Keep it real!

Why do we use lat36 and not palisades that we created?

Expert Analysis said:

---

What if the turf is less slippy than the natural grass? Safety improvement!
I've never played on the new turf so I do not know.

---

If you don't know, why did you call it a safety improvement? I've played on both...it's not a safety improvement due to the transition between the different surfaces.

Against. How is this even an option?

so we wanted to turf the high traffic areas but we didn't turf directly in front of each dugout??

Second what trouble said, "how is this even a question?" NO!

matt.maggio3 said:

---

Expert Analysis said:

---

What if the turf is less slippy than the natural grass? Safety improvement!
I've never played on the new turf so I do not know.

---

If you don't know, why did you call it a safety improvement? I've played on both...it's not a safety improvement due to the transition between the different surfaces.

---

1) He said it hypothetically with a "what if..."

2) There may be an increased safety risk*** due to the transition, but possibly other safety advantages due to the turf. Most notably, this means no more beat up, worn out areas behind the plate.

3) *** how many times has someone gotten hurt transitioning from the dirt to the grass or vice versa? It doesn't really happen. It looks like they're keeping the turf even with the real stuff, and the surface change is not in an area where a lot of transitions are going to be made.

Funny thing is that had someone not pointed the turf out to me the other day, I would not have initially noticed from the first deck. I'm sure it'll be more apparent on the second deck.

Capt. America said:

---

Funny thing is that had someone not pointed the turf out to me the other day, I would not have initially noticed from the first deck. I'm sure it'll be more apparent on the second deck.

---

People would be upset even if it weren't noticeable from anywhere.

The grounds crew wants the field to look its best, too. I'm sure they've got a growing list of tricks up their sleeve to minimize the contrast between the two surfaces.

Have to say, seeing the new turf this weekend for the first time and it looks fine on its own, but it contrasts too much with the real grass next to it. Maybe that will change as we get in to the summer months, but it needs to blend better to not stand out.

It will always look like crap.

They did a terrible job attempting to "match" the grass color.

The turf at Olsen has noticeably deteriorated since losing Leo, and it's very sad. Now this? I'm so disappointed.

I'd rather just look at dead grass, personally. Even gotten used to it over the last couple of years.

I guess it made a huge difference as the Aggies only scored in the teens of all 3 games, and held their opponent to single digits in each game as well.

Rip it up

Thats a great idea. The dirt would definitely help break up noticeable difference in the fake stuff and the beautiful stuff. Since its gonna stay fake, which i really dont have a problem with, at least break it up some and make it look as real as possible. I'd paint a large A&M logo behind home plate and maybe a couple others on either side close to the dugouts.

Sandman98 said:

---

The grass looked great and the turf is only a problem if you spend your day looking for ways to be offended. Enjoy the games if you can find a path.

---

While Olsen has "looked great" the last couple of years, surely you could agree that the turf conditions have trended relatively negatively over the same time period.

I appreciate your positive outlook, and the silly-looking plastic stuff certainly won't be ruining the experience for me, but there's nothing wrong with high standards and some honest feedback, either.

I realize it was done because that area of grass was hard to keep from wearing down. But dirt gets kicked around into the fake grass and it looks just as patchy as before except now that it's fake grass it looks worse.