Field Surfaces

From OSU Wiki

I am going to discuss the current trend of football teams’ choice between synthetic turf and natural grass. It addresses the popularity of natural grass in the past, and the growth of number of schools switching to synthetic surfaces. The pros and cons of each type of field surface are given. Specifically, the effects on cost and maintenance as well as physical aspects for players are talked about. In the past, I had been curious as to why two top ten teams would have different types of fields; when one would think that there should be a clear superior choice.

There are many strengths of pros and cons for each type of field surface. One of the strongest facts stated is how much money is saved on maintenance and labor with synthetic turf. Cost and labor are obviously huge factors that universities must deal with, let alone the impact they have on high schools or recreation centers. Money budgets are a critical part in making decisions about what materials to use. Schools with grass fields average about a $57,000 annual budget while those with synthetic turf average about $16,000 in annual costs. Michigan State reports an annual budget of $275,000 for their natural grass stadium while never spending more than $10,000 annually when they used synthetic turf. Schools that use grass report an average of 29 days a year of use while schools with synthetic turf get an average of 143 days of annual use. Synthetic turf also offers more opportunity for other sports to use the field as well. Another factor to discuss is the issue of weather and temperature affecting the choice between natural grass and synthetic turf. Schools in the southern region of the country are not going to want synthetic turf as in early September; the synthetic surface will be far too hot to play on. Schools in the north that must deal with heavy rain and snow do not want natural grass because it is difficult and expensive to maintain with such destructive weather. An argument in support of natural grass is that today’s’ synthetics are less abrasive than they used to be, but still more so than natural grass. Furthermore, the argument for synthetic turf is supported by the fact that it can withstand more wear and tear than natural grass. This leads to the point that the breakdown of natural grass fields due to greater consistency of play also increases the possibility of injury to players. Unsure footing for athletes and greater wear down in the center of the field contribute to unsafe playing conditions. The issue of choosing materials that will be safe for the athletes and not to choose a surface based solely on price is a critical issue to consider. Also, from my personal experience, in high school we played on natural grass and there were always “pot holes” in the field that were easy to step in and twist an ankle. As of right now, the leading choice appears to be synthetic turf however, there are “breeders working everyday to create a super grass that can take a lot more wear.”

Oregon State University pays on a synthetic turf surface as the weather in the area makes it difficult to care for natural grass. It would cost the university athletic department a great deal to care for natural grass in the harsh rainy season. The choice for OSU to play on synthetic surface is based on cost issues, ability to use the field, and safety for athletes.