Yeah, quaint old stadium, but the field quickly turned into a mess. It hadn't been used for football in a while and the roots were just not very deep. Turned into the slickest grass field I have ever seen. I have stood ankle deep in mud on some sloppy fields over the years, but that was a very unique kind of horrible that day. I'm not arguing that the outcome would necessarily have been different, but we were robbed of watching an outstanding match-up and it was absolutely the reason that championship games were moved to mostly turf fields following that game.
The 1998 Quarterfinal between between Grant Union and Elk Grove (Onterrio Smith vs. Lance Briggs) was played on a sloppy mud bowl field. That was pretty much the norm back then.
You mention not wanting to argue that outcomes would have been different, and I understand that stance. But we both know that changing any circumstance usually changes the outcome, at least somewhat.
Perhaps many of the teams that won those types of games, still win. But I firmly believe that many of the results would have been different. Especially so when the losing team was the faster, more athletic, more skilled team.
Those types of field conditions drastically change the style of game that has to be played and limits the team relying more upon quickness, speed, and being able to use it all over the field.
Not to completely diss on Nevada Union -- but those worn down fields helped them to better even the odds against the likes of Grant Union or even St. Mary's had they played them in the 90's. It minimized the speed and quickness advantages most upper-tier opponents had on them. Same kinda applies to Elk Grove and their wing-t offense back then, although EG was typically more athletic and fast than NU back in those days.
I've argued with friends for years about whether "weather" affecting football games is "real football". My stance on it always has been --- inclement weather and sloppy field conditions has historically been part of the game because it HAD to be. There weren't any other options.
But in today's world -- and really for the past 20 years or so -- that has changed in HS football with the advent of field turf and superior drainage technology. Why allow games to be played on and affected by poor field conditions when it can be largely avoided (especially in the postseason)?
WRT NFL games, one of my closer friends believes inclement weather games are a good thing and part of the game. I firmly disagree. To me, the point of playing the game is to determine which is the better team -- not which team can survive the weather the best. That's not what I want to see.
Sometimes it can't be avoided. But for the most part, with closed-roof stadiums and superior field technologies and proper scheduling --- it can be avoided. And it should be avoided whenever possible.
For example, there was a game scheduled in Buffalo last season that was ultimately moved to Detroit due to the ridiculous snow that was expected. Playing under those conditions was not only risky for the players, it wouldn't have set the stage for a proper and competitive game.
That's why I was disappointed in the NFL for allowing the Chiefs and Dolphins to play a Saturday night playoff game in Kansas City last season. A game that ultimately sent a multitude of fans to the hospital with serious frostbite. That game didn't have to be played at night under the worst conditions possible (-30). It could have easily been re-scheduled as "day time" game when the temps would have been 20-30 degrees warmer. Or it could have been moved to Sunday.
They'd never make the players and fans endure open-air stadium temperatures of 125 - 130, so why is -30 ok? They'd never schedule or allow a Super Bowl to be played under those conditions, so why should any of the preceding postseason games be different??
My point is and continues to be, I get that back in the day these games didn't have the option to be played on field turf or under closed-roofs. But those days are long gone. And I'll never understand why anyone believes it's a good idea to subject the players and fans to that type of weather when it can largely be avoided.
Lastly, my best argument against is -- we should be championing to see who the best team is under nominal conditions, not which team can endure and survive awful weather and field conditions the best.
I for one was very glad to see the mud bowl games in HS largely become a thing of the past.
