Is it just me or does the field look like it's fading? I know it's aging, but the color of the field just looks old and washed out now.

The whites aren't bright anymore. The yellows are getting muddier. Even the blacks are looking more and more grey. Is this a part of the aging process of turf?

I just noticed it a great deal yesterday and I have never seen a turf look that worn out before. I know turf fields are not easily or cheaply replaced, but something needs to be done about this one sooner rather than later. It doesn't look good anymore, and when we're on national television, we need our brand to show loud and proud, not dull and lull.

I agree.
I feel like there has to be a way to to refurbish what's there without focusing on replacing the turf completely. I don't know the ins and outs of such a thing, but I feel like there's got to be a way to at least repaint the color on the block A at the middle of the field and the color on the sidelines.

Go back to this. Also paint the track black and put the main TV cameras looking at the students and our four story press box.

Putting the cameras on the east side would probably entail dealing with glare on the lenses. I'm sure that could be accommodated for, but is there really a need to do so? I sat on that side for years, going back to the late 90s and can assure you that even with the athletic center, the sun is brutal.

Appstate88 wrote:Go back to this. Also paint the track black and put the main TV cameras looking at the students and our four story press box.

That's fine, just keep the block A at midfield, and no field hockey/soccer lines.

Block A at midfield and black end zones would do wonders. Yellow sidelines might need to go as well.

Guys the tower was built with camera bays with internal wiring that can connect to a tv truck parked at the base. We aren't going to move cameras to the east side.

Before leaving Boone this afternoon, I took the kids to KBS and let them soak in the sights from field level. They had a ball.

While walking on the field I was surprised at how much rubber there is. I know it is by design, but still seemed to be a lot. There is only 1/3" and certainly no more than 1/2" of "grass blades" extending above the rubber base. What is extending above, it lays down, doesn't stand-up like real grass. That said, I have a few thoughts. 1- did the grass use to "stand-up"? I do not recall from years ago. 2- do we replenish the rubber annually? If so, perhaps its overloaded at beginning of year until some of it runs off OR until it is raked enough with the tractor that it "settles". 3 - For comparison purposes, the SunBelt logos are painted and have not been replaced with turf. They are comparable to the rest of the field. Perhaps the turf is designed to mimic "painted" lines and logos as if we had a real grass field and not suppose to be "bright."

All of that said, perhaps just normal wear and tear, but if had to choose my vote is probably with #3.

When the turf was changed in 2011, the company said they put about 200 pounds of black pellets per square foot in the turf. Layer after layer just packed down.

As someone else said, would love to go back to the black end zones, or at the very least change the font of the lettering in the end zones.

Just a though re the track since it's such a point of contention....would it possible as a temporary solution to just extend the turf over the area where the track is all the way to the stands? Much cheaper and quicker, which would allow it to be done soon, as opposed to something like lowering the field or moving the stands which are much more extensive projects that could be done later.

canes_mj wrote:As someone else said, would love to go back to the black end zones, or at the very least change the font of the lettering in the end zones.

Just a though re the track since it's such a point of contention....would it possible as a temporary solution to just extend the turf over the area where the track is all the way to the stands? Much cheaper and quicker, which would allow it to be done soon, as opposed to something like lowering the field or moving the stands which are much more extensive projects that could be done later.

With today's standards in stadium construction, I don't think we are really that far from the field between the 20s right now. Most tracks have a buffer between the track and the stands, and our stands go right up to the outside lane. Ideally, the thing to do would be to get a giant flatbed and move Wake Forest's stadium to Boone, but the road gets too hilly west of Wilkesboro, and the turn up Stadium Drive would be a mother.
Seriously, I agree that when the time comes to do something, we shouldn't worry about digging down, and just build the end zone stands as close as possible, while leaving the sideline stands as they are. They did something similar at Troy, where there was /is some extra space around the track.

By leaving the sideline stands as they are, what that could do is open the stadium to international soccer matches. It would be a long shot, but I'd like to hear the "dos a cero" chant in KBS.

I'm quoting from memory comments that are over two weeks old, but I believe I remember someone saying we are 3-4 years into about a 7-8 year shelf-life on the field turf...so it's probably going to be 3 or 4 more years until we do anything at all. That said, an apparently cheaper option is to remove the track, move the playing surface about 20 feet closer to the home side, and build a new visitor side lower deck on top of the existing one that would protrude about 20 feet farther out than it currently does. The concrete foundation is already laid, they'd just be building on top of what's already there. Much less expensive, must faster, and much less miserable than beginning outdoor construction in December weather.

And for the "expand now" crowd, that'd have to add at least another 1,500 seats.