The ongoing debate over grass vs. turf on NFL fields isn’t really a debate because there isn’t really a pro-turf faction.
No one complains about grass. Many complain about turf. Some, including the Commissioner, have tried to frame it as a both-sides proposition.
In a recent poll of players, TheAthletic.com included a question about grass and turf. Instead, however, of simply asking about “grass” or “turf,” the question presumed the existence of a debate that doesn’t.
“Turf vs. grass debate: Overblown or real concern?”
Frankly and with all due respect, what does that mean? There is no debate. Players want it. Most owners don’t want to provide it. The Commissioner, who works for the owners not the players, runs interference for those who pay him.
The “real concern” option drew 82.7 percent of the responses. “Overblown” got only 12.3 percent. “In the middle” drew 4.9 percent.
What does “in the middle” even mean in this context? It’s halfway between real concern and overblown?
How about: (1) grass; (2) turf; (3) no preference? Why not just ask that?
Even with clumsy framing that seemed to be intended to cater to the very small pro-turf base, it’s clear that players don’t like turf.
“You wake up in the morning feeling 10 times better after you played on grass compared to when you played on turf,” one player said in response to the question.
“I’ve been vocal about it,” another said. “I think our locker room is pretty unified on it. It sucks, and there’s enough money to eliminate it. It’s time.”
“Even warming up on the turf field in Minnesota hurt my knees,” another said.
“You feel like shit,” an unnamed offensive lineman said. “Especially being a big guy, running on turf, your knees hurt. When you fall and trip, you don’t want to get up. You feel it the next day a lot.”
Debate? There is no debate. And the absence of the debate would be even more clear if the poll had simply asked the up-or-down, boxers-or-briefs question.