DKR Could Go FieldTurf

There isn't an official link for this or even a mention of a source, so it's not clear where this speculation is coming from -- take it with a grain of salt. After the debacle that was the field during the A&M game, it makes sense to think about this. The Disch just had FieldTurf installed last fall, so there is precedent within the program. Personally, I don't like artificial playing surfaces, but that's mostly for aesthetic reasons. Where this move doesn't make sense, however, is the fact that the administration spent a lot of money recently to move from AstroTurf to the current setup, so it seems premature to switch again.

9 months ago GhostofBigRoy 24 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

While I completely agree with you...

… regarding the aesthetic appeal of natural grass, if there’s any chance that a switch to field turf will make the administration open up the field once a week/month/year then I’m all for it. I remember one time we went and played some touch football on the astroturf as a kid. I can’t even imagine it now with all the extra seats. So cool.

by Horn Brain on Jan 29, 2009 9:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Craig Way said it will not happen

Said it is just speculation, I heard it on the radio toady.

Blazz

by blazzinken on Jan 30, 2009 12:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I posed the question to him yesterday...

I’m glad he responded. As for Dodd’s response I hope it’s not true. I agree with the notion that football should be played on grass and I’m very much a skeptic about the articles by the field turf lobby stating that field turf causes fewer injuries than grass. The majority of the articles I was able to locate were written by a bias party.

ATX

by Atownatx on Jan 30, 2009 11:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

When Dodds answered

I was kind of surprised at the quickness and surety of his response. He made it sound like the decision has been made already.

by 77.6 on Jan 30, 2009 12:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

If it's unofficial

Why front page it?

-rBr-

by run Bevo run on Jan 30, 2009 1:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Because it's a discussion worth having

by GhostofBigRoy on Jan 30, 2009 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Had Dodds come speak in my class on wed.

question was asked. He said it is true.

by 77.6 on Jan 30, 2009 9:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Also used A&M game as an example of the need for artificial.

by 77.6 on Jan 30, 2009 9:03 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think theyre seeing DKR as another source of revenue

mostly just Friday Night Lights and UIL games.

You cant rent out the field if the grass is screwed up for UT football. If it’s fieldturf, which is getting more and more realistic, you can rent it out all the live long day.

Problem is fieldturf aint grass, and that’s what football is to be played on (so is baseball, but that’s a different post).

by the other Andrew on Jan 30, 2009 9:32 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I suspect you're very close to the truth about being the source of revenue.

The questions I ask: Does Texas really need that money? Is it really that much compared to the scale of other income streams they generate?

As I understand it, the TV show played a key role in beating down the field, which contributed to the A&M debacle. What happens when the TV show goes by the wayside?

by whills on Jan 30, 2009 10:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There's always the Texas Relays!

oh wait, we no longer have a track at DKR…

The Longest Yard III?

OK, i’m out of ideas.

by horndude on Jan 30, 2009 10:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

None of the HS playoff games can fill up Royal-Memorial.

Most are not even close. The biggest 5A games barely pull 35K. Same with Alamodome, Texas Stadium and all the other big stadia in the state. It’s more for the thrill of the players and their hometowns and the prestige, but the affect on the field is pretty much the same.

Some districts, like Leander and Killeen, have one multi-use stadium for all the schools in the district. Some older fields, like Alamo Stadium in San Antonio, are just great with artificial turf. It’s an expensive problem, but not particularly common sense oriented during the football playoffs. I’ve seen 2A playoff games in Memorial stadium with barely 8,000 people; I just can’t see how that is even worth opening it up. There is just better use for the monies involved – 15% of the gate goes to UIL in the playoffs – and the schools don’t make near the profit they could in a smaller, more suitable stadia that fits the prospective crowd.

I do think Friday Night Lights is distorting the situation. Leander’s ISD actually bought the Permian Stadium when Odessa rebuilt. To me, that should have been ideal. And it is field turf the last time I covered a game there. That would be more authentic for the story. It’s just damn back ground in a world of make believe anyway. After a show or two, no one sees it anyway – that is, the suspension of belief that occurs within a show.

Or to put it this way, Texas wants to change from grass to be able to accommodate a popular fiction.

by whills on Jan 31, 2009 10:45 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully so !

I remember watching the a&m game and I was getting pe-ossed about all the slipping and sliding that was going on.Looked like the field was junk and it was going to hurt someone.

by cpabis on Jan 30, 2009 10:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Turf sucks

It’s just not football without the dirty unifroms and dirt clogs stuck in facemasks. Other point – don’t cleats get caught in the turf causing injuries….wasn’t the Tyler Roses pro career cut short by the astroturf in Houston and New Orleans?

by burntup on Jan 30, 2009 12:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Not a fan of turf

Maybe I’m old school but unless you play in the North you really shouldn’t have field turf at all. I understand that it makes sense economically in the long run, you won’t have to spend money watering and maintaining it. Baiscally you won’t need a grounds crew, but it just doesn’t look pleasing to the eye. I know it doesn’t matter to me since I’m an Aggie, but football looks so much better on grass personally and it makes for a better spectacle as well. Imagine the Rose Bowl being played on field turf? Just doesn’t look right no matter how much it looks like real grass.

SHOW ME YOUR LIGHTNING BOLT!!!!!!!!!!

by PrimeTime2012 on Jan 30, 2009 1:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well..

…our recruits will be accustomed to it. I’ve been to several high school games in the past three years, and I’’m not sure if there is one remaining grass field in the entire state of Texas. Even the 2A game I attended was on turf.

by BrooklynHorn on Jan 30, 2009 3:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

There are only four in the state that have field turf.

Source: “Horndude” From a previous post.

http://www.burntorangenation.com/2009/1/28/738720/south-endzone-update-and-s

I’ve seen many fields using astro turf. So field turf would be an improvement.

ATX

by Atownatx on Jan 30, 2009 4:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Don't trust Wikipedia

A whole lot more high school stadiums have FieldTurf than those listed. I know that both Buddy Moorhead Stadium and Woodforest Stadium (yes, the bank paid for naming rights on a HS stadium) in the Conroe ISD have it.

by BigTexBD on Jan 30, 2009 5:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you about Wikipedia,

but it’s a great starting point for lazy guys like me (who spend much of their day doing real research).

With just a few more clicks, the real truth can be found, and it appears Conroe ISD bought fake-FieldTurf, yet The Kinkaid School, Highland Park, and South Lake Carroll found the real stuff…as did Angleton and New Braunfels, et al.

Where else besides BON could we debate the finer points of artificial turf and electronic first down measurement devices?

Hook ’em FieldTurf!

by horndude on Jan 30, 2009 10:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My school has a turf field

its fun to play on but to look at, its just gay.

Ian Johnson gets on one knee.
Sam Bradford gets on both.

by acho81 on Jan 30, 2009 5:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The problem is not enough talent.

You can’t just bring in talent to take care of your grass. This is the same problem with all the new golf courses. The best managers come out the schools in the north east and they take some time learning what it takes to grow grass in our climate.
One factor to ponder is plenty of baseball outfields are grass and look great with more games. The difference is only having three mid weight guys running on it very occasionally and 10 or 12 near 300 lb guys rutting on it constantly for 60 minutes.
Once grass gets tore up during the season it can’t really get fixed. Two weeks between games in the fall (when grass is going dormant and slowing it’s growth) is not enough time to fix a field that got tore up. A lot of fields have a second area planted at the same time the field is sodded so they can go cut sod to fill in the center of the field as it gets tore up. Sod won’t knit down in two weeks either. When it is done you see cleats throw up big chunks of turf during a game.

With grass you could spend a million or more a year. Beacuae you have extra bodies on the payroll using dangerous equipment. You need mowers, sprayers, dethacthers, airators sod cutters, mini dumps to move soil and sand, you got chemicals and fetilizers and the tech equipment to run the irrigation and drainage system.

With a artificial turf you only need a few guys some paint and the paint sparyers and the number of the tech rep for the company that sold the stuff.

by Xerxes on Jan 31, 2009 10:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Texas has a large, experience professional staff for managing their turf.

The problem is not expertise. At the least, they can always call the aggies. They’ll match anyone in the northeast and throw in a few sheep as well.

Royal-Memorial is just one of the many fields that Texas has. With the local water here high in calcium carbonates, some of the key pieces of equipment are for monitoring and balancing the pH. Texas has the expertise; that doesn’t mean the administration took their advice. The administration just allowed too much usage of the field and thus the subsequent damage. And on the evening of the A&M game, the temperature dropped just as the game started and hit the dew point, and the resulting dew made the field exceptionally slippery in the first half to compound the existing problems of the sod barely being able to grow new roots in time for the game. The short time span made the decision window of resodding very small. The possibility of dew was not anticipated. The dew pretty much dried out by the second half but by then the field had suffered even more damage.

So, instead of limiting usage of the field, Texas is choosing not to solve the problem but to change the equation altogether. Money is the fulcrum for the change, but there should be questions about the incremental income in the thousands with a program pulling in tens of millions.

The field at Arrowhead was resodded before the Big 12 championship game; they had no problems. They had no dew, either.

by whills on Jan 31, 2009 11:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sounds like a lot of damn excuses

maybe if texas would hire someone who knows that the hell they are doing to do their turf management instead of just making it a good ol’ boy appointment, they wouldn’t have these issues.

I Am The 12th Man.com

by Beergut on Feb 1, 2009 3:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs