Can "The Greatest Show on Mud" Be Avoided?

It's a topic that comes up repeatedly when discussing the Chicago Bears, and is coming up even more frequently now with the addition of Mike Martz as Offensive Coordinator. Recently, Dan Pompei brought up the subject in the Tribune, and made a good point:

It would cost about $1.5 million to make the switch to an infill surface, better known by the brand name FieldTurf, and in the long run it would be considerably cheaper than regular re-soddings.

Today, David Haugh is getting involved:

The presence of Martz finally gives the Bears a reason to force the Chicago Park District's hand. If he [Martz] isn't around for 2011, by then the new surface will be a hit with players, coaches and fans alike. Its usefulness would outlive any coach.

Dez Clark blogged about it, and had some very strong opinions of the surface the team has to play on:

Some of our opponents comments: "yall play on a cow pasture" "this is the (worst) field in the league" "what the hell is going on with this field".

All in all, we know it's a political battle, and we know that the Parks District and the team don't see eye to eye on the matter. But really, are we going to just keep doing what we've always done? That seems silly to me.

And in closing, one of our very own writers here at WCG wrote an open letter to the Bears, way back before Martz was anywhere near Halas Hall:

Still, the field has had to be resodded twice, just in the 2009 season. The first time, after U2 was in the stadium tearing the field up RIGHT BEFORE THE SEASON OPENER, and again over these past two weeks, as the old, hard ground just wasn't growing grass anymore. This has cost roughly $500,000. Had the investment been made before the season started, you'd be over 30% of the way towards paying for it, instead of the sunk expensive cost of replacing and recycling sod all the time.

Yes, this topic comes up often... and hopefully it keeps coming up until something is done about it.