I really don't know what the right answer is?
Well I do know the RIGHT answer... that's having the best natural grass field in the entire country, which we normally do. That's what football was intended to be played on, and should be played on..... no question about that IMO. It's much better for the health of the athletes as well. I love that part about ISU football.
Basically the ONLY reason to go with field turf is $. But in college athletics today, $ pretty much rule everything. You never want to have to cancel a game due to field conditions.... but really, how much of an issue is that? Most games are cancelled due to lightning, not field conditions. In fact, I've seen games cancelled for unsafe field turf too where the seams aren't good.
And as for how the field "looks" later in the season when it's not so green anymore.... who gives a f**k? This is football folks. It's messy, it's dirty, it's ugly.... get over it. And a wet messy field is not necessarily a clear advantage for the slower, ground and pound team. Many say that WR's have a big advantage on a poor field because they know where they're going, and the DBs don't, and the DBs will slip when making their cut to react.
So as you can see, I still lean towards keeping the natural grass. It's something that sets us apart, and something we're somewhat known for. Iowa fans always ask me when we're going to go to field turf.... and I just always say that football was meant to be played on grass.... and maybe the reason why Iowa has more injuries is due to their field turf?