Anyway, I have seen and heard about all of the data sighting that the turf fields are just as safe *when maintained properly*, and nothing about this article disputes that. This article is saying that the quality of the field has a direct correlation with the number of concussions. Fields that are in worse condition generate more concussions, synthetic or sod. I think that is a very reasonable finding.
I did play under Frank and had a great relationship with Mr. B. But I can't say that he would really have all that much say over how the school treated his investment. Let's be honest, the school has done everything in it's power to ruin that relationship by taking advantage of his gifts and generosity. Frank is the only reason that building still looks the way it does, the school does nothing to maintain it on their own. So even if he did see them mismanaging the maintenance could he change it? He and Frank would try, but would only be successful if the cost were low enough or covered by Jack himself.
I can also speak to several incidents, personally where "low spots" were discovered in the field, either after a big snow or a lacrosse game. We would be on the field for practice with a cone on the field to show you where not to step to lose an ankle. Eventually the rubber would be raked into the hole, but it eventually took its toll. There are has marks coming unsewed, tears along the sidelines. As we know it is reaching the end of its life, and it needs replaced. But I am asking if we could have managed it better to keep it safer throughout its usable life?