Conspiracy debunked ... sort of
I've gotten a pretty big amount of response on the message boards - as well as one very irate voice mail from a BC alum in DC - about the note I wrote on Tuesday concerning the wet field when Boston College played N.C. State.
I thought it was an interesting side note to the game, which is why I included it. However, upon further review, there are two things I wished I'd changed about it.
One - rather than writing that "a likely explanation" for the watering was that it was an attempt to slow down N.C. State, I should have used the word "possible."
Two - I should have done more research - and to be honest it wouldn't have taken that long - to confirm that it is not extraordinary to water an artificial turf like BC's. And I should have included that in the article as context.
However, the info I found doesn't completely erase the possibility that a little gamesmanship was involved. Here's the description about when field turf should be watered.
"First, if the watering is needed for cooling or playability requirements, the watering will take place shortly before the game and in some cases in between halves."
Certainly no need to worry about cooling the surface in Boston in November, so that one's out. As for playability, I'd have to wonder about that as well, considering the watering served to make the surface very difficult to play on - i.e. very slippery.
One final thought on this. There's really no need for BC fans to feel unjustly accused about this or for State fans to feel like they got jobbed. As Chuck Amato said, it's all about home field advantage. It's the same reason slower teams leave their grass long and faster teams cut it short. There's nothing wrong with it. It's part of the game.