Good game, Falcons

thechuck_2112 · Post by **thechuck_2112** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:51 pm

Sucks that it had to end that way. A competitive and well-fought game all evening.

Best of luck the rest of the season!

Rightupinthere · Post by **Rightupinthere** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:58 pm

Thanks, Chuck. Best you and your team as well.

redhawkforlife · Post by **redhawkforlife** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:09 pm

It wasn't the prettiest game ever, but not really a bad game. Low turnovers which was a surprise for conditions like that.

I sat here in Cincy watching the game with my father-in-law, who was the first of 14 family members to attend BG and with my best friend who went to BG.

We had a great time poking fun at each others' ineptitude over the course of the season.

I know that many people like nasty muddy games and that it is "real" football, but I think it's time to get fieldturf. I know there are folks on this site who stick up for conditions like that, but in all honesty, it hampers what makes BG's teams great. Spread offenses, fast tuck and run QB's and punishing running games. Fields like that change spread offenses significantly. And typically for the worse. Gameplans change and game-changing players have less effect. For instance, Ryne caught a lot of balls, he couldn't return punts or break big plays. BG has players like Ryne...a good field will help them.

My father-in-law says "It's time to get into the 2000's...if you're gonna be on TV a lot, the field needs to look great. Needs to look better than it did tonight."

Dayons_Den · Post by **Dayons_Den** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:30 pm

redhawkforlife wrote:My father-in-law says "It's time to get into the 2000's...if you're gonna be on TV a lot, the field needs to look great. Needs to look better than it did tonight."

Other than building a dome or installing a carpet, I am curious as to what your father-in-law would recommend to the staff the earned the 2005 Field of The Year?

http://www.ostma.org/awards.htm

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Wed Nov 15, 2006 11:38 pm

As I edit my post I will try to be nicer. There are other things to worry about than a muddy field on tv.

redhawkforlife · Post by **redhawkforlife** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:11 am

My Father-in-law is hardly an idiot. Great accusation.

Regardless, what he's trying to say (and it echoes others on this board), that fieldturf not only helps a team with a spread offense but when you're on tv for midweek games it looks very nice.

He has more pride in BGSU than anyone else I know personally. He gave money for the SEBO, for athletics and the marching band. He has sent 3 kids to BGSU.

I understand that most of the time, the field looks good. And I like grass as much as the next guy. But it's games like this that make fieldturf such a commodity.

I don't make a lot of posts here, and I have never talked smack. Maybe to other schools... I am trying to bring up a discussion based on more than 'it looks crappy.' Add fuel to the fire of a potent spread offense by installing fieldturf.

Thanks I think.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:19 am

We have a real football field. We play on grass, not rubber. Because of that, when it rains the mixture of dirt and rain cause mud. Sorry it doesn't look pretty but like the commentators said most of the night when they weren't talking about osu and michigan those were real football conditions.

Peregrinner · Post by **Peregrinner** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:30 am

Look, I know I'm hardly the most established poster here, but I don't see how calling this person's father an idiot is at all necessary. Hopefully I missed some hidden inside-joke-sarcasm thing, because it seems a little harsh as it stands.

Also, I'd have to agree. Being at the game and then watching the end of it on TV as I defrosted (after I was counted 3x for attendance), the field looked awful. I know it's a 'real' field and I understand having pride in that, but when players look like they're playing in a mud pit, it doesn't look so great on TV.

As someone who has played on fieldturf many times, I'd have to say I really like it. I know it's probably not realistic in terms of cost right now, but I don't see why there's so much negativity towards the stuff. In my experience it gives better grip, and thus better speed/agility, and makes games a lot more fun to play. I can definitely see how it might benefit an offense like ours that makes heavy use of the QB-tuck-and-run. Watching Turner attempt some of them tonight it almost looked like a cartoon, where his feet just churned and churned and he never really went anywhere. Granted, he broke a couple, but I think a few of the ones that fell apart would have turned out a little better if we didn't have such a muddy field to play on.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:40 am

It doesn't matter how long someone has been posting here. I just get tired of all the cracks about all of our facilities. Nothing we have on campus ever measures up to some people's expectations. I don't really want to read that our field didn't look pretty enough on tv, especially after a loss. Having a muddy field after it rained all day is the least of our problems.

HoustonFalcon · Post by **HoustonFalcon** » Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:36 am

Whether you're a football purist and think that it should be played on real turf, or you're you want to see something different, the fact is our field doesn't drain well. And if your going to have grass, you need it to drain for a decent game to be played. Grass was great when a lot of teams lined up and ran 80% of the time. But with the game evolving, so should the turf. And let's face it, our facilities don't stack up to a lot of other facilities right now. The SEBO is a good addition, but that's just a start.