With the hurricane dumping much needed rain on us down here in Tennessee (and hopefully eventually up in Ohio) it me thinking about the wet fall in Columbus of 2006 and how it stacked up historically and whether the excuse of a wet field due to rain and water table is valid.

By the numbers three Septembers (2003, 2011, 2018) had more rainfall than 2006 and zero Octobers. 

Over the past 23 years October 2006 was the wettest with October 2013 a relatively close second, no other year is close.

September and October 2006 combined for 12.05 inches.  Only in 2011 did those two months even come close to that total, 10.23 inches.

Unfortunately it's a very limited sample size between when the field was lowered and the installation of artificial turf in 2007.  But looking at those years September 2003 was notably wetter than September 2006 (1.5 inches more).  What was the condition of the field that September and early-October?  I was going to games that year as a student and I don't recall discussion of field quality issues. 

I think it's possible an exceptionally wet two months in 2006 hastened a move to artificial that isn't exactly warranted based on the historic rainfall totals. 

And yes, I know that now if anything the athletic department will say turf is needed to do the concerts and stuff that generate revenue in the offseason.  I don't really buy that either because plenty of stadiums with natural turf manage to do events.

Anyway, I thought this was interesting to study.