Natural Grass vs Artificial turf

Mac4Lyfe · 07-30-14, 01:36 PM

Probably depends on the type of turf. I have no experience with the new field turf.

I played at UF where we were on turf. A lot more scoring on turf, where you get better footing, especially in wet weather. We went to grass and scoring went way down. They went to a new Bermuda grass a couple of years ago but scoring still seems to be down (can blame pathetic offensive coaching too).

Now a lot of stadiums have a new type of field turf that intermixes turf with a silica sand. I think half the NFL teams use it and a bunch of colleges. I'm not sure how it matches up with natural grass as far as betting O/U's but it's supposedly very similar to grass with the sand mixed. It reduces injuries (which is why many teams have gone away from regular turf) and drains water very well. You can slip more on it than Astroturf which reduces ACL/MCL injuries but probably reduces O/U's as well. I'm sure someone has compiled some stats.

BigdaddyQH · 07-30-14, 07:08 PM

Generally speaking, teams moving from grass to turf have an advantage over teams moving from turf to grass. Still the difference is really not enough to change the outcome of a game, unless the field (no matter what it consists of) is real bad.

SamDiamond · 07-31-14, 08:05 AM

Notre Dame's field was horrific.

It was coming up in chunks, and they were re-sodding during the season.

For all their money and resources, it never made sense to me why ND would continue to play on such a shitty field. Love the stadium, hated the field.

Smart move on their part.

BigdaddyQH · 07-31-14, 10:46 AM

I wonder if the change in field will mean a change in the type of player the irish look for. Basically a team that plays on grass looks for slower, more physical players, ala Stanford, while the teams that play on turf go for the speedier players, ala Oregon.