Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

[JACKGUYII]

I noticed the Bison got a new surface for their practice facility. I know the Jacks have other priorities, but this kind of surface allows you to practice in the elements that are common place in a South Dakota Spring. I know I'm in the minority, but I would love to see the natural grass replaced at CAS with one of these new artificial surfaces as it's more durable and easier on the joints for the players and a lot nicer to look at. The condition of the CAS field for the Spring Game was understandable based on the long winter, but still not the conditions are team should be playing on at this level. I hope when the money is there we can invest in artificial surface as they have come a long way and it would prepare us for playing on the type of field we will see the majority of our games!

http://www.inforum.com/event/article.../group/Sports/

[Jacked_Up]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

I'm with you JGII. Ever since the infamous mud game a couple of seasons back, I've thought the stadium definitely needed Field Turf, especially if Brookings High School continues to play there. Natural grass is nice, but rain and snow are too big a risk. With the new scoreboard, tailgating area and now the Dykhouse Center, the stadium is steadily (though slowly) improving. Replacing the east-side bleachers should be a priority. But getting Field Turf might be an even greater need.

[zooropa]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

I disagree on two counts:

1) Fieldturf isn't 'better' for athletes' joints, at best it's no worse than natural surface.

2) Football ain't basketball & it ain't baseball. Football -embraces- the elements, and if that means playing in the mud, well, so be it.

Think about how many memorable football games have been made even more memorable by the elements.



(I mean, granted, that's USF, but still........)



Shoot, if you put down fieldturf, you might as well build a dome!!!!


Heck, we could just have the coaches face off midfield for a 2-player session of EA Sports NCAA Football 2009

(But definitely, BHS needs to kick out money to patch up the field after Friday night games)

[Rabbitlivinginverm]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

I disagree on two counts:

1) Fieldturf isn't 'better' for athletes' joints, at best it's no worse than natural surface.

2) Football ain't basketball & it ain't baseball. Football -embraces- the elements, and if that means playing in the mud, well, so be it.

Think about how many memorable football games have been made even more memorable by the elements.



(I mean, granted, that's USF, but still........)



Shoot, if you put down fieldturf, you might as well build a dome!!!!


Heck, we could just have the coaches face off midfield for a 2-player session of EA Sports NCAA Football 2009

(But definitely, BHS needs to kick out money to patch up the field after Friday night games)

If it weren't for BHS, we'd still be playing all afternoon games. I think we can thank them for the increase in attendance.

We can also thank them for building an 8 lane track that's capable of hosting college meets.

[zooropa]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

If it weren't for BHS, we'd still be playing all afternoon games. I think we can thank them for the increase in attendance.

We can also thank them for building an 8 lane track that's capable of hosting college meets.

I'm sure SDSU pays for the track--BHS should pay enough to fix up the field after their games.

[bison8xchamp]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

zooropa is just completely anti-ndsu everything. i bet you're the type of guy that wears a "buck the fison" shirt to a bison vs. anyone sporting event.

by the way....why not just say F**k the Bison?? i never understood those shirts.

[filbert]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

zooropa is just completely anti-ndsu everything. i bet you're the type of guy that wears a "buck the fison" shirt to a bison vs. anyone sporting event.

by the way....why not just say F**k the Bison?? i never understood those shirts.

bison8xchamp is cordially invited to come at least within shouting distance of the thread topic.

[bison8xchamp]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

bison8xchamp is cordially invited to come at least within shouting distance of the thread topic.

excuse me....NDSU's new practice field is very nice. i hope sdsu gets the same because it is so nice and saves on the players.

[zooropa]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

fieldturf is fine for a practice facility, when your game facility is also artificial.

But for SDSU-grass, dirt, mud, etc.... on both practice & game fields!

(Stig's replacement may push for fieldturf, but I don't think Stig will)

And I seriously am NOT buying the idea that fieldturf is 'better' for players than grass.

[Rabbitlivinginverm]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

I'm sure SDSU pays for the track--BHS should pay enough to fix up the field after their games.

Actually, I don't think so. But I'll do some checking around. SDSU, BHS, and the city have a pretty good joint-use agreement with most of their facilities.

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

I disagree on two counts:

1) Fieldturf isn't 'better' for athletes' joints, at best it's no worse than natural surface.

2) Football ain't basketball & it ain't baseball. Football -embraces- the elements, and if that means playing in the mud, well, so be it.

Think about how many memorable football games have been made even more memorable by the elements.



(I mean, granted, that's USF, but still........)



Shoot, if you put down fieldturf, you might as well build a dome!!!!


Heck, we could just have the coaches face off midfield for a 2-player session of EA Sports NCAA Football 2009

(But definitely, BHS needs to kick out money to patch up the field after Friday night games)

I've never understood the nostalgic line of thinking that if that's how they used to do it, that's how they should always do it. Why? If that was the case with all things, we'd all still be riding horses everywhere.

That snowbowl game with the Pats-Raiders was a terribly played game. I mean, yeah it was entertaining, but that's not good football.

I guess I just don't understand why keeping stuff the way it was before is automatically better just because that was how it used to be.

[zooropa]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

Actually, I don't think so. But I'll do some checking around. SDSU, BHS, and the city have a pretty good joint-use agreement with most of their facilities.

I guess my concern, better expressed, is that I don't think SDSU should allow BHS to tear up the turf without kicking enough in to fix it up afterwards.

[zooropa]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

I've never understood the nostalgic line of thinking that if that's how they used to do it, that's how they should always do it. Why? If that was the case with all things, we'd all still be riding horses everywhere.

That snowbowl game with the Pats-Raiders was a terribly played game. I mean, yeah it was entertaining, but that's not good football.

I guess I just don't understand why keeping stuff the way it was before is automatically better just because that was how it used to be.

Two points:

1) It's not nostalgia, it's a decided advantage that has been given to SDSU by other programs. Among MVFC schools, only WIU plays outdoors on grass.

Do you think that weather was -NOT- a factor when SDSU beat NDSU in 2007?

2) What, precisely, is -wrong- with playing in the mud?

Is it possible to assert that the 'purity' of football is compromised ('[it] was a terribly played game') by playing in conditions that have -always- been part of football?

See, if it's your assertion that playing in snow/mud/rain compromises the 'product', then you must define how the product is 'compromised'?

Is it compromised in that it will be less efficiently played? If so, since when is 'efficiency' the most appropriate measure of a football game?

[RabbitObsessed]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

Two points:

1) It's not nostalgia, it's a decided advantage that has been given to SDSU by other programs. Among MVFC schools, only WIU plays outdoors on grass.

Do you think that weather was -NOT- a factor when SDSU beat NDSU in 2007?

2) What, precisely, is -wrong- with playing in the mud?

Is it possible to assert that the 'purity' of football is compromised ('[it] was a terribly played game') by playing in conditions that have -always- been part of football?

See, if it's your assertion that playing in snow/mud/rain compromises the 'product', then you must define how the product is 'compromised'?

Is it compromised in that it will be less efficiently played? If so, since when is 'efficiency' the most appropriate measure of a football game?

In my mind college athletics are about showcasing the athletic abilities of the student athletes, and I don't think any athlete can perform to the fullest of their abilities in poor conditions. Some might argue that those conditions then give the athletes to show their ability to overcome adversity and bull**** like that, but I, as a fan, would rather watch a cleanly played game, not some game straight out of the 1960s.

I'd rather watch a game where the game is decided by who was the better team, not who is able to use the muddy, ****ty field to their advantage the best. That's just me, though.

As for your third point that you edited out, I wasn't trying to make a case for field turf in my original post. Just that I don't by the argument that "look at all these memorable games that were played on a bad field."

[zooropa]

Re: Practice Facilities and Artificial Surface

I'd rather watch a game where the game is decided by who was the better team

So, all games should be played indoors on neutral fields, with either no fans, or with fans split 50/50--and neither section allowed to make more noise than the other? NDSU was, beyond question, the better team in 2007.

As to 'showcasing abilities of student athletes', well, as long as they have games like the SnowBowl in the pros, being able to play in adverse conditions will be a major consideration for NFL scouts.

You play the game in clinical conditions to 'showcase the abilities of student athletes' and you are most decidedly NOT showcasing your student athletes.

(BTW: from D-2 on up to the NFL, if memory serves, there have been exactly TWO dome teams that have won championships: the Colts & UND)