Impact of turf vs grass

[Shamoan]

out of om's 11 games, 2 have been on real grass (@bama, @auburn) and their point total in all games on grass was 22 points, all of which came against auburn. i think thats a huge factor in this game. its going to limit the speed of the rb's and wr's and certainly plays in our favor.

their point totals on turf have been the following:
@ vandy: 39
semo: 31
@texas: 44
aTm: 38
lsu: 27
idaho: 59
arky: 34
troy: 51
mizzou: 10

compared to:
@ bama: 0
@ auburn: 22

artificial turf plays faster, and i think in oms case, it serves their offense to a T. I think the fact that the game is going to be on real grass will have a significant impact on the game and one that will favor a team that plays on grass. perhaps that is why with teams so evenly matched (as state and om have been in the past) the home team wins far more often than not. its not everything, but for teams evenly matched and the type offense they run, i think turf is a huge advantage for them when we go to oxford....conversely, grass will be a big advantage for us when they come to starkville and will help slow down the game a bit for our defense.

this could all be ********....maybe so. it didnt help kentucky back in the day when hal mumme let the bluegrass grow long and thick, but then again, we were used to playing on real grass.

im going to be looking at the wr's and rb's because on that home turf, they look fast as ****. lets hope the playing surface makes a significant impact in our favor.

 

[57stratdawg]

It's suppose to be in the 40s-30s too. I think that helps us.

 

[121Josey]

You base your argument on 2 teams - who will play for the de facto NC this weekened - on the road. And Hal Mumme? Delusional.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It's a good theory but I think the sample size is too small to conclude anything.

 

[mjh94]

apparently, according to an ED poster, Ole miss hasn't won a game on real grass since the 2009 cotton bowl at the old cotton bowl stadium that's good sample size.. i haven't fact checked that, though.

 

[Strike.sixpack]

The 2009 season or the Cotton Bowl played in the year 2009? I think the last time was the Cotton Bowl they played Texas Tech after the 2008 season. They beat Florida and LSU on grass that year as well. Since then it does not look like they have won on grass. Although, other than us in 2009, they haven't played a team with a losing records on grass either and it includes two pretty bad years during Nutt's time. They have played four games under Freeze on grass. Lost to Georgia and LSU last year and Bama Auburn this year. Two blow outs two games within one score. Interesting stats tho and hope it continues Thursday. Fresno State might have beat them a few years if they hasn't switched the summer before the season started.

 

[Shamoan]

you are one bitter individual. im opening up the floor for a discussion...you confuse creating an argument for proposing an idea, and if you dont acknowledge the fact that fast teams play better on turf vs grass, you knowledge of the sport is limited at best.

 

[Shamoan]

dont tell josey....lets keep this our secret.

 

[121Josey]

you are one bitter individual. im opening up the floor for a discussion...you confuse creating an argument for proposing an idea, and if you dont acknowledge the fact that fast teams play better on turf vs grass, you knowledge of the sport is limited at best.

Let me get this straight. You're a master's student? And you don't know that proposing an idea involves creating an argument? Oh, you must be confusing proposing with posing a question like, "Hey guys, do ya'll want to come back to my place for milk and cookies after the eggbowl?" You sure as hell did write a lot for just "proposing an idea". Wouldn't a question like "Is TSUN at a disadvantage on grass" suffice?

Fast teams played faster on astro-turf ("carpet") than grass. The factor for speed is the hardness of the surface. The new rubber field turf does not provide a noticeable advantage from years past.

I apologize for not confusing TSUN with a "fast team".

 

[Shamoan]

wrong, im a doctoral candidate...you assumed masters...just another character flaw you should probably rid yourself of. i am opening up the idea of discussion not arranging an argument. its got nothing to do with an argument nor defending that argument. i suppose i could have said, "hey, i think om plays better on turf, whatdoyathink?", but then again, how much thought would that provoke? very little. its more applicable to ole miss because most teams dont have the explosive speed in the places they do. that offense requires precision...speed particularly at rb and wr. do you dispute that speed? do you dispute the ole miss offense exploits a speed advantage they create or in some cases, try to create?

typically, one "arguing" does not also point out the validity of a counter argument....which is exactly what i did and acts as more evidence that i was not doing what you are suggesting. me saying "this could all be ********....maybe so" discredits your idea that it is some argument i am trying to create. why would i create an argument and immediately discredit that argument? its no different than what the vast majority of threads do, yet here we are seeing you in a position where you want to act like a *****. thats fine with me if you want to be like that, but you should probably pipe down while the grownups are talking if you have nothing constructive to say.

most others have found it an interesting idea. shockingly, you are not one of them and all you want to do is create a meaningless argument about whether or not i am arguing something.

one thing is for sure, not many people would call the speed of scott, mathers, moncrief, treadwell, moore, among others, something other than fast. continue your crusade if you must....everyone loves a martyr.

 

[engie]

I apologize for not confusing TSUN with a "fast team".

Now you are just embarrassing yourself.

 

[RocketDawg]

out of om's 11 games, 2 have been on real grass (@bama, @auburn) and their point total in all games on grass was 22 points, all of which came against auburn. i think thats a huge factor in this game. its going to limit the speed of the rb's and wr's and certainly plays in our favor.

their point totals on turf have been the following:
@ vandy: 39
semo: 31
@texas: 44
aTm: 38
lsu: 27
idaho: 59
arky: 34
troy: 51
mizzou: 10

compared to:
@ bama: 0
@ auburn: 22

artificial turf plays faster, and i think in oms case, it serves their offense to a T. I think the fact that the game is going to be on real grass will have a significant impact on the game and one that will favor a team that plays on grass. perhaps that is why with teams so evenly matched (as state and om have been in the past) the home team wins far more often than not. its not everything, but for teams evenly matched and the type offense they run, i think turf is a huge advantage for them when we go to oxford....conversely, grass will be a big advantage for us when they come to starkville and will help slow down the game a bit for our defense.

this could all be ********....maybe so. it didnt help kentucky back in the day when hal mumme let the bluegrass grow long and thick, but then again, we were used to playing on real grass.

im going to be looking at the wr's and rb's because on that home turf, they look fast as ****. lets hope the playing surface makes a significant impact in our favor.

Pretty sure that Kentucky has Bermuda grass on the field just like we do. But he did indeed let it grow long and thick. Went to a game during that era and you couldn't even see the players' shoes.

Otherwise, I sorta agree with you on grass vs. plastic. Not sure the sample size is large enough for any sort of confidence (haven't done the math), but what you say is interesting regardless. And I definitely think plastic fields make for more injuries ... not so much from the "hardness" but from how the cleats grip/slip differently on the two surfaces.

But turf obviously holds up better to lousy, wet weather. Remember the pig stye we played on in the infamous Arkansas game of 1999 (I think ... the game before we went to the Snow Bowl, which had even colder, lousier weather)? We've been lucky the past few years not to have played during any significant rainy or snowy conditions.

 

[RocketDawg]

Wouldn't be surprised if it was even colder ... probably right around freezing. If so, that will be the coldest home game we've had in several years.

 

[engie]

Pretty sure that Kentucky has Bermuda grass on the field just like we do. But he did indeed let it grow long and thick. Went to a game during that era and you couldn't even see the players' shoes.

Otherwise, I sorta agree with you on grass vs. plastic. Not sure the sample size is large enough for any sort of confidence (haven't done the math), but what you say is interesting regardless. And I definitely think plastic fields make for more injuries ... not so much from the "hardness" but from how the cleats grip/slip differently on the two surfaces.

But turf obviously holds up better to lousy, wet weather. Remember the pig stye we played on in the infamous Arkansas game of 1999 (I think ... the game before we went to the Snow Bowl, which had even colder, lousier weather)? We've been lucky the past few years not to have played during any significant rainy or snowy conditions.

Our surface can roll through several inches of rain/hour now without significant issues... That's one reason it almost never turns to slop anymore. Would take a worst-case scenario for that to actually happen now...

 

[maroonmania]

out of om's 11 games, 2 have been on real grass (@bama, @auburn) and their point total in all games on grass was 22 points, all of which came against auburn. i think thats a huge factor in this game. its going to limit the speed of the rb's and wr's and certainly plays in our favor.

their point totals on turf have been the following:
@ vandy: 39
semo: 31
@texas: 44
aTm: 38
lsu: 27
idaho: 59
arky: 34
troy: 51
mizzou: 10

compared to:
@ bama: 0
@ auburn: 22

artificial turf plays faster, and i think in oms case, it serves their offense to a T. I think the fact that the game is going to be on real grass will have a significant impact on the game and one that will favor a team that plays on grass. perhaps that is why with teams so evenly matched (as state and om have been in the past) the home team wins far more often than not. its not everything, but for teams evenly matched and the type offense they run, i think turf is a huge advantage for them when we go to oxford....conversely, grass will be a big advantage for us when they come to starkville and will help slow down the game a bit for our defense.

this could all be ********....maybe so. it didnt help kentucky back in the day when hal mumme let the bluegrass grow long and thick, but then again, we were used to playing on real grass.

im going to be looking at the wr's and rb's because on that home turf, they look fast as ****. lets hope the playing surface makes a significant impact in our favor.

I sure wish we hadn't played on the artificial crap last week. The injury to Tyler Russell's shoulder was primarily due to being slammed down on the turf as well as Fred Ross's broken collar bone.

 

[TheStateUofMS]

Let me get this straight. You're a master's student? And you don't know that proposing an idea involves creating an argument? Oh, you must be confusing proposing with posing a question like, "Hey guys, do ya'll want to come back to my place for milk and cookies after the eggbowl?" You sure as hell did write a lot for just "proposing an idea". Wouldn't a question like "Is TSUN at a disadvantage on grass" suffice?

Fast teams played faster on astro-turf ("carpet") than grass. The factor for speed is the hardness of the surface. The new rubber field turf does not provide a noticeable advantage from years past.

I apologize for not confusing TSUN with a "fast team".

This...is...sixpack. Noooooo doubt.

 

[Shamoan]

agreed. artificial surfaces always seem to have more injuries. that might be recall bias, but look at om's injuries throughout the years. thats an interesting research topic for someone.

in a few seconds of research, there seems to be conflicting data. the nfl says that there are more injuries on artificial turf. an excerpt:

"While we are unaware of any published scientific research study showing a higher injury rate on infilled synthetic turf, a report released by the NFL in the spring of 2010 contradicts the results of the previously described studies. The NFL Injury and Safety Panel reported considerably higher incidences of knee and ankle injuries on infilled synthetic turf than on grass. Currently, only an abstract from this study has been released and the full study has yet to appear in a scientific journal. When and if that study becomes available, it will be interesting to compare the complete data set with the other studies that found no difference in injury risk. "

http://www.sportsturfonline.com/ME2...7191B8&AudID=374222F1A4794C91A8E3D4464352DF70


thats backed up by this, which is published recently in a scholarly journal for surgeons:

"Synthetic playing surfaces have evolved considerably since their introduction in the 1960s. Today, third-generation turf is routinely installed in professional, collegiate, and community settings. Proponents of artificial surfaces tout their versatility and durability in a variety of climates. However, the health and injury ramifications have yet to be clearly defined. Musculoskeletal injury is largely affected by the shoe-playing surface interface. However, conclusive statements cannot be made regarding the risk of certain shoe-playing surface combinations because of the variety of additional factors, such as weather conditions, shoe wear, and field wear. Historically, clinical studies have indicated that higher injury rates occur on artificial turf than on natural surfaces. This conclusion is backed by robust biomechanical data that suggest that torque and strain may be greater on artificial surfaces than on natural grass. Recent data on professional athletes suggest that elite athletes may sustain injuries at increased rates on the newer surfaces. However, these surfaces remain attractive to athletes and administrators alike because of their durability, relative ease of maintenance, and multiuse potential."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23637148

we need to use this in 'crootin.

 

[archdog]

Use capital letters. Doctoral candidate.