WSR Gridiron Report

Great link.

The comments say it all. 88% is not a statistical anomaly. Plus, Field Turf is MORE expensive because you have up clean up blood, spit and tears.

How nasty to play on crap that retains all human fluids. . .

Well, now you raise another interesting point. About every comparative analysis I've seen has been one authored by industry. OTOH, here is a maintenance program from FIFA, which is probably the most objective source, even though we would not be able to host a FIFA event in Arizona Stadium as I understand it after Byrne's baby is hatched.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/footballturf/01/13/56/11/maintenanceofanartificialturffield.pdf

The most interesting part of this is the contrast in maintenance costs from this study done by industry for SFC, where the vendor claimed annual maintenance costs of $6000. How the hell are you going to do all the things FIFA notes for $6K annually? You aren't. Those vendors lie. That crap has to be brushed, literally manicured if you will about weekly, you've to apply the sand etc on a regular basis, and we're going to get this done for $6K a year? What are we gonna do, piss off Joe Arpaio and hired some undocumented labor? It's just total BS.

http://www.synturf.org/images/FN9and23_SanFran_www.cityfieldsfoundation.org_Comparison_fieldturf.pdf

Frankly, I have to say that I am extremely disappointed in my Athletic Director and his management of his new star program administrator, RR. If I was back in my bureaucratic days I would quite frankly be applying the smell test in that I would be questioning how the West Virginia boys like to operate. Why is this so important to Rich Rod? Especially since he hasn't even experienced a summer or autumn here? We have already redone over the football staff up to and including the hire of two Kirlawich gentlemen--father and son I assume--in the image of West Virginia. In short, I would NOT give the go-ahead on this absent a legitimate cost-benefit analysis that is independent from vendors of the industry!

WATO

The plan is to replace grass with the horrible, wretched, artificial plastic turf NEXT year.

I believe that public outcry, which doesn't happen in Tucson ever, unless there is an environmental concern, should be made, on the basis that this plastic field poses a huge environmental impact.

thi is an excerpt from the Penn Stat Study on artificial turf. I do not profess to know the answers but this appears to be from an unbiased study.
"Currently, there are between 700 and 800 of these fields being installed annually in the country, and there's been quite a scare about turf and MRSA," McNitt said. "Some pro football players came down with it, and a Pennsylvania high school team has had 13 players sickened by it over the last two years. So this is an important finding."

McNitt said the center's study didn't differentiate between MRSA and the nonresistant strain because "they are the same bacterium. It's just that some of the bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics. We didn't differentiate, as we didn't find any staph -- resistant or otherwise -- in the synthetic turf."

The Penn State study also found low overall microbial populations in the synthetic turf systems. "The microbe population of natural turfgrass far exceeds anything we've found in the infill systems," McNitt said. "In fact, a number of the infill systems had zero living microbes in the sample at the time of testing."

Even though temperatures of indoor fields would not be expected to fluctuate nearly as much as outdoor fields, he said, the microbe population of the indoor fields tended to be lower than outdoor fields. "That was unexpected," he said. "We really expected to see higher microbe populations indoors and purposely tested the fields during periods of high use and humidity. While we are unsure as to why the indoor fields had lower microbe counts, it could be due to the almost complete lack of moisture."

The researchers did find S. aureus on other surfaces (blocking pads, weight equipment, stretching tables and used towels), as well as on the hands of five randomly tested passers-by. The bottom line, McNitt said, is that while everyone should be concerned about the spread of bacteria and the cleanliness of equipment and other surfaces that players contact, infilled synthetic turf systems do not appear to be a breeding ground for microbes generally.

"Some other studies indicate that a player playing on synthetic turf may acquire more skin abrasions due to the abrasiveness of the surface," McNitt said. "Thus, they have more entry points for the staph, but they're not getting it from the field -- they're picking it up in the locker room or somewhere else. One study shows that players who shave their ankles prior to taping up, for instance, also have a greater incidence of staph because the shaving creates little nicks for infection to enter."

"Currently, there are between 700 and 800 of these fields being installed annually in the country, and there's been quite a scare about turf and MRSA," McNitt said. "Some pro football players came down with it, and a Pennsylvania high school team has had 13 players sickened by it over the last two years. So this is an important finding."

McNitt said the center's study didn't differentiate between MRSA and the nonresistant strain because "they are the same bacterium. It's just that some of the bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics. We didn't differentiate, as we didn't find any staph -- resistant or otherwise -- in the synthetic turf."

The Penn State study also found low overall microbial populations in the synthetic turf systems. "The microbe population of natural turfgrass far exceeds anything we've found in the infill systems," McNitt said. "In fact, a number of the infill systems had zero living microbes in the sample at the time of testing."

Even though temperatures of indoor fields would not be expected to fluctuate nearly as much as outdoor fields, he said, the microbe population of the indoor fields tended to be lower than outdoor fields. "That was unexpected," he said. "We really expected to see higher microbe populations indoors and purposely tested the fields during periods of high use and humidity. While we are unsure as to why the indoor fields had lower microbe counts, it could be due to the almost complete lack of moisture."

The researchers did find S. aureus on other surfaces (blocking pads, weight equipment, stretching tables and used towels), as well as on the hands of five randomly tested passers-by. The bottom line, McNitt said, is that while everyone should be concerned about the spread of bacteria and the cleanliness of equipment and other surfaces that players contact, infilled synthetic turf systems do not appear to be a breeding ground for microbes generally.

"Some other studies indicate that a player playing on synthetic turf may acquire more skin abrasions due to the abrasiveness of the surface," McNitt said. "Thus, they have more entry points for the staph, but they're not getting it from the field -- they're picking it up in the locker room or somewhere else. One study shows that players who shave their ankles prior to taping up, for instance, also have a greater incidence of staph because the shaving creates little nicks for infection to enter."

"Currently, there are between 700 and 800 of these fields being installed annually in the country, and there's been quite a scare about turf and MRSA," McNitt said. "Some pro football players came down with it, and a Pennsylvania high school team has had 13 players sickened by it over the last two years. So this is an important finding."

McNitt said the center's study didn't differentiate between MRSA and the nonresistant strain because "they are the same bacterium. It's just that some of the bacteria have developed resistance to antibiotics. We didn't differentiate, as we didn't find any staph -- resistant or otherwise -- in the synthetic turf."

The Penn State study also found low overall microbial populations in the synthetic turf systems. "The microbe population of natural turfgrass far exceeds anything we've found in the infill systems," McNitt said. "In fact, a number of the infill systems had zero living microbes in the sample at the time of testing."

Even though temperatures of indoor fields would not be expected to fluctuate nearly as much as outdoor fields, he said, the microbe population of the indoor fields tended to be lower than outdoor fields. "That was unexpected," he said. "We really expected to see higher microbe populations indoors and purposely tested the fields during periods of high use and humidity. While we are unsure as to why the indoor fields had lower microbe counts, it could be due to the almost complete lack of moisture."

The researchers did find S. aureus on other surfaces (blocking pads, weight equipment, stretching tables and used towels), as well as on the hands of five randomly tested passers-by. The bottom line, McNitt said, is that while everyone should be concerned about the spread of bacteria and the cleanliness of equipment and other surfaces that players contact, infilled synthetic turf systems do not appear to be a breeding ground for microbes generally.

"Some other studies indicate that a player playing on synthetic turf may acquire more skin abrasions due to the abrasiveness of the surface," McNitt said. "Thus, they have more entry points for the staph, but they're not getting it from the field -- they're picking it up in the locker room or somewhere else. One study shows that players who shave their ankles prior to taping up, for instance, also have a greater incidence of staph because the shaving creates little nicks for infection to enter."

http://live.psu.edu/story/19289

the decision hasn't even been made. Send your complaints to Byrne. "Arizona is “absolutely exploring” replacing Arizona Stadium's grass with an artificial surface for 2013, the year the old stadium's north end zone expansion opens, athletic director Greg Byrne told the Star today."

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/sports/blogs/finley/ua-football-arizona-stadium-likely-getting-artificial-turf-in/article_7585b370-8b40-11e1-bdb0-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz1snODi3v7

According the SID over facilities, Steve Kozachik, the replacement plan was in place before RR was hired, although he is in favor of it.

So we can all stop blaming RR for making the change. The decision making process began long before a coaching change was considered.

SK cites cost considerations. Says natural field extremely expensive to maintain, and other conference schools are making the change, although I dont know who hat hasn't done so already.

Enjoy the grass this year, because after that it is gone.

One man's view of what is valid for withholding money is not necessarily valid for another. I used to get 8 season tickets back at the time of the UNM losses as well. When one of my brothers skipped out on a couple of games I said, "what the hell? I'm paying this money and having to scramble at the last minute to fill out our group?" So I went to the box office the next year and said I only want 4 tix, but take the difference and put it into my W.C. donation. Stayed that way for 3 years. But now, much as it pains me, I have to disagree with Wine. I'm concerned about the process within the athletic department for making major spending decisions. I don't have to rely on and trust Byrne anymore than you have to rely on and trust Obama, or Bush, or Clinton or anyone else. If Byrne is not aware of the stuff we've been talking about on here; everything from MRSA to heat to knee injuries, then he does not practice due diligence and I don't have to fund shoot from the hip decisions.

Again, this is from NBC on knee injuries: "The NFL’s Injury and Safety Panel presented a study today finding that anterior cruciate ligament injuries happened 88 percent more often in games played on FieldTurf than in games played on grass, the Associated Press is reporting."

To me, that is worth investigating before I commit to spend dollars. The fact that BYU had temps of up to 200 degrees in their measurements is also something I would want to know about. When Byrne makes a statement that could have been made by a rep of the turf industry about maintenance as opposed to the actual maintenance requirements from an organization like FIFA, then I don't trust his due diligence anymore than I'd trust Bobby Petrino with my Harley or my 25 year old daughter.

Ricky...send byrne an email. he is always good with responding. I can promise you he isn't blindly doing this. give him a chance to respond. being angry about an assumption is never a good move.

Update aftter posting I received an email from GB responding to me and thnking me for past gifts. He indicates he will further explain the decision in future Wednesday letters, The response is nice but does not address the issues verfy well. Hopefully we will use the turf and no person will be harmed in the future. I would pray that is the case.

Jim

To strip it back a few layers for you folks claiming it's a play at money? What is worth more? Healthy athletes or field turf? I know the answer to this and you better believe Greg does. He will do the right thing for our student athletes. Healthy athletes equals more wins equals more money.

Get home from the gym tonight and after dinner turned on espnu and what do I see but my beloved Wildcats in all their glory on my HiDef big screen against tempe state. Man, I'm thinking, this looks great on HiDef, better get used to it. Then the more I watched the 2010 Zendejas Bowl, the more guilt I started to feel. How could I consider ever missing out on the experience of watching my beloved team live and in person? The team that I listened to on the radio as a young boy in Phoenix, back when Jumbo Jim Mason was playing QB as a frosh? The team that I listened to Gentleman Jim LaRue coach the first great Arizona turnaround when he came here in 59 and had us playing decent ball by the end of his first year; going 4-6 and losing a tough one to tempe by a 15-9 score which was approximately a 40 point improvement (I think we lost 47-7 the year before under Ed Doherty)? I'm thinking about all this and remembering my first game in Arizona Stadium in 1966 against tempe when Mark Reed put on a show for the ages in a 20-17 defeat that ended up being LaRue's last game. How different the stadium was then compared to the LA Coliseum where I had been watching games while living in Long Beach. But there was nothing to compare to that atmosphere and the student section, right in the same place, yelling, "One, two, three, beat tempe!" Only later to turn into a farewell serenade of "Bye, Bye LaRue, we're glad to see you go."

As I'm thinking about all that, I say to myself, I'll be fair, if Zendejas makes the XP, I'll go ahead and renew. But before that happens, I come back on here and see that someone suggested I email Greg Byrne, and that he will respond. I'm sure he will, but at my age a hand job doesn't mean much. I'm at the stage where, as Dustin Hoffman said, "at my age I still ejaculate prematurely, it just takes me an hour or so before I do it."

I'm thinking, how do I respond to the guy who says in all sincerity, email Byrne. I'm a product and practitioner of organizational decision-making. I've managed public organizations of 500 plus employees with annual budgets in excess of $200M and capital improvement programs in the half a billion range. I know how decisions are supposed to be made, and I know when the organizational or bureaucratic inertia sets in how things proceed.

I tell you all this, just to let it be known, I may or may not renew. I don't know yet after watching that game again and remembering how I left my friends with about 3 minutes left to walk down to the NEZ because, as I told them, "Nick Foles is going to bring us back. He's money in these situations and I want to get some photos of happy Wildcats." I'm still extremely disgusted with a guy that I thought was on top of the game. I would love to ask a few questions of G.B., but he's going to give me the same kinds of answers that Mike Stoops usually gave the halftime girl interviewing him for ESPN. Somebody already posted on here that Byrne gave a different answer now than when he was talked to about it earlier. I can read the tea leaves. He wants to keep his new star in his galaxy of coaches happy.
I am shocked that our interim President is well aware of what a great feature of our university that is being by-passed.

Sorry for the length of this but it was either this or talk about it with the wife. Meanwhile I'm thinking of enrolling and paying the 25 bucks for GB to attend this seminar linked. As somebody said, go to google and find out about our turf management programs. The stuff that Ping funded is a source of pride.

http://cals.arizona.edu/turf/AnnualSpringTurfgrassSeminar2012.pdf

As I said in an earlier post, I contacted Shane Burgess who is the new Dean of the College of Agriculture. He is going to contact GB to find out why the decision was made. He also alluded to the fact that the more influential alumni often have a stronger voice on matters like this than people in his position. Its hard for me to imagine that any alum would prefer plastic over grass unless one happened to donate the plastic.

I will let you know what Burgess reports.

Emotionally, those of us who played on the grass of our stadium are forever connected to it (pun noted), and we always carried as a source of pride that we had one of the top five grass field surfaces in the nation for years and years.

Personally, I am very traditional and hate to see this change, except--- that if it provides that we can practice year-round in the stadium (it's a huge advantage), it saves a lot of money (water, maintenance), it holds injury potential to the same or similar (and statistics for this new surface say yas), and it does not increase retained heat, then it's a good move, and I'm ready. I will always know that the ground under the rug is ours, no matter what the top looks like---it's always going to be Wildcat Country.

Studies.... don't bother quoting ten-year old studies. FieldTurf, the newest version, is quite a lot cooler than it was, and injuries are far less than on grass and they of different types. A five-year study published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine found that injury rates were similar on natural grass and synthetic turf. There were, however, notable differences in the types of injuries. Athletes playing on synthetic turf sustained more skin injuries and muscle strains while those who played on natural grass were more susceptible to concussions and ligament tears.

I'd take a rug burn any day over a ripped ACL.

One more thing....NO responsible program in the country is going to put a team at risk- to heat, to injury, so this string of argument is just arm-waving.