the Polo Grounds

Back to the forum index

turf press release

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 12:26

Synthetic Turf to be Installed in Notre Dame Stadium by 2014 Football Season

April 12, 2014

NOTRE DAME, Ind. - Artificial turf is coming to Notre Dame Stadium, home field for the University of Notre Dame football program, in time for the 2014 season.

Installation of a FieldTurf surface will begin following the University's May 16-18 Commencement Weekend. A completion date of Aug. 15, 2014, is anticipated.

The addition of the artificial turf will provide greater consistency for the Irish squad, considering it already practices both outdoors and indoors on FieldTurf. In addition, annual Commencement events and impending Campus Crossroads Project construction make ongoing maintenance of a grass field more difficult.

"We had a strong predisposition to stay with a natural grass field," says Notre Dame vice president and director of athletics Jack Swarbrick. "However, the reality is that in two of the last three seasons since we moved Commencement to the Stadium we have been unable to produce an acceptable playing surface. That, combined with the likely impacts of future construction at the Stadium, led me to conclude that we would continue to struggle to maintain a grass field that meets the expectations of our student-athletes and fans as it relates to appearance, performance and safety.

"Synthetic turf will assist our game preparation because our team will be able to play and practice on the same surface. We will also be able to utilize the Notre Dame Stadium field for practices on home football Fridays and other occasions, whereas that is currently unrealistic. Additionally, this change allows us to eliminate the risk to players posed by the asphalt perimeter that has to be maintained around our current field."

Of NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision programs in the Midwest and Northeast portions of the United States (states of Nebraska and Kansas and east; states of Missouri, Kentucky and Virginia and north), 37 of those 47 stadiums (.787) feature some form of artificial turf. That number includes all 13 Mid-American Conference facilities and 10 of 14 Big Ten Conference fields (including Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State and Wisconsin).

FieldTurf fields already are in use at Notre Dame at the LaBar Practice Complex (two practice fields used by the Notre Dame football squad), the Loftus Sports Center (a new football field was installed following the 2013 season in the Irish indoor football facility that's also used by other Notre Dame squads), Arlotta Stadium (for men's and women's lacrosse) and Stinson Rugby Field (dedicated last fall).
In addition, FieldTurf is currently being installed at Frank Eck Stadium, Notre Dame's home baseball facility.



just for reference, here's what JS said in Dec

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 08:23 @ Jay

This was the state of the project a few months ago.


Notre Dame undecided on FieldTurf
By Mike Monaco
Sports Editor

Published: Thursday, December 19, 2013

With the first home football game just more than eight months away, Notre Dame has yet to determine on what surface it will play its games at Notre Dame Stadium.

Notre Dame Director of Athletics Jack Swarbrick told The Observer they are still in the process of evaluating their options, and a decision will likely be made in January or February.

One way or another, however, the Irish will play on a completely new surface.

“We will do one of two things,” Swarbrick said. “We will either go in and really rip the whole thing out, I mean, go way down and create a whole new sub-surface, and everything about the field will be re-done, drainage, sub-surface. Or we’ll go to synthetic.”

Swarbrick said there are still important timing issues to iron out, considering the goal is to hold Commencement inside the Stadium. In addition to the timetable, he said other factors under consideration are cost and athlete safety.

Notre Dame had to re-sod the current field multiple times before and during the past season, and Swarbrick said they will not do that again on the same sub-surface.

If they were to put in a completely new field, Swarbrick said there will be a different set of challenges than the problems that arose from the multiple re-sodding processes. Most notably, if Notre Dame were to completely redo the entire surface, the grass takes “more than a year to really come in,” according to Swarbrick.

“Our soccer stadium is a great example,” he said. “It’s probably as good a pitch, as they say, as there is in the country. The first year, though, the coaches were going to kill me because every time a player cut, the sod came up.

“So it just takes time to get a roots system that’s robust enough to deal with 300-pound guys running around with spikes on. So there are limitations to grass in at least the first year. But that’s okay. That doesn’t necessarily dictate a decision. It would be better than what we played on this year.”

Swarbrick said the other option, a synthetic surface, would likely not be a hybrid of synthetic and natural grass. He said they’ve studied the surface at Lambeau Field, a hybrid surface, and found the cost of maintaining such a field is high. Swarbrick, however, did note nothing is off the table right now.

“I’m just not sure it’s the right use of our resources,” he said. “Because the fundamental difference with hybrid is you can never sod it because it’s got synthetic blades surrounded by real grass. So you couldn’t really lay down a sod. You have to reseed it and so you have to maintain the growing year and to do that, you essentially have to build a greenhouse in your stadium.

“It’s very expensive and it doesn’t feel like the right use of resources for us.”

Swarbrick said the costs of ripping up everything and putting a completely new sod is about the same as installing FieldTurf.

“And if you use our recent experience as a comparison, FieldTurf is a lot cheaper because we kept replacing the sod so often,” he added.

Notre Dame has decided to install FieldTurf at Frank Eck Stadium, home of the baseball team, and inside Loftus Sports Center, Swarbrick said.

The decision to install FieldTurf at Loftus was purely based on player safety, he said.

“That facility gets used so much. It gets used well into the early morning by so many of our student-athletes and then recreationally users, too, and it was just completely worn,” Swarbrick said. “That was a pretty simple one. We have to get this to be better.”

Swarbrick said they had wanted to install the new surface at Frank Eck Stadium because of the weather. Notre Dame’s move to the ACC ramped up the efforts.

“We had some alums step up, people directly connected to the baseball program, which is always nice to see, to help us get that done,” he said. “It’ll make a very big difference for our team.”

Swarbrick said he is very comfortable with the player safety implications of FieldTurf at Frank Eck Stadium. Notre Dame also looked to the University of Texas’s UFCU Disch-Falk Field, which installed FieldTurf in 2008, for an example.

“My perspective really changed when I realized Texas had it,” he said. “That’s not a bad weather environment at Austin. And that was the first time I said to myself, ‘This is really about just giving the athletes a better opportunity.’ Our outfield has been an issue out there in terms of its playability. The issues you worry about in football, you don’t really have in baseball. It’s all positive.”

Assistant Managing Editor Matthew DeFranks contributed to this report.


gee if I didn't know better

by JD in Portland ⌂, Portland OR, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 10:21 @ Jay

I'd think this was a candid, transparent process that has been thoughtfully and consistently analyzed for a long time.
And that yesterday's announcement was expected.
But of course if I thought this I would be overlooking the incompetence of our AD and the vast conspiracy at work here that is before my very eyes.
For the record, i wish we'd tried the Green Bay hybrid. But I'm certainly no expert. Nor do I see playing surface as a defining issue for ND and what we want our football program to stand for.
p.s. Zaire looks damn good.


I could have typed this

by Busco21, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 20:09 @ JD in Portland

Which probably isn't a strong backing for you, as I am Joe idiot.

But you basically typed exactly my thoughts. Sorry about that.


I understand this and yet it still made me sad on Saturday

by KelleyCook @, quite pleased with Nov 8th, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 04:54 @ Jay

Sitting in the stadium knowing this would be the last time I see the grass ... crappy as it was that day it still made me sad. I do feel something will be lost with the stadium aura with the conversion.

The difference between me and others is that I don't get those who despise the university for it. They have tried to fix the field for years and it didn't work.

On the otherhand, For the first time, I found myself looking for a replay screen on Saturday. It was afterall a scrimage and I admittedly wasn't paying full attention at all times. But on occasion, the crowd would oooh and I wondered what cool thing just happened.


"Does it really matter, Eddie?"

by KGB, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 03:48 @ Jay

No, it really does not fucking matter.


It's so fucking tiresome being a Notre Dame fan, sometimes

by Chris (HCC) @, Paradise, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 18:59 @ Jay

[ No text ]


my 9 year old plays on turf for a few sports he plays

by Supe ⌂, VA, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 17:50 @ Jay

the first time i walked on it a month or two ago - i turned to my wife and said "i see why people like turf - this is awesome"

i am guessing most people who don't like turf haven't played on it



by River, Hell of the Upside Down Sinners, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 18:12 @ Supe

Again and again. Many who complain don't have kids playing sports or never played a sport where the difference meant something to the physical well being of their child. I get that people want and value natural grass, but the overall benefit of turf done properly outweighs any perceived slight at tradition IMO.


I have played on both

by Rob (Rakes of Mallow), Chicago, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 19:00 @ River

And this was 10 years ago - so please (without they snark-ness), please let me know if this changed - but I would rather play on grass. The fieldturf had those annoying black beads that would get in your shoes and was generally more uncomfortable than grass.


I don't know the veracity of the statement...

by Mobster, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:22 @ Rob (Rakes of Mallow)

but an ND graduate and current team doctor to an NCAA football team recently commented that evidence is strongly in favor of grass being safer in regards to soft tissue injuries (e.g., torn ACLs, ligaments).


Yes, but the deviation is very slight.

by ndroman21, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:28 @ Mobster

I ran the numbers once on the major study (done by the NFL) that favored grass, and for a single team playing 7 home games, it came out to something like 1 addtional injury every 17 seasons.

And the other side of the coin is that FieldTurf has been proven safer as far as impact and head injuries.


Question ...

by Mark, Cloud City, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:33 @ ndroman21

I ran the numbers once on the major study (done by the NFL) that favored grass, and for a single team playing 7 home games, it came out to something like 1 addtional injury every 17 seasons.

And the other side of the coin is that FieldTurf has been proven safer as far as impact and head injuries.

Why would a FieldTurf surface be safer for impact and head injuries? From a strictly physics point of view, I dont see the obvious advantage, unless you are comparing a frozen grass field to FieldTurf.


I don't have an ironclad answer to that question...

by ndroman21, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:35 @ Mark

...but I'll speculate that the rubber pellets are generally softer and give more than earth.

There are a lot of mitigating factors with either study though. Some say that the studies favoring grass may be affected by the footwear of the players (who often use grass cleats on FieldTurf).


My car and house are filled with those bits of goodness.

by River, Hell of the Upside Down Sinners, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 19:51 @ Rob (Rakes of Mallow)

[ No text ]


Neither surface has proven to be safer.

by ndroman21, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 18:35 @ River

[ No text ]


I respectfully disagree.

by River, Hell of the Upside Down Sinners, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 19:59 @ ndroman21

Unless your point was to put me in my place.

Unless you can guarantee a perfect natural surface then I stand by what I say. I have a son with a torn patellar tendon and fractured hip on real grass surface to refute anything you have to offer.


We could offer thousands of injury examples on each surface

by Rob (Rakes of Mallow), Chicago, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 06:56 @ River

Just because it happened to your son doesn't mean grass is not as safe as turf.



by River, Hell of the Upside Down Sinners, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 16:54 @ Rob (Rakes of Mallow)

My son makes it personal, but in the end what makes it personal for you?

If natural grass does it for you, so be it. Anecdotal? Please.



Do you honestly think there are no injuries on FieldTurf?

by ndroman21, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:25 @ River

There have been all kinds of studies done, and none of them have conclusively shown more or less injuries on either surface.

A good FieldTurf field is better than a crappy grass one. A good grass field is at least equal to a good artificial one.


Are you looking for an argument?

by River, Hell of the Upside Down Sinners, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:34 @ ndroman21

Did I ever make that statement? I am speaking from personal experience. That is it. You disagree. I get it. Apparently you don't get or won't get my explanation. I am sure you have your reasons. ND has had 75+ yrs to get it right. It isn't working. Why not a change? Possibly for the better. The great thing about this is if turf is a miserable failure, which it seems you hope it will be, ND can still switch back to the natural surface. I am good with that if the surface is made consistent game in and game out. Also, your last sentence is a hoot given how you cite studies and stuff. LOL


Anecdotal evidence isn't overly persuasive.

by Joe ⌂ @, North Endzone Goal Line, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 22:07 @ River

[ No text ]


Well, you won me over.

by River, Hell of the Upside Down Sinners, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 16:51 @ Joe

[ No text ]


I'm looking to get correct information out there.

by ndroman21, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:42 @ River
edited by ndroman21, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:51

Your original post said: " Many who complain don't have kids playing sports or never played a sport where the difference meant something to the physical well being of their child."

You imply that people who want grass don't care about the safety of the players, and you support that opinion with your own anecdotal evidence.

Well, I know people who have blown ACLs on FieldTurf. They would probably say something very similar to your statement about grass, given the chance.

This is where larger studies come in, because statistics can quantify those anecdotes, and given a large enough sample size, account for the irregularities of grass playing surfaces. This has been done, and neither surface has proven to be significantly safer. You can find 3 or 4 of them with a simple Google search. They often contradict, and the statistical variation is very small anyway.

I'm not sure why you think that's worthy of laughter.

And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that I want ND's FieldTurf to fail. I'm pretty much ok with the decision. The nostalgist in me is sad, but ND's field definitely needed to be fixed, and I think this is the surest way to fix it.


Well consider it a job well done.

by River, Hell of the Upside Down Sinners, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:52 @ ndroman21

Yet it cuts both ways, doesn't it?

Bottom line, getting people back to your company line or away from the misinformation I apparently am spewing is the fact that NDs grass surface sucks, has sucked for some time, and maybe, just maybe it is time for a change. Simple as that.

It is time for a change. ND is changing. The good news, as I stated, if it doesn't work, they can replace it with grass and hope that it just works.


No argument there. Something needed to be done.

by ndroman21, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:56 @ River

And again, FieldTurf is probably the surest thing they can do. There are other options to keep grass, but there are no guarantees with any of them, and they'd almost certainly cost more.

I was simply rankled by your assertion that people who favor grass are misinformed or uncaring. My intent was certainly not to trivialize your experience, but to point out that there are plenty of those anecdotes on both surfaces.

Have a pleasant Saturday evening.


Crappy grass certainly isn't as safe though

by CK08, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 19:00 @ ndroman21

[ No text ]


This is certainly true. A change needed to be made.

by ndroman21, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:26 @ CK08

And all things considered I really don't have much of a problem with the decision.

I'm just trying to avoid misinformation either way.


I've heard that this new artificial turf can be grown though

by GuinnessBob, The Dark Hedges, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:09 @ Jay

so that'll be great for when the really fast teams come to town.


They'll install extensions...

by Joe (LBbeachrat) @, Los Angeles, CA, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 19:47 @ GuinnessBob

[ No text ]


The outrage

by Eric M, Western New York, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 14:07 @ Jay

Does warm the cockles of my heart.

Now we get to watch the crazies fall in line like a game of Plinko.

1) The Conspiratorial Politicos

The “decision” is what will remain the focal point. After all, a change wasn’t needed it. Excuses needed to be made. Empty placations whispered to us through our televisions tried to convince them. Ah ha! They know better! It’s not the new surface that is evil so much as the process to get there. Incompetence at best, purposely misleading at worst.

2) The Deniers

The new surface will undoubtedly be ugly. That decision is already made. NFL studies from 2003 will be cited about player safety. Comments from current Irish players glossed over or ignored completely. The old surface “wasn’t that bad” and even so REAL FOOTBALL is supposed to be played on crappy conditions.

Keep in mind it’s entirely possible to be a member of both groups. If you are then you’re also very likely to believe that an offense that runs the ball 52% of the time is “pass-happy” and that Brian Kelly is the only head coach in the history of football that would be unhappy with the playing surface.

-Ya boy Jackmerius Tacktheritrix


"The outrage" crowd is just as insufferable

by Rob (Rakes of Mallow), Chicago, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 19:04 @ Eric M

[ No text ]



by Tim, Chicago, IL, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 13:34 @ Rob (Rakes of Mallow)

[ No text ]


let's not get too haughty

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 14:13 @ Eric M

I'm neither a conspiracy theorist nor a denier and yet I much prefer grass, and I think they could have done grass if they really wanted to.


Acknowledging your preference, a couple of questions

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:46 @ Jay

Does the installation of a synthetic surface change your feelings or loyalties to the university?

Did Swarbrick's explanation affect your trust or confidence in his abilities as athletic director or his ability to act in the best interest of the university?

I think there are many plausible and reasonable arguments for and against field turf, but either way ND decided wasn't going to impact my long term view of the program. I don' view grass as that much of a deal breaker when it comes to tradition, even if I slightly preferred a natural surface.


sorry, I missed this post before

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 11:30 @ Domer99

This decision doesn't change my opinion of the administration at all. I think Swarbrick is a pretty thorough and analytical guy and I'm sure they did their due diligence as he claims. Moreover I think the decision process has been pretty transparent over the last year (if you're paying attention), and both Swarbrick and Kelly have been open with their thoughts. I don't smell any hidden agendas. Kelly, for his part, has been entirely open about his preference for field turf all along. And Swarbrick has been transparent on a) the three alternatives, b) why they struck a hybrid from the list, and c) why they chose field turf in the end. I don't like the choice, but from a project management perspective it all seems straightforward, and the absolute guarantee of a good field with the artificial option is hard to argue against.


I can understand some of the arguments

by Jeremy (WeIsND), Offices of Babip Pecota Vorp & Eckstein, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 14:36 @ Jay

Against the stadium renovations, changes, including the Tron issue.

But the outrage over grass/turf is something I can't understand. The coach wants it, and I haven't seen a single current (or future) player that is upset about the move. Since they're the people who play on the field surface they should have a significant voice in the decision.

Apart from feelings of "ew, turf" I just can't see any reason why the playing surface would affect the crowd's/alums enjoyment of the game.

And I know people are seemingly upset that Swarbrick just can't say "Kelly wants it, the players want it, so we're giving it a try." Since we love to parse seemingly everything that comes out of Kelly/Swarbrick's mouths, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.


You're not outraged

by Eric M, Western New York, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 14:18 @ Jay

[ No text ]

-Ya boy Jackmerius Tacktheritrix


I think the sentiment comes from an honest place

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 14:30 @ Eric M

Not defending anybody threatening to pulverize their diploma in a super collider, of course.


It's hard to tell at this point though, right?

by HullieAndMikes, Joe Turner's bookcase, ALHS, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 14:52 @ Jay

The outrage machine has been so overheated and continuous for so long I'm not sure how to judge anybody's motives at this point. I long ago passed amusement and am now just exhausted by it. Fandom doesn't have to be so self-flagellating (unless that's become the point of it).


Going back to a point discussed earlier this week

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 19:45 @ HullieAndMikes

You know how I can tell ND doesn't have many bagmen? Because it would require some secrecy without a bunch of public congratulatory appreciation.

Notre Dame has the most self important and entitled fan base (drink!) in the nation that it'd be damn near impossible to adhere to the standards required of successful bagmen.


It isn't helpful to paint with just as broad a brush...

by Mobster, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:11 @ HullieAndMikes

as those you would damn. It's equally unhelpful to completely dismiss arguments against field turf as the wailings of a conspiracy theorist.

I believe that Kelly prefers field turf for the reasons he stated in his post game press conference. It's essentially a guaranteed consistent surface. I also think that if ND wanted, they could have a perfectly good grass field in the stadium. Combine this with the fact that ND has NEVER been shy about spending money leads me to believe that the rationale that a grass surface is cost prohibitive is a big stinky pile of already digested baloney. Frankly I think that opinion is entirely reasonable and rational.

The decision is made and we'll all get over it, but I hope long term they figure out a way to get grass back in. Football is meant to be played on grass not carpet IMO.


Except this really isn't an argument against grass

by Domer99, John Wesley Powell's Expedition Island, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 17:41 @ Mobster

It's become a referendum against the administration and the university. This was just a vehicle to get to that issue more quickly. Seriously, go read the discussion. There's no real points being made about the decision making process, or the pros and cons of each option.

It's nearly all about ND lying to its fan base. Somehow it's become fait accompli that the university never really vetted any other option outside of field turf.

Look, I get being mad about the decision. But the conclusions people have drawn about installing field turf have bordered on outrageously extreme. And it convinces me more that no rationale Swarbrick could have provided would have been suitable.


I'm not those people but I will admit...

by Mobster, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:20 @ Domer99

that I think the rationale Jack strutted out at the B&G game was horseshit. Did we need a new playing surface? Obviously. Did we consider all options? Probably. Do I believe for a second that the primary factors prohibiting grass are 1) cost and 2) the fact we need to have commencement on the surface? Not for a second.

I think that Jack is doing what he thinks is probably best but I believe the primary factor involved is that Kelly prefers to play on turf. That's fine. I get that. I don't agree with it, but I get it. I think the visceral reaction that most have had is that the rationale trotted out for "why turf?" ring really hollow.


Here's what Swarbrick said

by Eric M, Western New York, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 21:20 @ Mobster

In his archived interview after the game:

*3-year process
*Disprove the hypothesis (that we can keep grass)
*Reliable surface
*Practice & play on same surface
*More work in the stadium on Friday
*Kelly's opinion didn't have much weight in the process
*Many proposals without Kelly being involved
*Doesn't expect any major changes to design
*Making stadium more of a university asset
*Music opportunity not there like it was in the past
*Outdoor hockey, special events could be possibilities
*Project starts after Commencement, done by Aug. 15th

If Kelly was the main driver for this why did we wait four years to make a decision? I could understand it a little more if this happened in February 2010.

The grass was a problem long before Kelly showed up. There are hundreds of other coaches who could have taken over, wanted field turf, and made it immediately known. That doesn't mean any of those coach's, including Kelly, would have been the driving force behind a change.

Furthermore, here's Swarbrick's exact quote from his on-field interview with Alex Flanagan:

The principal change was with Commencement in the Stadium. Two out of the past 3 years after Commencement the field has been gone. And we've been chasing it all year.

Perhaps because the announcement caught many by surprise and it was just a sound bite but he's not saying literally we need field turf so that we can hold Commencement in the stadium.

He's saying with a natural grass field the Commencement activities kill the field and they're working from behind to try and grow it back. The '12 Stanford game put a hurting on the field, winter came, Commencement came in May, and we've been unable to get the field back in top shape ever since.

Swarbrick said two things in his on-field interview (Commencement & cost) that you misinterpreted or didn't fully understand. So it's understandable if you thought it ringed hollow.

-Ya boy Jackmerius Tacktheritrix


Do you really believe this?

by Eric M, Western New York, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:53 @ Mobster

I also think that if ND wanted, they could have a perfectly good grass field in the stadium.

Let's start this discussion by mentioning two things:

1) The natural grass in the Stadium has never been that nice. Ever. There are games going back decades that were embarrassing for field conditions. Plenty of older folks who attest to the terrible conditions in the 50's and 60's. The problems may have been exacerbated since the 90's but it was never a field of dreams before that.

2) From your perspective I'm guessing the bar for 'perfectly good grass' is really low.

I'm not speaking for you, but I think that the condition of the field in terms of maintaining the grass really doesn't matter all that much for people who still want the natural stuff in the stadium. In other words, of course Swarbrick & Co. could have spent the money on the re-drainage and given us a 'pretty good' grass field. We'd get some nice games in September and progressively less so as the season worn on but any bad games can be chalked up to the weather, that's the way it goes, etc. etc.

I don't think the question we should be asking if whether Notre Dame wanted to put the effort/money into a grass field, it's whether Notre Dame wanted to put the effort/money into trying another grass field that realistically has a pretty good shot of not improving what we've seen in the past.

I'd also ask at what point the cost would be too great? Let's say they were going to spend $8 million to fix the natural grass after graduation. Putting aside that the long winter and 3 month timeline would have been working up hill and further reducing the odds of the surface taking root, if it didn't improve during the season would it then be enough evidence to make the switch to field turf?

Should we then spend $20 million to try the Green Bay system that can't guarantee results either? At what point should it stop?

-Ya boy Jackmerius Tacktheritrix


You obviously missed the "anybody's motives" in there

by HullieAndMikes, Joe Turner's bookcase, ALHS, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:38 @ Mobster

Be they of the traditionalist or chaos muppet variety. My own personal preference has nothing to do with it (I am largely anti-turf by the way, but find this to have been a reasonable process to an intractable issue).


high cost isn't the rationale

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:20 @ Mobster

[ No text ]


Maybe I need to rewatch what Jack said...

by Mobster, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:25 @ Jay

but I could have sworn the first thing out of his mouth was that a natural grass solution was too expensive.


Jack mentioned cost as a strike against Green Bay system

by San Pedro, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 16:32 @ Mobster

Given that it was the first thing he said when asked about it, I interpreted that as a critical, if not deciding factor.

But as jay pointed out earlier, Swarbrick stated months ago that there was no real cost difference between field turf and redoing the traditional grass system


Then why mention cost at all?

by Mobster, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 20:23 @ San Pedro

the question was in regards to why turf? If the costs were negligible, then it wouldn't have been a deciding factor at all. Why mention it?


The cost may be comparable but only one guarantees results

by scriptcomesfirst @, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 17:56 @ San Pedro

[ No text ]


I think that's it.

by Bill, Southern California, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 07:36 @ scriptcomesfirst

People want to clamor for Green Bay's field, but ignore the disaster that was Heinz Field's experience with the Desso Grassmaster system. Lincoln Financial Field has been better with it's Grassmaster surface, but from what I've read, they have similar problems to what we experience now.


Certainty is probably strongest case for Field Turf.

by San Pedro, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 06:52 @ scriptcomesfirst

I think it was worth the risk to try a new grass system, but I understand if others don't feel the same way.


Are you basing that on anything?

by Jim (fisherj08) @, A Samoan kid's laptop, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 14:15 @ Jay

Or just a hunch?

It seems that with the grass turf, there's a lot of assumptions being made on both sides of the aisle.


going by what Swarbrick said a few months ago

by Jay ⌂, San Diego, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 14:23 @ Jim (fisherj08)
edited by Jay, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 14:33

What he said: to do grass they would have to dig way down, strip out all the soil, redo the drainage entirely, rebuild it, and then let the roots grow in over a year or so. But he never said it was impossible; in fact it was a viable alternative. (Cost was explicitly mentioned as a nonfactor as well -- the cost to put in a turf field vs a whole new grass field was "a wash" IIRC).

My assumption: that even with rebuilding it from the feet up, a good grass field was not a guaranteed outcome, and that swayed things towards turf in the end. I still think they should have tried it.


And still they wouldn't know whether it would be improved

by scriptcomesfirst @, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 15:41 @ Jay

Until it is played upon. The Green Bay system, for instance, has been installed in places where it failed miserably.


While I agree with the point about the unknown...

by ndroman21, Saturday, April 12, 2014, 18:12 @ scriptcomesfirst

...I think the DD Grassmaster system would have had a very good chance of succeeding.

The Fields that failed, (Heinz and Lincoln Financial, I believe). Saw much more use than ND stadium. The two installations that have been nearly flawless, Green Bay and Denver, saw less than half the use, which is still another third more than ND.


Your point runs counter to a stated goal of the admin

by PAK, Sunday, April 13, 2014, 16:15 @ ndroman21

Namely, use the stadium more often.

384985 Postings in 33394 Threads, 205 registered users, 59 users online (4 registered, 55 guests)
powered by my little forum