FB: American Rivers Conference

[doolittledog]

Mount Mercy plans athletic complex

http://www.mountmercymustangs.com/article/1132.php

That's right on the doorstep of Coe, in between the 2 schools.  But, it is an industrial site.  I would think Coe is more interested in buying up single family housing towards 1st St.  Athletics wise, Coe really only needs to find space for a baseball field and maybe additional parking. otherwise the Kohawks are fine.

My guess is Mt. Mercy, as formerly a womens college, will never add football.  But you never know, I suppose.  Same goes for Clarke University in Dubuque. 

[5 Words or Less]

Mount Mercy plans athletic complex

http://www.mountmercymustangs.com/article/1132.php

That's right on the doorstep of Coe, in between the 2 schools.  But, it is an industrial site.  I would think Coe is more interested in buying up single family housing towards 1st St.  Athletics wise, Coe really only needs to find space for a baseball field and maybe additional parking. otherwise the Kohawks are fine.

My guess is Mt. Mercy, as formerly a womens college, will never add football.  But you never know, I suppose.  Same goes for Clarke University in Dubuque.

Did 2008 floodwater affect Terex?

[D3Dutchman]

I cant tell because of your punctuation, but are you saying the bolded statement as a question or statement?

Ill address both possibilities:

No, D3 is not supposed to appease coaches and spectators. D3 is for players who love to play the game, and want to perform it to the best of their abilities. If turf helps players perform better, then turf is the way to go.

We can't live in a bubble wrapped world. If you don't like turf, there are plenty of schools who still have grass...go there.

and before you relate the current culture of safety to this scenario. Neurological injuries don't compare to bum knees.
[/quote]

Sure they do, they aren't generally as serious of course, but that doesn't mean they aren't debilitating or life altering in many ways.  In addition to sucking, they tend to be expensive.  In my line of work, I cut checks for knee surgeries up to and including total knees all the time...not cheap.  Many times an injury early in life will lead to advanced degenerative disease, which in turn leads to the need for surgical intervention down the road.  But hey, in the end sports injuries pay for all of those orthopedists to drive them fancy cars right

Just because a surface increases speed/agility, doesn't mean it is increasing the player's performance.  They perform with the same output on grass as they do on turf.  One artificially aids that performance, and one does not.  It's all relative. 

But...I digress.  We could argue the topic all day and not agree.  Certainly right now, those in favor of the turf appear to have the influence in the college game. 

[notlongago]

I cant tell because of your punctuation, but are you saying the bolded statement as a question or statement?

Ill address both possibilities:

No, D3 is not supposed to appease coaches and spectators. D3 is for players who love to play the game, and want to perform it to the best of their abilities. If turf helps players perform better, then turf is the way to go.

We can't live in a bubble wrapped world. If you don't like turf, there are plenty of schools who still have grass...go there.

and before you relate the current culture of safety to this scenario. Neurological injuries don't compare to bum knees.

Sure they do, they aren't generally as serious of course, but that doesn't mean they aren't debilitating or life altering in many ways.  In addition to sucking, they tend to be expensive.  In my line of work, I cut checks for knee surgeries up to and including total knees all the time...not cheap.  Many times an injury early in life will lead to advanced degenerative disease, which in turn leads to the need for surgical intervention down the road.  But hey, in the end sports injuries pay for all of those orthopedists to drive them fancy cars right

Just because a surface increases speed/agility, doesn't mean it is increasing the player's performance.  They perform with the same output on grass as they do on turf.  One artificially aids that performance, and one does not.  It's all relative. 

But...I digress.  We could argue the topic all day and not agree.  Certainly right now, those in favor of the turf appear to have the influence in the college game.
[/quote]

Agree to disagree

[doolittledog]

After we figure out this turf vs. grass thing maybe we can figure out how to make the stands more comfortable for pep band members.  All those years sitting outside on hard, non-heated seats, out in the elements, have left my body in a horrible state.  My back aches, knee aches, and probable liver damage have nothing to do with overeating fried foods and drinking schnapps out of a boda during games over the years and has everything to do with the deplorable state we currently have in bleacher design.  If D3 schools cared about the health of their pep band members...the ones that truly get the crowd fired up and cheering for that little side show called football...they would invest in ergonomic chair backed seats that are heated, have remote controls in these seats to order food and drinks to be brought to your seat, and of course free wifi so we can tweet and play on our phones in between all the other stuff going on around us!!!  When will our voices be heard??? 

On the bright side...sort of...we are just over 12 weeks away from opening kickoff in the IIAC. 

[Fannosaurus Rex]

And that is why the IIAC needs marching bands.  If bandsmen were up moving around for the pregame and half-time and post game shows, they would be much healthier.

I am surprised to learn that turf is more dangerous than sod.  Seems like player safety was one of the arguments for installing it, right after economics.  You know, you pay for the turf once and then you don't have to water, cut, or resod for 10 years no matter how many games you play on it.  Isn't playability also an issue?  The Chicago Bears had a horrible time with the grass in Soldier Field and I suspect they can afford to spend a good deal more than any IIAC schools.  I understand that Lambeau Field has some high tech drains and heaters and who knows what buried in it so that the Packers can play on grass in December.  And now that I've written all of that without coming to a point, I'll end with, don't we all wish we would see more games in Iowa in December?

[Phred]

After we figure out this turf vs. grass thing maybe we can figure out how to make the stands more comfortable for pep band members.  All those years sitting outside on hard, non-heated seats, out in the elements, have left my body in a horrible state.  My back aches, knee aches, and probable liver damage have nothing to do with overeating fried foods and drinking schnapps out of a boda during games over the years and has everything to do with the deplorable state we currently have in bleacher design.  If D3 schools cared about the health of their pep band members...the ones that truly get the crowd fired up and cheering for that little side show called football...they would invest in ergonomic chair backed seats that are heated, have remote controls in these seats to order food and drinks to be brought to your seat, and of course free wifi so we can tweet and play on our phones in between all the other stuff going on around us!!!  When will our voices be heard??? 



On the bright side...sort of...we are just over 12 weeks away from opening kickoff in the IIAC.

Wonderful comment Doolittle.  We need to take care of the PepBand!  After playing tuba (in the stands) and previously LB (in mud) , comfortable seats would be great!

Good to see some humor before the season starts.  Much karma to you!

[Bird Dog]

And that is why the IIAC needs marching bands.  If bandsmen were up moving around for the pregame and half-time and post game shows, they would be much healthier.

I am surprised to learn that turf is more dangerous than sod.  Seems like player safety was one of the arguments for installing it, right after economics.  You know, you pay for the turf once and then you don't have to water, cut, or resod for 10 years no matter how many games you play on it.  Isn't playability also an issue?  The Chicago Bears had a horrible time with the grass in Soldier Field and I suspect they can afford to spend a good deal more than any IIAC schools.  I understand that Lambeau Field has some high tech drains and heaters and who knows what buried in it so that the Packers can play on grass in December.  And now that I've written all of that without coming to a point, I'll end with, don't we all wish we would see more games in Iowa in December?

My son the Packer Fan talked me into the true Lambeau Field experience, last Sunday in December 30 degrees below zero.  Fans came to the game carrying squares of blue foam insulation.  We were wondering why?  They sat on it on to blunt the cold aluminum bleachers.  If only Doolittledog had had a piece of insulation he would probably be in better shape today.  P.S. Noticed some of the Cheeseheads snacking on the blue insulation after the game.  Obviously thought it was Bleu Cheese.

[DutchFan2004]

ACL injuries 40% higher on turf

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-football-idUSBRE84002Q20120501

No one is claiming turf is any safer. Performance is better on turf due to the increased and consistent traction. Obviously with the ability to better plant and move, the higher the likelihood of injuries.

So, D3 football is supposed to appease the spectators and coaches ....."better plant and move" at the expense of the student/athletes we encourage come to our supposed academic colleges ?  Future knee replacements, etc. 

Come on guys........IIAC has to be better than that.   

If the AD at your school wants to sacrifice kids so be it.  Just don,t sanction it.

I cant tell because of your punctuation, but are you saying the bolded statement as a question or statement?

Ill address both possibilities:

No, D3 is not supposed to appease coaches and spectators. D3 is for players who love to play the game, and want to perform it to the best of their abilities. If turf helps players perform better, then turf is the way to go.

We can't live in a bubble wrapped world. If you don't like turf, there are plenty of schools who still have grass...go there.

and before you relate the current culture of safety to this scenario. Neurological injuries don't compare to bum knees.

Please clarify you statement about injuries.  Are you saying bum knees are better or worse?

[D3MAFAN]

ACL injuries 40% higher on turf

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-football-idUSBRE84002Q20120501

No one is claiming turf is any safer. Performance is better on turf due to the increased and consistent traction. Obviously with the ability to better plant and move, the higher the likelihood of injuries.

So, D3 football is supposed to appease the spectators and coaches ....."better plant and move" at the expense of the student/athletes we encourage come to our supposed academic colleges ?  Future knee replacements, etc. 

Come on guys........IIAC has to be better than that.   

If the AD at your school wants to sacrifice kids so be it.  Just don,t sanction it.

I cant tell because of your punctuation, but are you saying the bolded statement as a question or statement?

Ill address both possibilities:

No, D3 is not supposed to appease coaches and spectators. D3 is for players who love to play the game, and want to perform it to the best of their abilities. If turf helps players perform better, then turf is the way to go.

We can't live in a bubble wrapped world. If you don't like turf, there are plenty of schools who still have grass...go there.

and before you relate the current culture of safety to this scenario. Neurological injuries don't compare to bum knees.

Please clarify you statement about injuries.  Are you saying bum knees are better or worse?

I would think that bum knees would be better than a head injury, since the brain is used to help your body function. However, you can have a brain injury on the turf as well as any other surface, grass or no grass.

[AndOne]

After we figure out this turf vs. grass thing maybe we can figure out how to make the stands more comfortable for pep band members.  All those years sitting outside on hard, non-heated seats, out in the elements, have left my body in a horrible state.  My back aches, knee aches, and probable liver damage have nothing to do with overeating fried foods and drinking schnapps out of a boda during games over the years and has everything to do with the deplorable state we currently have in bleacher design.  If D3 schools cared about the health of their pep band members...the ones that truly get the crowd fired up and cheering for that little side show called football...they would invest in ergonomic chair backed seats that are heated, have remote controls in these seats to order food and drinks to be brought to your seat, and of course free wifi so we can tweet and play on our phones in between all the other stuff going on around us!!!  When will our voices be heard??? 

On the bright side...sort of...we are just over 12 weeks away from opening kickoff in the IIAC.

Face it Doo, you're just old! (Welcome to the club) 
And I suspect you consumed mass quantities in your youth, which has caused your aged liver to rebel. 

Lots of discussion in here recently re grass vs turf fields. Just throwing out something for consideration........
Grass field. Pours rain all night before the football game. During the game the field gets thoroughly chewed up and destroyed. All that remains is a huge mud pit which later dries into a concrete hard field of dirt. The field is left in that condition permanently. The field is basically ruined for the remainder of the season. And remember, most schools play soccer and lacrosse (if they have it) on the football field. Frequent replacement of the field can get pretty expensive, not to mention the safety factor involved with playing on a field in that type condition. Doesn't seem like a grass field makes much sense in these times. 

[hazzben]

Lots of discussion in here recently re grass vs turf fields. Just throwing out something for consideration........
Grass field. Pours rain all night before the football game. During the game the field gets thoroughly chewed up and destroyed. All that remains is a huge mud pit which later dries into a concrete hard field of dirt. The field is left in that condition permanently. The field is basically ruined for the remainder of the season. And remember, most schools play soccer and lacrosse (if they have it) on the football field. Frequent replacement of the field can get pretty expensive, not to mention the safety factor involved with playing on a field in that type condition. Doesn't seem like a grass field makes much sense in these times. 

This is only the case of 'pasture fields' aka, old school grass fields with no good drainage system. My high school field was similar to this (it's now field turf). It was used by a high school and a college. If there was a ton of rain on Friday it got chewed up and then battered on Saturday.

Any good grass field nowadays will be sand based. They drain exponentially more effectively than old fields. They eliminate standing water and also recover faster from wear. The real issue, up north, is that once you get past the frost point of the fall, for say a deep playoff run, the grass isn't growing anymore. You'll have a harder turf that can't recover during the week. But even then, the field is still playable. Grass fields are still a totally viable option (there's a reason most NFL teams still have grass) but you have to invest in a guy to manage the turf. Your typical 'grounds guy' that only knows how to run a mower won't cut it. At the same time, at the D3 level, that turf expert is also probably making the grass on the rest of campus just as beautiful.

[AndOne]

Not sure how many small D3 schools have turf "experts" on staff. I think the position is probably down near the bottom rung on the staff ladder.
Additionally, with soccer being a fall sport, a turf field doesn't have much chance to recover, especially considering soccer involves both men and women, often playing during the week as opposed to solely on the weekends. Not a problem for schools that have separate soccer stadiums, but how many D3s have that luxury?

[D3Dutchman]

Not sure how many small D3 schools have turf "experts" on staff. I think the position is probably down near the bottom rung on the staff ladder.
Additionally, with soccer being a fall sport, a turf field doesn't have much chance to recover, especially considering soccer involves both men and women, often playing during the week as opposed to solely on the weekends. Not a problem for schools that have separate soccer stadiums, but how many D3s have that luxury?

I know a lot of schools have space issues, but outside of that, playing soccer on a football field should be avoided at all costs.  I'm glad Central has that luxury...oh, and by the way, a nice little write up on their wonderful GRASS playing field with underground irrigation.  Why would football be any different? In fact, far fewer games would be played down at Schipper Stadium than the field that is shared by men and women for soccer.  I think this just serves to prove the point that field turf is just the flavor of the week/decade as far as football goes right now. 

http://www.central.edu/athletics/facilities/soccerGameField.cfm

[AndOne]

Not sure how many small D3 schools have turf "experts" on staff. I think the position is probably down near the bottom rung on the staff ladder.
Additionally, with soccer being a fall sport, a turf field doesn't have much chance to recover, especially considering soccer involves both men and women, often playing during the week as opposed to solely on the weekends. Not a problem for schools that have separate soccer stadiums, but how many D3s have that luxury?

I know a lot of schools have space issues, but outside of that, playing soccer on a football field should be avoided at all costs.  I'm glad Central has that luxury...oh, and by the way, a nice little write up on their wonderful GRASS playing field with underground irrigation.  Why would football be any different? In fact, far fewer games would be played down at Schipper Stadium than the field that is shared by men and women for soccer.  I think this just serves to prove the point that field turf is just the flavor of the week/decade as far as football goes right now. 

http://www.central.edu/athletics/facilities/soccerGameField.cfm

D3Dutch-

Your school is very fortunate to have a separate soccer "stadium." I may be wrong, but my assumption is that its a fairly small percentage of D3s that have separate stadiums for football and soccer. Accordingly, more often than not, I sense its not possible to avoid "playing soccer on a football field." And, when a school plays both men's and women's soccer and football on the same field, I just don't think a grass surface is practical as, even with good drainage, it would be subject to the possibility of being almost continually chewed up what with many of the soccer games being played during the week.
Hazzben also brought up a good point with regard to the inability for a grass field to regenerate/repair itself after the first frost. This disadvantage would be applicable to a grass field even if it was a football only facility.

U bet that field turf may be the flavor of the week/decade right now. However, for schools without a separate soccer facility, that "flavor" seems born out of necessity.