AFM RSS Feed Follow Us on Twitter       
AMERICAN FOOTBALL MONTHLY THE #1 RESOURCE FOR FOOTBALL COACHES
ABOUT |  CONTACT |  ADVERTISE |  HELP  



   User Name    Password 
      Password Help





Article Categories


AFM Magazine

AFM Magazine


Artificial Oasis

Today\'s artificial turf fields are dramatically improved and offer an alternative
by: Jane Musgrave
© More from this issue

Click for Printer Friendly Version          

This isn't your father's artificial turf.

It's a line that rolls off turf salesmen's lips nearly anytime they are asked to talk about their product. And it's a line that few associated with the fine art of field management dispute.

Artificial turf has changed dramatically since it was first rolled out at the Houston Astrodome 36 years ago when dome officials, desperate to prove that the much-maligned facility was truly state-of-the art, hurriedly put it down after dome panels were painted and all of the grass died. Today's artificial turf consists of fiber-forming polymers giving it a grass-like feel.

"When I first went to visit a field, I was like, 'Is this artificial?'" says John Ingram, director of athletic facilities at the University of Nebraska where a new generation of turf consisting of sand and rubber infill was installed in Memorial Stadium two years ago. "When you walk around on it, it feels like real grass. "We've had people walk on the field and think we just mowed it," he continues. "We've had to pull them aside and whisper, 'It's not grass.'"

Kelly Reeves, athletic director for the Round Rock Independent School District outside Austin, Texas, can do that story one better. After artificial turf was installed at Dragon Stadium last fall, people complained that the district was wasting precious water to keep the grass on the field green.

But while he still laughs about the story, he can understand people's confusion. "I was surprised how good the end product felt," the former football coach says. "It felt so much more like grass than I ever expected it would."

Now forced to live down the reputation of AstroTurf, those who peddle its successors say people don't realize how good the new stuff is until they've tried it. While the original AstroTurf was little more than carpet over concrete, the latest generations are part of an elaborate system, representing technological advancements that would make Space Shuttle engineers swoon. There's the fiberglass backing, the nylon root zone and the crumb rubber infill layers. Then there's those green polyethylene and polypropylene strips that top the entire system, making the manmade material look like it was heaven sent.

And if you want proof that the stuff is as good as grass, salesmen say, don't take their word for it. They now have the GMAX test that they say proves it. It's enough to make anyone shopping for a new field dizzy.

But their talk has been convincing. Artificial turf is now used on hundreds of football fields, baseball diamonds, soccer fields, tennis courts and putting greens from Kalamazoo to Katmundu.

Not bad for a product that was first developed by the Monsanto Corp. in the early-1960s with a Ford Foundation grant after military recruiters noticed that draftees who grew up in the inner city weren't in as good as shape as their rural counterparts.

"They realized they didn't have a place to run and fall like country kids," says Jim Savoca, chief operating officer of Texas-based Southwest Recreational Industries, which ultimately bought the patent for AstroTurf from Monsanto. The Ford Foundation asked the chemical company to come up with a surface that could be installed in city playgrounds that would withstand snow, rain, heat, drought and kids' pounding feet.

While it was originally going to be marketed as Chem-grass, once it was used in the Astrodome, it quickly was dubbed AstroTurf. Developed during the height of the nation's space race with the Soviets, "everything was astro back then," Savoca explains.

Pretty soon everyone was embracing artificial turf, says Trey Rogers, a specialist in turf management who teaches in the Crop and Soil Sciences Department at Michigan State University.

While its use in the Astrodome gave it a special cache and peaked people's interest, Rogers sees another reason for turf's initial popularity.

"Artificial turf got a foot hold because natural turf people were doing a lousy job," he says. Games quickly turned into mud baths. As television coverage become more important to professional sports, owners and others became concerned about what viewers would see on their TV screens: mud-covered athletes or what looked like carefully manicured lawns? They opted for the lawns.

But, in the early 1970s, the rosy picture for artificial turf companies started to fade. Players started complaining. "This is like playing on rocks," Rogers says, summing up players' gripes.

In the end, the complaints woke up the natural turf people to develop better products, which in turn forced the makers of artificial turf to go back to their labs to do the same and the race was (and to a large extent still is) on.

"The bottom line is who is the ultimate winner," Rogers says of the turf race. "And you know who the ultimate winner is? The answer is, the athlete. They are now playing on safer fields than ever before."

And while we will leave the safety issue for next month's issue of American Football Monthly, for the purposes of this article, suffice it to say that despite years of study there is little evidence that natural grass is safer than artificial turf or vice versa. The NCAA, which tracks injury rates, for instance, has never noticed a trend that one surface is safer than another.

And because some of the systems that are now being sold are so new, much of the data that has been gathered over the years is now out-of-date.

After being assured that safety concerns were a non-issue, Reeves said the Texas school district opted for turf because they were convinced it is more durable than grass.

While pro teams, that are now returning to grass fields in record numbers, only play eight home games, his stadium is used by four high schools which play more than 20 varsity football games, more than 65 soccer games, various track meets, not to mention band practice and myriad other events on the field each year. And while the pros typically have two weeks between home games to give grounds crews time to recondition cleat-damaged fields, he often has games every Friday night, Saturday and Sunday in the fall which gives his crews little time to repair bad spots.

"I called up the Kansas City Chiefs and asked them what they do if they have a problem," Reeves says, explaining why he ultimately decided that what the pros are doing should have no bearing on decision-making at the high school or small college level. "They said they replace the bad areas with new sod. They also totally replace the field every June at a cost of $200,000."

Obviously, such expenses are out of the reach of any high school program, he says.

There is no question that turf is more expensive than grass initially. Even turf-makers admit that.

A checklist produced by Southwest Recreational Industries shows that it costs $882,000 to install artificial turf on a football field, compared with $536,000 for natural turf and $750,000 for what is called a perscription natural grass field, which includes sophisticated drainage, heating and cooling systems and other high-tech extras.

However, while the initial cost is higher, their chart shows that turf is cheaper over the long-haul, even including the cost of replacing the artificial turf after 12 years. After 24 years, they claim that it would cost $4.89 million to install and maintain a prescription grass field, $2 million for a regular natural grass field and $1.6 million for artificial turf.

Reeves said Rock Island spent about $650,000 for the new field, which included the cost of removing the old grass field.

And while the expense was a hard sell to voters, he said he is convinced the district will ultimately save money. During football season alone, he says, they saved $15,000 by not having to water the field. Some of the other savings are more difficult to document, but he says they are real nonetheless.

For instance, less maintenance is required on other fields because teams can use the stadium field for practice and other events. He used to estimate that it cost $1,500 to use the field per event. Now that the field is used more often, that cost has dropped dramatically.

Further, he says, it may ultimately mean the school district won't have to buy additional land for more athletic fields because they can use the stadium field more.

"We've saved more money than we ever expected," he says. He notes that in a recent survey of nearly 70 schools in Texas, 93 percent said that their use of artificial turf has been cost-effective and 97 percent reported that if they had to make the decision again, they would choose turf over grass.

In addition, he says, in drought-prone Texas, not having to waste water to keep a field green and safe is good public policy, not to mention often just an inescapable fact of life. "You just can't do it, the water's just not there," he says.

Ingram, at Nebraska, also sees social benefits from the use of artificial turf. "We have 14,000 recycled Nebraska tires in our field," he says. "Now what could be cooler than that?"

Rogers, of Michigan State, says that while artificial turf has come a long way in recent years, so too, has natural turf. There are now new systems that consist of new fiber technology, combinations of infill and a variety of pad options. However, legitimate questions over the use of sand as an infill have arisen and are currently being scrutinized by industry officials and experts.

He has seen the new artificial turf, and like most others, is impressed.

While Michigan State is in the process of switching from turf to natural grass, it isn't because he, as a turf management expert, believes grass is superior. "Coach (Bobby) Williams wanted it," he says. "If the coach wanted to play on BBs and marbles, we would."

Still, the school's so-called portable field, where grass will be grown on four-foot square trays during the season and then brought back into a greenhouse to grow in the off-season, is out of the financial reach of most high schools and small colleges. The university is spending $2 million on the field that is now being grown and is to be ready for the 2002 season.

Rather than concerns over safety, maintenance or cost, Williams wanted a grass field because it helps with recruiting, Rogers says. Top-notch high school players want to play like the pros and the pros right now are singing the praises of grass.

But while Rogers isn't completely sold on the idea that grass is superior, he says he urges those who buy turf to temper their enthusiasm and investigate all the various products available carefully.

"On the surface I think it's outstanding," he says of turf. "I just remind people that in the 1960s people thought AstroTurf was great and just remember, if you get in on the ground floor, you're going to have to suffer with the growing pains






NEW BOOK!

AFM Videos Streaming Memberships Now Available Digital Download - 304 Pages of Football Forms for the Winning Coach



















HOME
MAGAZINE
SUBSCRIBE ONLINE COLUMNISTS COACHING VIDEOS


Copyright 2024, AmericanFootballMonthly.com
All Rights Reserved