BK: Field Turf is Coming

[ThePiombino]

lmfao dead serious, my dude

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I 100% see your logic, but I've just never watched Notre Dame football and remarked to myself how much faster we are than the other guys. I'm also not convinced that grass has an "equalizing" effect that slows fast teams more than slower teams.

Regardless, I'm just repeating myself at this point so I'll bow out of the thread.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

I don't think grass neutralizes fast teams more than slow teams. I think a sloppy field reduces the ability of an offensive player to make sudden moves, like a juke move or a sudden cut. When you have to gear down to make moves such as these, you are allowing the defense more time to react. Couple that with the fact that defensive players in pursuit don't make sudden changes of direction unless they offensive player has made a sudden move in a different direction. I believe we have the personnel (and we'll continue to have the personnel) to take advantage of good field conditions.

And the most important point in this is beyond trying to understand who has the upperhand on a surface that allows speed and shake. It's that we'd all like to see both teams performing at their best, unimpeded by field conditions. No one likes to watch teams fighting at 78% of their capability because something has been neutralized.

Even if we don't match up well in the speed department, I'd want to see a clean game. If we have to neutralize something, it should be through scheme.

If footing is sloppy, it's sloppy for everyone. The difference in speed between two teams is the same on either surface.

It's like playing the lottery. The odds stay the same just like the difference in speed stays the same. Just because a number hasn't been called, doesn't mean it has a better chance to be called than a number called in the previous game. The faster team will always be faster.

I don't think anyone disputed that. Let's do some math to make sure we're on the same page:

X = 5 for Irish team speed
X = 4.5 for opponent's team speed

F(x) = the condition of the field

In your view, everything must be grouped together.

So grass fields have this effect in good conditions:

F(x) = X

and this effect in bad conditions:

F(x) = .7x

For fun, let's say field turf would be represented like this:

F(x) = 1.1x

According to you, we just plug the team's default speed into the equation to find their current speed on any given field condition. They'll maintain their comparative speed indefinitely across a broad swatch of field conditions.

I'm saying, like in most applications, you can't lump everything together because we are not running track, something that involves single repetitive mechanics for the entirety of the event.

A good condition field favors the offense, because they are on the offensive and have predetermined routes coming out of the huddle (or in our case, after the call comes in from the sideline). If they can keep their footing and juke, stutter, hard cut, etc, they are able to force the defense to react (hopefully incorrectly) which should result in a majority of successful plays.

If the field does not allow this, the defense is still reacting but they are no longer reacting to crisp, hard angled routes. Instead, they are benefitted because everything is rounded off, so the force of the cut doesn't cause the player to slip. The offense must slow down to make a cut or they won't keep their footing. (To verify this, watch any of our games where the conditions were poor: I remember watching Cierre, Theo, Folston and TJ Jones fall down in the backfield because they couldn't make a hardcut).

Football is a game of numbers and the ability of the offense to know where they are going before the defense can react gives them the opportunity to convert. The defense's built in opportunity was supposed to come from the numbers game. The defense should be able to have an extra man in coverage or rushing the QB, since you rarely saw athletic QBs. Now with the advent of hybrid athlete/passing QB, defenses are being stressed even more (sidenote).

In a world where we watch offseason, recruiting, spring practice, etc. I want to see our team playing at 100% of it's capabilities. I don't want the game plan or the performance affected by something that is within the control of the coaches/administration. We should make every effort to have the best surface that holds up to the difficult weather in South Bend. If we lose because we didn't have the better team or enough team speed, so be it.

Weather can still affect it but that is out of our control. Everything that is within our control should be counted for and maximized. We instituted a training table (10 years too late), we finally have a coach that is instituting sound roster management (and we're finally building depth throughout the team), we have seen a recruiting profile instituted and now being reshaped. We can have control over our field conditions by installing turf and I see no reason to oppose it.

We aren't painting abstract art over "The Word of Life" mural, aka Touchdown Jesus. We aren't de-gilding the golden dome or demanding the university drop it's moral stances for something more palatable to the public.

Moving to field turf seems to be the reasonable move because it will give us better conditions throughout the season allowing the game of football to be played at it's peak.

 

[IrishFaninTX]

I don't think grass neutralizes fast teams more than slow teams. I think a sloppy field reduces the ability of an offensive player to make sudden moves, like a juke move or a sudden cut. When you have to gear down to make moves such as these, you are allowing the defense more time to react. Couple that with the fact that defensive players in pursuit don't make sudden changes of direction unless they offensive player has made a sudden move in a different direction. I believe we have the personnel (and we'll continue to have the personnel) to take advantage of good field conditions.

And the most important point in this is beyond trying to understand who has the upperhand on a surface that allows speed and shake. It's that we'd all like to see both teams performing at their best, unimpeded by field conditions. No one likes to watch teams fighting at 78% of their capability because something has been neutralized.

Even if we don't match up well in the speed department, I'd want to see a clean game. If we have to neutralize something, it should be through scheme.



I don't think anyone disputed that. Let's do some math to make sure we're on the same page:

X = 5 for Irish team speed
X = 4.5 for opponent's team speed

F(x) = the condition of the field

In your view, everything must be grouped together.

So grass fields have this effect in good conditions:

F(x) = X

and this effect in bad conditions:

F(x) = .7x

For fun, let's say field turf would be represented like this:

F(x) = 1.1x

According to you, we just plug the team's default speed into the equation to find their current speed on any given field condition. They'll maintain their comparative speed indefinitely across a broad swatch of field conditions.

I'm saying, like in most applications, you can't lump everything together because we are not running track, something that involves single repetitive mechanics for the entirety of the event.

A good condition field favors the offense, because they are on the offensive and have predetermined routes coming out of the huddle (or in our case, after the call comes in from the sideline). If they can keep their footing and juke, stutter, hard cut, etc, they are able to force the defense to react (hopefully incorrectly) which should result in a majority of successful plays.

If the field does not allow this, the defense is still reacting but they are no longer reacting to crisp, hard angled routes. Instead, they are benefitted because everything is rounded off, so the force of the cut doesn't cause the player to slip. The offense must slow down to make a cut or they won't keep their footing. (To verify this, watch any of our games where the conditions were poor: I remember watching Cierre, Theo, Folston and TJ Jones fall down in the backfield because they couldn't make a hardcut).

Football is a game of numbers and the ability of the offense to know where they are going before the defense can react gives them the opportunity to convert. The defense's built in opportunity was supposed to come from the numbers game. The defense should be able to have an extra man in coverage or rushing the QB, since you rarely saw athletic QBs. Now with the advent of hybrid athlete/passing QB, defenses are being stressed even more (sidenote).

In a world where we watch offseason, recruiting, spring practice, etc. I want to see our team playing at 100% of it's capabilities. I don't want the game plan or the performance affected by something that is within the control of the coaches/administration. We should make every effort to have the best surface that holds up to the difficult weather in South Bend. If we lose because we didn't have the better team or enough team speed, so be it.

Weather can still affect it but that is out of our control. Everything that is within our control should be counted for and maximized. We instituted a training table (10 years too late), we finally have a coach that is instituting sound roster management (and we're finally building depth throughout the team), we have seen a recruiting profile instituted and now being reshaped. We can have control over our field conditions by installing turf and I see no reason to oppose it.

We aren't painting abstract art over "The Word of Life" mural, aka Touchdown Jesus. We aren't de-gilding the golden dome or demanding the university drop it's moral stances for something more palatable to the public.

Moving to field turf seems to be the reasonable move because it will give us better conditions throughout the season allowing the game of football to be played at it's peak.

You lost me when you started with the F(x) talk. I suck at math! Other than that, some good points.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Did you know that "The Word of Life" mural was considered a monstrosity and an affront to ND tradition at its onset?

I remember when one of my kids were still playing in high school. They played a team from Sylvania, when they were expected to do well (Southview). The one problem was my kids team with their unbelievable speed. It was a cut above anyone else it the league.

My kids team lost by two, in an uncharacteristically poor display. After the game, my dad, then in his middle 80's hopped out of his seat and began crossing the field. We followed. By the time he got out to center field where the other team was gloating, my dad went for the coach and asked him why he couldn't play a fair game, and had to flood the field. Others, mostly their friends were out there in a heartbeat. Some were connected. They investigated. That coach and his staff broke into the stadium, (shared by two teams in Sylvania) and flooded the stadium with the sprinklers to make it a mud hole. Lawsuits were filed within the Sylvania area. The field was ruined. Eventually Southview had to cover the entire cost of restoration, and the coach was fired.

Why did it happen? To neutralize the speed of their opponents. Springfield had three of the four fastest kids from the previous track season in the NLL on that team, and six of the top ten I will wager. No one could run with them.

Springfield, which won awards for his field in August, went to field turf a half a dozen years ago. But they haven't had the speed since Eric Page left.

 

[IrishBlood81]

Did you know that "The Word of Life" mural was considered a monstrosity and an affront to ND tradition at its onset?

I remember when one of my kids were still playing in high school. They played a team from Sylvania, when they were expected to do well (Southview). The one problem was my kids team with their unbelievable speed. It was a cut above anyone else it the league.

My kids team lost by two, in an uncharacteristically poor display. After the game, my dad, then in his middle 80's hopped out of his seat and began crossing the field. We followed. By the time he got out to center field where the other team was gloating, my dad went for the coach and asked him why he couldn't play a fair game, and had to flood the field. Others, mostly their friends were out there in a heartbeat. Some were connected. They investigated. That coach and his staff broke into the stadium, (shared by two teams in Sylvania) and flooded the stadium with the sprinklers to make it a mud hole. Lawsuits were filed within the Sylvania area. The field was ruined. Eventually Southview had to cover the entire cost of restoration, and the coach was fired.

Why did it happen? To neutralize the speed of their opponents. Springfield had three of the four fastest kids from the previous track season in the NLL on that team, and six of the top ten I will wager. No one could run with them.

Springfield, which won awards for his field in August, went to field turf a half a dozen years ago. But they haven't had the speed since Eric Page left.

Incredible story. Sounds like its from a movie.How was it that only your dad knew? Wouldn't it be pretty obvious if the field was a mud pit and it hadn't even rained?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Incredible story. Sounds like its from a movie.How was it that only your dad knew? Wouldn't it be pretty obvious if the field was a mud pit and it hadn't even rained?

It was obvious and we were at a stage in his life where he made it really clear he didn't care what other people thought.

You could see the kids splash occasionally.

Most people knew something was wrong. But dad always simplified. He looked at who it benefitted.

I am telling you, just walking we sank in the mud, that field was ruined!

It was funny to see him. That 175lb old man foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog. All those manly fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year olds afraid to get bitten. Coaching staff looking around furtively, like, "Where is a cop when you need one!"

Good memories, but I think the fast guys loose speed advantage, but the strong guys loose their bases a bit, too, but not as much.

 

[Irish#1]

I don't think grass neutralizes fast teams more than slow teams. I think a sloppy field reduces the ability of an offensive player to make sudden moves, like a juke move or a sudden cut. When you have to gear down to make moves such as these, you are allowing the defense more time to react. Couple that with the fact that defensive players in pursuit don't make sudden changes of direction unless they offensive player has made a sudden move in a different direction. I believe we have the personnel (and we'll continue to have the personnel) to take advantage of good field conditions.

And the most important point in this is beyond trying to understand who has the upperhand on a surface that allows speed and shake. It's that we'd all like to see both teams performing at their best, unimpeded by field conditions. No one likes to watch teams fighting at 78% of their capability because something has been neutralized.

Even if we don't match up well in the speed department, I'd want to see a clean game. If we have to neutralize something, it should be through scheme.



I don't think anyone disputed that. Let's do some math to make sure we're on the same page:

X = 5 for Irish team speed
X = 4.5 for opponent's team speed

F(x) = the condition of the field

In your view, everything must be grouped together.

So grass fields have this effect in good conditions:

F(x) = X

and this effect in bad conditions:

F(x) = .7x

For fun, let's say field turf would be represented like this:

F(x) = 1.1x

According to you, we just plug the team's default speed into the equation to find their current speed on any given field condition. They'll maintain their comparative speed indefinitely across a broad swatch of field conditions.

I'm saying, like in most applications, you can't lump everything together because we are not running track, something that involves single repetitive mechanics for the entirety of the event.

A good condition field favors the offense, because they are on the offensive and have predetermined routes coming out of the huddle (or in our case, after the call comes in from the sideline). If they can keep their footing and juke, stutter, hard cut, etc, they are able to force the defense to react (hopefully incorrectly) which should result in a majority of successful plays.

If the field does not allow this, the defense is still reacting but they are no longer reacting to crisp, hard angled routes. Instead, they are benefitted because everything is rounded off, so the force of the cut doesn't cause the player to slip. The offense must slow down to make a cut or they won't keep their footing. (To verify this, watch any of our games where the conditions were poor: I remember watching Cierre, Theo, Folston and TJ Jones fall down in the backfield because they couldn't make a hardcut).

Football is a game of numbers and the ability of the offense to know where they are going before the defense can react gives them the opportunity to convert. The defense's built in opportunity was supposed to come from the numbers game. The defense should be able to have an extra man in coverage or rushing the QB, since you rarely saw athletic QBs. Now with the advent of hybrid athlete/passing QB, defenses are being stressed even more (sidenote).

In a world where we watch offseason, recruiting, spring practice, etc. I want to see our team playing at 100% of it's capabilities. I don't want the game plan or the performance affected by something that is within the control of the coaches/administration. We should make every effort to have the best surface that holds up to the difficult weather in South Bend. If we lose because we didn't have the better team or enough team speed, so be it.

Weather can still affect it but that is out of our control. Everything that is within our control should be counted for and maximized. We instituted a training table (10 years too late), we finally have a coach that is instituting sound roster management (and we're finally building depth throughout the team), we have seen a recruiting profile instituted and now being reshaped. We can have control over our field conditions by installing turf and I see no reason to oppose it.

We aren't painting abstract art over "The Word of Life" mural, aka Touchdown Jesus. We aren't de-gilding the golden dome or demanding the university drop it's moral stances for something more palatable to the public.

Moving to field turf seems to be the reasonable move because it will give us better conditions throughout the season allowing the game of football to be played at it's peak.

I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass, but you're late to the party. We've discussed this every which way one can. I personally prefer grass and playing outside in the elements the way the game was created. I find it funny that while the game has changed to a more wide open game (which I'm okay with) most that like that change want turf so one of the the elements doesn't change, yet they don't want a dome on the stadium to have an ideal playing environment. Just seems a little narrow minded in my book.

P.S. I'm with IrishfaninTX, I suck at math! lol

 

[RDU Irish]

turf = dome argument is ridiculous. Like saying my yard doesn't matter if it is mud or grass because it is all outside.

Why even bother sodding the field then? If you want to go to such a ridiculous extreme in a discussion, just throw out some grass seed and whatever grows, grows. Don't bother watering or fertilizing b/c obviously it wasn't meant to be if you have to work so hard and the field will be just as gloriously sloppy for both sides!

 

[Bogtrotter07]

"Oh, nice tackle by the sycamore thicket at the 30 yard line!"

 

[IrishLax]

The simplest argument for turf is that it makes NO SENSE to play on a different surface than you practice.

95%+ of the reps this team takes during a season/offseason are on turf. Only logical that you then have your home playing surface match the conditions you're used to.

 

[gkIrish]

I feel like this debate just keeps getting rehashed every two months. Let's just all agree that people who are pro-turf will not change their opinion and those who are anti-turf are crazy.

 

[IrishLion]

I feel like this debate just keeps getting rehashed every two months. Let's just all agree that people who are pro-turf will not change their opinion and those who are anti-turf are crazy.

Of course not, because we're right

 

[Ndaccountant]

The simplest argument for turf is that it makes NO SENSE to play on a different surface than you practice.

95%+ of the reps this team takes during a season/offseason are on turf. Only logical that you then have your home playing surface match the conditions you're used to.

This is spot on.

I always laugh at people who talk about the injury element of switching to turf then I kindle remind them that the amount of time they spend taking full reps on field turf........

 

[Bogtrotter07]

This is spot on.

I always laugh at people who talk about the injury element of switching to turf then I kindle remind them that the amount of time they spend taking full reps on field turf........

Injuries come from turf? Huh! I always thought they come from getting hurt! (In my best Yogi Berra imitation.)

 

[dshans]

"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing."

 

[Bogtrotter07]

"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the landing."

Not to over parse, but I was thinking the sudden stop figured in there somewhere.

 

[dshans]

Not to over parse, but I was thinking the sudden stop figured in there somewhere.

That's gotta hurt, too. Especially if the "sudden stop" weighs in excess of 300 pounds proceeding at 25 mph.

 

[Irish#1]

The simplest argument for turf is that it makes NO SENSE to play on a different surface than you practice.

95%+ of the reps this team takes during a season/offseason are on turf. Only logical that you then have your home playing surface match the conditions you're used to.

That I agree with.

 

[dshans]

Lawdy, Lawdy Miss Lawdy!

Were sports intended to be played on plastic, Monsanto would have been sowing plasticine pellets centuries ago.

 

[IrishBlood81]

It was obvious and we were at a stage in his life where he made it really clear he didn't care what other people thought.

You could see the kids splash occasionally.

Most people knew something was wrong. But dad always simplified. He looked at who it benefitted.

I am telling you, just walking we sank in the mud, that field was ruined!

It was funny to see him. That 175lb old man foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog. All those manly fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year olds afraid to get bitten. Coaching staff looking around furtively, like, "Where is a cop when you need one!"

Good memories, but I think the fast guys loose speed advantage, but the strong guys loose their bases a bit, too, but not as much.

Man I can totally envision that scenario. Something out of Varsity Blue or Remember the Titans.
Although its not, its kinda hard to believe someone would go that far just to win a game. Makes me all angry and cheering' on your dad for that. What a cool memory, bro.

 

[IrishBlood81]

This is spot on.

I always laugh at people who talk about the injury element of switching to turf then I kindle remind them that the amount of time they spend taking full reps on field turf........

....thats so kindle of you...