Finally installing field turf which eliminates challenges of them growing out and watering down the field to slow down faster players such as Denard.
Notre Dame Installing Field Turf
The Hell with Notre Dame!
I wonder if they are going to wait until the contractor gets there and then hand deliver the notice they cancelled the contract?
Ok, in all seriousness, should we notify them that the little black pellets are rubber and not chicken feed?
A Notre Dame Tradition since 2014.
It doesn't really matter.
step into my office. You ever run the wildcat before, son?
"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. " - Jack Swarbrick
Yeah, I often find that it is difficult to produce a good playing surface for Commencement. The speakers always seem to use their opening remarks to complain about the divots and generally marshy condition of the field.
Never liked Field Turf. Always preferred grass. Getting tackled on turf is the worst.
I don't think it's the worst. It's better than AstroTurf, concrete, and hardwood.
I originally wrote "is awful." Then I felt like hyperbolizing.
I preferred playing on FieldTurf. But I was hardly ever on the ground as an OL
I get it, especially in cold weather climaets, but I don't like the impact I beleive it has on lower body injury rates. I've seen research on both sides of the fence, with some even claiming field turf may be safer. But, the data seems far from conclusive on either side of the argument and when that happens natural seems logically better. If the human body was designed to perform on an artificial surface it probably wouldn't be called artificial.
You are trying to logically dismiss something with no conclusive evidence against it? Seems illogical to me.
I would say wait and see until conclusive evidence presents itself. However you are welcome to have an opine on which you prefer.
Even if there's any doubt, which there is plenty of research to suggest there may be higher injury rates on artificial surfaces, why not wait until you know it's safe before switching?
You say there are arguments on both sides of the fence and even some studies that say field turf is safer, then say that no one should use it? How does that make any sense? I think the surface that is the most dangerous is WET natural turf, which is FAR more dangerous than field turf ever is IMO. Players losing their footing when clumps of grass tear out of the ground or by losing their footing most likely cause more injuries than field turf ever do. Field turf is not like the old astro-turf, which was nastier than hell and caused tons of injuries.
Losing footing is not the problem, in fact it's the solution. That is why the newer turf has what's called "infill" which allows less shoe-to-turf contact so that you can still slip. When athletes lose footing they generally fall down or slip, which prevents the injury. The problem is when the foot stays planted due to excessive mechanical tracking and the body's momentum continues above forces the soft tissue can handle. In particular it's rotational tracking on synthetic turf that is the most dangerous for knee and ankle injuries, the two most common lower body injuries in football.
And, there is plenty of research to suggest artificial turf causes an increased risk. Historically, clinical studies have indicated that higher injury rates occur on artificial turf than on natural surfaces. This conclusion is backed by biomechanical data that suggest that torque and strain may be greater on artificial surfaces than on natural grass. Recent data on professional athletes suggest that elite athletes may sustain injuries at increased rates on the newer surfaces. However, a main problem with injury reports is they rarely report field conditions, field maintneance, etc. So, it's still a murky situation. But, there is plenty of evidence to suggest not switching at this time.
Making fat jokes when we have Hoke as our head cheerleader..... May be done on here for today
Plus our fat guy isn't nearly as fat as theirs was.
Head cheerleader. How clever...on a 3rd grade level.
Doesn't have a front butt.
Why did these guys feel it was a good idea to write a book after one good...nevermind. I already know the answer.
Just in time for Freddy to break some ankles for the last game in the series.
Once we play them, they can install a moat with crocodiles for all I care.
I'd like to kick their butts well for a good bye present and they can rot afterwards.
I would also never let ND have a shot at the playoffs unless they play a conference championship game.
Why? I don't get what the big deal is about the conference thing.
I still don't understand why the necessity. Its not my fault that you all swallowed the SEC koolaid and decided to have conference championships. Winning a conference on record I can definitely get behind. But NDs schedule year in and year out is always one of the toughest in the country. Being 12-0 or 11-1 or even 10-2 with that schedule should be commended. Hell most conferences don't play schedules like ND does.
"I would also never let ND have a shot at the playoffs unless they play a conference championship game."
Does that rule also apply to the Big XII (Texas, Oklahoma)?
To me your rule doesn't really make sense. As I see it winning a conference championship is secondary to playing a quality schedule. With conference expansion 1/2 the teams in conferences don't even meet. This has led to situations where teams have won championships without playing the best teams in their conference. Why should we reward a team who played a weak schedule but won their conference championship game.
I think strength of schedule is the best way to pick playoff teams.
Given similar records I just couldn't vote a team with the 42nd rated schedule into a playoff ahead of a team with a top 10 SOS simply because they won their championship game (where they may have beaten a team with a 8-5 record).
He would sell the field to a donor who believes the grass is Tradition... Well, in that case he should have sold the hs level scoreboard too!
It is about time those losers get field turf.
Aren't there studies about ACL injuries being more likely on field turf than on grass.
Some studies have shown more ACL injuries from field turf than grass. HOWEVER I believe almost all of the extra injuries have come from non-contact injuries, indicating that there was too much grip between the player and the surface, which means that it might be a problem with te player wearing a shoe that grabs into the surface too deeply.
They really need to so something with that entire facility. I was there 2 away games ago, that staduim sucks, and the available concessions wouldn't keep a bird alive. With all the money they purport to have you'd think they could cough up a new stadium. As for the field turf, definitely needed...
They defend their shitty facilities by calling it "tradition".
It's Notre Dame. Only they would let a midget like Rudy play.
their chickens graze?
Yes, M will play on ND"s artificial turf this fall. But really, what ND does or does not do should foreverafter be a matter of complete and total indifference. They won't play M, they're in a totally different conference hookup, and they've become about as relevant to M athletics as, say, Wake Forest. Good riddance.
"The NFL’s Injury and Safety Panel presented a study today finding that anterior cruciate ligament injuries happened 88 percent more often in games played on FieldTurf than in games played on grass, the Associated Press is reporting."
I believe that eventually research will clearly indicate that natural grass is safer, but whether that will lead to a return of the real stuff is a different question.