Future OCS Stadium Grass Painting

[Outlaw]

Bulls roam on pastures full of green grass! No turf. We don't need to see players get hurt on wet turf.

[Ten Toed Sloth]

1 hour ago, Sk00b said:

No balls! Let's get crazy folks!

Gold turf at a high school in Pittsburgh.

[USFBulls12]

2 minutes ago, Ten Toed Sloth said:

Gold turf at a high school in Pittsburgh.

[Sk00b]

Yea... that's terrible. Whoever brought up that idea is a idiot.

[Rocky Style]

7 hours ago, Ten Toed Sloth said:

Gold turf at a high school in Pittsburgh.

Yikes!

[Peatearpan]

On 9/25/2023 at 4:22 PM, BullsWinBucsWin said:

No turf!  I like the checkerboard idea.

Turf is so bad man. I remember playing soccer on turf, and my ankles and knees would be in so much pain after.

[TheAccountant]

Just a thought, the new practice facility that was finished over the summer is turf. I understand the sentiment of playing on grass, but wouldn't it be best for the team to play on what they practicing on?

Also, the Tampa Sports Authority (who operates RJS) spends north of $1,000,000 on grass each year. I know circumstances are a bit different because the NFL's grass requirements can be a bit stringent (for starters, between the hashes and endzone is replaced pretty much after every game) and RJS hosts a lot of different types of events that require grass being removed and reinstalled (i.e. monster jam for example). But turf could be more cost effective. According to an AB survey, schools with grass football fields average roughly $57,000 in annual maintenance costs, whereas schools with synthetic turf in their stadiums spend about $16,000. Multiply that over 20 years, and that's almost $1,000,000 in savings. 

[Outlaw]

24 minutes ago, TheAccountant said:

Just a thought, the new practice facility that was finished over the summer is turf. I understand the sentiment of playing on grass, but wouldn't it be best for the team to play on what they practicing on?

Also, the Tampa Sports Authority (who operates RJS) spends north of $1,000,000 on grass each year. I know circumstances are a bit different because the NFL's grass requirements can be a bit stringent (for starters, between the hashes and endzone is replaced pretty much after every game) and RJS hosts a lot of different types of events that require grass being removed and reinstalled (i.e. monster jam for example). But turf could be more cost effective. According to an AB survey, schools with grass football fields average roughly $57,000 in annual maintenance costs, whereas schools with synthetic turf in their stadiums spend about $16,000. Multiply that over 20 years, and that's almost $1,000,000 in savings. 

I never thought about that. That being sad I prefer grass, but I'll be there either way.

[Triple B]

1 hour ago, TheAccountant said:

Just a thought, the new practice facility that was finished over the summer is turf. I understand the sentiment of playing on grass, but wouldn't it be best for the team to play on what they practicing on?

Not sure the actual breakdown but the vast majority of actual practice time is spent on grass ....

[79 Bull]

I don't think grass is a good investment/maintenance option.  94 of 133 current FBS schools play on turf at their home fields.  There is a reason for that.

Of the 133 schools that currently compete in the top-tier of NCAA Division I, 94 have artificial surface football fields (71%) and 39 have grass (29%), most of those at Power Five schools that can afford the upkeep and maintenance.Oct 9, 2023