Five Wide Fullbacks: Freshman All-Americans and Fieldturf
by Mouth of the South on Jan 28, 2012 11:56 PM EST
Email
PrintLoyal One Foot Down readers gather round. The hour is late, but this week's Five Wide Fullbacks is here.
Jack Swarbrick needs help scheduling a neutral site game with an opponent and he's able to sign up any team anywhere in the country, but he can't pull the trigger. Who do you put on the Irish schedule and where is the game being played?
Give me Boise State in the Coeur d'Alene National Forest. Boise State. The new kid on the block. The plucky upstart. David. The new innovator, what with the funky offenses and blue field, and what have you. Boise State is like ND before all of the national championships. Of course the Boise National Forest is the obvious choice for a venue, but that would be too much like a home game for the Broncos. Just clear cut a 200-by-200-yard swath in the rugged Coeur d'Alene, line a field and play ball. The Irish. The Broncos. A football, some uprights and a field. Just play ball, Mystery, Alaska-style. We could even turn the clock back and go with leather helmets, no facemasks, and cotton shoulderpads.
Aaron Lynch was a freshman All-American in 2011 after putting together a fine first season in South Bend. Give me your top 3 candidates who could also be a freshman AA in the 2012 class, and pick your most likely winner.
1. Davaris Daniels-I saw him dunk in a high school basketball game, so of course I'm assuming that he'll be a dominant receiver in his first year of game action. I also hope that a guy with his athletic abilities who's been in the program for a year will be ready to step up and make a big contribution. We need him to.
2. Deontay Greenberry-I'm going to stick with receiver because with Michael Floyd's departure is going to leave a depth chart chasm the size of the hole in Johnny Ringo's soul, and because no one that played in 2011 showed any sign of being able to sniff Michael Floyd's level of production.
3. Tee Shepard-We're also pretty thin and pretty young at corner, and many Irish fans have already tabbed Tee Shepard the day-one starter. Far be it from me to buck conventional wisdom so I'll just agree. Everyone likes a yes man. Tee and Deontay are probably 2 and 2a here, but I think we'll play far more 3-wide-receiver sets than nickel sets. I also anticipate that the third defensive back to see the field will probably be a safety in most instances, so for me, the real DGB edges his cousin Tee.
There are some rumors that Notre Dame will be installing the 3% artificial Desso GrassMaster playing surface like what is used at Green Bay's Lambeau Field and Denver's Mile High Stadium. Discuss whether you think switching to DGM is merely a band-aid and if the program should install completely artificial FieldTurf, whether DGM is the perfect solution, or if the natural Kentucky Bluegrass should be kept.
The playing surface at Notre Dame Stadium has been an open, festering, gangrenous wound for years now, so a band-aid cannot hurt. I support any efforts to improve the turf in ND Stadium, whether that measure is stopgap 3% artificial turf or full-on artificial surface. Coach Kelly is recruiting the type of athleticism that will afford the Irish a speed advantage over 90% of the teams that enter our stadium, so while we absolutely need a durable playing surface, we should also consider installing a faster playing surface to capitalize on the speed advantage that Kelly is developing. I've said it before and I'll say it again-winning the right way is the only tradition that matters at ND. The Stadium is not Augusta. We don't enter it to marvel at the beautifully-manicured grass-remember, it IS just grass. We do it achieve excellence.
Give us your wish list for National Signing Day. Give us your probable list.
Wish List: Agholor, Neal, the Armsteads, Reggie Bush, The Gipper, Lawrence Taylor, Bobby Boucher, Paul Krewe, Omar from the Wire, Bunk from the Wire, Secretariat-excellent long speed, but short speed, route running, and ball skills require refinement-and a Swiss Army Knife-great utility player. After what this staff pulled off last year, I wouldn't be shocked if they got me my wish list.
Probable List: Again, I believe in this coaching staff's ability to pull off an 11th-hour recruiting coup, but I have no idea who will be coup-ed. Some of the foregoing names would provide the much-desired gravy-or butter-for the biscuits that are the current stable of commits, but none of them seem likely to be Irish. Let's assume that we'll get none of them, and we'll presently surprised with whatever Lagniappe comes our way on National Signing Day.
With National Signing Day approaching, wax philosophical on your feelings towards college football recruiting.
On the one hand, National Signing Day has been the National Champtionship Game for Irish fans for the better part of twenty years. On National Signing Day hope springs eternal. The Fighting Irish are undefeated and have a shot at the Recruiting National Championship, or at the very least a much higher ranking than they held at the end of the regular season. On the other hand, college football recruiting has become a cesspool of solicitation, oversigning, street agents, bag men, and crazy uncles, to say nothing of the inherent creepiness of a bunch of 25-to-75-year-old men fawning over 18 year olds on a scale not seen since the time of Socrates. So to paraphrase The Preeminent 20-th Century Bards Messrs. Seinfeld and David, it is a loathsome, offensive thing, yet I can't look away.
47 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
#1.... Alabama at the Palace in Dallas
- ….A. Greenberry, hes going to be another Floyd…perhaps even better.
B. Shepard, enrolling early is going to pprepare him for the fall and lots of playing
time come the season.
C. Jarron Jones, just a wild guess here but I think he can have an impact like
Lynch and Tuitt did their freshman years.
#3….Cant get the artificial stuff here fast enough for me. BK is getting players with speed
and wants to run a spread like Oregon…similar…not the same, plus I would like to
see what Cierre can do on artificial.
#4….In order, Darby, Neal, Arik, Agholor, J.J. Denham.
#5….There should be 2 days when a kid can sign, an early one in August and then the
standard one in February. This would cut down on a lot of those early committs
creating drama,suspense and holding a school hostage and then decommiting
the last minute. The early August committs could be allowed to decommitt only if
school goes on probation or the coach leaves.( I think it was Somogy that came
up with this, so i borrowed his good idea)
Neutral site game..
Anybody at Gillette Stadium in Foxboro Ma. It has to be on a weekend that BC is playing at home. I just want to piss off the bald eagles when we outdraw them in their own back yard.
Greenberry will be the most likely 2012 frosh AA
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
1 and 1a
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jan 29, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
When I first read this:
I saw him dunk in a high school basketball game, so of course I’m assuming that he’ll be a dominant receiver in his first year of game action.
I comprehended it as “drunk.” Thought you were suggesting the next Michael Floyd. My mind, it’s in the gutter.
Neutral Site Game
La beau Field vs. Someone like Northwestern
by Loyal Irish Son on Jan 29, 2012 11:08 AM EST reply actions
Greatness.
1. We should be scheduling Boise. Especially now that they are in the Big East. They’ll play anywhere so it should be easy to make it happen.
2. Greenberry. Can’t wait to see this kid play.
3. Fix the surface and I don’t care how. Now please!
4. 1-2 corners. At this point I’m not even picky. Standifer, Poole, Darby bring it.
5. Recruiting is what it is. An abhorrent yet necessary evil.
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
Lagniappe
Swarbrick proves to be the Paul P. of scheduling with Boise State on a Sunday night Orlando as Greg Schiano decries “competitive advantage”, Broncos begin racking up frequent flyer miles, and more Big East teams are added to the Irish schedule. Chris Petersen’s red beans and rice team is a recipe Buster Holmes would be proud of.
Kelly, a Coops Place aficianado, perfects his jambalaya with Davaris and Goldrix.
The Irish recruiting finishes off a muffuletta Central Grocery style with Poole, Arik and Neal.
After initial courses of a Godchaux salad and Goute, Galatoire’s chef Diaco’s two year haul of DBs and DEs has Irish fans standing in line awaiting the soft shell crabs topped with crabmeat.
Turf installation leads Murtaugh to celebrate with ice cream at Brocatto’s, bread pudding at Brennan’s and a beignet at Cafe du Monde.
by Michael Collins on Jan 29, 2012 12:27 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
That was impressive.
I had to read it about 4 times to soak it up but it was impressive nonetheless.
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
by whiskey OFD on Jan 29, 2012 11:25 PM EST up reply actions
Vous autres etes trop gentil
Tout le mond devrait aller a la Nouvelle Orleans.
by Michael Collins on Jan 31, 2012 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
3. On Desso GrassMaster or Field Turf:
If the grass in Notre Dame stadium can be improved so that the Irish can play better on it and so that maintenance is made a bit easier, I’m all for it. Going the way of Lambeau sounds great to me because it offers a clear middle path that respects both the reality of playing football in November in Northern Indiana and one of the great things about football – that it’s a game always and everywhere shaped by its being outdoors, by heat and sun in eyes and rain and snow and frigid cold, and by dirt and mud and grass stains.
I was open to Field Turf until I spent an afternoon at the new ND lacrosse stadium, on the Field Turf there. It was hideous and shiny and hot, it looked like a cheap plastic carpet, the seams were visible, the little black bits under the “grass” stuck all over my clothes and flew up in the air upon impact – it was bad. During the bowl season, players seemed to be slipping on turf all the time – I’m not sure I understand why the claim is always made that it undeniably makes players faster, when I often see it causing slips (I remember particularly noticing this in the Sugar Bowl this year).
I would not like Field Turf in ND stadium. The GrassMaster hybrid sounds like an excellent way to improve the condition of the playing surface without going that route.
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 29, 2012 12:42 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I completely agree
But I think the two teams in the Sugar Bowl had a little to do with the clumsiness.
May God have mercy on my enemies, because I won't
-Patton
by Three and Eight-Elevenths Men on Jan 29, 2012 1:14 PM EST up reply actions
Agree hybrid turf OK.
Would hate to see the all plastic/rubber stuff. Arguments on field condition don’t wash as if want perfect playing surface, should just put a dome over stadium. Rain, snow, wind, heat and cold can affect game more than some scruffy turf. A dome would keep out cold and besides Field Turf is still slipperry or more than natural turf in snow, and rain and wind can make it difficult to throw the ball and hold on to it. So we could eliminate all concerns with elements by just puttin’ the whole thing inside. There is no more reason that other elements should be a factor in a game than some rough turf. All affect speed.
That said, if our field ever gets as bad as Stanford’s turf was last year- fire the crew and get a new one.
I have played on the Fieldturf stuff
and I loved it. Now granted it was soccer, but the cutting and running, etc. was the same and I thought that it was great. No seams, played alot like normal grass although it was a little bit more slick in the rain. Not more slick than grass, just different in the rain.
Sure the little black pieces of rubber are unique to the experience but I don’t see how they are a bad thing. Totally would be in favor of the change. ND is not just about tradition for tradition’s sake, ND is about making winning a tradition. Look at Rockne, he had new jerseys for the team b/c he thought it would make his players harder to tackle. So, I say change it up!
God, Country, Notre Dame
by goldeNDomer0209 on Jan 29, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
You're right about ND being about making winning a tradition.
I’m not interested in grass for tradition’s sake. Like I said, I like change that will improve performance. The black bits of rubber aren’t horrible in and of themselves, it was just a part of the “experience” of FieldTurf that I did not like. (Didn’t Denard get one in his eye in the Sugar Bowl this year?) You say that the cutting and running on turf were the same as on grass; what made it preferable to grass for you, then?
One of the things that I don’t get is that a lot of people suggest that getting artificial turf would be an advantage for the Irish. For most of the teams we play (maybe not all), whatever advantage turf would give us at home would also give them an advantage – everybody plays on the same surface. If ND is used to playing on grass and teams come to town who play on turf, doesn’t that give the Irish an advantage? I suppose this may be off-set by the Irish practicing on turf instead of grass.
Any way you cut it, playing on turf hasn’t in itself given us any apparent advantage in the last two years, at least based on win-loss record. The only game I can recall where ND looked obviously affected by the playing surface was on Stanford’s terribly-kept grass this November. Still, in 2010 and 2011, the Irish are 4-3 on artificial turf, 4-2 on grass (away), and 8-5 at home.
Artificial surfaces ND has played on in the last 2 years: BC, Navy (New Meadowlands stadium), Miami (El Paso Sun Bowl), Michigan, Wake Forest, Maryland (FedEx Field), FSU (Champs Sports Bowl at the Orlando Citrus Bowl). Grass surfaces (away): MSU, Army (Yankee stadium), USC, Purdue (Prescription Athletic Turf, natural grass), Pitt (Heinz Field), Stanford.
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 29, 2012 3:52 PM EST up reply actions
A couple of things
the little black bits under the "grass" stuck all over my clothes and flew up in the air upon impact – it was bad.
Dirt does the same thing does it not? This argument makes little sense.
Any way you cut it, playing on turf hasn’t in itself given us any apparent advantage in the last two years, at least based on win-loss record.
Since they practice on field turf, it is what they are used to, and since it is no advantage to them as you claim, they may as well play on it, too.
Bottom line your arguments are not overly compelling.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jan 30, 2012 8:46 AM EST up reply actions
I've waited a while to post my comments on the turf so here we go...
1) First and foremost, Notre Dame should have the best surface possible. We can debate which route to take, but most would say that it’s probably not sticking with the all-natural Kentucky Bluegrass.
2) The tradition of the natural grass means little to me. I can understand how it does to some people, but for me it’s way, way, way down the list of important traditions at Notre Dame.
3) The aesthetics issue is likely a wash across the board. Most people can’t tell the difference between natural turf and FieldTurf anyway and the difference between the two really isn’t that large. In my opinion, the largest differences are that FieldTurf is a little brighter and the endzone and midfield logos pop more (as they are brighter too) and it takes a long time for their color to fade.
Now, some people don’t like brighter colors, but I think the purpose of the colors on the field is that they do in fact stand out—-so I think FieldTurf gets an edge here. Since ND likely wouldn’t have any paint besides the slash marks in the endzone it matters little to our discussion anyway.
4) I wouldn’t mind the university trying Desso GrassMaster, but I think it’s much more risky than just switching to FieldTurf. If they do go to DGM, it would require a major and expensive overhaul of the entire drainage and heating systems and would be an immense undertaking as far these things go. I’m not worried about the money side, but even using the best staff and best equipment doesn’t guarantee the best playing surface.
Odds are that it will improve on what ND currently has now, but it’s an expensive venture and one that might not work as well as we like. Also, places like Lambeau where the DGM is supposed to be the best in the business are not immune to a crappy playing surface every once in a while. The same is true and even more so in other stadiums where DGM is used. It would seem that DGM is a quality product, but it’s results on the whole have been mixed.
5) The point that “both teams are playing on surface X so it shouldn’t matter” makes sense from a philosophical standpoint, but I don’t think it does from a practical standpoint. If you are the faster (or athletic) team as ND is against the vast majority of its opponents, you should play on the fastest surface. That the Irish currently practice on FieldTurf is just another reason to make the switch in the stadium.
Even if a study was done that showed that both teams slipped the same amount over a period of however many games, I still would make the switch. If you’re coaching a track team and for some bizarre reason you’re offered the choice to run on a nice smooth track, or on the beach, why would anyone choose the beach? In hockey, I used to hate playing on choppy, slushy, and bad ice conditions because I felt like it neutralized my speed and athleticism. I didn’t care that it did for everyone else on the ice too—-it threw my game off. And it was more of a problem when I was playing Canadian teams much bigger than me. The bad ice neutralized my speed (our whole team really) and favored the much bigger but slower Canadian teams who benefited from being able to plod around the ice and muck it up. It forced us to play their game and that hurt our chances of winning.
In football, I think it’s the same story to a degree. On a sloppy ND Stadium field the speedy Irish playmakers can get frustrated. Losing your footing or not feeling as fast as you do in practice can throw you off your game. I know for some people the “both teams are playing on it” makes a lot of sense and this doesn’t—-but I think the psychological effects are very real and very damaging.
6) It’s my opinion that players can cut more easily and have better footing on FieldTurf. Consistency is very important to this discussion—-perhaps the crucial tipping point. Even having that little voice in the players head that says, “Okay on this out route remember to cut slightly less quickly so you don’t lose your footing” should not even occur inside our home stadium. If it happens on the road, fine we can’t change that. But when the players step inside the stadium, they shouldn’t think about slipping or falling. They should feel comfortable and ready to cut on a dime. They should just go out there and play and be instinctive—-just like Kelly trains them to perform. As the research shows that FieldTurf isn’t more dangerous than natural grass, I think the choice is pretty clear, at least for me.
7) Another factor involved is that FieldTurf allows the school to use the stadium for more purposes. For a loud minority this is practically sacrilegious, but it’s not a big deal to me. I’m sure there are some activities that could be scheduled in the stadium that I wouldn’t be elated about, but the positives come ahead in the end. More money, more people can experience the stadium (even if it’s in a non-football capacity), the team can practice inside the stadium more often, and there wouldn’t be the need to keep people off the field like there is now.
So, switch to DGM is fine with me, but I hope it works out and the university doesn’t end up taking a $12 million bath just to end up installing FieldTurf in 2018 anyway.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 30, 2012 9:39 AM EST up reply actions
Eric, you make many great points here.
All of what you say leaves me feeling fairly indifferent about a switch to FieldTurf, with a vaguely positive nudge towards “sure – do it. There are some good advantages, and it would almost certainly be an improvement on the current state of things.”
What gives me pause are two things: first, my experience on FieldTurf at the lacrosse stadium (covered in my comment above). This gave me a gut-feeling-based dislike of the stuff.
Second, the injury issue. You write under your 6th point, “As the research shows that FieldTurf isn’t more dangerous than natural grass, I think the choice is pretty clear, at least for me.” Can you say what research you’re referring to here?
In 2010, the NFL’s Injury and Safety Panel presented a study showing that ACL injuries happened 88% more often in games on FieldTurf than on grass; that ankle eversion sprains (for which a player lost more than 7 days’ activity) happened 48% more often in games on FIeldTurf than on grass; and that the “injury rate per team-game was 27% higher on the FieldTurf surfaces (1.79/T-G) than the natural surfaces (1.40/T-G) for all reported game-related lower extremity injuries” (there’s a summary of the study here: http://www3.aaos.org/education/anmeet/anmt2010/podium/podium.cfm?Pevent=692).
Now, the study only looked at all NFL games from 2002-2008, and made no conclusions about the cause of the increased injury rate. However, those rates of increase are significant and warrant at least some caution in deciding that FieldTurf is as safe as grass.
Finally, on the issue of whether FieldTurf makes players faster: players may feel like they are able to uniquely maximize their athleticism on artificial turf, but it isn’t clear that the improvement is measurable. A study published in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research (Oct. 2010) surprisingly showed that college football players were only 3% faster on an artificial turf over a grass surface. Testing a group of college football players on both surfaces showed an average .01 second decrease in 40-yard dash time and an average .15 second decrease in shuttle drill time on artificial turf. It’s suspected, though not yet demonstrated in research, that the traction the surface gives that allows that trace improvement in agility and cutting may be what creates the higher risk of injury correlated with FieldTurf.
Maybe the psychological benefit is really, really important, like you say, and if players feel better on turf than grass, that’s plenty of reason to go with it.
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 30, 2012 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
On your first comment
I don’t really think that our experiences on FieldTurf really matter all that much. Now, if it is the football team themselves saying they don’t like it, that’s all together different. Whether little black rubber pelts fly up or not, it really doesn’t affect people watching on TV or sitting in the stands, right?
As far as the injury concerns go, I’ve read many reports (too numerous to go back and research) that are all over the place. Some say natural grass is a little safer, some say FieldTurf is a little safer, some say they are about the same.
Just going by the eye-ball test and common sense (I think haha) it doesn’t seem that FieldTurf is really that much more dangerous, if it is determined that it is in fact that way.
If could summarize everything I’ve read, it seems that FieldTurf does increase the amount of lower limb injuries, but it is also safer in other areas as well (concussions, hips, etc.). I definitely think it’s one of those things that is really hard to test because there are so many variables at work with weather and human error (or clumsiness I suppose) being a part of it.
With that link you cited, it’s not that I don’t believe it—-I’ve read similar reports that say the same thing (although not to that big of a difference). But it doesn’t seem to be terribly exhaustive either. If there are more ankle sprains and ACL injuries, what about the dozens of other injuries that can occur on the field?
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 30, 2012 11:18 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks for your response.
I agree that our experiences of FieldTurf shouldn’t convince us one way or the other. My own limited experience informs my opinion of it, and I don’t expect anyone to form their opinion based on that.
I’m sure there are conflicting studies, but I’d love to see a recent one that legitimately shows a positive correlation between artificial turf and lower risk of injury. I’m not sure what you mean by the “eye-ball test and common sense” suggesting FieldTurf isn’t more dangerous; if it provides increased traction, which people claim as its advantage, it seems common sensical that it would lead to increased injuries that involve a foot or limb getting stuck where, on grass, it would have a little more give. Thus the ACL and ankle sprain injuries noted in the NFL study.
I dug around a little regarding concussions and didn’t find anything suggesting a lower risk of concussion on artificial surfaces. In fact, the studies I found indicated a significantly higher risk of concussion on artificial turf because it absorbs less energy than natural turf does when a helmet collides with it. One example: this study (http://www.springerlink.com/content/50r5xq6h0938r834/) published this month in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering using helmet drop tests at MSU.
Another study, this one very large but a bit dated (2000), confirms this. Researchers at the Sports Medicine Research Laboratory at UNC analyzed data from 242 high schools and colleges and 17,549 football players. Their study showed that head contact with artificial turf was more likely to cause concussions than natural grass and that head contact with artificial turf tended to cause more severe concussions than natural grass.
It should be noted that relatively few concussions are caused by helmet-to-ground collisions – only 10.0% of concussions tracked in the latter study – so this isn’t as important to deciding on the merits of artificial turf as other types of injury. Same would go for all the other types of injury that are just not clearly tied up in the field surface.
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 30, 2012 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
This is some pretty good homework.
I had not researched the injury effects of moving to an artificial turf. Well done. Your last couple of comments would make a great FanPost, Fish. Do it. But you may want to discuss injury statistics vis-a-vis hybrid surfaces, too.
It is clear that we need to balance injury concerns with the quality of the playing surface.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 30, 2012 2:56 PM EST up reply actions
Think of the injuries that have already happened in practice...
Eilar Hardy, out in the preseason (knee)
Steve Filer, non-contact knee injury during practice
I know there are a few more that I am forgetting off the top of my head, but that was just this fall.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Obviously we don't know if any of these injuries have anything to do with playing on turf,
and they may very well have happened just as unavoidably on grass, but here are a few other serious lower-extremity injuries that come to mind:
Injuries at ND’s practice facilities -
Cam Roberson (LCL, ACL, season ending)
Lane Clelland (knee, season ending)
Chris Salvi (concussed himself, non-contact, so I assume helmet-to-ground)
Injuries on artificial turf (in game) -
Mike Ragone (ACL, career ending, Mich. 2011)
Ian Williams (MCL, season ending, Navy 2010 at Meadowlands)
Braxston Cave (foot ligament, season ending, Wake Forest 2011)
(ankle injuries also aggravated at Wake 2010 – Manti, Lynch)
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 30, 2012 5:42 PM EST up reply actions
One to add:
Dayne Crist (ACL, Alamodome, 2009)
The only other season-ending lower-extremity injuries I can think of in the last two years are Kyle Rudolph (long-term, recurring hamstring), Armando Allen (also long-term, recurring; hip?), Dayne Crist (2010, at ND), KLM (2011, at ND), and Jonas Gray (2011, at ND). Any others anyone can think of?
For those we’ve listed, counting just season-ending, single-incident, lower-extremity injuries since 2010 (plus DC’s 2009 ACL), 8 of 11 were on artificial turf. (This clearly doesn’t demonstrate anything, but it is interesting.)
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 30, 2012 8:46 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry to keep piling on here, but here's another way to look at this that's weirdly striking:
If the injuries we listed here are all of the season-ending, single-incident, lower-extremity injuries to ND players over the last 2 years (not counting Crist’s 2009 injury), they break down this way:
3 of the 6 in-game, season-ending injuries occurred in the 7 games ND played on artificial turf.
3 of the 6 in-game, season-ending injuries occurred in 19 games ND played on grass (2010-11).
That’s one season-ending lower-extremity injury per every 2.3 games played on turf, and one season-ending lower-extremity injury per every 6.3 games played on grass. Very small set of data and no injuries undeniably linked to the field surface, but still surprisingly skewed.
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 30, 2012 11:23 PM EST up reply actions
I'm late to the party but this is the money article if you can access it:
Williams S, Hume PA, Kara S. A Review of Football Injuries on Third and Fourth Generation Artificial Turfs Compared with Natural Turf. Sports Medicine 2011; 41 (11): 903-923.
It’s basically a metaanalysis of all the studies (well most) known to date on injury risk and concussions. Here’s the conclusion from the abstract:
“In conclusion, studies have provided strong evidence for comparable rates of injury between new generation artificial turfs and natural turfs. An exception is the likely increased risk of ankle injury on third and fourth generation artificial turfs. Therefore, ankle injury prevention strategies must be a priority for athletes who play on artificial turf regularly. Clarification of effects of artificial surfaces on muscle and knee injuries are required given inconsistencies in incidence rate ratios depending on the football code, athlete, gender or match versus training.”
Irishane, I was hoping you would comment on this.
Thanks for the citation. I couldn’t get the whole thing, but read over the abstract and a few other summaries/analyses of the article’s findings.
Here are my questions: it looks like the study doesn’t draw any conclusions at all about concussions on different kinds of turf. The study I noted above (Jan. 2012, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, using helmet drop tests) found that current artificial turf absorbs less energy than natural turf, possibly increasing concussion risk. That earlier study (2000), which was pretty sizable (and dealing with high school and college football head injuries), also found higher risk of helmet-to-ground concussion on artificial turf. Do you have any conclusions about it?
Second, I read that the article you cite considers studies on artificial and natural turf injuries in mainly soccer and rugby, and only deals with 2 studies on American football injuries.
Both were done in association with FieldTurf, the brand that makes the stuff the studies concluded wasn’t more dangerous than natural grass.
These 2 studies tracked injuries on 8 college teams over five years and 24 college teams over three years. The study I cited above (presented by the NFL’s Injury and Safety Panel) tracked 32 NFL teams over 7 years, so it was looking at a different level of the game, but a larger set of data.
How could those studies find no statistically significant difference in rates of injury and the last find an 88% higher risk of ACL injury, a 48% higher risk of ankle sprains, and an "injury rate per team-game [that] was 27% higher on the FieldTurf surfaces (1.79/T-G) than the natural surfaces (1.40/T-G) for all reported game-related lower extremity injuries"? It seems like such an extreme discrepancy, and I’m curious why the article you referred us to doesn’t consider that study (if the summary I read was correct that it didn’t).
Thank you for your comments on this issue – it’s pretty unfamiliar territory for me, and it’s nice to hear from someone with sports medicine experience.
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 30, 2012 10:02 PM EST up reply actions
I wish I had more time to respond to this
I am a big fan of the FieldTurf discussion. I may not be able to do this justice since things are getting hectic over the next 8-10 hours – leaving on vacation tomorrow morning and trying to get crap done in the office. But let’s type fast!
I personally don’t get too caught up in turf vs grass and concussions. For a couple reasons:
1. A vast majority of concussions are from person-person contact especially in football
2. Velocity and force of impact is not directly correlated (that we know so far) with concussion risk. You’ll see several 100 G force collisions between athletes and no concussion, and light rotational/collision force cause concussions.
I couldn’t get to the specific article you listed above though – it takes me directly to the Springerlink main page and I can’t find an article in this month’s Annals of Biomedical Engineering.
The reason most of the studies in that metaanalysis are from soccer is because there honestly haven’t been many studies to date on the newer generation turfs and injuries. And you need several studies, not just one though the NFL one is well designed, from different people to be able to discern where the truth is.
I personally think the old Astroturf was terrible. The friction coefficient was too high. It was extremely easy to sprain an ankle, tear an ACL, get an abrasion while playing on it. But I do like the new surfaces. I think eventually you’ll see the new generation turfs probably do have a slightly increased rate of injury compared to grass. But it’s probably not enough of an increase to warrant favoring grass (given cost, maintenance, holding up better during a game and at the end of a season).
The college studies in association with FieldTurf are well done but I’m always leery of studies where an author is being paid by the company. How many studies did he throw out? I can almost guarantee he wouldn’t publish a study that showed unequivocally Fieldturf was bad.
And regarding the NFL study – I still haven’t seen that published anywhere. I was told near the end of last year that the data would be made available but I haven’t seen it (only that podium summary). A couple things:
1. Eversion ankle sprains are very uncommon – about 10-15% of all ankle sprains
2. How many ACL tears were there? Are we talking 8 on artificial vs 5 on grass? Because ACL tears are relatively infrequent.
3. It’s important to know the time lost among those two groups too – I could have an eversion sprain of my ankle and be back the next day – compare that to someone with an eversion sprain causing 30 days lost time. I’m more worried about missed time than about number of injuries.
This is what you write when you don't have time to respond?
When you do have time, let’s see a full-on FanPost on the subject.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 31, 2012 3:09 PM EST up reply actions
I take that as a compliment!
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 31, 2012 4:27 PM EST up reply actions
You're welcome for the setup.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 31, 2012 8:33 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Whoa whoa whoa.
You’re MY wingman. I set it up and you knocked it down. So I’m lead and you’re wingman. Or am I not understanding the squad leader-wingman dynamic?
by Mouth of the South on Feb 1, 2012 11:03 AM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Deadred, you're right - what I think about FieldTurf may not be compelling.
I really am not trying to make a well-reasoned argument either way. Like I said, I was really open to FieldTurf after reading about it and thinking about it’s advantages and disadvantages. What changed my mind was an experience on new FieldTurf at ND that I simply try to describe in my comment. My aversion to FieldTurf is based on that. The bits of rubber sticking to my clothes and flying up on impact is just unpleasant and weird to me – it changes the experience of playing on a field. That’s all. I don’t expect this to convince anyone else that FieldTurf is worth avoiding; it’s part of it for me, though.
On your second point, I mentioned that in my comment, as well – it doesn’t seem like practicing on artificial turf allows the team to prepare in an ideal way for playing games at home on grass. Any advantage is off-set by that.
I’d love to hear if you’ve noticed a clearly different level of or appearance in performance for the Irish between their play on well-kept grass and on artificial turf.
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 30, 2012 10:37 AM EST up reply actions
grass v turf
My playing days are long over. I did have the “privilege” to play baseball on astro turf many years ago and it was the worst excuse for a playing surface ever, like playing baseball on a pool table.
I have checked out field turf surfaces as many of the local high schools (including my alma mater) have switched to it from grass and I did not notice any footing problems, unlike the old artificial surfaces. In some ways it was better, certainly better than a torn up grass field.
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jan 30, 2012 11:15 AM EST up reply actions
I don't pretend to know for sure whether it would give us an advantage
but given that we play in Northern Indiana and the it simply looks more current and up to date for recruits I see it as a plus.
To answer your question about why I preferred it…it’s simple. It didn’t cut up under me when I cut and your don’t slip and have to make conservative cuts in the wet conditions. Again, it is still slick in the rain, but not the slick that makes cutting difficult. Also, for soccer it was amazing because you got a true bounce all the time. No more horrible bounces and bad touches b/c of the playing surface.
I understand that was kind of a soccer explanation but that is my experience so take it for what it is worth.
God, Country, Notre Dame
by goldeNDomer0209 on Jan 30, 2012 6:45 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks for sharing about your experience playing on artificial turf.
The consistency of it seems really valuable, as does the additional traction for cutting.
#figureitoutbobby
by fishoutofwater on Jan 30, 2012 11:04 PM EST up reply actions
Big win for hoops
Just took down UCONN 50-48 on the road. Grant was a man among boys.
"I asked for Shaq. They gave me Shackleford."
www.whereisbenrivera.com
My two cents...
1. Florida in Yankee Stadium/Gillette/Soldier/Lambeau (somewhere cold) in November. Does anyone realize that Florida has not played an out of conference game outside of the state of Florida in OVER 20 YEARS. Also, Kansas would be interesting for all the right reasons (STL or KC). Boise is a decent idea, just not sure which venue would be the right one…
2. Can’t argue with your list. Day will surprise some people as well.
3. Install the hybrid system with the bluegrass and don’t tell anyone. Ever. That gets you the best of both worlds. Interesting note, there are water lines installed under the hybrid system to keep the soil at a constant temperature regardless of the season. This would help just as much in July/August as November for the integrity of the playing surface.
4. With Armstead and Standifer off the board, it pretty much leaves Agholor, Darby and Neal. I would take any of the three, but all seem like long-shots.
5. Changes are necessary. Institute an early signing period. Closley monitor the number of scholarships available and oversigning. Limit the number of medical scholarships. In short, blow up the entire system and institute a few common sense rules, and make the penalties for violation severe. Remove the gray area that too many teams operate in.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on One Foot Down
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE ONE FOOT DOWN STORE
