field turf
The NFL panel on injury and safety just came out with a report that serious ankle and knee injuries occur more often on FieldTurf than grass. Not sure if this will have any impact on the way schools look at keeping or installing FieldTurf. Also with M being a school that has FieldTurf it is something to keep an eye on. How do you think this will affect recruiting. I know that if I was a high level recruit with eyes on the NFL I would have to consider if playing on a surface that has a much higher percentage of injuries is a good choice for my future. As someone who wishes we would have kept natural grass, I wonder if this will force the athletic department to take another look at the playing surface.
NFL Panel Finds Some Injuries More Common on Turf
I'd be curious to see the same data for the old astroTurf as well as natural surface that is a mudpit.
The general consensus at the time UofM moved to FieldTurf was that it was way better than astroturf. And, let's remember how bad UofM's natural surface was. It's one thing to have a pristine natural surface in the NFL...it's another thing to have a frozen, muddy horrible natural surface that doesn't drain.
the way i see it, its a 50% chance. it either happens or it doesnt. its not like players go out there before the game and think "oh great. FieldTurf. i have an approximate 88% chance of blowing up my knee." football is a physical sport where injury is likely to occur. the players know that and they know the risk involved. besides most injuries are from player contact. a DL gets chop blocked or OL gets his leg rolled up on from behind.
i suppose it wouldnt affect recruiting to much. i would think most high school football players arent to worried about the type of field they will play on more than the team they would play for.
If it was a 50/50 chance then there wouldn't be enough players to field team after a the first few games. Yes football is a physical game and injuries are a part of it but if there are things that can be changed in order to help prevent unnecessary injuries then they should be strongly looked into. Personally, I'd prefer to play on a well kept grass field over FieldTurf any day but maybe that's the inner soccer player in me speaking.
But that's the point, natural fields in cold weather can't be "well kept" no matter how hard you try. You could have someone with a PHD in watering grass and they're not going to keep a natural field from looking like crap come November.
March 12th, 2010 at 10:22 AM ^
I understand the benefits of FT and the reasons behind it. I was just making the point that natural grass should be used if possible.
Your logic in the first couple of sentences makes absolutely no sense.
March 12th, 2010 at 10:27 AM ^
You should spend all of your money on lottery tickets, since each one either wins or it doesn't.
Also, it's not an 88% chance of blowing an ACL. It's an increase of 88%. That means if 1 in 1,000 players blow an ACL on grass, 1.88 in 1,000 blow it on field turf. God, I hope recruits don't share your understanding of probability.
The report is equivocal - note the following comment on the second page:
"FieldTurf president Eric Daliere argues that the panel's methods are faulty and cites research by Montana State professor Michael Meyers that has been published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine. Meyers' work, though, has only looked at high school and college football, and not the NFL. FieldTurf paid for Meyers' recent study that found lower overall injury rates for college games played on the surface."
Of course, since FieldTurf provided the financing, one must raise the scepter of bias. You would think the NCAA would run independent studies, but of course, they are too busy reviewing the impact of a few extra minutes of stretching exercises.
March 12th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^
of the Freep sits around on his throne, scepter of bias at his side.
That was not the problem with Michigan's natural grass—it was put in using a system that emphasized drainage. The problem was that the grass was coming up in huge chunks.
I went down onto the field at the stadium one day when they were in the process of ripping out the grass & dirt prior to installing the field turf. Along the sidelines the grass and soil was still in place, and it had been sliced vertically during removal of the adjacent stuff so that I could see a clear section of the composition of the system from top to bottom. It was obvious to me why the grass had been coming out in the first place: there was just a very thin layer of soil under the grass, but with several inches of sand under that. There was simply nothing for the grass's root system to anchor to—sand is about the worst stuff for that. The idiots who put the natural stuff in to begin with simply didn't use enough real dirt.
I was around during the early days of the old fake grass fields, and the move away from them was due to the accumulated evidence that artificial turf was statistically more dangerous to knees and ankles. I predict that in another 10-15 years we'll go through another cycle of replacing FieldTurf with real grass in college stadiums across the country.
I have no problem with frozen muddy natural surfaces for football. That's the way it's supposed to be played.
We hired some of the finest turf-management people we could find during the 1990s. If that's the way they saw fit to grow the grass, that was probably the best way. I highly doubt there was some obvious solution they overlooked.
Michigan Stadium just isn't a very suitable place in which to grow grass. It happens to be located in a part of town where the water table is close to the surface, and the field is below ground-level to boot. (And in 1992, it was lowered an additional three feet to improve sightlines, bringing the water table even closer.) Throw in the cold late-fall weather that causes grass to stop growing and it's a recipe for a mess.
you're exactly right... the water table was the biggest problem for the grass... IIRC the normal length of roots for grass is 6 to 8 inches and when the first frost hits it kills off half of the the root lenght, so there was nothing there to hold the grass in place... so with the water table that close to the the field it was never going to work...
March 12th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
I would take Field Turf any day of the week in the north. Playing on grass field is great, but not so much when it's the end of the season and 8 games have already been played on the field. Field Turf holds up. You may not have a problem with frozen natural muddy surfaces, but its not a lot of fun when you sink 2 inches into the ground, try to explode out of a stance, etc.
We rushed the field after beating OSU, tieing (I can't remember who) for the Big Ten Championship and clinching the Rose Bowl bid back in 1986. (Ah, beating OSU, going to the Rose Bowl .......)
The astroturf was fine, it was what felt like concrete beneath it that caused the injuries. The field literally felt like concrete with a thin layer of that plastic mat they use at the driving range over the top of it. I can't imagine being slammed to it on a regular basis.
Anybody been on the field turf field? What's it like?
Hey mud, that was a competitive advantage for the Redskins at RFK. Seems to me grass coming up was a competitive advantage for OSU in 2006 as well.
Anyway, studies can be skewed in either direction. Do we get more ankle and knee injuries than OSU?
My older brother played Div 1-A and luckily never suffered a major joint injury, but he suffered plenty of AstroTurf rug burns, some fairly serious.
So MGoShoe: what ship is that? And did you go through the NROTC program? (I would have been two classes ahead of you, and was on Yorktown from 87-91.)
Yes. We probably know each other than.
Normandy (CG 60): second DIVO tour (FCO) '92-'94.
The field turf surfaces are pretty sweet. You get a little extra bounce to your step and when you take your shoes off, you magically have some little black rubber chunks inside. The kids I've coached love playing on field turf.
As to safety, both of my ACL tears were on natural grass, and I've never been hurt on field turf. Then again, that probably isn't statistically significant.
If you rushed the field, it wasn't against OSU. That was the year Harbaugh "guaranteed" a win over Ohio State, after we'd lost to Minnesota the previous week. The Game was played in Columbus that year.
As I recall, we rushed the field after the Iowa victory. We hadn't clinched anything yet, but at the time, we all pretty much despised the Hawkeyes. Mike Gillette kicked the winning FG as time expired, and the stadium went nuts. I remember calling my parents after the win and practically begging for a ticket to Pasadena.
Well you're three years younger than me then. Beware, I guess the memory starts to go in the next year or two.
So I finally found the link to Bently: http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbteam/1986fbt.htm
The last team we played at home was Minnesota. But we lost to them. We tore Illinois apart.
Maybe it was 1985: http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/fbteam/1985fbt.htm
What I remember from the field rush though was congratulating Messner as he ran off the field, and how beat up and stickered his helmet was. (Now I am thinking it was '85, because Mallory was there too.) I also remember the goal posts coming down, and being broken into pieces, how crazed the students taking down the posts were, and thinking this is nuts. The north goal post came down for certain. Several people were nearly hit by it.
Ah well, so we were 2nd place in the Big Ten, and went to the Fiesta Bowl. We did win the Fiesta Bowl however, beating Nebraska.
Flag football championships were in Oosterban the past few years, and they have the same field turf there that they do on the stadium. It's great. Much better than the grass fields at Mitchell, and in general, much easier to run and cut on. In terms of falling on it, i got a little more rugburn than i would on grass, but it was a great surface, nicer than most real grass I've ever played on - not that i've played on NFL style real grass, but the field turf in oosterban was real nice.
Flag Football championships were played in Oosterbann at least as far as I can remember in college, and I was a freshman in 1996 (we made the finals but lost). One of the great benefits of Intramural sports.
It was in '86 / '87 as well.
I quarterbacked and middle-linebacked our way to the championship game in Oosterbaan several years ago. Then we played a team with a slot ninja type kid who was playing for at least two other teams (which is illegal). How did I know? We had already beaten another of his teams earlier in the year.
EDIT: After posting this, I realize it sounds kind of cocky. I wasn't responsible for us getting to the championship. We had a super-fast WR/RB who I just handed the ball or tossed a quick screen to, and he was off to the races.
March 12th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^
I had a single ringer / one trick pony. First time it was Dugan Fife at QB who threw jump balls to our 6'5" WR and Jarret Irons playing FS. Second time it was a fast as hell freshman from North Cakalak named "Tre" who we could throw a bubble screen to and he'd take it to the house. Third time it was a co-ed team and we had a female who could play spread option QB like Pat White... she didn't have a huge arm but could complete the 5 yd pass with accuracy and if it was not open, she'd fake an over the line of scrimmage option pitch and take off. Fast enough to get 10-15 yds consistently. Damn wish we had her instead of Sheridan in '08.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
the fieldturf is actually pretty nice, I've been on it at Michigan Stadium and played 4 years of lacrosse and football on it in high school, I always preferred it because it had a consistent surface and it seemed like grass fields always had all types of holes and bumps that twisted ankles all the time. Worst part about fieldturf is the little "grass" pieces and rubber "dirt" type pieces that would get in your shoes and stick to everything...they were a real pain.
But I always thought it was pretty much a perfectly flat, consistent grass surface more than anything else.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
Field turf is a bit springier than grass. It's nice during a drought or when the ground starts to freeze because its still softer than the real earth. It's also a lot smoother than a normal college or HS grass field would probably ever be.
On the flip side, you get pretty nasty burns if you're dragged along/slide along its surface. Normally this was only a problem during rainy games, as you could easily slide 5-10 yards downfield on your stomach.
Edit: I guess the other issue with Field Turf is that in indoor facilities with high usage, there's so much sweat absorbed by the turf that it actually begins to smell bad. If you don't believe me, go inside Oosterban.
How will it affect recruiting? Not at all.
First of all, I doubt recruits will pay much attention to this.
Secondly, I have never heard a kid talk about the playing surface in his recruitment.
Any recruit likely talks about the playing surface is Boise State.
I would imagine most recruits walking out onto the field at Michigan Stadium are thinking this is one of the nicest fields I've ever seen, and then OMG look at the stadium. Or maybe in the opposite order.
studies can be flawed and even biased. I think most would agree that thick, plush grass on a sunny, 65-degree day is hard to beat. Did the study include muddy, near frozen turf? I doubt it. Also, was the data collected from recent history, or from previous decades when players generally weren't quite as large or fast?
Personally, I think this is a tempest in a teapot.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
Even in warm-weather places, we've seen some dreadful grass fields in recent years, with chunks of sod getting ripped out of the ground. The combination of players being bigger and heavier than ever before with teams playing a longer season schedule seems to be lethal for grass fields.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
The NFL really has every motivation to keep their best players healthy and playing football. The study was probably designed pretty well. The league has spent a huge portion of the past decade actively increasing player safety. Even concussions, which are the bane of the NFL's existence right now, are being taken seriously.
I don't this report will even register on the radar of even the fans, let alone recruits. Besides, how many NFL stadiums use the stuff? A lot. Even the Bears who foolishly built an ugly out-door stadium a few years ago are looking at replacing their grass with field turf because they can't keep the grass in good shape.
Does anyone remember the two games played this bowl season, first between Wisconsin and Miami and then PSU against LSU? I don't remember the stadium, but it was a grass field which was horrible and is being replaced by FieldTurf before next year.
If my memory serves me right, a Miami back blew his knee out when he planted to cut and hit mush.
they're going to have to start... everywhere. That stuff is ubiquitous nowadays.
When I was on spring break three years ago, I met the (21 year old?) daughter of the Buffalo-based guy who started field turf. I was smitten almost immediately. She got annoyed because all I was asking about was field turf, and she walked away. I love sports.
Was there gras...
No. No, I can't do it.
I don't see how this would factor into recruiting at all. Even if you opt to not go to a school due to the fact that they have FieldTurf, you will eventually have to play games on turf anyways.
March 12th, 2010 at 10:46 AM ^
There was another study done a while ago by some orthopedists that claimed that the number of serious knee and ankle injuries were the same or slightly increased (increased with no statistical significance), but overall injuries were lowered (statistically significant). They combined data from high schools and measured games missed due to injury pre- and post- field turf installation.
There are obvious flaws in the study, i.e. how many people are playing injured without missing games, etc. However, they did attribute the serious injuries to inexperienced players, something about taking bad angles on defense and trying to do too much on offense with the ball.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
...of the two different systems for those who don't know. Fieldturf is a synthetic turf mat that has sand and granular rubber infilled between the fake grass blades. Similar systems were developed in Japan in the 90s for indoor golf courses... the infill more nearly simulates the feel of grass, and from an injury standpoint the only place where it isn't equal to grass is that a "caught" cleat doesn't have the opportunity to tear out the turf. Realgrass is their major competitor and a very similar system.
http://www.fieldturf.com/how-fieldturf-works/
Astoturf is a low-pile fake grass carpet laid over a resilient base and concrete slab. It's preferred by multiuse and indoor facilities because its low-pile is easier to keep clean, allows the installation of other surfaces over the top, and doesn't have the issues associated with tracking rubber bits off the field. It's considered the faster surface, but this positive, less wallowing feel is directly related to the higher incidence of injury.
http://www.astroturfusa.com/AstroTurf-12.aspx
FieldTurf has become so ubiquitous (particularly at the high school level where facilities management is an issue) I can't image that its presence at the Biggest House would dissuade future recruits. Astroturf (or Omniturf, TartanTurf, NextTurf, Superturf - there's a million similar products), on the other hand, is becoming iconic of facilities with no money in the bank to make upgrades.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:08 PM ^
The field should have been taken out to the woods, shot in the back of the head, and buried in a shallow unmarked grave.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
He injured his knee during practice, not on the game field.
I just thought he was practicing on the game field (thought they did more there before the megaplex was built).