Rocket89
Uniform Connoisseur
- Messages
- 2,914
- Reaction score
- 551
lol best conspiracy ever
This caring about the playing surface is a kind of stupid unique to ND, with the slavish devotion to keeping things the same whether those things actually constitute "tradition" or not. I don't have any personal preference on the playing surface, but at least I understand the arguments in favor of turf. There are no good arguments for grass other than stubbornness and perhaps a misplaced sense of tradition (which we all like and appreciate) or weird fetishization of grass.
Grass itself is not a tradition. Things aren't tradition just because they've always been a certain way. Tradition requires the additional ingredients of choice and purpose. Clinging to a grass surface would be like clinging to dirt road and objecting to them ever being paved. Tradition is cool insofar as it doesn't prevent progress and making things better. Grass is no more tradition than dirt roads once were.
The whole idea of William F Buckley conservatism in the context of college football (mindlessly standing athwart history and yelling "STOP!") is misplaced, and I get the feeling that people don't realize they're doing more harm than good.
Preach on.
We can't talk about this topic without bringing up the fact that the grass has been a problem for decades. Really, it's always been a "problem" when set in context of being a stable, consistent, and attractive playing surface--especially in relation to warmer weather teams.
I've found that when you talk to some older people who don't seem to care much about the surface that they are willing to admit the grass has sucked for as long as they can remember. There's a group that wants to romanticize how beautiful the grass used to be and that this is a modern problem under Swarbrick/Jenkins/Kelly but that just isn't true at all. I was recently doing some work and came across the 1973 game against USC. Go ahead and YouTube that game from 10/27/73. It's ten times worse than what we saw this past spring during the BG Game. In fact, part of the reason the field crew started painting the end zones and mid-field was to try and cover up the embarrassing lack of grass.
I can understand that someone like wizards8507 finds some sort of comfort, or tradition, or meaning in a grass field. I don't agree with that POV at all--mostly because our grass is complete junk and not worthy of any praise--but I can at least understand it. But to think this is a conspiracy (and to be fair it's not just wizards who thinks this) to make the field look bad to sell the installation of field turf is really ridiculous.
The Truthers (for a lack of a better term) will do anything to sell their agenda on this topic. I mean for the love of God we're two+ years into a campaign by ACross to sell the conspiracy that Notre Dame neglected the field over the past decade and had no intention of keeping the natural grass. Don't worry about the several projects working down to the top soil in recent years or the numerous re-sodded projects. Never happened. The school doesn't like taking $1 million baths because they obviously don't care about maintaining the field correctly, right?
It's just crazy the lengths people will go.