TURF - it's official

[dublinirish]

But what shade? We don't want to look like Pitt.

the old folks on the far sideline will say the logo is upside down!

 

[tko]

the old folks on the far sideline will say the logo is upside down!

sadly that's a fact!

 

[bobbyok1]

The monogram they have at the center of Arlotta is pretty fresh:

A lacrosse field is a roughly the same size as a football field (just a bit more wide sideline to sideline). I think you could something similar to this for the football field and have it look great.

Lax,

That is the one I had in mind. Was too busy to post it in my original post. Thanks for posting it. In my opinion that goes right along with the gold pants we are wearing now. I love it!

 

[NDdomer2]

edit. beat by lax

 

[chubler]

This question is not rhetorical:

If, hypothetically, the football team returns to the standard we expect out of Notre Dame Football (Oklahoma over the last decade isn't a terrible example), does having a logo at midfield or a blank field help us more with 'branding'?

I'm torn. Seems like being consistently successful and not having a logo could really set us apart, but I can see the concern with more casual fans or those not yet familiar with us gaining more recognition by seeing the monogram in each and every highlight. Then again, if we're winning like that do we need the recognition?

 

[RDU Irish]

For those of you against logos, this is an example of something that I think would look pretty awesome:

Yes to Turf | Irish Turning Point

These statistics are really all that are needed. My preference for one over the other is pretty irrelevant when you looks at a 20% reduction in injury risk. Injury risk is already high enough for a football player and we go to great lengths to protect athletes. Yet we should subject them to injury because of some sentimental attachment to mud?

I suspect this is a source of negative recruiting that is more problematic than any positive juice from going au natural. "If they really cared about you they would get rid of that mud field that increases your chance of injury." or "How can you showcase your elite athleticism on that slop?"

 

[Grahambo]

Not to sound too NDnation, but I think "Tradition" is a bad word to use for people against things like turf and jumbotrons.

"Identity" would be better. Notre Dame is supposed to be different and unique. It's supposed to be held to a higher standard and have a classy essence to it. Things like these are always going to be held to a higher critique by our fan base because we don't want to "keep up" with Michigan or Oregon, we don't want to be those teams. We want to be Notre Dame.

The moment we start worrying about getting left behind because of flashy things like jumbotrons, is when we start getting caught up with being the same as other programs. But what has made this university special is that we are different. We do go about things differently.

All that being said, I do think there is room for things like turf and jumbotrons without losing our identity. But they have to be done in ways that are consistent with our culture, not the rest of college football.

You said what I would have preferred to say except I'm just harsh. Reps. Except I can't give reps to you cuz I've done that too much apparently.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

These statistics are really all that are needed. My preference for one over the other is pretty irrelevant when you looks at a 20% reduction in injury risk. Injury risk is already high enough for a football player and we go to great lengths to protect athletes. Yet we should subject them to injury because of some sentimental attachment to mud?

I suspect this is a source of negative recruiting that is more problematic than any positive juice from going au natural. "If they really cared about you they would get rid of that mud field that increases your chance of injury." or "How can you showcase your elite athleticism on that slop?"

Three things can bode well for recruiting as I see it :

1) the right stadium renovations, and the argument for field turf to reduce injuries is great;

2) a high powered offense this fall. 40 to 60 points a game will open a lot of eyes;

3) VanGorder and his defense being incorporated into the brand. We will get the pick of the athletes that chose for reasons other than monetary compensation.

However, if unions come and athletes are allowed to be paid, negating the effect of bagmen everywhere, watch out!

 

[Rack Em]

Not to sound too NDnation, but I think "Tradition" is a bad word to use for people against things like turf and jumbotrons.

"Identity" would be better. Notre Dame is supposed to be different and unique. It's supposed to be held to a higher standard and have a classy essence to it. Things like these are always going to be held to a higher critique by our fan base because we don't want to "keep up" with Michigan or Oregon, we don't want to be those teams. We want to be Notre Dame.

The moment we start worrying about getting left behind because of flashy things like jumbotrons, is when we start getting caught up with being the same as other programs. But what has made this university special is that we are different. We do go about things differently.

All that being said, I do think there is room for things like turf and jumbotrons without losing our identity. But they have to be done in ways that are consistent with our culture, not the rest of college football.

You really hit the nail on the head here. This cuts to the core of the discussion.

.

You, sir, are once-in-a-generation wordsmith. How do you do it? So simple, yet teeming with profundity.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

You really hit the nail on the head here. This cuts to the core of the discussion.



You, sir, are once-in-a-generation wordsmith. How do you do it? So simple, yet teeming with profundity.

Now I really feel left out.

 

[woolybug25]

You really hit the nail on the head here. This cuts to the core of the discussion.



You, sir, are once-in-a-generation wordsmith. How do you do it? So simple, yet teeming with profundity.

Thank you, sir.... the second comment was a brief silence for effect.

The first rule of negotiation... "He he talks first... loses"

 

[RDU Irish]

I like video boards from a fan experience standpoint. Went to two games last year, at Pitt and USC at home. I appreciate what the video added to the Pitt experience while felt the air sucked out of the stadium during the drawn out timeouts at home. The music definitely helps keep the energy up (and I know plenty have complained about that).

Jumbotron would just be dumb and not fit in anywhere. Tastefully sized video boards in each corner would be unassuming and offer a venue for promoting ND football during otherwise dead time. Who wouldn't want to see highlights of legends past during a TV timeout? A replay now and then would be great! I meant half the stadium has a crappy angle on any given play. During the game they can all show ND logos or shamrocks. Would that really be that offensive to anyone?

 

[connor_in]

Grass is Tradition? | Irish Turning Point

Another turning point turf article

 

[wizards8507]

Grass is Tradition? | Irish Turning Point

Another turning point turf article

That article is built in a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. Natural grass is not "a tradition" but it IS "traditional." There's a difference.

The article (and this whole argument) also attempts to settle the issue by making rational appeals to logic. "There's no REASON for natural grass, therefore the feelings of those who prefer it are illegitimate." That's crap. Some people just think football should be played on grass, even if it's muddy and sloppy. Why? Because they do. Some people also like real Christmas trees, American automobiles, and singers that play their own instruments. It's a feeling, a gut thing. No, natural grass is not "a tradition" but arguing that it's not "traditional" is intellectually dishonest.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Rhode Irish]

That article is built in a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language. Natural grass is not "a tradition" but it IS "traditional." There's a difference.

The article (and this whole argument) also attempts to settle the issue by making rational appeals to logic. "There's no REASON for natural grass, therefore the feelings of those who prefer it are illegitimate." That's crap. Some people just think football should be played on grass, even if it's muddy and sloppy. Why? Because they do. Some people also like real Christmas trees, American automobiles, and singers that play their own instruments. It's a feeling, a gut thing. No, natural grass is not "a tradition" but arguing that it's not "traditional" is intellectually dishonest.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

People who want grass because they feel it in their gut can play in traffic. Seriously, what an incredibly stupid and myopic and egocentric way to think.

 

[wizards8507]

People who want grass because they feel it in their gut can play in traffic. Seriously, what an incredibly stupid and myopic and egocentric way to think.

That's borderline neg rep material. What the hell is your problem?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[woolybug25]

That wasn't very nice there, Rhode.

Last time I checked, somebody politely giving his opinion is fair game on here.

Calling someone an egocentric idiot that should kill himself (after all... isn' that what "play in traffic means?) is worth an infraction in my opinion.

He made a simple comment... he didn' insult you're mother... chill, dude.

 

[Rhode Irish]

That's borderline neg rep material. What the hell is your problem?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Why would someone think it matters what type of field they want a football team to play on? I'm honestly confused by this.

 

[woolybug25]

Why would someone think it matters what type of field they want a football team to play on? I'm honestly confused by this.

I'm confused on why you are asking him to answer a question that he just gave you the answer.

Or why someone not liking turf would turn you into a hate spewing jerk?

I like you, Rhode. But your comment above was over the line, imo.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Calling someone an egocentric idiot that should kill himself (after all... isn' that what "play in traffic means?) is worth an infraction in my opinion.

OK, I meant "play in traffic" in the literary sense. I also didn't realize he was talking about himself. I do think it is silly that someone would care what kind of field a team plays on. How is that something to care about? They should have whatever kind of field they want. If fans want to be worried about what style of defense their team plays or who they are recruiting, or even their uniforms, that makes sense to me. But the field thing I just don't get. They have reasons for replacing the field that are much more significant than what some random person randomly "feels in their gut" about it.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I'm confused on why you are asking him to answer a question that he just gave you the answer.

Or why someone not liking turf would turn you into a hate spewing jerk?

I like you, Rhode. But your comment above was over the line, imo.

OK, let me rephrase then because I have no hate whatsoever for anyone here and I don't want to be thought of as spewing it. Although I do fear there is no way to say this that won't make sensitive people upset:

Unless you are part of the decision making process, your opinion is irrelevant. And I don't even understand how someone could think that the team should make a decision that has actual real life implications based on some weird fetish that some people might have for grass.

 

[IrishLion]

OK, let me rephrase then because I have no hate whatsoever for anyone here and I don't want to be thought of as spewing it. Although I do fear there is no way to say this that won't make sensitive people upset:

Unless you are part of the decision making process, your opinion is irrelevant. And I don't even understand how someone could think that the team should make a decision that has actual real life implications based on some weird fetish that some people might have for grass.

So let's all stop commenting on recruiting, scheduling, play calling, etc.

Since our opinions are irrelevant.

EDIT: This sounds combative, and I didn't mean for it to be so. It was the simplest reply I could muster. Having an opinion on the playing surface is no different than having an opinion on Player A vs Player B in recruiting... At the end of the day, our opinions mean jack shit. But that doesn't mean we can't shoot the shit about it anyway.

 

[koonja]

So let's all stop commenting on recruiting, scheduling, play calling, etc.

Since our opinions are irrelevant.

That opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Rhode Irish]

So let's all stop commenting on recruiting, scheduling, play calling, etc.

Since our opinions are irrelevant.

I just said specifically that I understand why a person could have an opinion about that stuff, but turf is obviously different because it has absolutely zero impact on your connection with the team. Play calling, scheduling, recruiting, even uniforms, that stuff seems like fair game to me. Mainly because people can have a basis for an opinion about it.

What possible basis could a person have for wanting other people to run on grass rather than turf? They have to watch plays they run, the players they recruit, the uniforms they wear, the games they schedule, but they don't have to run on the damn grass and the turf looks basically the same. Its green. Got white lines on it. Good to go.

 

[Rhode Irish]

EDIT: This sounds combative, and I didn't mean for it to be so.

No worries man. I could say this after everything I post tonight. In one of those moods so I apologize in advance. The funny thing is, I'm sitting here having a nice adult beverage, so relaxed, having a good time. Don't know why the stuff I'm writing is coming off so dickish. Not a good reflection of how I feel.

 

[woolybug25]

No worries man. I could say this after everything I post tonight. In one of those moods so I apologize in advance. The funny thing is, I'm sitting here having a nice adult beverage, so relaxed, having a good time. Don't know why the stuff I'm writing is coming off so dickish. Not a good reflection of how I feel.

We've all been there (especially me).

 

[ulukinatme]

I can't believe Swarbrick turned down my proposal to change the surface to a 100 yard long Bouncy Castle inflatable. The mid air collisions and tackles would be epic.

 

[wizards8507]

Why would someone think it matters what type of field they want a football team to play on? I'm honestly confused by this.

I'm not upset that Swarbrick failed to consult me on the matter, I just don't like it. I didn't say it MATTERS what I think, I just said I think it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[TheRealLynch51]

I'm not upset that Swarbrick failed to consult me on the matter, I just don't like it. I didn't say it MATTERS what I think, I just said I think it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

So you're against fieldturf simply from a "tradition" standpoint?

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Interesting conversation. I acknowledge you all for stepping over and then stepping back. And it is interesting that there was a misunderstanding that resulted in hurt feelings, go figure!

Here is the point. In the American language, most users don't know a subtle little thing about it called "different parts of speech." Kind of like driving, and not being cognizant of changing lanes, or gears for that matter.

So communication becomes broken : And so it goes.

Grass is traditional. Traditional used to be called an adjective. Further describes the noun "grass." This is a true statement.

Grass is a tradition. Definitely a noun. And definitely not true. Look in the dictionary for the definition of the abstract thing. Not true of grass at ND because it was never picked among options. As the article explains, until it was a consciously chosen option, it was the defacto choice. And if you read all the numbers, this generation of turf is the first one, and is clearly safer than any other surface including grass.

So now we have a simple choice throw caution to the wind and opt for the choice with a clearly higher injury rate, that is less desired by the players and coaches, or go with the safer more desired option.

Those that don't put player safety first, can go play in traffic, as far as I am concerned.