Jump to content

Newsday outs artificial fields...


Recommended Posts

No less than Newsday, (Newsday.com) a oft time winner of Pulitzers at the 8th largest newspaper in the US which is owned by the Cablevision giants the Dolans, is doing a multi-day series examining the ups and downs of artificial football field coverage surfaces, the companies who have produced them and who sometimes squelched the awareness of ill effects, and those who made profit while others suffered.

http://fieldturf.nj.com/

Those who have previously complained on DCP and those who have dismissed them may each find more evidence as we consider how current drum corps performances and the artificial turfs interact.

Edited by xandandl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FieldTurf (the company) is - by and large - garbage. They were one of the first to create the current long-blade artificial surfaces (the surface we call field turf). However, professional, scholastic, and college teams all over the country are switching away from them in favor of myriad other companies who are producing a safer, longer-lasting, and higher quality surface.

This article is mostly pretty valid. FieldTurf (company) is petering out because of issues like those pointed out in the article.

http://www.ubusports.com/ <<< one of the very best current manufacturers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No less than Newsday, (Newsday.com) a oft time winner of Pulitzers at the 8th largest newspaper in the US which is owned by the Cablevision giants the Dolans, is doing a multi-day series examining the ups and downs of artificial football field coverage surfaces, the companies who have produced them and who sometimes squelched the awareness of ill effects, and those who made profit while others suffered.

http://fieldturf.nj.com/

Those who have previously complained on DCP and those who have dismissed them may each find more evidence as we consider how current drum corps performances and the artificial turfs interact.

That was in the NJ Star Ledger paper this past weekend. Actually, your link is nj.com, which is the Star Ledger's website (among other newspapers in NJ). Both HS in my town were mentioned as purchasers of FieldTurf, back in 2007. It has definitely started looking ratty the past few years (we practice on it every week, so I see it up close!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was in the NJ Star Ledger paper this past weekend. Actually, your link is nj.com, which is the Star Ledger's website (among other newspapers in NJ). Both HS in my town were mentioned as purchasers of FieldTurf, back in 2007. It has definitely started looking ratty the past few years (we practice on it every week, so I see it up close!).

How long are these fields actually supposed to last? I have no idea...I guess 10 years is not even close...Is there not a warranty given?...for example a roof can be warranted for at least 25 years etc...

Edited by Liahona
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long are these fields actually supposed to last? I have no idea...I guess 10 years is not even close...Is there not a warranty given?...for example a roof can be warranted for at least 25 years etc...

According to the article, the warranty is 8 years, with the sales pitch being made that the fields are so good they will last much longer. Ours started flattening out after 3 or 4 years. It is still usable, but it looks and feels nowhere as good as it did in the beginning. I have no idea what the district has done with the vendor, if anything. Unless they initiated some sort of warranty claim by 2015, they are out of the warranty period now. Unless there is some sort of fraud case due to known issues not being communicated and overblown claims by the sales force, we are out of luck on that.

The field is still usable, and it gets a LOT of use. Not just football. Soccer, field hockey, lacrosse, plus the MB all use the field. Recreation department teams use it as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, the article referenced is regarding FieldTurf (the company) and not the laytermed 'fieldturf' (the artificial surface everyone uses nowadays).

There are many manufacturers now that create and sell 'fieldturf.' They are all of varying qualities, with different materials, processes, and warranties.

FieldTurf (the company) has a terrible reputation within the artificial surface community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, the article referenced is regarding FieldTurf (the company) and not the laytermed 'fieldturf' (the artificial surface everyone uses nowadays).

There are many manufacturers now that create and sell 'fieldturf.' They are all of varying qualities, with different materials, processes, and warranties.

FieldTurf (the company) has a terrible reputation within the artificial surface community.

A question derived from your comments but not in a direct linear way:

A Zingali-Sacktig style drill as exemplified by many of the Cadets' best years required a trust of the field quality for the velocity drills to be well done. (Columbus Baseball Stadium and Warhawk Stadium in Wisconsin showed the exceptions that proved the rule.) The Cavaliers and SCV drills required the same trust.

Modern shows in the style of Bloo, Crown, and other "grassline grovelers" (all said in tongue-in cheek jest) also demand a trust of field quality, but is that requirement different or more challenging given the more gymnastic shows today? I remember Brandon of Crown falling and suffering at LOS; most of us wondered about Tilt-jumps, trampoline artists, etc.)

Drum corps stopped using certain fields (e.g. "the mound in the middle of the Sevierville, TN show...where the forestfires have been lately)

The poor local show sponsor (TEP, Garfield the poster, etc.) tries to ensure a satisfactory stadium, school and financial backing; but turf quality a company, school district board, or athletic dept. chooses may be more complex than a local marching band director can provide. (My Dad was a public school administrator/educator/athletic director for 40 years; he also played the violin and drove me to countless drum corps events. Not all athletic directors and coaches are anti-drum corps villains.)

In short, what are today's drum corps requirements for a safe performance field, who ensures that the stated field fits that, and who checks it before even the day of the contest when the corps arrive? Are the domed stadiums with their concrete bases for the artificial field any safer?

Edited by xandandl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long are these fields actually supposed to last? I have no idea...I guess 10 years is not even close...Is there not a warranty given?...for example a roof can be warranted for at least 25 years etc...

Let me start off by saying I'm an engineer who has been involved in the design and construction of a number of synthetic turf fields.

The majority of fields I've worked on used Field Turf.

None of the fields I've worked on,including the ones that used the synthetic turf referenced in the Star Ledger article,ever had a problem.

That includes fields where the synthetic turf has been in place for over 10 years.

Maybe I was just lucky.

Field Turf has an 8 year Third Party Warranty.But, as I said,some of the first fields I worked on have had the original turf for over 10 years.

The fields in question are not used for high school or college football,which will reduce their useful life.

They are also all located in N.J., where the turf is not subject to the same U.V. light exposure and heat,as in the south.and west.

That also shortens turf life.

One problem I have found with synthetic turf fields is that they are not properly maintained.

On the projects I design,the owner is provided with a "groomer".Their staff is also trained how to "groom" the turf.

Unfortunately,in my experience,synthetic turf fields tend to be "ignored".Synthetic turf needs to be "groomed" regularly and the "infill" replenished when needed.

Its pretty easy to tell when a field isn't being maintained.

A couple of years ago I was called in to "spec" replacement synthetic turf for a high school.

It was obvious that the turf wasn't the issue,it just wan't being groomed.

We had a company do a full grooming.

The turf looked like new.

One other thing.

"Field Turf" is the name of company,and the synthetic turf.

Problem is,a lot of people refer to any synthetic turf as "Field Turf".

Edited by rpbobcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...