Tradition Is a Guide, and Not a Jailer
National Signing Day has come and gone and Notre Dame football fans around the country continue to recover from the hangover of the one last hurrah before the inevitable off-season lull. Broken only briefly by a short-lived Spring “dog and pony show” in which only die-hard fans trek to Notre Dame Stadium to brave the unpredictable northern Indiana weather and catch a glimpse of what next year could bestow, the off-season provides little opportunity for discussion other than fantasy-based prognostication. Most of these superfluous discussions center around how Notre Dame football is progressing into the future or still holding onto the past. Topics such as future schedules, the hiring and firing of coaches (whenever applicable), new players, and the general hindsighting of what could have been or what could yet be fill news outlets, magazines, newspapers, blogs, and living rooms around the country.
While most headlines between the end of December and the end of January center around recruiting, last Sunday, Eric Hansen of the South Bend Tribune provided us with this little gem of an interview with Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick. And while his article mostly centers around the future of Notre Dame athletics, towards the end of the interview the discussion hones in, albeit briefly, on the football program and the condition of Notre Dame Stadium, namely the condition of the field and whether or not a “video board” (read: Jumbotron) should be installed and used during football games or other events such as graduation.
While the discussion about the installation of a Jumbotron isn’t as prevalent among fans as, say, Notre Dame’s Independent status, or if future schedules should be as tough as they are, most traditionalists adopt the position of not making any significant changes to the way Notre Dame has always done things: the same is true on the issue of electronics and artificial field turf.
Installing a screen that projects advertisements, neon lights, and graphics, and something that may further obstruct the view of the “Word of Life” mural on the front of the Hesburgh Memorial Library, has many “traditionalists” squirming in their seats. However, the other side of the aisle believes that the installation of a Jumbotron or, probably even more importantly, the installation of artificial turf or field grass in the stadium serves to keep Notre Dame up to speed with the current pace of college football.
The tradition at Notre Dame is second to none. However, this same tradition, especially as it pertains to football, was forged in the belief that the University should be the first and the greatest. Many of the traditions that fans embrace regarding Notre Dame football were established by its forefathers as cutting-edge philosophies. They did not react to others changing college football, they initiated change. And as Notre Dame, as a University, has walked the political tight-rope between change and tradition, this is something that its supporters have lost sight of.
To say that Notre Dame shouldn’t implement changes to its facilities, scheduling, coaches, or operations is to say that it should undermine the philosophies of those icons that helped mold Notre Dame Football into what it is today. We have been gripping tightly to the traditions themselves, rather than honoring the attitudes that established those traditions in the first place.
If Knute Rockne or Frank Leahy were coaching the Irish today, would they want a Jumbotron, new turf, or scheduling format changes? Who knows? Jumbotrons and artificial turf, in the grand scheme of things, are fairly small potatoes and shouldn’t be at the top of Jack Swarbrick’s to-do list. And the problems that deserve to be addressed within Notre Dame’s athletics, and football in particular, are far more worthy of his attention than electronics and synthetics.
Notre Dame fans themselves aren’t overly unwilling to give things up, or accept changes in things that they have an emotional attachment to. The real problem in this debate lies in some fans failure to see why those things to which they have an emotional attachment were established in the first place.
While you may feel traditionalists are being held in some kind of jail, you should also consider the possibility that change simply for the sake of change is a foolish exercise.
When Notre Dame initiated change, it was for the benefit of the program and/or the sport at large. The forward pass Rockne championed was already part of the rules, he simply used it to his advantage and helped his team win games. When ND took on the NBC contract, it paved the way for other schools and conferences to make deals that benefited them.
If someone is going to modify a tradition, there should be a compelling reason why it’s done. Some folks like to equate the decision to put a screen in ND Stadium with the decision to use non-leather helmets or expand the stadium in the first place. Those things were done to meet specific and critical needs — the safety of players and the ticket needs of the ever-expanding expanding alumni base. Allowing spectators to watch something they just saw five seconds ago doesn’t really meet that standard.
For years, Notre Dame has espoused the cutting-edge philosophy of not making its game experience like many of the others, eschewing video stimuli and its associated advertising in favor of what is supposed to make college football college football — cheerleaders, bands, etc. Putting in a video screen would make ND LESS cutting-edge and drag it into the “everybody else” category.
Not to sound sexest, but I would say more men watch ND football than woman (but I’m sure many women do too) my point is, men normally do not like change, heck look in our garage. I have stuff in my garage I haven’t used in years, some things are even broke, but I swear I may need a part off of it one day. If my wife had her way, she would clean out my garage in a heartbeat and probably throw a Jumbotron in for good measure. We men like to think our way is always the right way and tradition is just that, tradition. Tradition always takes us back to better times, we try not to remember the bad losses even though we remember every one. So, as a ND fan of 47 years who grew up in Gary Indiana and who loves to stand up and scream THAT’s WHY WE ARE NOTRE DAME!!!! I would be against all the changes. I’m probably wrong and it wouldn’t be the first time, although I don’t admit that to often, I figure, I hopefully have about 30 more ND football season left in me, maybe you could ask ND to hold off the changes for about 30 years. Thank You and hopefully I’ll see you at the B&G game :-)
Jumbotron – only if it’s on the SOUTH or EAST side of the stadium and is styled in an understated fashion to be consistent with the rest of the constructs on the campus.
artificial turf – absolutely no. It’s a danger to the players and should be banned by the NCAA.
field grass – an excellent alternative to natural turf. It is resilient, player joint protective and easily cleared of water or snow.
I agree that ND should be an evolving and progressive football state…if I get the story right, somebody deeply rooted in our tradition decades ago decided a forward pass was a good thing when no one else was doing it. But more to the point…
# 1 – Turf – This is a no brainer. Grass is traditional because that was all they had, not because everyone in the country wanted to be traditional. In medicine, leeching was also traditional, and as better technology came along understandibly doctors moved on. Let’s face it, ND field conditions are consistently poor despite the great lengths the maintenace crew goes through to make it playable. Turf these days is almost indistinguishable from grass and infinitely more playable. If they changed it without announcing it to the world I bet 99% of the people at the game wouldn’t notice the change, except those with an extremely keen sense of smell and goofy ass Les Miles when he swallowed a handful. Artificial Turf is practically traditional today – it has been around since the 60′s along with rock and roll music and hits of acid, let’s keep the rock and roll at home, forego the acid, and get some synthetic grass at the stadium that isn’t blue or red and call it a day.
#2 – Jumbotron – This one is tougher because it is relatively new technology and significantly alters the look of the stadium and the game experience itself. Alumni that have been going to games since the 50′s and 60′s have brought people to that stadium to witness a game that is steeped in history and practically the same experience that one got in the 20′s and 30′s. Updating the bathrooms, getting a real pressbox, and adding the top rows for an additional 20,000 didn’t materially change this experience. A jumbotron; however, is clearly removed from the religious epiphany most older alumni feel when returning to the stadium, and is a significant variation from the traditional ND experience.
That being said, it isn’t the 1920′s and updating to this century is inevitable, so I say let’s do it and do it right. Give me a couple quality screens at the far end corners away from the view of TD jesus, keep the advertisements at a minimum if not altogether out, and add some creative videos to complement the tradition – not just old game film, but spoof pictures of a certain state trooper while a certain cheesy driving warning is issued and animated Leprechan cartoons playing football and scoring on an opposing team made up of escaped convicts…ok, maybe not Leprechan /convict cartoons, but funny creative things integrated into ND history would be great while the game action is not going. I wouldn’t even mind an occasional ND quiz question about the 1977 National Champions or posting game and historical facts to keep things moving. Plus, if I walked into that stadium pregame to see to huge block ND’s on the screens in the far corners it might just add to tradition whether than subtracting. Done right, it could really add to an already great experience.
Frankly, if we had a billion dollars to burn wouldn’t it be great to have what Jim Jones did in Dallas…we probably have the best shrine to college football in the country, but what time in history would people rather keep a shrine rather than build a shiny new cathedral? We don’t have the billion to burn, but we can afford a couple really big tv’s at the game, so let’s do it – ditch the sansabelt slacks, through some new jeans on grandpa and start some modern traditions to compliment a great football heritage.
Just my thoughts on it.
El Kabong, I couldn’t agree more – change for the sake of change is hardly ever a good thing.
However, the issue of the Jumbotron or synthetic grass, while “small potatoes” next to other issues, is just a microcosm of how some Irish fans respond to any change that the football program considers, like conference alignment
When some fans talk change, they seem to use language and ideas that suggest that any progression into the future is bad and that’s simply my point. Change for the sake of change is hardly a good thing, but not changing anything because it’s unexplored territory is also not a good thing.
Does not accepting change make the school a beacon of excellence, or does it simply put the program behind the times? There are people who would argue both.
No, we don’t need ground up tires for a playing surface. If I want to watch the game on a big TV I’ll sit in a bar and swill pitchers of beer.
Pete, is there any specific reason you don’t want those things? Also, artificial playing surfaces have progressed past recycled tires.
http://www.fieldturf.com/artificial-turf-about-fieldturf/
Great article.
We often hear, as one poster has already stated, that change for the sake of change is often a foolish exercise.
But the point of the article is that NOT thinking about change or NOT accepting change just because it is change, is the same kind of foolish behavior, and frankly, much more prevalent amongst the Notre Dame fan base.
The video board and FieldTurf talks simply illustrate this point all the more. The great majority of the time that anyone brings up something that should be added to the stadium or to the gameday experience, it is usually met with a bunch of simplistic “Hell No!” “It’s not needed!” and “Notre Dame is tradition, let’s keep it that way!”
Also in many instances, the hardcore traditionalists sensationalize the issue and publicize the absolute worst outcome of said proposed changed.
For example, if a jumbotron ever was to be installed inside ND Stadium, then we’d have advertisements, cheesy videos, loud music and all of the other bells and whistles that many other schools and NFL teams use. To many of them, that is the end result, there’s no in between, there’s no tasteful way of doing it, or incorportating it nicely into the stadium structure. It’s an annoying eye-sore and that is that.
Now with that said, is there a compelling reason to install a video board or FieldTurf?
Well, FieldTurf makes teams faster and Kelly wants to build a fast team. Kelly himself has said he favors it. The current field has been a mess and is more prone to cause injuries and slow the team down. And while the data is inconclusive, FieldTurf and other surfaces like Desso GrassMaster are likely safer for players.
I’d say that sounds like some compelling reasons, no?
As for the jumbotron, there is not compelling reasons to put up a giant screen that sticks out like a sore thumb and use it like most other schools do.
But some form of tasteful video boards are compelling. The majority of football fans across the country favor replays, as do I. I also think other uses of the video screen (pre-game highlight video, a few in game videos on past games, big hits, big TD’s) is compelling as well. I’m not talking about any advertisements, Kiss-Cam’s, fireworks, or rock and rap music, but something done in line with the Notre Dame way of doing things. Is it not possible to add some modern ammenities to the stadium and have it be cutting edge, do it different than anyone else, and preserve the traditionally feel of the gameday experience?
I’d also add a very quiet, sometimes life-less and disinterested crowd in one of the largest football stadiums in America as another compelling reason to spice things up a little bit, and engage fans more.
Maybe biggest of all, is the cultural atmosphere combined with the personal technological advances that we see inside the stadium each Saturday. There’s a significant portion of the older generation that is very quiet and subdued, and doesn’t want things to change. There’s another significant portion of the younger generation (perhaps larger in total numbers) that may be louder, or might be less interested in the “Notre Dame Experience” but nonetheless are playing with their cell phones, having non-football conversations, and seemingly detached from the highs and lows of the game.
Those two things combined have created an atmosphere that is the exact opposite of the loud home-field advantage most other big time schools enjoy. In the future, fans will be able to enjoy all of the ammenities that modern technology provides in the form of replays, commentary, stats, etc. except instead of a small group that we see now it will be thousands upon thousands.
The irony is that the old guard traditionalists are against a video screen or replays because it “takes away from the game” or “distracts people from the experience” but in ten years there could be tens of thousands of people distracted from the game because they are too busy looking down at their iPhone or iPad watching replays and feasting on other information that they want or need. Which is worse?
That is a compelling reason in my view to ENGAGE fans with a video board and get them invested in watching what Notre Dame wants them to watch. If the university refuses to take control of this situation, it risks the possibility of the stale and non-intimidating atmosphere getting much worse further down the road. Because it has to be better for everyone involved if fans are watching a video of a Tom Zbikowski punt return touchdown while the band plays during a commercial, thereby keeping the crowd pumped up, as opposed to sitting there in relative silence, checking texts on their phone, talking about a recent visit to the mall, or whatever.
Another compelling reason, is that the players LOVE it.
You may not agree with some of these ideas, I may not agree with someone else’s ideas for changes in the stadium, but the main point is that there should at least be a dialogue about things like this. There are some ridiculous ideas in my opinion from people who want changes, but I am often more frustrated with those who say no to changes just for the sake of saying no and squash any dialogue about it. Not that there aren’t valid reasons to keep the stadium the way it is, because there certainly are, but like the author said here, too often we are imprisoned by the great tradition at Notre Dame.
There are many great traditions I love about Notre Dame, and let’s be real, there are a TON of them. But I often think we make things harder on ourselves by clinging to every single little tradition and refusing to look at the future, or new things, or anything that might make life a little easier for the Irish.
We should not be ending this dicussion, but asking ourselves if the reasons are truly compelling enough to make changes.
Thanks for the comment Eric. Epic quality.
For me, the point of the article stands alone. We can argue ’til we’re blue in the face about a Jumbotron and artificial turf, but those two arguments weren’t the crux of the article (anyone that read that Jon was in favor of either needs to take the blinders off and try again, that wasn’t the intent of this piece).
Re: Jumbotron
I wouldn’t mind a tastefully done video board with features like Eric mentioned above. However, I am somewhat dubious it can be implemented with that level of restraint, especially with NBC involved.
Re: Artificial Turf
The field at Notre Dame stadium this last season was like an intramural field. It was just bad. If you can honestly say with a straight face that you think that field was safer to play on than an artificial one, I don’t know what to say. You’re unhinged.
Now, the field was worse this last year than in years past and I am not so sure that moving to an artificial playing surface is the answer, but I’m reserving judgment because I haven’t done the research on what is out there and a legitimate, safe upgrade from the natural grass we play on. It’s possible that there is a better playing field out there. If we can confidently predict a faster tempo with less injuries and less maintenance, why wouldn’t the fan base be in favor of moving to such a surface?
I don’t know about the stadium, but I wish I had a jumbotron and artificial turf at my house.
Eric, I understand what you’re saying. But I’d point out two things:
1) If the people who have paid upwards of $70 for a ticket are so disengaged that they are “playing with their cell phones, having non-football conversations, and seemingly detached from the highs and lows of the game”, I have to question why they’re there in the first place. The purpose of going to a football game is to watch the football game. If these “younger fans” aren’t capable of doing that, then isn’t that a lot more of an indictment of their lack of attention span rather than a football program that refuses to indulge the problem and make it worse?
2) You dismiss the concerns of people who are concerned the associated advertising would detract from the ND experience. How do you believe the building and maintenance of such a screen would be accomplished? Do you believe ND will give up voluntarily the millions of dollars required?
@El Kabong
You’re telling me that when those orange-mitted refs come on the field *your* first impulse isn’t to reach for your phone, or turn to your neighbor and talk? Nothing kills the audience momentum in a game than TV timeouts and I think Eric’s argument that a screen would help with that particular problem is fairly valid.
And I think Eric and all fans *are* concerned about the type of advertising that would be displayed. No one wants Notre Dame stadium to be turned into the same experience as an NFL game. But perhaps there is some middle ground for something that fits in with Notre Dame’s “personality” to be adopted.