What's in a field - Closing the I-A - I-AA Gap

[DB_Atlantic10]

I have admit, growing up as a Bama fan and watching major college ball, I've come to take a few things for granted. First a little background....last year my son had several options, play for the I-AA National Champion Dukes full-ride, or preferred walk-on at Bama (my favorite) or FSU. He firmly chose the Dukes as he and our family were very pleased with the staff, the school in general and the facilities. So we became instant Duke fans.... ;)

But on with the story. As I sat and watched the CN8.tv broadcast of the UMass/JMU game, I was amazed at the condition of the ball field. Then I thought, is this normal? One team is ranked #4 and the other #13, and they were playing in a mud bowl during week 6/7 of the season. So as that game came to a close, I begin flipping the channels from PSU/MI, USC/ND and Bama/Ole Miss of course.... and with the exception of one game on Sat, they were all on natural grass. So the question came to mind, what's in a field? Then I thought, I can't remember a game at the college level ever being played in such conditions. Plenty of HS, but never college? Two or 3 years ago Miami at FSU, the game was in a monsoon, the drainage was poor, yet the field still held up....

Since becoming a JMU fan, I've read several articles on I-AA.org and a few other boards and I've seen several articles addressing the stereo-type that I-AA ball is lesser than I-A ball. I've heard ideas of dropping the AA to Div I Bowl and Championship divisions... And I have to agree, I want the I-AA world to get just as much exposure as the larger or even Mid-Major I-A programs. But I have to ask the question, can we be taken serious if this is what we are going to show to the public with national exposure? Football is on almost every day, their's Miami of Ohio, Toledo and a few other MAC/Conf USA teams getting plenty of exposure...but I've yet to see any field under even wet conditions drop to the level in which I witnessed last weekend.

So I ask my fellow AGS posters....why the gap? Is there that much of a money difference in maintaining a field? Is it the choice of grass seed or the drainage systems? Or is it just that I-AA colleges/programs just dont' place football at the forefront when it comes to spending money? Or was this just a rare moment that just ironically happened early in my I-AA fan career? Comments......

[umassfan]

Give it a rest! :rolleyes:

I believe all 16 of your post have all been bitching about this field... I remember many times where they played games on fields much worse then this. When are you going to quit bitching and move on to your game vs Delaware?

[DB_Atlantic10]

Give it a rest! :rolleyes:

I believe all 16 of your post have all been bitching about this field... I remember many times where they played games on fields much worse then this. When are you going to quit bitching and move on to your game vs Delaware?


So are you saying that this is the I-AA norm?

[umassfan]

So are you saying that this is the I-AA norm?
Im saying its football norm so get over it!

[bandl]

So are you saying that this is the I-AA norm?
No, umassfan is not the I-AA norm!! ;) Most posters are able to consider both sides of a discussion and not take EVERYTHING posted about their school as an attack!!!

[umassfan]

No, umassfan is not the I-AA norm!! ;) Most posters are able to consider both sides of a discussion and not take EVERYTHING posted about their school as an attack!!!
JMUs only side of the discussion is about the field blah blah blah :bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling:

[dbackjon]

JMUs only side of the discussion is about the field blah blah blah :bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling:

I think he raises a legitimate point - Delaware had field conditions so bad they moved the game, UMass's was so bad even UMASS considered moving the game - so back off, Umassfan, and look at his point rationally. He was not attacking UMass in particular.

[bandl]

JMUs only side of the discussion is about the field blah blah blah :bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling:

Care to read any of my other posts there umassfan?? I vote them as the #1 team. They beat JMU, FAIR & SQUARE, with a tremendous defense. I've said that several times today, in fact. No problems with their field ever mentioned.

It's a shame you have to attack player's FATHERS, or anyone, for asking fair questions.

[DB_Atlantic10]

No, umassfan is not the I-AA norm!! ;) Most posters are able to consider both sides of a discussion and not take EVERYTHING posted about their school as an attack!!!


Which is exactly not the intention of this post. I was hoping to get a few unbiased opinions about the I-AA world vs the I-A world. UMass may have help our cause whether they know it or not. First of all, the field ironcally was inspected and approved and 2nd of all it was a regionally televised game...UMass won fair and square, so I don't follow the animosity....

But there's no way the I-AA world is going to bridge the gap if we don't raise our standards across the board...and if the A-10 claims to be the greatest conference out there, then who better to set the example. Although I know money is usually 99% of the issue...

[LacesOut]

It's I-AA, what the heck do you expect?? LOL

Just look at last years National Championship game and the horrible field conditions. I mean, crap, that was the friggin I-AA National Championship Game, it was on ESPN and the field was unplayable. Total crap. And people biatch because I-AA gets no respect. Blah blah blah.

BTW, Michigan and Ole Miss fields are not natural grass. They are the Next Turf or Sprint Turf or whatever that synthetic fiber stuff is. ND has a grass field though.

[bandl]

So as that game came to a close, I begin flipping the channels from PSU/MI, USC/ND and Bama/Ole Miss of course....

If I HAD to watch two I-A teams on TV...I'd probably pick a mudbowl game to watch anyways!! They are so much fun to watch if you don't have any real care as to who wins the game. So I don't think that I-AA mudbowl games on TV will taint anyone's view of I-AA as a whole. Just entertain us and we'll watch.

[JMU2004]

Give it a rest! :rolleyes:

I believe all 16 of your post have all been bitching about this field... I remember many times where they played games on fields much worse then this. When are you going to quit bitching and move on to your game vs Delaware?


DO you always have to act like this? Are you 12 years old?

Don't listen to this kid DB.....no one takes him seriously, and you can see why.

Obviously 1-A has more money and can therefore spend more on facilities. Look at VT as an example. They dropped a cool million on their field.

I am sure weather conditions had something to do with it, but UMass has always had a poor field. Ask any A-10 coach. The weather made it unplayable.

It was a blackeye for I-AA for sure

[umassfan]

DO you always have to act like this? Are you 12 years old?

Don't listen to this kid DB.....no one takes him seriously, and you can see why.

Obviously 1-A has more money and can therefore spend more on facilities. Look at VT as an example. They dropped a cool million on their field.

I am sure weather conditions had something to do with it, but UMass has always had a poor field. Ask any A-10 coach. The weather made it unplayable.

It was a blackeye for I-AA for sure
No one should take you seriously for saying that the game on sat was a black eye for I-AA. You have zero clue about what the weather was like up here in Mass over the past 10 days. I got in from Vegas 10 days ago and today was the first day it did not rain at all... does that mean we need to move the game to turf? No it just means the game will be played in slop... its called home field advantage for a reason. Dont like what UD did fool you... just because their staff could not get their field in shape and THEY felt a move was best then so be it. The only people who wanted to move our game was JMU foke.


Now if you want me on topic I will state that I-A and I-AA are different for a reason. Look at all the money I-A make per game... when you get 100,000 fans at a game it kinda makes it easy to do as you please improving your stadium and field. We will have a new surface soon if not next season but that is not the point here... I-A is a huge money maker for big time state schools. I-AA is a money loser!

[JALMOND]

The field was bad, but, like what I kept hearing ironically last year after the national championship game from JMU fans, both teams had to play on it. When you win on a terrible field, everything is great, but when you lose, then it is a big problem?

Last year in the NC game, Montana had a 14-0 lead before the field got so chopped up. JMU won the game and the Griz fans were told that both teams had to play on the field so you could not use the field conditions as an excuse. Now, you all want to use field conditions as an excuse?

JMU lost. UMass was the better team that day. Get on with it.

[DB_Atlantic10]

It's I-AA, what the heck do you expect?? LOL

Just look at last years National Championship game and the horrible field conditions. I mean, crap, that was the friggin I-AA National Championship Game, it was on ESPN and the field was unplayable. Total crap. And people biatch because I-AA gets no respect. Blah blah blah.

BTW, Michigan and Ole Miss fields are not natural grass. They are the Next Turf or Sprint Turf or whatever that synthetic fiber stuff is. ND has a grass field though.

Really, wow.. I couldn't tell, it looked like grass to me. :cool:

[Saint3333]

Appalachian has field turf, which is almost as fast as astro-turf, but without the injuries. Many NFL teams have it in their stadiums.

[89Hen]

There were no I-A games played on grass in New England last week, were there? Tough to compare. BC plays on fake, Cuse is inside.... UConn would be the only one but they were at Cinci. UMass played at home two weeks in a row in extremely wet conditions and it was the fourth home game in a row to boot.

[umassfan]

You forgot to add "for schools that don't care much about football" because that is what is up at UMass and much of the A-10. Not all schools have bad surfaces or poor fan support or lose money.
You are more wrong then you ever have been before ralph... there is nothing wrong with our surface when we dont have rain for a period like we did... we dont have poor fan support as you can see from the begining of the year but we do loose money like 90% of I-AA schools.

[DB_Atlantic10]

The field was bad, but, like what I kept hearing ironically last year after the national championship game from JMU fans, both teams had to play on it. When you win on a terrible field, everything is great, but when you lose, then it is a big problem?

Last year in the NC game, Montana had a 14-0 lead before the field got so chopped up. JMU won the game and the Griz fans were told that both teams had to play on the field so you could not use the field conditions as an excuse. Now, you all want to use field conditions as an excuse?

JMU lost. UMass was the better team that day. Get on with it.

Look, to heck with the game,,,it's already been stated that UMass won fair and square.....

UMassFan, you are a pain in the butt... you would have to bring the game into my thread, especially when you won.... :bang: So fix your freaking field to shut us all up once and for all..... :nod:

[umassfan]

Look, to heck with the game,,,it's already been stated that UMass won fair and square.....

UMassFan, you are a pain in the butt... you would have to bring the game into my thread, especially when you won.... :bang: So fix your freaking field to shut us all up once and for all..... :nod:
I think JMU needs to fix their field more then we need to fix ours... Id rather play on grass that can get muddy then your turf anyday. Chances are I will be able to walk after the game more on grass.

[DemiGS]

There are a number of well constructed natural grass fields around I-AA. It can be done with this level's budget. It probably requires some commitment on the part of the university, but not all fields are the kind we use to see in Chatty every year.

[JMUfan2008]

I live across from one of the JMU football players that has a medical redshirt and he said when he talked to our guys after the game they said they didn't want to play on that field on Saturday, their hearts weren't in the game like they should have been. As they played, their arms and legs got scraped up, they said it was like brick dust because it was so muddy. It wasn't just muddy, it was tearing them up. If it was just about sliding around, I don't think our guys would have cared too much (even though they were up to their ankles in mud), but if they're getting scraped up on grass more than they do on our turf, i mean...come on....

plus, they're used to playing on natural grass, that's what our practice field is, so that's no problem for them, but there should be a better plan for keeping the field in decent condition when there's lots of rain, especially if you're going to schedule 3 home games in a row...

nobody can say we didn't complain about the conditions of the field in the NC last year too...that's just dumb...JMU was up in arms for a long time after that along with everyone else so don't act like we didn't care

and umassfan, JMU is planning on replacing their field sometime within the next 2 years, most likely next year depending on how donations go after this year

[umassfan]

Phoney statements and phoney facts. What else is new from you? Please try and stay in the realm of reality and discussion. Hating on others is not discussion, its spew. The UMass field was a disgrace and they should replace it with turf.
When was the last time you were in Amherst for a game?

If you would like to donate to our field fund for new turf, UMass is taking money from anyone and everyone.

--EDITED FOR SMACK--

[DB_Atlantic10]

When was the last time you were in Amherst for a game?

If you would like to donate to our field fund for new turf, UMass is taking money from anyone and everyone.

--EDITED FOR SMACK--


If we could get back to the I-AA vs I-A standard that would be nice.....

[JMU2004]

When was the last time you were in Amherst for a game?

If you would like to donate to our field fund for new turf, UMass is taking money from anyone and everyone.

--EDITED FOR SMACK--

perhaps YOU should DONATE to AGS......or perhaps ralph should start charging you to spew your "opinion"

[charliej]

I think I know what your saying DB.The perception that the general public has about I-AA does come, in a large part, from what they see of the field,stadium,crowd,(or lack of),etc. on TV.

I watched the game,on replay,and it gave me the same feeling.To me it had the appearance of a HS game.Nevermind the rain at UMass or that particular game even,but this is something I've noticed at many I-AA stadiums. Not all,but most.When I see a game broadcast from Nova,UNH or Lehigh, even on a bright sunny day with a good crowd you can get that same "small game" feel.

I think big part of it is the limited camera positions and low shot angles that you get from most I-AA stadiums.The smaller stadiums just aren't TV friendly.This is even evident in the NC game in Chatty,which is carried by ESPN. Great game,good crowd,but if I was flipping through the channels that night not knowing what I was looking for,it could have been mistaken for a HS game and not the highest level championship game in college football. In a way stadium size is a double edge sword from a TV point of view,unless you can get the crowd there.When Nova played Penn at Franklin Field the shots were great.The big problem there was the crowd size.Even with 23,000 people the place looked empty.

[fuEMO]

The field at Paladin Stadium holds up very well. Excellent drainage. It's bermuda grass. It rained non-stop for two days before the APP game. And it was dry as a bone by gametime. One of the first changes Bobby Lamb made as head coach was taking the painted diamond F off the center of the field. He said it caused a slick spot.

Furman and Wofford played in a mud bowl 3 years ago. They had a high school playoff game play in Gibbs the night before. It was a mess.

One of my biggest gripes about natural grass fields in 1AA is the height of the grass. SC ST would always have a high blade for the Furman game.

[WMTribe90]

WM has a well-drained Bemuda grass and despite raining several inches running up to and during the UNH game it held up pretty well. Footing wasn't even an issue for the first three quarters from what I've heard. more importantly, the field was not trashed to the point of being unplayable the rest of the year. What we have this year with UD and UMass are the combination of freak acts of nature combined with poor deisgn/maintenance. The perfect storm if you will. In general I don't think IA fields are that much better than IAA fields. As the intent of IAA football is cost containment, I don't thinkwe should try to keep up with the Jones on this one as long as the surface is safe and playable.

[Sam Adams]

It is hilarious to hear people whining about some mud. ITS FOOTBALL !!! Football is played in hot weather, cold weather, rainy weather, snowy weather, sleet, mud and hail.

I was at the game on Saturday - a great football game BTW.

The Field at UMass was not even close to being as bad as many many other games I have played in and seen at various levels throughout the last 30 years. The field was totally playable. The UMass grounds crew did a super job in getting the field in playable condition and this was recognized by both the officials and the A10. Mud is part of football. Mud does not render a football field unplayable. Football has been played on mud and wet fields for well over 100 years. Get over yourselves and quit whining - JMU got beat because they were totally outplayed on both sides of the ball in the second half of that football game - blaming it on the field strikes me as a really lame excuse.

BTW: getting turf is not necessarily the answer at all. there are some very notorious situations where a school has purchased turf and the field is worn out in 3 yrs and the company that put the field in w/a 10 yr warranty is long gone.


FYI: UMass is going to put in fieldturf and lights in the near future. Fund raising is ongoing.

[89Hen]

One of my biggest gripes about natural grass fields in 1AA is the height of the grass.
Since we're talking about the difference between I-A and I-AA, did you not see the field at Notre Dame this weekend? They left it about four inches long to try to slow down USC. Obviously didn't work. :p

[DB_Atlantic10]

I think I know what your saying DB.The perception that the general public has about I-AA does come, in a large part, from what they see of the field,stadium,crowd,(or lack of),etc. on TV.

I watched the game,on replay,and it gave me the same feeling.To me it had the appearance of a HS game.Nevermind the rain at UMass or that particular game even,but this is something I've noticed at many I-AA stadiums. Not all,but most.When I see a game broadcast from Nova,UNH or Lehigh, even on a bright sunny day with a good crowd you can get that same "small game" feel.

I think big part of it is the limited camera positions and low shot angles that you get from most I-AA stadiums.The smaller stadiums just aren't TV friendly.This is even evident in the NC game in Chatty,which is carried by ESPN. Great game,good crowd,but if I was flipping through the channels that night not knowing what I was looking for,it could have been mistaken for a HS game and not the highest level championship game in college football. In a way stadium size is a double edge sword from a TV point of view,unless you can get the crowd there.When Nova played Penn at Franklin Field the shots were great.The big problem there was the crowd size.Even with 23,000 people the place looked empty.


CharlieJ,

You've hit something on the head that I just couldn't figure out... I never put two and two together.... When looking at I-A games, the players always seem much bigger and the game seems sometimes on another level...but looking at rosters and the sizes of lineman, there really isn't that big of a difference....but watching them both on TV, A and AA, the games come across very noticably different. So I guess it would boil down to the size of the stadiums and camera positionings......

[DB_Atlantic10]

It is hilarious to hear people whining about some mud. ITS FOOTBALL !!! Football is played in hot weather, cold weather, rainy weather, snowy weather, sleet, mud and hail.

I was at the game on Saturday - a great football game BTW.

The Field at UMass was not even close to being as bad as many many other games I have played in and seen at various levels throughout the last 30 years. The field was totally playable.


Well we rode horses for a lot more than 30 years before they came out with cars......my point being times and technology changes.....

If we want to say I-AA ball is just as good I-A ball, then we have to stop thinking that fields like that are playable simply because it's the game of football. I want just as many players going to the next level from the A-10 or any I-AA league as the so called weak MAC/Conf USA. At least these conferences have stat producing playing fields. The only way to make a case of playing ability is to have all games on a level playing field week in and week out. I shouldn't be one week he's running 1000 MPH at Hofstra and the next 25MPH at UDel....etc

[colgate13]

Funny thing is I DONATED MONEY FOR HIS SITE! Of course he never said thanks or anything.

Hmmm... so you can make money at this thing... :cool: Time to take the blog into the shop for an 'upgrade'!


Just kidding!

[Bobcat94]

It's a shame that a game has to be moved due to field conditions. I am shocked at some of the things I read on this site regarding the vast differences from program to program in the I-AA level. We have stadiums like Wash Griz and then we have places with no lights and half stadiums or stadiums that don't even sit square to the field.

As this thread asks for, I think some requirements for stadiums would do I-AA some good. Considering the amount of play our "small" schools get on our fields (high school games plus the universities) field conditions are always a problem. I don't think "fake" turf is always the answer either, but drainage requirements should be. I would think requiring an implementation date say within 5 to 10 years would do wonders. Considering the press the last few years regarding field condition (ie national title game and last week) and safety of players, it would be worth it in the long run.

[Sam Adams]

You play football in weather guys. That is how the game is meant to be played. WHining about playing on a wet or muddy field is like whining about playing when its cold or snowing or hot or windy or humid etc. Its football: line up, knock your opponent on his rear end and drive down the field for a score. That is what UMass did and that is why they won the ball game.

[DB_Atlantic10]

You play football in weather guys. That is how the game is meant to be played. WHining about playing on a wet or muddy field is like whining about playing when its cold or snowing or hot or windy or humid etc. Its football: line up, knock your opponent on his rear end and drive down the field for a score. That is what UMass did and that is why they won the ball game.

This is the kind of thinking that caused the creation of the shot clock......"Well it's basketball gentlemen, if it means holding the ball for 40 minutes to keep from getting blown away, then that's how it should be".....

[Sam Adams]

This is the kind of thinking that caused the creation of the shot clock......"Well it's basketball gentlemen, if it means holding the ball for 40 minutes to keep from getting blown away, then that's how it should be".....


WRONG again. Dumb analogy. Weather is not a strategy or tactic like a four corner offense in basketball. Weather conditions are simply facts of nature that have been an integral part of football since before the days of Jim Thorpe and Bronco Nagurski. If JMU is still crying about playing in weather then don't have a football team or lobby the NCAA to force all teams to play in domed stadiums or JMU can go find an arena league somewhere so that you can have a track meet and call it football.

RALPH:
"I think this thread is about I-AA fields and how they make I-AA appear in comparison to I-A" IA programs can afford nicer fields and facilities. What else is there to say about that?

[bandl]

Can any of you damn UMass fans think, for one second, that this thread is not a personal attack on your school or your field, and see the original discussion for what it is??? A discussion about shoddy fields in I-AA football compared to what superior (yes, they are superior for the simple fact that I-A programs have more money to spend) football fields. THAT'S IT. Grow up and stop thinking that everyone is out to attack you because of last week's game. The only reason that I repeatedly see anyone attacking you or calling your childish antics out is because of the way you act. It almost seems like you want everyone on this board to hate UMass and will do everything you can to p*ss everyone off.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

My :twocents: on fields at the I-AA level.

I feel it is unfair to compare fields at the I-AA level (where we are playing cost-containment football) and the I-A level (where there are basically semi-pro franchises, with many more millions spent on football). I never did find out how much it costs to re-sod a field, but it ain't cheap. I can imagine - it requires either growing your own, or having Kentucky Bluegrass (or something else - I am not an expert here) flown in, having grounds crew rip up the old field, put hte new stuff in, etc. Now, if you're a for-profit NFL franchise or a big-money I-A school, and you're getting millions from your league, bowl, donors, etc., you can afford to fly in pristine Bluegrass and get a small army of groundskeepers to do the work.

But I-AA is cost-containment football. You don't always get new stadiums, or field turf, or a space-age drainage system. Sometimes you get what you get, and you deal with it the best you can. Lafayette played last week in a stadium dating from 1926, where field turf, 7 home-game seasons (not counting playoffs) and even the idea of "field drainage" didn't exist. Lafayette has a bye week this week, but with back-to-back home games the following two weeks, it is a very open question if the field will hold up - it was pretty ripped up for the Harvard game.

It's real easy for fans to say "re-sod the field" or "replace the stadium" or "add field turf", but how much does it cost? How many I-A guarantees will it require to do it? And do you, the fan, really want to sacrifice (say) the money for 5 scholarships in order to fix your field? Or put off that practice facility? Or upgrading the seating arrangements? Or putting in that new locker room?

The truth is: 1) it costs a lot of money and 2) it's not high on most schools' priority list. Most are willing to take a chance on good weather, and the same fans who are crying over "get us field turf" would be the same ones crying if, after several years of pristine weather at home games, those 5 fewer scholarships, or those old locker rooms, caused prized recruits to go to their biggest rival instead.

[LacesOut]

Like we've all said, it's the money factor that seperates the two I-A and I-AA and their fields and playing conditions and stadiums etc etc. When schools get anywhere from 65,000-100,000 people at their home games, well good grief, that's a whole lotta cash to play with to improve any aspect of the football program, as well as the other programs on campus.

And for the other thing discussed here, the perception of I-AA football, well it does come across quite differently on TV than I-A games. Whether it's small stadiums, small crowds, poor camera angles of TV, poor quality shots, the quality of the announcers, it just is a different game.

Also the speed of the game is quite different. At least is appears that way on TV. Wait, no, it's vastly different on TV. Flipping through the channels on a Saturday afternoon, catching say a UD/Maine (just an example) for a few plays, then flipping over to ESPN and watching a few play of say Clemson/NC State, WOW, what a difference. The I-AA game and players appear so frickin slow, IMO.

[bandl]

Like we've all said, it's the money factor that seperates the two I-A and I-AA and their fields and playing conditions and stadiums etc etc. When schools get anywhere from 65,000-100,000 people at their home games, well good grief, that's a whole lotta cash to play with to improve any aspect of the football program, as well as the other programs on campus.

And for the other thing discussed here, the perception of I-AA football, well it does come across quite differently on TV than I-A games. Whether it's small stadiums, small crowds, poor camera angles of TV, poor quality shots, the quality of the announcers, it just is a different game.

Also the speed of the game is quite different. At least is appears that way on TV. Wait, no, it's vastly different on TV. Flipping through the channels on a Saturday afternoon, catching say a UD/Maine (just an example) for a few plays, then flipping over to ESPN and watching a few play of say Clemson/NC State, WOW, what a difference. The I-AA game and players appear so frickin slow, IMO.

The speed of the players definitely does appear different on TV, but I think that's because of the poor camera angles and shots. but seeing them up close and in person, I-A or I-AA...they definitely don't appear slow to me!! Nor do they appear smaller! :eek:

[89Hen]

It's real easy for fans to say "re-sod the field"... but how much does it cost?

The truth is: 1) it costs a lot of money
I seriously doubt that it costs much more over the long run to have proper drainage and a good surface versus having to constantly fix the field after games played in wet conditions. Take UD's situation this year. They've resodded 1/3rd of the field for the remaining two home games. After the season they're going to rip that out to do the correct fix. That's an unbelievable waste. The NCAA laid a whole new field in Chatty just to tear it up to put in their new field a game later. Waste. This is like not changing the oil in your car because you don't want to spend the $30 at Jiffy Lube so you wait until it breaks down, and then fix only what's absolutely necessary to get by. Fix after fix after fix.

I'm no agronomist, but if I couldn't build a sub-surface and grow grass on two acres for 5-7 games a year for not a whole hell of a lot of money.... that's insane that these fields aren't pristine, perfect palaces to the game of football. :cool:

[DB_Atlantic10]

[QUOTE=Sam Adams]WRONG again. Dumb analogy. Weather is not a strategy or tactic like a four corner offense in basketball. Weather conditions are simply facts of nature that have been an integral part of football since before the days of Jim Thorpe and Bronco Nagurski. If JMU is still crying about playing in weather then don't have a football team or lobby the NCAA to force all teams to play in domed stadiums or JMU can go find an arena league somewhere so that you can have a track meet and call it football.


Where was UMass in my thread.....? It's not a dumb analogy, it based on a fact and it was a strategy none the less. Weather can be used as a strategy. Not to turn this into smack, but I think it's dumb of you to say that weather is not a part of strategy, how absurb. If a coach doesn't take weather into consideration for his game plan, it would be a huge mistake.

Strategy - is the science and art of using all the forces to execute approved plans as effectively as possible. As with my basketball analogy, w/o a shot clock, it would be wise to hold the ball as long as possible. Since you keep bringing up UMass, they used weather and how if effected their field as a strategy, which to be quite honest is only normal. The only problem is it does hamper the perception of I-AA ball and is at the expense of the players. Apparantly ND left their grass a few inches higher to slow down USC, but I could not tell until someone informed me.... Unfortunately, the people who make these decisions are not the one's who have to suit up and play in them. Standards are supposed to be designed to set a limit on how far we will go to get a victory....Academics and the NCAA are only a few examples.

[DB_Atlantic10]

I seriously doubt that it costs much more over the long run to have proper drainage and a good surface versus having to constantly fix the field after games played in wet conditions. Take UD's situation this year. They've resodded 1/3rd of the field for the remaining two home games. After the season they're going to rip that out to do the correct fix. That's an unbelievable waste. The NCAA laid a whole new field in Chatty just to tear it up to put in their new field a game later. Waste. This is like not changing the oil in your car because you don't want to spend the $30 at Jiffy Lube so you wait until it breaks down, and then fix only what's absolutely necessary to get by. Fix after fix after fix.

I'm no agronomist, but if I couldn't build a sub-surface and grow grass on two acres for 5-7 games a year for not a whole hell of a lot of money.... that's insane that these fields aren't pristine, perfect palaces to the game of football. :cool:

I have to agree, cost in maintaining the field, the main element of the sport should not be an issue. Remember, football is the only sport designated with I-AA, all other sports at considered Div-I... Football is still the largest revenue grossing sport at the majority of Universities.... If planning is considered, the best surface for your universities environment would be the most cost effective. Something that was probably not taken into considerationn for fields in excess of 50 years old. Hopefully as the sport of football continues to get more and more exposure at the lower levels, a lot of this should actually come to light.

But I honestly don't think it's all money, I thinks it's where football stands on the level of priorities at each university. Wake Forest for example has 5K plus students, which is smaller the majority of I-A and I-AA schools.....

[ysubigred]

I have admit, growing up as a Bama fan and watching major college ball, I've come to take a few things for granted. First a little background....last year my son had several options, play for the I-AA National Champion Dukes full-ride, or preferred walk-on at Bama (my favorite) or FSU. He firmly chose the Dukes as he and our family were very pleased with the staff, the school in general and the facilities. So we became instant Duke fans.... ;)

But on with the story. As I sat and watched the CN8.tv broadcast of the UMass/JMU game, I was amazed at the condition of the ball field. Then I thought, is this normal? One team is ranked #4 and the other #13, and they were playing in a mud bowl during week 6/7 of the season. So as that game came to a close, I begin flipping the channels from PSU/MI, USC/ND and Bama/Ole Miss of course.... and with the exception of one game on Sat, they were all on natural grass. So the question came to mind, what's in a field? Then I thought, I can't remember a game at the college level ever being played in such conditions. Plenty of HS, but never college? Two or 3 years ago Miami at FSU, the game was in a monsoon, the drainage was poor, yet the field still held up....

Since becoming a JMU fan, I've read several articles on I-AA.org and a few other boards and I've seen several articles addressing the stereo-type that I-AA ball is lesser than I-A ball. I've heard ideas of dropping the AA to Div I Bowl and Championship divisions... And I have to agree, I want the I-AA world to get just as much exposure as the larger or even Mid-Major I-A programs. But I have to ask the question, can we be taken serious if this is what we are going to show to the public with national exposure? Football is on almost every day, their's Miami of Ohio, Toledo and a few other MAC/Conf USA teams getting plenty of exposure...but I've yet to see any field under even wet conditions drop to the level in which I witnessed last weekend.

So I ask my fellow AGS posters....why the gap? Is there that much of a money difference in maintaining a field? Is it the choice of grass seed or the drainage systems? Or is it just that I-AA colleges/programs just dont' place football at the forefront when it comes to spending money? Or was this just a rare moment that just ironically happened early in my I-AA fan career? Comments......

Stambaugh Stadium is a modern facility with Spin Turf. It's just a few stadium seats shy of a 1A facility. I've been to all of the GFC stadiums and all in all the playing surfaces are second to none. The facilities, Indy ST ie.. are small but OK for the crowds they draw.

Bottom line: Since you like to see JMU play in nice stadiums get your AD linked up with Ron (YSU's AD) and get JMU to Y-town.

[DB_Atlantic10]

Actually, JMU plays in one of the nicer stadiums in I-AA also.....but this isn't a JMU issue, it's I-AA issue as a whole. The variations in stadiums across the I-AA world are so drastically different....

http://www.jmusports.com/Facilities/images/bridgeforth.jpg Bridgeforth Stadium, JMU

[DB_Atlantic10]

It's funny how the point of view at different programs vary so diffently...see link to article about UDels field preperations for the upcoming JMU and UMass games....

Back in Business (http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051018/SPORTS07/510180321/1002)

[UAalum72]

I-AA West: Is the 'Grass' Greener on the Other Side?
Kent Schmidt, I-AA Western Columnist
http://i-aa.org/article.asp?articleid=55571
...
Maintenance Natural Grass FieldTurf
Initial Capital Cost $380,000 $572,000
Year 1 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Year 2 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Year 3 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Year 4 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Year 5 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Year 6 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Year 7 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Year 8 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Year 9 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Year 10 Maintenance $52,500 $5,000
Ten Year Total Investment $905,000 $622,000
...
Even assuming the maintenance costs are correct (numbers probably provided by Sprinturf), what's the replacement cost of Sprinturf when it's worn out at this point, while with that kind of care I'd guess the natural grass is still growing?

[DB_Atlantic10]

Even assuming the maintenance costs are correct (numbers probably provided by Sprinturf), what's the replacement cost of Sprinturf when it's worn out at this point, while with that kind of care I'd guess the natural grass is still growing?

Well to heck with the cost, it's the safety to the players that gets my attention....keeping players healthy means winning more games...the cost will take care of itself with winning ways....

[GannonFan]

When you look at the present value of the 10 year cost I don't think you see any real significant difference between the cost of the two - but when you replace a natural grass field is the cost always the same or is it cheaper than what the article shows (i.e. things under the turf like drainage may not have to be replaced)? Also, as far as I know there are no studies that show injuries are more or less on the new hybrid systems compared with natural grass so I think it's a wash there.

[89Hen]

Actually, JMU plays in one of the nicer stadiums in I-AA also.....
By nicer you mean not a dump... then agreed. But currently, with a track around the field, a huge crest on the field, temporary stands in the endzone.... when the new plans are done it will be one of the nicer stadiums in I-AA, but not now. Don't get bent out of shape, I don't consider Delaware Stadium to be one of the nicer stadiums either. How many other stadiums can you walk 42 rows of seats straight up? The views are great up high, but what a friggin trek with kids.

[89Hen]

When you look at the present value of the 10 year cost I don't think you see any real significant difference between the cost of the two - but when you replace a natural grass field is the cost always the same
And it also doesn't take into account the occassional $100,000 resodding for two games. :mad: :(

[DB_Atlantic10]

By nicer you mean not a dump... then agreed. But currently, with a track around the field, a huge crest on the field, temporary stands in the endzone.... when the new plans are done it will be one of the nicer stadiums in I-AA, but not now. Don't get bent out of shape, I don't consider Delaware Stadium to be one of the nicer stadiums either. How many other stadiums can you walk 42 rows of seats straight up? The views are great up high, but what a friggin trek with kids.

Well based on what I'm getting from this thread....you either have a dump or something on the other extreme, with a very fuzzy middle depending on the weather....... :rolleyes:

This what I don't get....back in 1978 or so, the NCAA said, ok were are going to divide the football ranks in I-A and I-AA...those who want to go I-A need to have at least 15k fans each home game and so on and so on... Did some schools decide they were not interested and left their football programs to go on budget alone, while others decided to make to treck at the higher levels? Because looking at the A-10, the enrollment numbers are really not that different than the ACC... JMU has 16,000 students to UVA's 18 to 20K, UMass has 22K.... So I guess over the past 25 plus years, the I-AA program just stayed status quo, while the larger programs have grown into money making monsters....because 25 years ago, W&M and JMU were beating UVA and Tech on a regular basis..... just fruit for thought..... :rolleyes:

[89Hen]

Well based on what I'm getting from this thread....you either have a dump or something on the other extreme, with a very fuzzy middle depending on the weather....... :rolleyes:
The field is a dump, but the stadium salvages the entire package from being a dump. Delaware Stadium is old and outdated, but it is nice in that:

- the stands are close to the field (no track)
- the stands are very steep (out of ADA present day rules)
- the stands are very even (not lopsided like WKU or UR)
- there are stands on all four sides (field not capped with a building)
- we piss on walls :p

[89Hen]

JMU has 16,000 students to UVA's 18 to 20K
I don't think UVA is nearly that big. At least it wasn't when I-AA was formed. I've always thought JMU was actually bigger (enrollment-wise).

[UAalum72]

OK I read it closer.

1. The information is provided by FieldTurf, so any rounding or skewing of estimated costs will favor the plastic.

2. The estimate of $500K-$575K seems pretty low; I've seen costs up to $700K - $1.2M. This may vary be region.

3. Syracuse has replaced the Carrier Dome's turf twice after 12-year lifespans, and that's without ultraviolet damage; there's a reason warranties are 8-12 years.

4. You'll need another $500K when the Fieldturf wears out; natural grass is being reseeded as part of those maintenance costs, you're not going to replace all the dirt and drain pipes on a natural field; so what's the comparison cost over twenty years, not over ten?

Artificial turf may make sense, but don't just believe the salesman's numbers without a skeptical look at them.

[DB_Atlantic10]

The field is a dump, but the stadium salvages the entire package from being a dump. Delaware Stadium is old and outdated, but it is nice in that:

- there are stands on all four sides (field not capped with a building)
:p

Actually the new building at JMU is pretty nice... I got to visit a lot of I-A stadiums during the recruiting process with my son, and their field house is one of the best at any level...and just like FSU and MD, they have instant access to the field with everything close..... Unlike the SEC, most of the ACC schools hace horseshoe like designs with one end being open.... Ie. MD, UVA, MD and UNC....

[DB_Atlantic10]

I don't think UVA is nearly that big. At least it wasn't when I-AA was formed. I've always thought JMU was actually bigger (enrollment-wise).

JMU has grown a lot over the years and are up to 16K this year.... UVA only has a few thousand more....so I hope the Dukes consider moving up soon.....JMU also no longer uses their track and will make more permanent seating with that space... The track is now located on the other side of I-81 in it's own separate facility... The Dukes dont' seem to mind spending money on their athletic facilities, which played a big part my son's decision....

[DB_Atlantic10]

OK I read it closer.

1. The information is provided by FieldTurf, so any rounding or skewing of estimated costs will favor the plastic.

2. The estimate of $500K-$575K seems pretty low; I've seen costs up to $700K - $1.2M. This may vary be region.

3. Syracuse has replaced the Carrier Dome's turf twice after 12-year lifespans, and that's without ultraviolet damage; there's a reason warranties are 8-12 years.

4. You'll need another $500K when the Fieldturf wears out; natural grass is being reseeded as part of those maintenance costs, you're not going to replace all the dirt and drain pipes on a natural field; so what's the comparison cost over twenty years, not over ten?

Artificial turf may make sense, but don't just believe the salesman's numbers without a skeptical look at them.

Twenty years is way too far out to plan a football surface....a stadium yes, a field no.....financially a building can depreciate for 30 to 40 years... land does not depreciate, so whatever cost you can save each year is the best cost to obtain...and the difference of $52 vs $5 is a big deal, plus the decrease of insurance cost that will match the decrease in injuries and prep everytime the weather changes..... All factors have to be considered besides money!!!

Remember the key is changing the perception of I-AA ball. If we keep thinking the way we are now, then we can't be taken seriously. The minute we get the exposure we ask for, the fields end up being an embarassment...

[89Hen]

Actually the new building at JMU is pretty nice...
From the pictures I've seen of the inside, that new building is VERY nice. I just don't like the stadium ending in a building. I don't like it at Maryland either. I wouldn't say UVA is open ended either, the hill holds a LOT of students.
http://www.collegegridirons.com/acc/images/scott102.jpg

[DB_Atlantic10]

I wouldn't say UVA is open ended either, the hill holds a LOT of students.



LMAO!!!! :D

[DB_Atlantic10]

I wouldn't say UVA is open ended either, the hill holds a LOT of students.



LMAO!!!! :D

[bandl]

I don't think UVA is nearly that big. At least it wasn't when I-AA was formed. I've always thought JMU was actually bigger (enrollment-wise).

JMU's undergrad/grad enrollment is around 15,800, while UVA's undergrad is around 13,100...but many people forget to take into account UVA's outstanding grad programs (law, medicine, nursing, etc.), which brings their total enrollment to 20,000+ (and also brings in alot of alumni donations from the lawyers/docs, etc!!!). JMU is definitely on the rise in terms of enrollment numbers ever since Linwood Rose took over...

[LacesOut]

From the pictures I've seen of the inside, that new building is VERY nice. I just don't like the stadium ending in a building. I don't like it at Maryland either. I wouldn't say UVA is open ended either, the hill holds a LOT of students.
http://www.collegegridirons.com/acc/images/scott102.jpg


That can't be UVA's scoreboard, at the far end zone on the hill???

[henfan]

Not that a UD fan can rightfully complain at this point, but Bridgeforth Stadium has one of the worst playing surfaces in all of college football. Vandals tried to do the Dukes a favor a few years back by setting the field on fire but JMU just replaced it with Astroturf.

[bandl]

Not that a UD fan can rightfully complain at this point, but Bridgeforth Stadium has one of the worst playing surfaces in all of college football. Vandals tried to do the Dukes a favor a few years back by setting the field on fire but JMU just replaced it with Astroturf.

I actually agree, because it feels like the astroturf is only there to protect the concrete under it. I broke 2 of my ribs on that field (actually, re-broke in a not so legal pick-up game), and my forearms/knees got skinned like no other. but football is football...it's going to hurt.

[JMU Duke Dog]

I actually agree, because it feels like the astroturf is only there to protect the concrete under it. I broke 2 of my ribs on that field (actually, re-broke in a not so legal pick-up game), and my forearms/knees got skinned like no other. but football is football...it's going to hurt.

That is why I only go out there for some pickup football after it has snowed as the snow provides some cushion.

[DB_Atlantic10]

We brought the field up during the recruiting process...and it was said that it was coming up after this season for the newer style turf....so I'm keeping my fingers crossed...... :cool:

[ASU Kep]

App St. has a helluva nice, new artificial surface...it's all of our overflow fans that have to sit in the mud...

[SoCon48]

Actually, JMU plays in one of the nicer stadiums in I-AA also.....but this isn't a JMU issue, it's I-AA issue as a whole. The variations in stadiums across the I-AA world are so drastically different....

http://www.jmusports.com/Facilities/images/bridgeforth.jpg Bridgeforth Stadium, JMU

Don't see anything particularly nice about that stadium but:
1, The turf looks good
2. Nice crowd

[SoCon48]

I seriously doubt that it costs much more over the long run to have proper drainage and a good surface versus having to constantly fix the field after games played in wet conditions. Take UD's situation this year. They've resodded 1/3rd of the field for the remaining two home games. After the season they're going to rip that out to do the correct fix. That's an unbelievable waste. The NCAA laid a whole new field in Chatty just to tear it up to put in their new field a game later. Waste. This is like not changing the oil in your car because you don't want to spend the $30 at Jiffy Lube so you wait until it breaks down, and then fix only what's absolutely necessary to get by. Fix after fix after fix.

I'm no agronomist, but if I couldn't build a sub-surface and grow grass on two acres for 5-7 games a year for not a whole hell of a lot of money.... that's insane that these fields aren't pristine, perfect palaces to the game of football. :cool:

Sure wouldn't worry a second about the NCAA wasting any money. They have guarantees for all the play-off games up to that point, nickel and dime the teams on expense money for all the play-off games, and spend no more on TV broadcasting of the NC game than all the conferences do all season long on their individual game broadcasts.
It's about time they spent a little $ on their I-AA step child. And "little" is right.

[Tribe4SF]

W&M is talking about FieldTurf, even though our bermuda surface is great. Northeastern's field is Astro-Play, and it was great in the rain (except for the lake at one end). Tribe players raved about the FieldTurf at Marshall.

UMass and UD will, hopefully, replace their fields. Mud games are fine in high school, but I want to see athletes at this level compete under the best possible conditions.

[Maroon&White]

Mud games are fine in high school, but I want to see athletes at this level compete under the best possible conditions.

What the best possible conditions are is a matter of opinion. Depends on what kind of team a school has. A slow team isn't going to do well on turf, so that won't be the best possible conditions

[Tribe4SF]

What the best possible conditions are is a matter of opinion. Depends on what kind of team a school has. A slow team isn't going to do well on turf, so that won't be the best possible conditions

Are you saying that UMass is slow? :eek:

If that's the case, better forget a national title. The FieldTurf is in at Chatty! ;) :D

[DB_Atlantic10]

Don't see anything particularly nice about that stadium but:
1, The turf looks good
2. Nice crowd

I guess it's all in what you are used to..... :cool:

[DB_Atlantic10]

What the best possible conditions are is a matter of opinion. Depends on what kind of team a school has. A slow team isn't going to do well on turf, so that won't be the best possible conditions

Best field condition doesn't necessarily mean turf....The majority of D-IA fields are still grass playing surfaces, but well maintained grass playing surfaces.....

[89Hen]

I wouldn't say UVA is open ended either, the hill holds a LOT of students.


LMAO!!!! :D

:confused: laughing at what?

[DB_Atlantic10]

:confused: laughing at what?

I was laughing at your comment about the students filling the grass hill... it is an open end stadium, but looking at the number of students, it looks like bleachers with so many packed in..... So I found your comment quite amusing.... :o

[89Hen]

Ilooking at the number of students, it looks like bleachers with so many packed in.....
Gotcha. That photo is actually NOT nearly packed. Last year for the Miami game is was shoulder to shoulder SRO. It looked the same on TV for the FSU game last week.

[Phrebert]

I guess the OP didn't see the Disaster Area that was the 2004 Championship game. What a joke. The Dukes could have tripled their score if it was Turf. :deadhorse