Really? You were at the bowl, and the horrible field conditions didn't change your mind about turf?
I've never seen Notre Dame Stadium play as poorly as Yankee Stadium did this Saturday, especially on a 50-degree dry day. If ND home games looked like the Pinstripe Bowl, I might have a different opinion.
Please explain "anti-turf" because I don't get why anyone wouldn't want the surface to be best for the players.
I don't accept the premise that turf is necessarily "best for the players." I'm very much "best for the players," but I'm not convinced that artificial turf is it.
Like I said, if we go with turf let's put a lid on the stadium so we can have absolute perfect conditions. That way the wind won't slow us down and the sun won't get in the receivers eyes.
This. The "best for the players" and "perfect conditions" arguments can be taken to the extreme so the line has to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise we'd be playing every game in a dome with no fans.
It's not like every grass field is in the poor condition of Yankee Stadium. There are some really nice grass fields out there.
This. Swarbrick said they're either going artificial or digging deep to install new drainage and irrigation systems. People act like "100% artificial" and "shitty natural" are the only two options. They're not.
you lay a field what a few weeks before a game, its always going to be total crap to play on. this always happens with soccer fields here after they relay them after concerts or big non soccer events. Problem then is all you can do is relay but there isnt enough time for the turf to bed in because of ongoing fixtures.
This too.
EDIT: Obviously, the infield was newly-laid turf at the Pinstripe Bowl (which was where the worst of the slip-and-fall incidents happened), but was the outfield section the permanent Yankee grass or was that newly laid for the game as well?
