Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2012/6/2 ... 21954.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.suutbirds.com/ViewArticle.db ... M_ID=20100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Thankfully, it looks like they are going with green. That leaves Cal Poly and N Colo with the last remaining natural grass fields in the conference.

I like the black end zones ...wish we had kept them.

Nice look

Looks clean...

I like it

fxck southern utah

Yet ANOTHER school jumping on the STUPID bandwagon....



(And, yes, I include my own Hornets and my own Lodi Flames in that. If I had the $$ to rip that turf at the Grape Bowl out, I'd do it in a HEARTBEAT.)

The Big Sky Logo looks awesome. Looking forward to seeing it on Cal Poly's field this fall.

WeberAlum02 wrote:http://www.bigskyconf.com/news/2012/6/2 ... 21954.aspx

http://www.suutbirds.com/ViewArticle.db ... M_ID=20100" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Thankfully, it looks like they are going with green. That leaves Cal Poly and N Colo with the last remaining natural grass fields in the conference.

Southern Utah needed synthetic turf because of weather. Cal Poly does not. Even though Cal Poly does not NEED it, I hope they install it soon.

SuperHornet wrote:Yet ANOTHER school jumping on the STUPID bandwagon....



(And, yes, I include my own Hornets and my own Lodi Flames in that. If I had the $$ to rip that turf at the Grape Bowl out, I'd do it in a HEARTBEAT.)

Good artificial turf is better in every single way......it's not even freaking close.

It's HORRIBLE. Too many injuries and lost non-football dates because the field gets too hot.

Besides, I'm a purist. Football was made to be played on GRASS. Anything else just isn't football, IMO.

SuperHornet wrote:It's HORRIBLE. Too many injuries and lost non-football dates because the field gets too hot.

Besides, I'm a purist. Football was made to be played on GRASS. Anything else just isn't football, IMO.

Nothing against real grass, but had modern artificial turf been available at the time football was being conceived, I'm quite sure it would have been a popular surface of choice for many programs ... there's a reason it was invented in the first place.

slulionsfan wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:It's HORRIBLE. Too many injuries and lost non-football dates because the field gets too hot.

Besides, I'm a purist. Football was made to be played on GRASS. Anything else just isn't football, IMO.

Nothing against real grass, but had modern artificial turf been available at the time football was being conceived, I'm quite sure it would have been a popular surface of choice for many programs ... there's a reason it was invented in the first place.

And there was a reason domed stadiums were invented. That doesn't stop many people from disliking them.

JayJ79 wrote:

slulionsfan wrote:
Nothing against real grass, but had modern artificial turf been available at the time football was being conceived, I'm quite sure it would have been a popular surface of choice for many programs ... there's a reason it was invented in the first place.

And there was a reason domed stadiums were invented. That doesn't stop many people from disliking them.

No doubt, but my response was regarding the notion that "football was made to be played on grass." No question it was, but artificial surfaces work just fine as well, and preferred by many.

SuperHornet wrote:It's HORRIBLE. Too many injuries and lost non-football dates because the field gets too hot.

Besides, I'm a purist. Football was made to be played on GRASS. Anything else just isn't football, IMO.

You're full of shit, as usual. Teams aren't installing concrete-like astroturf anymore.

At this point I have decided to "not feed the trolls" in regards to both Blackfalkin and Superhornet as they have always seemed to think everything involving our program has sucked over the years (despite the obvious improvements both on the field and our facilities).

I am quite excited for this and thankful to have a normal looking field and the turf makes perfect sense, the infrequent/random weather Utah is famous for often raised hell with out field and will help cut costs in the continued/needed upkeep. And I highly doubt we will be getting "cement turf" so I dont see how this is a bad thing in any way, shape or form. Along with last years addition of a new video scoreboard I am glad to see SUU actually taking steps to support and improve our football program.

SuperHornet wrote:It's HORRIBLE. Too many injuries and lost non-football dates because the field gets too hot.

From the article:

"Synthetic turf has also been proven to reduce ACL and concussion-type injuries"

SUUTbird wrote:At this point I have decided to "not feed the trolls" in regards to both Blackfalkin and Superhornet as they have always seemed to think everything involving our program has sucked over the years (despite the obvious improvements both on the field and our facilities).

I root for SUU.

SUUTbird wrote:At this point I have decided to "not feed the trolls" in regards to both Blackfalkin and Superhornet as they have always seemed to think everything involving our program has sucked over the years (despite the obvious improvements both on the field and our facilities).

Both of these posters do have some things in common, namely over optimism about their own team and apparently feeling a need to put down those teams they feel most threatened by. I think you should take their interest in your school as a compliment.

We're THREATENED by SUU? That has got to be the biggest lie on the planet. The three biggest threats to Sac State are UC Davis, Cal Poly, and Montana. SUU is nothing more than a nipping flea that can't even stop a team with a losing record from winning a conference title....

I never said SUU was your biggest threat, only a threat. If they weren't a threat, you wouldn't be so critical of them. Clearly, you feel threatened by other teams as well.

Mike Johnson wrote:I never said SUU was your biggest threat, only a threat. If they weren't a threat, you wouldn't be so critical of them. Clearly, you feel threatened by other teams as well.

Fuck those Pam laced Hornets. SUU to the top of the BSC and then to FRISCO! SUU be rolling hard these days.

SuperHornet wrote:SUU is nothing more than a nipping flea that can't even stop a team with a losing record from winning a conference title....

In 8 years in Great West football, ten teams have been crowned champions (including 2 pairs of co-champions). All ten had winning records.

2004 Cal Poly (9-2 overall)
2005 Cal Poly (9-4 overall) and UC Davis (6-5 overall)
2006 North Dakota State (10-1 overall)
2007 South Dakota State (7-4 overall)
2008 Cal Poly (8-3 overall)
2009 UC Davis (6-5 overall)
2010 Southern Utah (6-5 overall)
2011 North Dakota (8-3 overall) and Cal Poly (6-5 overall)

If you are talking about something else, no team can stop a team in another conference from winning their conference.

I have no illusions that SUU will suddenly dominate the Big Sky, but they aren't the pushovers they used to be. Coach Lamb has done a great job and Brad Sorensen is very good quarterback. Also, in the past few years, they finally got their funding up to reasonable levels, especially in terms of scholarships. Three or perhaps all four former Great West teams will probably end up in the upper half of the Big Sky.

I am looking forward to the Big Sky competition this year.

grizcountry420 wrote:Looks clean...

Yup. I like it. Well done SUU, thank God it wasn't red. EWU already corned the market on all feminine hygiene product references as it relates to turf. Another red turf job would have fucked everything all up.

Good for SUU

did UND get their turf upgraded or do they still have the old dangerous stuff.

Three or perhaps all four former Great West teams will probably end up in the upper half of the Big Sky

.

Yea, sorry but I don't think so