For the love of all that's holy!

Please NCAA step in and do something this.



http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Eastern-Washington-literally-seeing-red-over-new?urn=ncaaf,216240



Next thing you know, the Rainbow Warriors will actually have a rainbow colored field. When's it going to stop?

I thought that the NCAA already did outlaw changing the color of the playing surface for D-1 and that Boise State's field was grandfathered due to it already being blue before they made the ruling. I don't think the rule applies to D-II which is why New Haven did Blue and now EWU is doing Red.

If true, I don't really see what the difference is. The NCAA is still the governing organization over both divisions. Why would it be OK in D1-AA but not OK in D1-A?

At least you can be glad that no other college fields should be blue. Boise State was recently awarded a trademark for their blue field. Apparently New Haven has had to work out some kind of a licensing agreement with BSU.



http://madisonian.net/2009/12/01/blue-in-boise/

gmj81 wrote:
If true, I don't really see what the difference is. The NCAA is still the governing organization over both divisions. Why would it be OK in D1-AA but not OK in D1-A?

Looks like I was mistaken. From all knowing (and always accurate) Wikipedia:



"The unique blue turf has spawned several myths. The most prevalent myth is that the NCAA subsequently banned playing surface colors other than green, but allowed Bronco Stadium's field to remain blue under a grandfather clause. In reality, the NCAA has never adopted such a rule. Any school may color its playing surface (or any part, mainly the end zones) any color it wishes, but until 2009 (when NCAA Division II University of New Haven also decided to install a blue turf)[11] only Boise State had chosen to use a non-green playing surface."



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronco_Stadium

It appears as if I'm in the minority, but I have no problem whatsoever if another school wants to change the color of their playing field. I certainly don't want BYU to do it, but if another school feels as if it gives them some sort of advantage, go for it.



Yes back in the 30s people only played on green fields, but so what, the surface itself should be more of an abmonation than the color of the surface. In other words, the whole darn grass is fake, why should we have to pretend like it's not ? :blush:

That would definitely be interesting to see BSU explain how they 'own the trademark' for the blue turf when they poached the very mascot and colors of the NFL's Denver club.

ABYUFAN wrote:
It appears as if I'm in the minority, but I have no problem whatsoever if another school wants to change the color of their playing field. I certainly don't want BYU to do it, but if another school feels as if it gives them some sort of advantage, go for it.



Yes back in the 30s people only played on green fields, but so what, the surface itself should be more of an abmonation than the color of the surface. In other words, the whole darn grass is fake, why should we have to pretend like it's not ? :blush:

Then the visiting team should have the option of choosing the colors they wear in that game. I'm not in favor of any factor that puts one team at 'advantage' over the other, apart from natural elements such as weather. If a team decides to grow their grass long to 'slow down the opponent', it's slows them down just as much. But if the home team is trying to go 'camouflage' against their own turf, then one team has a decidedly strong advantage over the other, especially since they are more accustomed to playing on that surface. It's Bush League, that's all there is to it and I don't like it. I haven't had a problem with it really to this point because it's only been BSU but if schools start popping up everywhere doing this (Michigan on a bright yellow turf or Ohio State on a bright red turf) it's not only going to hurt the game, but its going to diminish the broadcast quality.

gmj81 wrote:

It appears as if I'm in the minority, but I have no problem whatsoever if another school wants to change the color of their playing field. I certainly don't want BYU to do it, but if another school feels as if it gives them some sort of advantage, go for it.



Yes back in the 30s people only played on green fields, but so what, the surface itself should be more of an abmonation than the color of the surface. In other words, the whole darn grass is fake, why should we have to pretend like it's not ? :blush:

Then the visiting team should have the option of choosing the colors they wear in that game. I'm not in favor of any factor that puts one team at 'advantage' over the other, apart from natural elements such as weather. If a team decides to grow their grass long to 'slow down the opponent', it's slows them down just as much. But if the home team is trying to go 'camouflage' against their own turf, then one team has a decidedly strong advantage over the other, especially since they are more accustomed to playing on that surface. It's Bush League, that's all there is to it and I don't like it. I haven't had a problem with it really to this point because it's only been BSU but if schools start popping up everywhere doing this (Michigan on a bright yellow turf or Ohio State on a bright red turf) it's not only going to hurt the game, but its going to diminish the broadcast quality.

I think the "camouflage" aspect only come into play for those who are lookign down on the field. The players don't really have a problem with it. The Boise High Schools all play on that field, so I played on the first version of blue turf back in the 1986 87 days, and it really is not a factor for the players (we were black and gold, and did play blue wearing tems back then)

gmj81 wrote:
That would definitely be interesting to see BSU explain how they 'own the trademark' for the blue turf when they poached the very mascot and colors of the NFL's Denver club.

I don't think the Denver Broncos ever used a blue field. BSU's trademark registration is for a blue field, which they did not poach from Denver.

gmj81 wrote:

It appears as if I'm in the minority, but I have no problem whatsoever if another school wants to change the color of their playing field. I certainly don't want BYU to do it, but if another school feels as if it gives them some sort of advantage, go for it.



Yes back in the 30s people only played on green fields, but so what, the surface itself should be more of an abmonation than the color of the surface. In other words, the whole darn grass is fake, why should we have to pretend like it's not ? :blush:

Then the visiting team should have the option of choosing the colors they wear in that game. I'm not in favor of any factor that puts one team at 'advantage' over the other, apart from natural elements such as weather. If a team decides to grow their grass long to 'slow down the opponent', it's slows them down just as much. But if the home team is trying to go 'camouflage' against their own turf, then one team has a decidedly strong advantage over the other, especially since they are more accustomed to playing on that surface. It's Bush League, that's all there is to it and I don't like it. I haven't had a problem with it really to this point because it's only been BSU but if schools start popping up everywhere doing this (Michigan on a bright yellow turf or Ohio State on a bright red turf) it's not only going to hurt the game, but its going to diminish the broadcast quality.

How is BSU's blue turf different than, say, a team that chooses wear grass colored uniforms? If it were truly an advantage, would we see a lot of teams adopting green or camo uniforms?



My biggest concern is that the Utes adopt the whole red field idea.

No but the Denver Bronco's very much trademarked the logo and colors. How was BSU able to poach those?



And grass is green, it always has been. Sports have been played on grass for centuries. The first turf ever to be installed was in the Astrodome in the 60's. So it doesn't exactly work backwards that way.



And if it's no advantage, why would you be concerned about the pukes adopting a red field idea?

gmj81 wrote:
And if it's no advantage, why would you be concerned about the pukes adopting a red field idea?

I can't speak for him, but I wouldn't want to look at it.

If the Utes want to adopt a red field, I'd not hate them any more or less than I do now; but I certainly wouldn't think that they were gaining some sort of advantage by doing so. :utard:



This is one of those tase things. I'm OK with one thinking that the field is ugly, stupid, or a huge waste of money. I simply disagree. It's a matter of prefernce.



My position is it's fake grass anyway, why does one have to pretend like it's the real thing?

Mingjai wrote:

How is BSU's blue turf different than, say, a team that chooses wear grass colored uniforms? If it were truly an advantage, would we see a lot of teams adopting green or camo uniforms?

My thoughts exactly.



And, does the basketball 'hardwood' have to be brown? I remember in the 70's when Weber High School in Ogden put in a "state of the art' synthetic basketball court and it was black and red!



Does a hockey 'ice' rink have to be white? (I guess black Ice with a white puck would take some getting used to) :P

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

How is BSU's blue turf different than, say, a team that chooses wear grass colored uniforms? If it were truly an advantage, would we see a lot of teams adopting green or camo uniforms?

My thoughts exactly.



And, does the basketball 'hardwood' have to be brown? Does a hockey 'ice' rink have to be white? (I guess black Ice with a white puck would take some getting used to) :P

That one of the things that I was thinking of, but did not post. There are some hoops floors that paint inside of the three point line their school color, and have a HUGE - or I mean ... HUGE logo on the half court center line, it's not like you ever hear of an uproar over that, in those gyms, it's not a big streach from that to the whole floor a different color.

snoscythe wrote:

And if it's no advantage, why would you be concerned about the pukes adopting a red field idea?

I can't speak for him, but I wouldn't want to look at it.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Assuming I'd be able to insulate from viewing all other Utah football games or highlights thereof, I'd still have to see a red field every other year. Gross.

A basketball court is also a lot smaller and there are a lot fewer players to keep track of.



And for the record, I don't like the floor all covered with paint any more than I do the turf.

gmj81 wrote:
No but the Denver Bronco's very much trademarked the logo and colors. How was BSU able to poach those?

Actually, it's the other way around. Boise State's forerunner, Boise Junior College used the nickname Broncos and the colors orange and blue way back in 1932. The Denver Broncos were founded in 1960 and started using orange and blue in 1962.



http://www.ktvb.com/news/i-wonder/I-Wonder-Was-BSU-or-Denver-first-with-blueorange-Broncos.html

Hey, Ya'll need to come to Kentucky, I'll show you some real Blue Grass!!!



Go Cougs!

L Hatton

Louisville, KY

I'm old school. I like football fields to be green, like the color of grass. If schools wants colored logo on the 50, great. If they want colors in the end zone--great. But keep the rest green.



Next thing you know they will be playing with harlem globetrotter colored footballs....