Unlike LSU, most schools don't have natural grass fields. Do players care?

College football was meant to be played on campus, and on grass.

Just asking a question out of curiosity. No biggie.

Don't try to change anything with this group. They don't like change.

Field turf is a major improvement over the old AstroTurf, but it still doesn't compare to playing on grass. I would imagine if you polled college players, at least 75% would say they would rather play on grass.

There's a reason places like Green Bay, Chicago, Pittsburgh all play on grass surfaces even though it's much more difficult to maintain than turf in Nov., Dec., Jan.

LSU doesn't have to and shouldn't ever move to a turf field

quote:

---

Unlike LSU, most schools don't have natural grass fields

---

It's a money thing, and climate matters some as well. Small schools tend to have artificial surfaces more so than the Power schools because artificial turf is cheaper and easier to maintain. Check out this article from 2012 that breaks it down. As this, and a previous poster as well, states grass is the norm in the SEC and south (ACC) in general. (It's a little dated, still uses the BCS and Big East in the numbers, and I'm sure some have changed to turf or gone back to grass since then. So, who knows how accurate this still is.)

Doesn't LSU's playing surface struggle a bit more since the south endzone expansion? However, LSU should remain natural grass, and I would be highly disappointed if they ever go to artificial.

quote:

---

Do players care?

---

Maybe? They seem to want to play at schools that happen to have grass fields. But perhaps that's because they want to go to the big time programs of which the SEC and ACC are filled.

Does hold heat. Does get hot.

quote:

---

Don't try to change anything with this group. They don't like change.

---

Joined 1/1/2017. Alter alert

quote:

---

It's a money thing, and climate matters some as well. Small schools tend to have artificial surfaces more so than the Power schools because artificial turf is cheaper and easier to maintain.

---

Cheaper is a relative term. Field Turf costs over a $1Mil on a field. Our HS went to turf because the field is used for Varsity FB, JV FB, Fresh FB, Boys Soccor Va, Girls Soccor, Track and Field and local PeeWee FB. Turf eliminates the mowing and Lining each of these fields not to mention the wear and tear there could be.

But for a single use field like TS - no, it is not necessarily cheaper.

And I affirm what another poster stated. In the Aug -Sept games it is unbearably hot. I have seen marching band members fallout in pregame from the heat.

Don't like this group...cut a trail.