A Brief History of the Turf at Florida Field
1930
Construction
of Florida Field.
An unknown variety of natural turf was used.
1971
Installation of "Doug's Rug", nicknamed after the coach
who pushed for the new synthetic turf.
1980
"Doug's Rug" removed and replaced
with new synthetic turf.
1990
Steve Spurrier has synthetic turf removed and replaced
with
Bermudagrass. For at least a portion of this time
the variety Tifway 419 Burmudagrass was used.
2012
Florida Field gets complete make-over.
New soil substrate as well as a different turf variety called
Celebration Burmudagrass
Why so many changes to the field over time? Turfgrass has always been the standard for playing fields until another option became available with the introduction of synthetic turf in the mid 1960's. Doug Dickey was the head coach of the football team at the time of the initial transition from natural turf to synthetic turf. In reference to the new turf, Dickey said, "it's important to the total athletic image here." It has also been said that the purpose for the turf was to "keep up with the Jones'". Statements like these make it clear that the shift to synthetic turf was not motivated based on a desire or scientific backing for a better or safer playing surface. When Steve Spurrier became head coach in 1990 he had the synthetic turf removed and replaced it with bermudagrass stating that natural turf was safer for the players. In an article written about the 2012 renovation of Florida Field, Chip Howard said, "every seven to 10 years you need to completely renovate a grass field." It was time to replace and regrade the soil in the stadium and put new turf in. The univeristy had used Celebration Burmudagrass on several of the other playing fields for several years and had been very pleased with its performance. Celebration Bermudagrass has an excellent wear tolerance and recovery time as well as good drought tolerance.
.jpg)
Celebration Bermudagrass on Florida Field
Discussion
It is at this point that I would like to discuss the pros and cons to Synthetic turf and natural turf. It is my opinion that just as in a court of law where the accused is assumed innocent until proven guilty, natural turfgrass should be assumed superior until proven otherwise. This removes the pressure from natural turfgrass and puts synthetic turf in the hot seat as it should be. New things are always the ones that have to go through extensive testing, and I can tell you with confidence that synthetic turf is newer than natural turf. To begin the discussion, here are the issues at hand: safety, cost, durability, and environmental factors. Natural grass has been the status quo for...all of time. Therefore synthetic turf must purportedly have some superior qualities to turf. The tagline for the synthetic turf industry is "less maintenance and better for the environment". Although you do not have to mow synthetic turf there is still a significant amount of maintenance involved. More Green? No. They are able to market this because synthetic turf does not require fertilizer or insecticides. What Synthetic turf does need is fungicides and bactericides. It also does not have the multitude of environmental benefits such as providing oxygen, temperature cooling, and water catchment and percolation. There are numerous safety hazards associated with synthetic turf such as increased ACL injuries, grass burn (from high temperatures and friction), MRSA, and potentially cancer. This, along with player preference are probably the two most important factors when debating this issue. An overwhelming number of professional athletes prefer to play on natural grass over synthetic due to safety reasons and a change in the feel of the game. Some even refuse to play on synthetic. All of this is not to say that there is not potential for synthetic turf in certain applications but much more research and development should be done first. I believe the sports turf team at UF made a good decision in returning to natural turf.
Sources
