I was rewatching the BYU/Oklahoma game and I had a question that I'm sure has been answered before but I may can't seem to recall: Any reason why BYU didn't decide to go with the new stuff in their field remodel last year? I know the running joke is to keep the grass long and wet the field to slow the faster kids down but what is the real reason? Is this the real reason? Too expensive? Player preference? Administation's preference?
In watching that game I can see that BYU played exceptionally well on the synthetic surface and speed didn't seem to affect them at all. The Tulane game was also another great example albeit against an inferior opponent. Will we have to wait another 25 years to see a "faster" surface in Provo?
(Incidentally, it has NOTHING to do with why BYU has struggled at home, I was just wondering and yes I realize that the grass is new and has yet to take root)
In watching that game I can see that BYU played exceptionally well on the synthetic surface and speed didn't seem to affect them at all. The Tulane game was also another great example albeit against an inferior opponent. Will we have to wait another 25 years to see a "faster" surface in Provo?
(Incidentally, it has NOTHING to do with why BYU has struggled at home, I was just wondering and yes I realize that the grass is new and has yet to take root)
Comment