Okay, I've felt the need to weigh in on here. So, first a few points. OF, slavery was not a 'law', it was explicitly included in the constitution. A law can be overturned by the Supreme Court, the constitution cannot. It took an amendment ratified by a supermajority of the states at the time (the south hadn't been readmitted yet) for it to take affect.
ADA is a law. It's actually a very good law for a lot of different reasons. My father is handicapped, and so I've gotten the displeasure of dealing with places that aren't ADA compliant. And, per Auggie's commen, my father served during Vietnam, though he was luckily sent to an army base that wasn't in active combat. His disability wasn't service related, though the VA does treat him just the same for it.
My understanding of ADA was basically this: if a building or structure predates ADA, it was grandfathered in and only required becoming compliant once substantial upgrades/modifications/additions/etc took place. A prime example would be Harding Stadium in Steubenville. Three of the four stands are not ADA compliant. The west endzone was replaced, and when it was rebuilt, it was built to ADA specifications (wider aisles, railings in the aisles, wheel chair ramps, and wheel chair seating). The rest of the stadium still isn't ADA compliant because those parts haven't been rebuilt. The stadium did accommodate fans with disabilities by erecting a wheelchair/handicapped seating area on the hill by the upper concession stand that overlooks the field (one of the better ADA seating areas in HS, because you're not in the first row by the field which I hate).
But, that's the rub. There has to be, even in an older structure, some sort of half-measure to assist those with disabilities. Out west, a common occurrence in small venues is to have handicapped placarded vehicles line the field just beyond the endlines. Conotton Valley does this with the eastern endzone. The risk of a field goal hitting your car is a small price. The sightlines would be terrible, but they did make an attempt to include handicapped.
Taking my father to games, ADA seating is a pain. It's a reason he rarely goes to a H.S. game. I took him to one a few years ago, and we were in the front row basically blocking the aisle where his wheelchair was. Also, that put the railing right in his line of sight. So, his enjoyment of the game wasn't nearly what someone who could sit a little higher up in the stands (I much prefer stadiums with entry from the top down, as ADA seating would have a much better view).
Taking him to Browns games, I gave up switching my seats to ADA when I took him and instead just have permanent ADA seats. At FirstEnergy Stadium, the ADA seats aren't permament structures, they're aluminum risers that actually cover about 3 rows worth of seats and, for ADA, hold about 14 seats, which if you figure it taking up almost 20 seats per row for 3 rows, that's a loss of 46 seats. Considering my tickets were $55/each (now $70... thanks Browns!) that meant the team was giving up $2,530 of revenue per game for those 14 ADA ticketed seats to be sold in my section.
As to Mikefln, yes, money shouldn't factor in whether some people should be discriminated against. That's the entire reason ADA was created.... because nobody wanted to pay the cost to let handicapped people into their buildings, stadiums, parks, etc. They weren't valuable enough to them. The biggest time this issue comes up is times like these with ancient buildings in need of upgrades, etc, and nobody thinking over the past 20 years that at some point they'd have to pay to be ADA compliant. That's poor planning.
Also, per Brookfield's situation, it seems like there wasn't any sort of attempt made to make it easy for handicapped fans to watch the game. As highlighted above, parking cars beyond the endzone to view from their car has been a simply and effective solution for small stadiums. Even if the spots can fill in and leave some out, they can argue they'd done something.
Now, beyond the ADA issues, is where they'll play if they can't play at Brookfield. I haven't seen a game there (given where I live, I've stopped to see the stadium once when taking 62 into Sharon). it's a nice, old stadium, but it certainly has seen better days. I understand why Sharon would be a good fit for them (Sharon Tiger Stadium's home side is very big for a 2A PIAA school). But, it is a grass field and has very little parking. Almost entirely street parking, which is one of the reasons Sharon doesn't see big crowds anymore. Another option would be Farrell. Again, not that far away, a smaller venue more for Brookfield's size, and may be a cheaper option.
On the Ohio side, the school north of them (Badger) doesn't have a football team. Cortland is a bit of a drive. I doubt Hubbard would be a good choice. Vienna is a decrepit wooden stadium when I was there, which probably should be replaced BEFORE Brookfield's stadium, though they have more than enough sideline access for ADA. Liberty is starting to get out there in terms of distance. A turf venue might be better, but Warren's Mollenkopf Stadium already has JFK playing on Saturdays, and the only other ones in PA would be Hickory in Hermitage (east of Sharon/Sharpsville/Farrell).
One option to make it cheaper would be to play on Saturday afternoons, and save the cost of the lights for whatever stadium they would rent.
As for the comment about playing out-of-state, Bellaire St. John Central already played one season in Wheeling, West Virginia's Wheeling Island Stadium. I forget whether it was because Nelson Field was being remodeled, or they left Nelson, but hadn't built their new field across the highway.
And sorry for those who just read through all of that. Had a lot of thoughts on the issue.
