Saturday May Be Last Irish Game with Natural Grass at Notre Dame Stadium

I am all for anything that will give the team an edge on the field. I do belive that coach Kelly will return the Irish to a top ten team. I do not agree with every call he makes, but I do stand behind him 100%.

Alairish,

I think FieldTurf would give them an edge. Thanks for stopping by again.

I am open to switching to FieldTurf. You can argue both ways – that the grass the Irish are used to helps our WRs and DBs not slip (except Kumara against USC last year) or that the Irish gain a small edge in speed.

Other stadiums where we play that have FieldTurf: The Big House (since 2003), BC’s Alumni Field (since ’09), the New Meadowlands, the Alamodome (SportField Turf).

Natural grass surfaces where we play: the Coliseum, Purdue, Pittsburgh, Stanford, Michigan State stadium, the new Yankee Stadium.

Anyone have the figures on cost to redo the stadium grass between the 07 and 08 seasons?

Not sure I buy that the field turf would generate much advantage unless other teams play offenses where speed is not an asset (really?). That said, they even installed the stuff at my high school and it looks fantastic, feels awesome, and could save a few extra bucks we might be able to use to afford someone like Cam Newton (KIDDING).

I love the traditions but think this is something that could be done with little fanfare and less griping.

What puts field turf over the top for me is the condition of the natual grass field at ND, the last few years. Huge chunks of sod coming up minutes into a game, even early in the season. Not only is it ugly to look at, it has to be dangerous to be slipping on it as players do. If this cannot be addressed with real grass, artificial is the way to go.

Michael,

It’s a small sample size, but I thought ND looked awfully fast this year at BC on the FieldTurf. Particularly, Bennett Jackson had extra zip and the team just looked quicker.

Oder,

I think we have to go with the assumption that ND is usually faster than 85% of the teams it plays at home, if not more than that. With Kelly putting extra emphasis on speed, it should continue to become a bigger advantage for the Irish.

TLNDMA,

Those huge divots are scary. I remember seeing one at a game last year that was the size of a small tire.

I like when they pull baby-sized divots of turf out of their facemasks. That being said, I don’t think Kelly would be advocating fieldturf if it wasn’t going to bring significant advantages. And the people against turf are probably the same people that thought players shouldn’t have training tables.

Hoss,

Good call on the training table comparison. I took that as a sign that Notre Dame is finally starting to turn the wheels of change for the football program.

I’d like to see a breath of fresh air in the form of some changes, training table & FieldTurf being a couple examples, if only to show me that the school is willing to try things out to see if they are worth it. It’s all the more true when the head coach says this is something he wants.

I’m more for having something like the hybrid grass systems like they use in the Denver Broncos stadium. Desso Sports Systems is who did their stadium and I think it’s a great compromise between the two. We could still have our natural grass for the traditionalist and some of the advantages of the turf, like not having huge chunks of grass coming up. It would increase the durability of our field, and we could still let the natural grass grow long for USC (that was a joke). They also used that system for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. I’m not sure I like going to the FieldTurf, but I also don’t like the idea of staying with 100% natural grass either.

Thoughts?

The hyrbid surface seems to be very popular among ND fans. The Desso GrassMaster is the same system Green Bay is using as well.

I wouldn’t be against it, it would definitely be an upgrade. I could be wrong, but I believe installing that type of hybrid surface would entail a complete overhaul of the entire drainage, heating, and all those systems. Expensive I’m sure…we’ll have to see if the school takes that into account.

I’m curious to know how those hyrbid surfaces hold up in rainy weather?

Well, so far the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Philadelphia Eagles and the Green Bay Packers are all also using this system. Plus, both Denver and Green Bay have won awards for having the “best sports fields in USA” in the past with the Dresso system. I think it’s got to be better than what we have, and most people wouldn’t even notice the change.

I’m not familiar with the hybrid systems, but (cost aside) that sounds intriguing. But I’m also open to Field Turf (or its equivalent by another manufacturer). I’ve had three kids grow up playing soccer since the first days that it appeared in the Twin Cities. It’s best suited for a quick, highly-skilled, soccer team that plays with speed and ball movement. I can see where that would carryover to football.

But with that said, I have a few questions. First, what is wrong with the field at ND? Didn’t they just rebuild it a couple years ago? And didn’t they hire the “turf guru” of the NFL to do it and bring in the sod from a special company in Colorado (which also provided the sod for the new Twins outdoor baseball stadium?

I respect everyone’s opinion here. I also respect Coach Kelly. But I need someone to explain to me the “speed” advantage turf provides?
Eric says…
“Others will argue that both teams have to play on the same surface so it shouldn’t really matter, but this argument doesn’t do much for me.

The Irish could play on a concrete parking lot, but at least both teams have to, right? Of course, this viewpoint neglects that Brian Kelly favors FieldTurf and that Notre Dame currently has fast athletes and wants to become even faster."

This argument does a lot for me, a ton actually. I’ve been making this argument (although I do not even think it is arguable) to all the people who think cutting or not cutting grass helped one team or another.

So the theory is that turf makes players faster, and that this is an advantage to fast players.
Lets say Mike Floyd catches a pass and is streaking down the sideline being chased by a defender. Do you really think he has a better chance of scoring on turf than on grass? Really? Is his speed increased more by the turf than the chasing defender’s? I feel dumb even bringing this up.
So obviously that doesn’t make any sense. So maybe the argument is that for all the times when its not a dead sprint, turf helps “fast” players b/c they have more solid footing when cutting/accellerating etc.
Isn’t it more than obvious that turf also gives the opposing teams more solid footing when cutting/accellerating etc….?

The only time a natural field is a real disadvantage to fast players is when its a monsoon that literally prevents the ball from getting into the hands of fast players. Not b/c it slows them down to the speed of their opponent, which is of course silly. I lose to someone faster than me in a race whether its on sand, mud or the moon….every time.

Sorry for the tone of this but it boggles my mind. And I know that this very basic logic is perceivable by everyone…so please please tell me……What am I missing?

I am not the brightest person and often miss the obvious, so I would like an explanation that makes sense about why turf/low grass is an advantage to a “fast” team.

Turf is cheaper (long term) and people like points (from both teams) so advertisers like points so networks like points so schools like points. AKA the primary reason for turf is financial. I don’t think this is necessarily bad.

Also, I like the fact that there is still SOME football played in an environment that might produce a F-in stain on a uniform.

Nolan,

On the surface, the “both teams play on it” argument seems to make sense.

But I would counter that and say that there’s been a lot more slipping on the offensive side of the ball. I’d also disagree that a faster player always wins no matter what the surface. Put Robert Hughes and Cierre Wood on a muddy field and they are effectively the same runners in terms of speed. Put them on FieldTurf and it’s a different story. When you’re on a different surface than power comes into play as much as pure speed.

Back to the offense again. It’s all about attacking. Sure defenders slip too, but half the time there’s another defender to make a stop without it being a huge gain. On offense, Floyd gets the ball on an out pattern and slips and falls, play over.

This goes back to the type of team Kelly is trying to build. He wants players to be able to take a bubble screen, make a split second cut and be gone. Do you disagree that Notre Dame’s strengths over the past 3 or 4 years and at least for a couple more years will continue to be skilled and fast playmakers and that playing on shaggy, slippery home surface is hurting them?

I understand that the opponent comes in and isn’t “familiar” with the surface or is just as uncomfortable with it, but it’s just a dumb thing to have in my opinion. It makes me think back to last year’s Senior Day game against UConn where we had such an unbelievable advantage in skilled players, yet we’re stuck slogging it through on a crappy field against a team that doesn’t have the the players we do yet we’re coming down to their level a little bit with the type of field we have.

That doesn’t mean we lost because of the field, but it’s just an example of how a bad field hurts the Floyd’s and Rudolphs and Riddicks out there against a bunch of 2 and 3 star players, who quite frankly would probably love to play on ND’s field where they know those skilled guys will slip a lot, even if they will too.

I also think there’s an undercurrent of the fan base that doesn’t like this because it’s specifically geared towards speed and these fans want the “we should run over anyone no matter what the field looks like” mentality back.

So, if you’re trying to build a wicked fast team, why would you want to play on ND’s slippery grass? I don’t care what you say, it takes away from our speed more so than the UConns, Syracuses, and Tulsas of the world.

Also, as an ex-hockey player who grew up utilizing speed and playing against much bigger Canadians, I can say that it was always to my team’s benefit if we played on smoother and better ice. If we played on some choppy and slushy ice somewhere in the hinterlands of Ontario, it took away from our game as quick-puck moving speedsters and played right into the hands of the Canadians.

So, we both had to play on the slushy ice, but it hurt our fast teams much more because we were built around moving the puck, skating fast and not so much banging in the corners, dumping the puck in, etc.

I think we’re seeing a lot of the same things with ND where in a typical year, the Irish will have more speed than 5 out of 6 of the opponents inside the stadium. Speed is going to be a big strength and has been for years at wide receiver and other skilled positions, play to those strengths.

It’s also about just playing a nice surface too…which Notre Dame has not been doing.

If our grounds crew is incapable of maintaining an acceptable natural surface, we need to go to an artificial surface. My only concern is injuries. I would favor one of the hybrid surfaces, as I hear that they are better for injuries. As an alum, I have no qualms with switching to an artificial surface. Playing on a crap field is not a tradition at ND. I’m sick of seeing our players fall all over because chunks of the field are coming up.

USC, Miami, and all the SEC have great speed and have thrived playing on grass. Oregon has always had the fake stuff because of the rain, not for a competitive advantage. Whatever the surface is, it’s the same for both teams, the better team wins. If practice is an issue, get a grass practice field. If the grass isn’t holding up well, try a different type. Money shouldn’t be an object for Notre Dame. Field turf looks good the first few years, then starts looking like the green carpet of 70’s. No picking the blades of grass from the facemask, no clouds of dust with field turf. Notre Dame has never gone for the green carpet and never should. NOTRE DAME PLAYS ON GOD’S GREEN EARTH! End of story.
I

i have never liked turf!it causes more injuries and takes away from the game.to those of you who think that this would give the irish an edge ask yourself these questions:Does both teams play on the same turf during a game?Would it make the opponent faster also? the answers to both questions are yes thus making the theory that this would give the irish a competitive edge rediculous.

Pete,

I talked to God…he said Notre Dame should switch to FieldTurf. The story has not ended.

Tim,

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion you merely skimmed the article?

Eric…..I get your opinion, and I fully understand exactly what you mean. I know “why” you and others think field turf and low-cut grass etc. all help fast teams. I’ve been having this argument for a long time. I just flat out don’t agree.
 I think Cierre Wood would kill Robert Hughes in the mud. The kinesthetic science of it notwithstanding, from personal experience, having played in every kind of field and weather imaginable, kids faster than me were always faster than me and kids slower slower.

Good point about only the guy with the ball needing to slip for the play to die v.s. there being 10 other defenders, but what about the only needing one corner to slip for a big first down or td?

Hockey is interesting b/c you travel without moving (gliding I guess it would be called) so power would be more important I would think.

Anyway, I think we have reached the “wheel spinning” portion of this blog post.

What we need is those guys from Sport Science on espn to settle the argument.

Sports Science would be a good idea!

I might seriously give the folks at ESPN a holler…that would be a good episode.