Field Turf v. A-Turf

by **Stallion** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:49 am

...so what's the deal-it appears from the A-Turf website that SMU is the first installation at any major college or other notable field. It appears that it maybe half as expensive too when comparing the prices of the current SMU and Hawaii installation. Field Turf gets glowing reviews from the NFL Players Association and just about anybody whose played on it. I noted that NFL grounds keeper George Toma said it is a superior product. Was this a cost cutting decision or is there reason to believe that A-Turf is just as good. I'm surprised at the lack of major products using A-Turf.

by **FloridaMustang** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 am

A-Turf is brand new, Stallion. So new, inf fact, that there was no website up until after SMU announced we were installing it. But I'm also curious as why we didn't go with the CLEARLY proven, dependable product.

by **Mickey** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 9:28 am

When SMU announced that it was going to a synthetic surface at Ford, I was under the impression that it was going to be FieldTurf which was the choice of the NFL and the surface at Memorial Stadium of Nebraska. It appears that just about everybody that is going to a synthetic surface is using FieldTurf. This is typical SMU and this is very disaapointing. Once again, we probably go the cheapest route.

I would like to hear what Jim Copeland and David Miller have to say. The rest of the world goes to FieldTurf and SMU goes to A-Turf. I would feel a little more comfortbale with the surface that has a history and is used by some reputable institutions rather than being one of the first to use another product. This is not good!

by **IslandBoy** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 11:04 am

This sounds pretty technical, but from what I can discern from the web, A-Turf and FieldTurf are basically the same product, but they require different "bases." A-Turf just allowed them to keep the sand base and drainage system at Ford and could be installed in a much more timely fashion. FieldTurf would have required much more extensive field preparation. Having seen FieldTurf at other stadiums and the A-Turf at Ford, they look indentical to me...

by **FloridaMustang** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:03 pm

Yeah, I wouldn't be too disappointed here lol. It's the same stuff

by **Peruna's Pal** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:00 pm

The company is brand new made up of the top 4 to 5 people from a competing company. They have several years ecperience in dealing with this turf. The turf technology has been getting better and better as the years go on.

SMU did a good job af finding th ecomapny, checking out the credentials and gaining a competitve bid. The situation is always best for the first that buys and this situation is no different. It was very fortunate for SMU and the really good timing for A-Turf.

by **GoRedGoBlue** » Sat Jul 19, 2003 6:25 pm

Here's the answer:

SMU did get a nice deal on the stuff because it is in a prime location for the A-Turf to showcase their product (it is in other installations, but off the beaten path).

A-turf is quality stuff...for you naysayers, AstroTurf was the best and top brand for a while, too. Then came other copies that eventually overtook it as well. So, so what about FieldTurf and their glaring review (which are bought as well).

It's just plastic shag carpet, how freaken hard could it be? The secret to the feel of the product is in the filler and the subsurface (and since Ford has excellent drainage, it was able to be installed flat - no crown).

by **Bergermeister** » Sun Jul 20, 2003 11:11 am

Rest assured, the Ford turf is top of the line. Our players will concur after they've worked out/played on it.

Field Turf v. A-Turf

Field Turf v. A-Turf

Re: Field Turf v. A-Turf

Re: Field Turf v. A-Turf

Re: Field Turf v. A-Turf

Re: Field Turf v. A-Turf

Re: Field Turf v. A-Turf

Re: Field Turf v. A-Turf

Re: Field Turf v. A-Turf

Who is online