Turf vs. grass: It’s not complicated.
The NFL just wants you to think it is.
Among players, there’s still no debate. They prefer — as stated clearly by the leadership of their union — high-quality grass fields. The league continues to resist, primarily because it would be too expensive both to convert multi-use facilities to grass fields and to ensure that the grass is at all times of the highest possible quality.
The NFL is trying to buy time and/or kick the can with a stream of talking points. The latest came Tuesday from NFL executive Jeff Miller, who ultimately runs both health and safety and P.R. for pro football.
“I think the goal needs to be to limit the number of different surfaces that our clubs play on, so a player has an appreciation when he steps onto the field in one city that’s going to feel very similar to the surface that he steps on in a different city so it doesn’t feel hard or soft or slick or sticky,” Miller said at the quarterly league meetings, via Jeremy Fowler of ESPN.com. “He knows what that’s going to feel like, therefore the appreciation for it is going to satisfy him to some degree.”
The fact that there already isn’t a limited number of surfaces is a problem. To put it as generally as possible, the options are good grass, bad grass, good turf, and bad turf. If there are going to be limited surfaces, they need to be good grass or great turf.
Ideally, it will be one surface. High-quality grass, as the NFLPA has unequivocally requested.
Fowler’s article reiterates Commissioner Roger Goodell’s recent claim that players have a “mixed” opinion of grass vs. turf. Meanwhile, we continue to wait for even one player to come out and say publicly, “I prefer turf to grass.” Instead, every single player who has spoken out on the matter has said he prefers grass to turf.
It’s not a debate. It’s not complicated. The men who play the game want grass. Many of those who run the game want turf, for business reasons ranging from maintenance costs to flexibility of a venue to host a bunch of things other than NFL football games. And they will cling to anything/everything they can to turn a non-debate into more of the same both-sides bullcrap that currently floods our collective radar screens on every possible issue.
But, but, but some stadiums have two teams, and they sometimes play games one day apart. Well, maybe teams shouldn’t share stadiums.
But, but, but they can’t grow grass properly in wintry climates. Well, if they can do it in Green Bay, they can do it anywhere.
The biggest flaw in the league’s position continues to be the willingness of owners with turf fields to bend over backwards to comply with FIFA’s mandate for a hybrid field in order to host coveted World Cup matches. If the NFL can do it for soccer, why can’t the NFL do it for football?
The easy answer is they don’t have to. The simple reality is they don’t want to. And the inescapable conclusion is that they will continue to refuse to do so unless and until, upon expiration of the current labor deal, the players strike over it.
The NFL knows the players won’t. One of these times, the NFL is going to misjudge the players’ resolve.