A new spin - Spin Turf or No Spin Turf at Reno H. Sales?

CatfaninGA · Post by **CatfaninGA** » Mon May 03, 2004 11:14 am

I think it would be a wise investment by MSU to go ahead and put in the newest field turf that is very popular all over the country. I have seen it in places such as Wash Griz, The GA Dome, Ole Miss just to name a few.

The biggest advantage of this for MSU would be having to deal with the weather in Montana, one can only imagine the upkeep it takes with the grass growing and watering during the summer, and then when fall and winter hits, the field basically becomes a mess or a frozen tundra.

Yes I know some people will say that football is meant to be played on real grass and the elements, but IMO in the long run this would be a wise investment for MSU, just ask UM.

gfallscat · Post by **gfallscat** » Mon May 03, 2004 11:29 am

i like the green grass at the start of the year..but by the end....it is in somewhat poor shape.
i like the idea of the new truf...a big M with state through it..and bobcats in the end zone...

keep in mind we will have home playoffs games this year and for many to follow!!

canyoncat · Post by **canyoncat** » Mon May 03, 2004 11:54 am

I to would vote for the spinturf. Looks great, and it seems to be safer than the older stuff. Real expensive up front, but in the long run will save money. I think the stuff is supposed to last 7-10 years before it would need to be replaced.

How long would it take to put it in and what is the upfront cost?

GO CATS!

CatfaninGA · Post by **CatfaninGA** » Mon May 03, 2004 12:44 pm

From what I have read/seen it usually takes only a few months to put it in, usually done in the summertime, so that should not be an issue. I guess it's probably too late for this year, but hopefully the folks at MSU have at least given it some thought for next year maybe?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 03, 2004 1:00 pm

Does this fall into the same basket as the rest of the stadium conversations (things we hope the athletic department realizes would be nice to do) in that the presumed premise of the conversation is "If current cash flow concerns were not an issue...."?

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon May 03, 2004 1:10 pm

I think I'm in the minority on this one but will put my vote in for REAL grass. I like the smell of REAL grass and the look. It does get messy during the late winter but that could be a real advantage too when we starting hosting playoff games in the near and present future (THIS YEAR). I guess I am just not a big supporter of the FAKE stuff. Football was meant to be played on grass. I may be old school though.

I would much rather we tackle the south stand problems first before even thinking about putting fake turf down.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 03, 2004 1:15 pm

I tend to agree with Cardiac on this one... if money wasn't an issue, then maybe the fake grass could make my long list (as a surface for a practice field, perhaps), but as is, if a bunch of new cash came available, I would much rather see it go towards completing the stadium.

BelgradeBobcat · Post by **BelgradeBobcat** » Mon May 03, 2004 2:19 pm

If a cow won't eat it, it shouldn't be played on...

Actually, the real quality fake stuff is probably fine, but no cheap versions of the stuff. The Portland State game comes to mind-Civic Stadium has a lower quality version of the new fake grass. The surface was very wet for the MSU game and very slick. Both teams had to sort of tip-toe through the game. It definitely hindered the performance of both teams. Other forms of this stuff heat up to about 150 degrees on the surface on hot days, thus making early September games unbearable. The more expensive stuff apparantly has qualities that prevent the solar panel effect.

It also might be prudent to see how all these new generation fake turfs hold up over a number of years before taking the plunge. I'm not convinced they will retain their quality as long as even the old astroturf-thus becoming a real safety and maintenance nightmare.

But then again-if it helps recruiting...

Bison_Kent · Post by **Bison_Kent** » Mon May 03, 2004 3:23 pm

Not to toot my own horn but I did a column on i-aa.org on the new turfs last month. Check it out:

http://i-aa.org/section_front.asp?arttypeid=740

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Mon May 03, 2004 3:54 pm

Good article, really goes in depth. However, I still like the real thing. Football should be played on grass. The jerseys should be bloody/muddy/grass stained ... that is real football.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Mon May 03, 2004 5:03 pm

bearBAC wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Does this fall into the same basket as the rest of the stadium conversations (things we hope the athletic department realizes would be nice to do) in that the presumed premise of the conversation is "If current cash flow concerns were not an issue...."?
I think it falls into the Griz envy catagory .... If they have it, we need it too!

This coming from a man who was obviously instrumental in getting the SprinTurf installed in Missoula... LOL

If you want my opinion, I like grass. And for all everyone spouts off about how the new turfs prevent injury, that is not exactly true. Nothing prevents injury better than good old grass, if properly maintained. The new turf prevents injuries better compared to old-school turfs. If you want a point of reference, look no further than the number of injuries the friz have suffered since converting their field. True, not many of these were "turf" injuries, but maybe they are just a little more predisposed to injury because of all the time spent on the turf. Who knows? Regardless, I doubt that Travis's dad has a couple million bucks he wants to throw our way so that his boy doesn't get his pants dirty, so I doubt we are going to be installing new turf any time soon. If/when we do, I would like to see us lower the level of the field by about 5-10 feet so that we could bring the stands in a little closer to the field. That might be a good time for that project to take place.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Mon May 03, 2004 5:17 pm

bearBAC wrote:If you want a point of reference, look no further than the number of injuries the friz have suffered since converting their field.

Bozo sense you know? Exactly how many of those injuries accured ON the turf, rather than at practice on grass or at away games on grass?

Not exactly sure what the hell that means, but I'll try to decipher some sort of meaning out of that non-sensical response...

I thought I made it clear that I KNOW that not a lot of those injuries occurred on the turf or were what we deem "turf" injuries (i.e. feet not moving + body in motion = torn ligaments/menisci). I said that maybe playing on the turf throughout the season predisposed your players to suffering injuries. You know, when Baby gets all paranoid and won't practice on the practice field because someone might be spying on him, so he moves over to the stadium and closes the gates. Of course, he hasn't considered that other teams might plot with the U.S. government to send satellites to take pictures of all his super-secret formations. If he did, W-G might soon become a dome! The other explanation is that the griz are a bunch of cry-baby woosies, but I doubt you want to buy that argument!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon May 03, 2004 5:30 pm

Sorry about that tangent, everybody. I think this was a thread about Sprinturf. Let's get back to that....

MSU01 · Post by **MSU01** » Mon May 03, 2004 6:50 pm

I could've sworn when I opened this thread it was about grass and artificial turf, not new buildings and hideously inadequate attempts at putting together a complete sentence...

I say keep the grass unless someone donates money for the specific purpose of buying the turf. In my opinion there are more important things (i.e. pay off the deficit, then do next phase of stadium expansion) than replacing a perfectly good playing surface with a different perfectly good playing surface. Related question... have there been any studies to assess the frequency of injuries on natural grass vs. the artificial grass turfs like at UM, WSU, etc.?

Post by **kmax** » Tue May 04, 2004 9:21 am

I have tried to split out the crap that had taken this topic away from what was actually an interesting topic of discussion. If your interests are more along the lines of what buildings each campus has, how to properly form an English sentence, or coaching comparisons head over to the smack board for the other side of this split.

jagur1 · Post by **jagur1** » Tue May 04, 2004 10:52 am

If Bison kents story is true small schools can't afford not to switch to spin turf. The money saved alone would pay for a stadium upgrade.

ZifCat52 · Post by **ZifCat52** » Tue May 04, 2004 12:49 pm

In the discusion of switching to SprinTurf, the need to switch is a major point. The grass surface at Bobcat Stadium is in good shape and due to the little use it gets throughout the year will likely not need to be replaced, even with more games in the playoffs. The Grizzly field had different circumstances, towards the end of the year, particularly when it rained in Missoula, the field got really sloppy, not a fault of the grounds crew, nature causes lots of problems. Remeber the Cat-Griz game in 1998, the mud bowl. It likely helped the decision to convert to an artificial surface.

The article on the options available today was very good, especially for somone who needs to install a new surface. In MSU's case, without a need to convert, the justification to switch based on the information in the article about the new types of grass goes away and the payback period gets much longer, about 12 years, at which point the artificial surface may have to be replaced again anyway. The decision has a lot to do with use and climate as well as all the injury issues.

I'd prefer we stay with the natural surface.

CARDIAC_CATS · Post by **CARDIAC_CATS** » Tue May 04, 2004 1:07 pm

The mudbowl in 98 was great! Thats a great example. Thats what football is all about and you need a natural field. You never know what your going to get so it makes for great play/story/history line. Why don't you think the Packers have switched to it. They have the money and haven't. They like real football and their history of the frozen tundra.

A new spin - Spin Turf or No Spin Turf at Reno H. Sales?

A new spin - Spin Turf or No Spin Turf at Reno H. Sales?

Install