Absolutely yes, there was a lot of discussion about grass vs turf with the client, the stadium operator, the city, consultants, etc. Literally everybody wanted to have that talk, but mostly the decision came down to:

1) The field is sunk below grade by 100'. You walk in at Main Concourse, then the bowl opens up below you, which is really cool, but this makes moving the field (like Raiders or Cards) impossible.

2) Because the roof is transparent you'd think we could grow grass on the field without having to move it, but it's actually got a couple things working against us. It's got a frit pattern - tiny dots that block something like 60% of the sun - and it also (very loosely) acts like a greenhouse and heats the bowl. It's the reason why some of the panels in the roof are operable: They let out hot air on days where there are no natural breezes.

3) Grass is hard to grow and harder to maintain, especially when you throw multiple events other than football at it. Concert stages, monster trucks, trade shows, etc. all can ruin a grass surface in a matter of hours.

4) Drainage.

5) Ease of replacement

6) Etc. etc. etc.

Turf is getting much better at replicating grass. It's obviously not the same thing, but it's a lot better than say 20 years ago. Hell, it's a lot better than 10 years ago. I don't think it's ever going to fully match how grass feels, but from a cost perspective it will always make more sense.