As for the Jays, more than a year ago, their free-agent shopping season began with a thud when Carl Crawford rejected the team’s initial overture out of hand because he didn’t want to play on artificial turf. The Jays began asking questions internally in earnest about whether or not grass would work.

I'd never heard that before. I wonder if anyone involved in this year's internal discussions praised the turf for keeping Crawford away from Toronto.

This is an interesting article. I find it hard to believe that the turf is costing the Jays enough business that they'd be willing to pay to install all the necessary drainage infrastructure and lose out on the other events that they can host their because they have turf and not grass. It's possible that after switching the turf at least twice (from Astroturf to Fieldturf back to a new type of Astroturf), management doesn't believe that the newer types of turf don't really solve the problems of playing on turf.

As a fan, it'd be exciting to have a grass field, but that excitement wouldn't make me go to more games unless the team itself was better.

I've never understood what the big deal about grass vs. turf is from a fan's perspective, except as far as it concerns game play (too many ground ball hits with turf) and injuries (players having knee problems).

I don't see how they could keep grass alive in there anyway.

How many hours of sunshine does grass need per day? In the summer the sun is overhead for much of the day and the field would get enough sun despite the high stands. You could lay down fresh sod in April and leave it there until September, then throw it out.

I like turf. Not aesthetically, but for the variety it can bring to the game.

I'd like it, but I'll believe they'll ditch that Monster Jam money when it happens.

Why would this force the Argonauts to move?

Are they unaware that people have been successfully playing football on grass for about 160 years?

Why would this force the Argonauts to move?

Because the football games would rip up the turf too much, and they don't want the Argos to play on the dirt portion of the field as well?

Why would this force the Argonauts to move?

Are they unaware that people have been successfully playing football on grass for about 160 years?

I'm guessing it has to do with the Jays not wanting the Argos to be tearing up the field during the baseball season, since there's a much larger overlap between the CFL season and MLB than the NFL and MLB, and the assorted difficulties of switching the field to a football configuration after they've laid down natural grass for the baseball configuration.

It's in the article. Right now when the stadium switches from baseball to football, the seating along the first and third baselines moves to create the proper field and seating for football. The changeover to grass "could involve more or less anchoring the first- and third-baseline sections of seats that swing around into a football configuration".

Edit: or what Ryan said.

The size of the CFL field (150 yards in length, including endzones) would make it impossible to play football in the baseball configuration. It might be possible to put an American field down one of the baselines in the baseball configuration, but the Argos would definitely need the lower bowl seats moved to accommodate the larger field.

Anyways, football is hardly the biggest issue. 10-20 dates at most (factoring in CFL & NFL & playoffs) vs the 81+ for baseball.

The biggest issue is trade shows and the like during the season. From November through March they can go nuts with them (assuming the grass would be taken out for the winter) but that leaves 7 months where there is just one tenant. Now, they might have a way to put covering over the grass for a few days without killing it but from the sounds of it that wouldn't be too practical. They could rent the walkways for many smaller trade shows along with the screen and seating (many corporate events would love that I'm sure) but the revenue wouldn't be nearly what they'd get from a few monster truck type things. It is a lot of cash outlay for minimal coming back in I suspect.

The only reason I can think of for doing it is a strong negative reaction from players this past winter. There was talk a free agent or two refused to sign because of the turf, or demanded a ton extra. So if the cost of the turf is paying $2-3 million more in salary or the equivalent in injury time (not sure how they'd measure it) then you might be looking at covering at least part of the cost right there thus being able to justify it to the Rogers board of directors.

The size of the CFL field (150 yards in length, including endzones)

The field is longer than 100 yds? I did not know that. How long? I knew it was wider

Edit: 110 yards long, and 12 players. Wow! Crazy.

3 downs I knew. Do they ever punt?

I thought the CFL field was 120 yards not counting endzones, but this is from a vague memory of watching CFL games during an NFL strike a long-ass time ago.

There were some other curious differences, but I can't remember any of them at the moment.

As for the Jays, more than a year ago, their free-agent shopping season began with a thud when Carl Crawford rejected the team’s initial overture out of hand because he didn’t want to play on artificial turf. The Jays began asking questions internally in earnest about whether or not grass would work.

I'd never heard that before. I wonder if anyone involved in this year's internal discussions praised the turf for keeping Crawford away from Toronto.

Good thing he didn't sign with Toronto; what with the turf, he might have gotten hurt or had a bad year or something. He must be thinking he really dodged a bullet.

Edit: 110 yards long, and 12 players. Wow! Crazy.

Also, the endzones are 20 yards, rather than 10. With all that space, and assorted other rules, the league is a very pass-happy place.

3 downs I knew. Do they ever punt?

Yes. Punting out of the end zone is worth a point, as are touchbacks (that is to say, a touchback scores a point for the other team). Makes for some interesting strategy.

Yes. Punting out of the end zone is worth a point, as are touchbacks (that is to say, a touchback scores a point for the other team). Makes for some interesting strategy.

Yep. It's called a 'rouge'. The uprights are also at the front of the endzone rather than at the back.

Yes. Punting out of the end zone is worth a point, as are touchbacks (that is to say, a touchback scores a point for the other team). Makes for some interesting strategy.

What? You score a point for punting out of your end-zone? And give up a point for a touchback? On kick-offs too?

So, bad kickers are the new market inefficiency?

My only recollection of the CFL is learning about it after Joe Kapp came over to my then favorite NFL team of my childhood, the Vikes. The wide field and deep end zones seemed really cool. That they still have the goalposts on the goal line seems kinda dangerous, though, as does effectively barring touchbacks. Are fair catches not in the end zone punishment free?

I got a degree in Buffalo bracketing the four years they lost the Super Bowl. Oh for eight!

Other CFL items of note:

- twelve players on the field at one time
- more than one offensive player can be in motion before the snap
- no 'fair catch' rule (though there is a 'no yards' penalty for the covering team if they are within five yards of the returner when he catches or picks up the punted ball)
- defenders can only jam eligible receivers within one yard of the line of scrimmage (five yards in the NFL)

Edit: snapper (19): he means that you get a point for kicking the ball through your opponent's end zone, not for having your punter kick it out

One awesome effect of the "rouge" rule is sometimes at the end of the game or half the receiving team will take a punt out of their end zone and punt it right back out. Each team will take turns punting until somebody either kicks the ball out of bounds or the backed-up team runs it out of the end zone.

One little-known Canadian fact is they actually have four downs in Canadian football. They generally punt on third down just to be safe.