice the field that doesn't get muddy?

what if it was a really hot dry day?

seriously..despite the above it would be a good thing i think to get our guys used to playing on turf because most of the fields they'll see will be fake...itd get em used to it

goofyeuph · Post by **goofyeuph** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:16 am

I half agree with hammb. I'm saying this as a College Football Fan, and as someone who has marched on just about every type of turf you can think of. WELL maintained natural grass is great. There is nothing better. However, moderately maintained, or even decently maintained natural turf is not as good as Field Turf. It is extremely difficult to maintain natural turf very well throughout the course of a season, especially in NW Ohio. Since we don't seem to maintain our grass at a high level for an entire season, I'm glad to see us make the change to turf. Granted, as I said, most of my reasons have more to do with being a former member of the Band, but I am still glad to see us make the change.

Peregrinner · Post by **Peregrinner** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:31 am

hammb wrote:From watching other games played on FieldTurf I don't think the traction is as good as well maintained grass. The turf also seems to have a lot of elasticity that makes the speedy players run faster...I suppose that's not inherently a bad thing, but it seems to favor a different type of athlete than natural grass.

From playing at least a few lacrosse games on field turf, I can say that from what I remember, the lack of traction was never really a problem for me or my teammates. The elasticity and benefit for speedy players, though, definitely was.

There is certainly a difference in the way the turf feels and plays, even if it is not immediately noticeable from the stands (which I think it is).

Personally, I'm excited about the fact that the field will remain mud-free through the ridiculous NW Ohio weather and excited about the all around crisp look of the field turf. However, I'm disappointed because - even though I never really cared before - in hindsight it feels sort of special to have a natural grass field.

But, things change and this is the way of the future. Many people have been wanting a facelift for our football facilities for some time now, and with the Sebo Center and the new turf for football, I'm hopeful for continued facelifts and improvements for all of our athletic facilities.

Rightupinthere · Post by **Rightupinthere** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:16 am

So, how would I score a square yard of the current field? I wouldn't mind a small piece of the Doyt history in my own yard.

Zom · Post by **Zom** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:53 am

I'd start with a shovel, and wing it from there.

Falcon30 · Post by **Falcon30** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:02 am

hammb wrote:Whatever, to each their own, I suppose. The game is not as good on FieldTurf than it is on good grass. It's not even debateable. Field Turf is an improvement over what we had at the Miami game.

Domed stadiums totally blow and that has little to do with why we won't get a superbowl. Cleveland will never get a superbowl for the same reason Detroit will never get another one. Where the game is played is irrelevant; everyone bitched to high heaven about it being in a cold weather city last year. So if you want to relocate Cleveland to the south shore of Lake Okeechobee you'll get a superbowl, otherwise you will not. The only game I've ever been to Ford field was the MCB, football indoors totally sucks, IMO. If Cleveland ever built a domed stadium they could kiss good bye to all of their best fans.

Man cannot outdo mother nature when it comes to turf. Unfortunately we cannot seem to take care of our grass and are forced to move towards this artificial crap. They'll be saving a lot of money with this versus grass, I'm sure, so they will not miss my donations.

"It's not even debatable" is an outright falsehood (and a political staple these days, makes me sick). We talked about mud vs. fieldturf for a long time. It has been debated for quite some time on here. And I AM talking about how the game is played, not just the aesthetics or percetption issues. It has been debated.

How many SuperBowls has Detroit hosted? just the one, right....oh wait. So despite all the bitching, it has been there more than once. And the MAC championship games and bowl games wouldn't be as successful if not more so in Cleveland?

Rightupinthere · Post by **Rightupinthere** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:10 am

Zom wrote:I'd start with a shovel, and wing it from there.

Is there a place where I can rent a sod cutter for about 30 minutes? I just want ONE section right under the crossbar of the North Endzone. I know of a couple of drum majors who revere that small patch of grass.....

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:24 am

Falcon30 wrote:
hammb wrote:Whatever, to each their own, I suppose. The game is not as good on FieldTurf than it is on good grass. It's not even debateable. Field Turf is an improvement over what we had at the Miami game.

Domed stadiums totally blow and that has little to do with why we won't get a superbowl. Cleveland will never get a superbowl for the same reason Detroit will never get another one. Where the game is played is irrelevant; everyone bitched to high heaven about it being in a cold weather city last year. So if you want to relocate Cleveland to the south shore of Lake Okeechobee you'll get a superbowl, otherwise you will not. The only game I've ever been to Ford field was the MCB, football indoors totally sucks, IMO. If Cleveland ever built a domed stadium they could kiss good bye to all of their best fans.

Man cannot outdo mother nature when it comes to turf. Unfortunately we cannot seem to take care of our grass and are forced to move towards this artificial crap. They'll be saving a lot of money with this versus grass, I'm sure, so they will not miss my donations.
"It's not even debatable" is an outright falsehood (and a political staple these days, makes me sick). We talked about mud vs. fieldturf for a long time. It has been debated for quite some time on here. And I AM talking about how the game is played, not just the aesthetics or percetption issues. It has been debated.

How many SuperBowls has Detroit hosted? just the one, right....oh wait. So despite all the bitching, it has been there more than once. And the MAC championship games and bowl games wouldn't be as successful if not more so in Cleveland?

Sorry, I mean to say it's not debatable to ME. Obviously the topic is quite debatable or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Detroit has had 2 superbowls, and Minnesota has had one. Last year in Detroit was the first in a northern area since 1992. The superbowl has grown to a spectacle beyond the game, and I seriously doubt that they'll be holding it at a northern city in the near future. Sure, it could happen again, but northern cities are never going to be regulars in the superbowl rotation.

I just don't get this notion that it is impossible to have a well maintained grass field in NW Ohio. Those saying that do realize that there is a freaking SOD farm not 20 miles from BG right? A very successful, and well known sod farm, if they were not growing good solid grass, I doubt they'd be so successful. We won awards less than 5 years ago for the quality of our grass field. It can be done. Pardon me if I'm not the type tear something down and put in the "new and improved version" when all the current turf really needs is a little TLC (although it likely does need resodded after that Miami game).

factman · Post by **factman** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:26 am

RUIT-
Hold up or you might be facing our "crowd Nazi" and have the campus police throwing you in jail!! It is my understanding that most of the good sod will be transplanted to the baseball field outfield, because that got more messed up than the football field by the past people that were in charge of such things. I think it is rather funny that the hourly workers have taken all of the blame, but the administrator in charge of such things seems to escape criticism. He has screwed up up more things than the GE guy that tests light bulbs!

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:33 am

hammb wrote:I'm a tradiionalist, I like Grass fields. I think that's the way the sport was meant to be played, and I don't think man can ever invent anything that is better.

What he said, +1.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:42 am

hammb wrote:I'm a tradiionalist, I like Grass fields. I think that's the way the sport was meant to be played, and I don't think man can ever invent anything that is better.

Hammb, I like the grass field as well, but... I think it is time to move on. I mean the game was played without helments when it was invented. Then we got leather helmets. Then plastic (or whatever it is). Then facemasks. etc. Point is, the game involves as technology evolves. The game was originally played on grass because it was the best option. Sand? Concrete? Water? Nope, grass was the answer. Now technology has invented a better "grass". I think it is time to embrace change and be happy with the Fieldturf. Unless you want to go back and keep score with an abacus.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 10:10 am

I'm with Warthog. I like grass better, but it has probably reached the end of
the line.

One note. As has been pointed out, we used to have a glorious grass field back in the day. While I think we had an exemplary groundskeeper in those days, it is also important to remember that he had an advantage. We rarely, if ever, played past the first Saturday in November. These late November games are a relatively recent development.