New Playing Surface: Grass or Turf?

Submitted by mgoviking5 on

During the Cincinnati broadcast, Brock Huard mentioned the poor quality of the field turf at the stadium and that it would be replaced after the season. My question is, what are the chances that the program transitions back to grass for the first time since 2002? Harbaugh's teams at San Diego, Stanford, and San Francisco all used natural grass, and while it's certainly more difficult to maintain such a surface in Ann Arbor, I think it is pretty clear that there are some injury benefits to playing on a natural surface. Personally, I'd love to see a well maintained natural grass surface, but I don't see it happening given the increase in outside events being held at the stadium.

Njia

September 18th, 2017 at 10:25 AM ^

The house I owned at the time was on a well - no available municipal water supply (or sewer) into our neighborhood. The house we have now is on city water, but we also live well above the water table. Our sump is so dry that the pump only runs a few times in the spring, when the ground is very wet.

Rufus X

September 18th, 2017 at 9:45 AM ^

The ONLY benefit to turf is a supposed "savings" on maintenance costs which is a dubious claim that has actual owners and maintenance people split down the middle. Some say it saved them $$ but most agree that the capital costs of replacement every 15 years make it a wash financiall (at best) or a colossal loser financially (at worst).  Even if true, money is obviously a non-factor for Michgian athletics, so we need to choose the best surface for Michigan Stadium, regardless of cost.  

The argument that we should play on turf because we are faster and more athletic is one fo the dumbest and most persistent myths in football. Turf may play faster, but it plays faster for both sides.  THe argument that turf is "stickier" and allows for better cuts by great skilled players, if true, is also that cause of injuries due to the surface's lack of forgiveness.  News flash - injuries are bad.

The epic failure in the 90s of the 'field turf" system was due to the technology not being ready for cold climates.  Lambeau Field has a remarkable system that was installed for cold-weather grass growing that has been proven very effective, which includes:

  • Ripping out the grass every year and replanting new grass when the frost breaks.
  • Under-field hydronic heating system.
  • Placing a tent over the grass during the week while growing in the spring and during the late fall months to keep heat in.
  • Placing LED lighting system over the grass and under the tents to simulate sunlight during the late fall when the sun sets early.
  • specialized control system to coordinate all of it.

The lambeau field system is proven in a harsher environment and is used into January rather than late November.  It's a no-brainer. Grass all the way.

 

Bando Calrissian

September 18th, 2017 at 10:20 AM ^

How much do you know about turf? Drainage issues for carpeting are much different than drainage issues for a living thing that needs roots to grow and maintain themselves under the surface. The old surface just clumped up in huge divots every time a player made a cut--the roots weren't deep enough, and the field couldn't maintain itself.

Throwing money at it, as you've proposed above, is futile. Growing grass in that stadium as it is today is futile. Go with what works--and FieldTurf works, as much as a great natural surface would look.

Rufus X

September 18th, 2017 at 10:24 AM ^

How much do you know about underground construction and dewatering? Because that is what matters.

Large facilties with very large underground areas are installed all over the world - Airports, power plants, factories, mining, hospitals, water treatement plants - with a need for cellar areas with highly valueable equipment in them.  They are installed regardless of water table.  Dewatering pumps can be sized for virutally any situation.  The fact that our current field is dry enough to play football on means we can have pumps to do the job - they may be sized larger, but not by much.

If we can keep computer systems or gas turbines worth millions of dollars dry in areas under the water table, which we do all the time, I think we can keep 18 inches of grass roots dry enough to grow.  

 

 

Rufus X

September 18th, 2017 at 10:37 AM ^

You obviously know nothing about how pumps and underground drainage work. I obviously don't know why the last system failed, and neither do you. My guess is that the engineer who designed it screwed up and the PR nightmare that resulted caused the decision makers to go to the undoubtedly safer option of an artifical surface.  

I can tell you this with absolute certainty - water table is a very solvable engineering problem in this application. Period. If you want to debate that point, then you have zero concept of how these things actually work.

Bando Calrissian

September 18th, 2017 at 10:39 AM ^

"Stay in your lane"

Laughable from a guy whose entire take is "they should be able to fix this!" "Just throw money at it--there's no reason not to!" "I have a strong opinion based on no facts or context whatsover that growing grass in a difficult environment shouldn't be difficult, even if 10 years of experience during a time with actual technology shows that it is."

JamieH

September 18th, 2017 at 10:30 AM ^

You don't think they had a ton of these fancy "pump" things back when they installed the last grass field?  The last grass field was put in in the 1990's not the 1890's.   The problem was most definitely not a lack of pumps.

Rufus X

September 18th, 2017 at 10:52 AM ^

So your case is based on a 2009 news article that discussed a stormwater drainage issue (not a water table issue, btw)?

And in 2009 they spent  $3 million dollars to fix the issue.  And we can assume it corrected the problem, or else there would be a more recent article saying it failed.   Thanks for making my argument for me...

big john lives on 67

September 18th, 2017 at 10:24 AM ^

It is very true that the turf makes both teams faster. The issue is that a sloppy, patchy grass field with no traction significantly reduces a speed and advantage and makes a slower, more plodding team more competitive. That is not myth. We saw it play out with the several grass disasters of the recent past.

Bando Calrissian

September 18th, 2017 at 10:18 AM ^

The Michigan Daily on the field issues when the announcement was made to move to FieldTurf during the 2002 season:

https://www.michigandaily.com/content/artificial-turf-will-replace-stad…

"The current Prescription Athletic Turf was placed in Michigan Stadium in 1991, and last re-sodded in the spring of 1999. But associate athletic Director Mike Stevenson said it has gotten progressively worse this season. He said due to heavy rain and hot weather, the roots for the turf have shortened from six inches in August to three-quarters of an inch deep. Stevenson said Michigan has utilized the expertise of agronomist experts from Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State over the past few years, and has come to the conclusion that a change is needed.

"You have to have a proper field to play on," Martin said. "Players can slip or get injured, and that shouldn't happen."

Carr, one of the loudest critics of the grass, said that it wasn't that the Michigan maintenance workers or agronomists weren't doing their job, it's just that the stadium's placement close to the water level makes it much more difficult to grow grass effectively."

""There are many new, innovative surfaces on the market today and our job will be to work with Lloyd to make sure we have the surface we feel is best for our student-athletes," Stevenson said. "Let's face it, we tried to make natural turf work, and we couldn't do it.""

There are some things you can't overcome with technology.

 

Late Bluemer

September 18th, 2017 at 11:07 AM ^

 All of those black rubber pellets flying around, the glare off of the plastic surface on TV (the Texas-Maryland game earlieir this year was really bad.).  At least they are better today than the green carpeting that Michigan and everyone else laid down in the 1970s.

Give me the old time NFL / Lions games from the 50s and 60s when there wasn't a blade of grass on the field and the players were caked in mud by the end of the game.  That was real football!

Icehole Woody

September 18th, 2017 at 10:28 AM ^

It's hard to grow grass down in a hole in the ground.  Stick with field turf.

You want to talk about turf injuries?  I have a piece of "Canham's carpet" that was in the stadium prior to Michigan going to grass.  It has a texture very similiar to a Scotch scrub pad.

JamieH

September 18th, 2017 at 10:32 AM ^

There is a less than 0% chance they are going to put a grass field in Michigan Stadium.  The last one the put in was a disaster and an embarassment to Michigan Football.  As a few people have stated, the water tabel level makes it nearly imipossible to get the roots to grow deep enough and by mid-season the grass just starts coming up in chunks.  You end up with Chris Perry running around like a ballerina afraid to ever make a cut because he knows he has less traction than he would running on a frozen lake.  

I guarantee the field will be synthetic in some form.  It is just a matter of which brand of synthetic and how it is decorated.  

JamieH

September 18th, 2017 at 10:45 AM ^

I should amend my statement.   I read a post above about the GreenTech ITM Modular Turf system where they put in trays of sod over cement (in place at Virginia Tech and MSU) and I suppose that MIGHT work in Michigan Stadium.   So I have to raise my prediction from lower than 0% to 1%.  I highly highly doutbt they would go with that approach, but it isn't completely impossible.  

Late Bluemer

September 18th, 2017 at 10:48 AM ^

Great memories of Woodson, Howard, et al playing w/ dirtly uniforms on the grass field for the 10 to 15 years that we had it. 

I don't buy the whole water table problem schtick. If we can put a man on the moon we can figure out a way to make grass work with the water table.

Like the old adage says "if a cow can't eat it, we shouldn't be playing on it".

stephenrjking

September 18th, 2017 at 10:52 AM ^

It seems like people are arguing past each other here. A couple things: Michigan installed prescription athletic turf (same stuff used at Purdue, Iowa, and OSU among others at the time) in 1991, but in the mid 90s hired a new field management guy who followed the Penn State model and abandoned the PAT system and tried to manage a conventional grass field. My recollection is that this change is when things got really bad, but given that PAT has been abandoned elsewhere I assume it had issues that I simply don't recall. There are now new grass systems that may properly deal with the water table problem. Those systems are fantastically resource intensive (especially the Green Bay system Rufus describes, a system that still might not fix water table issues) and are probably not enough of an improvement in quality to be worthwhile. Sadly. Grass looks good. But bad grass doesn't.

Goggles Paisano

September 18th, 2017 at 10:55 AM ^

I think baseball and football should always be played outdoors on grass.  I like when players get dirty, I like the look of natural grass, and I like the elements that can be introduced into the game.  It is really fun watching a rainy or snowy game on grass.  

Late Bluemer

September 18th, 2017 at 1:39 PM ^

Gotta hand it to them.  Our plastic field just isn't visually appealing on TV or in person.  I especially don't like the faux "mowed lawn" effect they are going for w/ the rotating light and dark green alternating every five yards.  (That being said, ND's looks worse w/ the field being a horrid shade of green). 

sterling1213

September 18th, 2017 at 1:25 PM ^

It's strange to me that so many here  are concerned about the aesthetics of the field.  I get the endzone markings or the block M at the 50 comments as they do not affect important things, such as performance. Aesthetics should be the very last concern about the turf (acknowledging that they are never going to install a non green field).  

brad

September 18th, 2017 at 2:08 PM ^

The only reason to put a grass field back in Michigan Stadium is to get Ohio State back for their abomination of a field in the 2006 game.

Otherwise, hopefully the chance is zero. It's a visual embarrassment, and it limits the athletes because they're slipping all the time.