Lumberton's field

[oldschool2]

Well.. I see I've stirred up a mess.  Excellent.

For the the record..I never said a turf field is the reason for winning a state title.  I just said its a funny coincidence 43 out it the last 50 state champions happen to play on turf.

I said the WOS community should provide those kids with a nice field. I also happen to think they're economically smart over time.  I was met with the typical "we don't need one".  Maybe you don't.  I just think it would be nice.

By the way...between fund balance and a bond.  It wouldn't cost as much as people think.  Oh gosh! A million dollars! .. That really isn't that much money over the time it would take to pay for it.  I've heard of bonds increasing taxes in the neighborhood of $17 per year per 100K of property value.  I'm talking bonds a lot more than the cost of a facilities upgrade.  But whatever..I hope your grandkid's grandkids are still playing on that grass, if that's what you want.

[WOSgrad]

And I never said that they shouldn't have one.  Would the Mustangs be excited to see field turf at Dan Hooks? Absolutely.  Would Coach Thompson like to see it?  Of course.  Heck, I would like to see it.

But the more that you post, especially with the labeling of programs that don't play on turf backwards and archaic, the more I am convinced that the justification for the proliferation of artificial turf fields comes down to the turf field becoming a status symbol.  That may meet your definition of a legitimate reason to install field turf, but it doesn't meet mine.  And to label a community that doesn't have such a field as a community that doesn't love or is unappreciative of it's young athletes is simply ridiculous (and, by the way, is much more Clinton or Sanders-like than anything else here).

A friend of mine has asked me to compile a list of SETXsports schools who play on natural grass similar to that one I did for artificial turf and I am getting that together right now.  Who knows, it may bolster your case...in fact, it probably will.

[WOSgrad]

By request, here is the list I mentioned above.  Again, these are the records and results of teams who play on natural grass:

21-6A

All teams play on artificial turf.

21-5A

All teams play on artificial turf.

22-5A

Lumberton - 7-4 - Eliminated in bi-district

Nederland - 8-4 - Eliminated in area

Vidor - 3-7 - Missed playoffs

10-4A-I

Bridge City - 7-4 - Eliminated in bi-district

Cleveland - 1-9 - Missed playoffs

Jasper - 7-5 - Eliminated in area

Little Cypress-Mauriceville - 3-7 - Missed playoffs

Silsbee - 11-3 - Eliminated in State Quarterfinals

Splendora - 3-7 - Missed playoffs

8-4A-II

Coldspring-Oakhurst - 7-5 - Eliminated in area

Diboll - 7-4 - Eliminated in bi-district

Huntington - 3-7 - Missed playoffs

Shepherd - 8-3 - Eliminated in bi-district

Tarkington 4-7 - Eliminated in bi-district

9-4A-II

Hamshire-Fannett - 8-4 - Eliminated in area

Hardin-Jefferson - 2-8 - Missed playoffs

Liberty 4-7 - Eliminated in bi-district

Orangefield - 6-6 - Eliminated in area

West Orange-Stark - 15-1 - State Champions

12-3A-I

Anahuac - 3-7 - Missed playoffs

Buna - 5-6 - Eliminated in bi-district

East Chambers - 10-2 - Eliminated in area

Kirbyville - 10-2 - Eliminated in area

Kountze - 2-8 - Missed playoffs

Warren - 2-8 - MIssed playoffs

11-3A-II

Corrigan-Camden - 8-5 - Eliminated in Regional Semifinals

Deweyville - 3-7 - Missed playoffs

Garrison - 5-6 - Eliminated in bi-district

Hemphill - 3-7 - Missed playoffs

Newton - 8-5 - Eliminated in Regional Semifinals

10-2A-I

Cushing - 4-6 - Missed playoffs

Joaquin - 5-5 - Missed playoffs

West Sabine - 5-6 - Eliminated in bi-district

12-2A-I

Anderson-Shiro - 4-7 - Eliminated in bi-district

Centerville - 6-7 - Eliminated in Regional Semifinals

Groveton - 3-8 - Eliminated in bi-district

Hull-Daisetta - 2-8 - Missed playoffs

Lovelady - 15-1 - Eliminated in State Semifinals

West Hardin - 2-8 - Missed playoffs

12-2A-II

Burkeville - 2-8 - Missed playoffs

Colmesneil - 3-8 - Eliminated in bi-district

Evadale - 6-5 - Eliminated in bi-district

Iola - 9-3 - Eliminated in area

Normangee - 9-4 - Eliminated in Regional Semifinals

Sabine Pass - 0-10 - Missed playoffs

16-1A-I

Apple Springs - 4-6 - Eliminated in bi-district

Chester - 10-1 - Eliminated in area

Leverett's Chapel - 1-8 - Missed playoffs

16-1A-II

Buckholts - 1-9 - Missed playoffs

Calvert - 11-1 - Eliminated in area

High Island - 5-6 - Eliminated in bi-district

Prairie Lea - 1-9 - Missed playoffs

TAPPS 3-I

Beaumont Kelly Catholic - 4-7 - Eliminated in first round

Houston St. Pius X - 10-3 - Eliminated in State Semifinals

Katy Pope John XXIII - 0-9 - missed playoffs

Tomball Concordia Lutheran - 5-7 - Eliminated in second round

TAPPS 4-III

Beaumont Legacy Christian - 10-3 - Eliminated in State Semifinals

Bryan Brazos Christian - 6-5 - Eliminated in First Round

Bryan St. Joseph - 3-7 - Missed playoffs

Houston Lutheran North - 2-8 - Missed playoffs

League City Bay Area Christian - 0-10 - Missed playoffs

Magnolia Legacy Prep - 5-5 - Missed playoffs

Tomball Rosehill Christian - 5-6 - Eliminated in First Round

TAPPS 3-I (Six man)

Baytown Christian - 8-3 - Eliminated in second round

Houston Emery-Weiner - 12-2 - State Champions

Huntsville Alpha Omega - 5-5 - Missed playoffs

Katy Faith West - 6-5 - Eliminated in first round

Pasadena First Baptist - 11-2 - Eliminated in State Semifinals

Sugar Land Logos Prep - 5-6 - Eliminated in First Round

TAPPS 4-II (Six man)

Conroe Covenant Christian - 8-3 - Eliminated in second round

Lake Jackson Brazosport Christian - 2-8 - Missed playoffs

Orange Community Christian - 4-6 - Eliminated in first round

Spring Providence Classical - 4-4 - Missed playoffs

 

Thus, of the 73 schools who play on grass, only 3 (4.1%) played in December while 48 (67.6%) missed the playoffs or lost in the first round of the playoffs.

[oldschool2]

11 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

And I never said that they shouldn't have one.  Would the Mustangs be excited to see field turf at Dan Hooks? Absolutely.  Would Coach Thompson like to see it?  Of course.  Heck, I would like to see it.

But the more that you post, especially with the labeling of programs that don't play on turf backwards and archaic, the more I am convinced that the justification for the proliferation of artificial turf fields comes down to the turf field becoming a status symbol.  That may meet your definition of a legitimate reason to install field turf, but it doesn't meet mine.  And to label a community that doesn't have such a field as a community that doesn't love or is unappreciative of it's young athletes is simply ridiculous (and, by the way, is much more Clinton or Sanders-like than anything else here).

A friend of mine has asked me to compile a list of SETXsports schools who play on natural grass similar to that one I did for artificial turf and I am getting that together right now.  Who knows, it may bolster your case...in fact, it probably will.

I used Clinton or Sanders as a reference because of facts bouncing off of the argument.  Of the last 50 state champions...43 of them happen to play on turf.  I didn't make that up.  That's a fact.

Having a turf field is not a status symbol.  And I've said several times before...that would be just the beginning anyway.  Even with a facilities upgrade, I still would think setx is behind the times.  Number of coaches, salary of coaches, salary of teachers, etc.  There are a lot of things that go into it.  Most of which are centered around money, yes. But there is a difference between spending money...and smart money spending.

By the way...your findings do not bolster my case.  A majority of setx schools are 4A and down...almost all of which play on grass fields.  Of course the statistics will show favor to grass if they all play on grass.  4 schools in every district make playoffs so yeah....going to be a lot of schools with grass fields that are in.  Really not the point.  My original point was that it's not as economically dumb as people think.  And even if it was (which it's not), WOS deserves nicer facilities just for being good.  If any setx team could make a case for nicer facilities...it would be WOS.  Unbelievable. 

How about one more list.  How about setx schools that play on grass vs schools that play on turf? (playoffs).  

[oldschool2]

By the way WOSgrad:

"So, of the 31 schools that we cover that have artificial turf, 3 (9.7 %) played football in December"
"Thus, of the 73 schools who play on grass, only 3 (4.1%) played in December "

These are your findings...not mine.  9.7% of schools with turf played in December.  4.1% with grass....um....that's more than double.  So...

[WOSgrad]

It certainly took you a while.  I told last night that the second list would bolster your argument.

[oldschool2]

10 minutes ago, WOSgrad said:

It certainly took you a while.  I told last night that the second list would bolster your argument.

I'm old.  I was probably in bed....and certainly not concerned with this site.  I'm just fortunate that I get to spend a little time in an office (finally) at work. But yes...the second list didn't do anything but prove a point.  The point that statistically schools with turf did better than schools with grass.  Even though that wasn't even a point I was trying to make..I guess it'll work.

[ST413]

Could it be that most of these schools with turf were already successful and generating enough money to justify better facilities both turf and the main ingredient better training facilities.  Or have a big enough tax base to get the extra money.

[oldschool2]

7 minutes ago, ST413 said:

Could it be that most of these schools with turf were already successful and generating enough money to justify better facilities both turf and the main ingredient better training facilities.  Or have a big enough tax base to get the extra money.

I'm actually not surprised at all by this response. I offer a fact: 43 of last 50 state champs play on turf.
An opposed argument comes in with a list.  Which has the opposite intended effect.  9.7% of schools with turf played in December, 4.1% of schools with grass did.

Lo and behold....here comes "they were already successful".

I suppose that maybe they were.  I already said...turf alone is not a formula for success.  It is one piece to the puzzle.  But you have to admit those statistics are a little compelling.  Some schools have an easier time upgrading because of tax base.  No doubt.  But some schools just make it a priority...no matter what.  That's all I'm saying.  

And like I said before...just figure in the cost of: mowing the field/practice field twice a week 8/9 months out of the year, fuel for mowers/weed eaters, equipment maintenance costs, painting the field plus paint, edging/weed eating around the fields, watering the fields 3/4 months out of the year, plus the cost of man hours to accomplish those things.  Now take that number and multiply it by 10 or 15 years.  Plus...what would the cost of missing 1, 2, or 3 days of preparation due to water/weather be?  Or practicing on the gym floor to keep from tearing up the field.  And don't forget baseball/softball can benefit from it also.  And youth football... May not be as expensive as it seems.

That's all I'm saying.  I'm sure this will get a rebuttal as well.

[WOSgrad]

22 minutes ago, ST413 said:

Could it be that most of these schools with turf were already successful and generating enough money to justify better facilities both turf and the main ingredient better training facilities.  Or have a big enough tax base to get the extra money.

I think it would be foolish to believe that the results of the individual teams from either list I posted would have been different if they had played on another surface.  The teams that won a lot, and for that matter the teams that lost a lot, did so because of what happened from the feet up not from what was below the feet.

[The Icon]

7 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

I think it would be foolish to believe that the results of the individual teams from either list I posted would have been different if they had played on another surface.  The teams that won a lot, and for that matter the teams that lost a lot, did so because of what happened from the feet up not from what was below the feet.

I don't think Old School is making the argument that they would've played better if they had turf. The argument he's making is that a turf field would be more cost beneficial than grass over a period of 10/15/20 years.

I'd want my kids to have the best of the best, just like you and Old School both said. Who doesn't want turf, top of the line weight room and an indoor facility.

 

i wouldn't compare the SETX area to that of the Greater Houston Area, DFW Metroplex, Austin/SA, CenTex...etc. The Dallas Area has 80+ indoor facilities compared to  2 in Houston/East Texas.

 

Id venture to guess more teams that made the playoffs in the state of Texas have turf than others, I could be wrong. Numbers are relative. We all want the best, not everyone does what it takes to get it. It's called priorities.

[WOSgrad]

I get really nervous when the words "school district" "artificial turf" and "priorities" are used in the same sentence.  The #1 priority of a school district is to provide an education to prepare a child for the world that we all live in.   Anything beyond that should receive support if there is room in the budget, either by general fund or bond, to get that.  And since this thread has turned specifically to WO-S, it is only fair to note that they have attempted to make that room.  In 2007, the district called for a bond election for which about $3.9 million would have been devoted to the overhaul of Dan R. Hooks Stadium.  An overhaul which included not only a turf field, but renovation of the seating (which anybody, home or away, can tell you is the biggest complaint about the stadium), renovation of concession areas and the bathroom facilities.  Narrowly, that bond failed.  A subsequent bond in 2011 passed which took care of some of these issues, but not for the turf or seating.  I know that Nederland has had pretty close to the same history.

I genuinely hope that in the near future either by bond or out of the general fund turf is on the field and I am sure that I not alone.  After all, I agree with oldschool that if anyone has built up the equity to earn such turf, it is the Mustangs.  At the same time, the Mustangs are the poster child for a team that can be, at the very least, relevant without playing its home games on artificial turf.  The program isn't considered an outstanding program because of this:

This is what counts in West Orange, Texas:

 

So to come on and term a program backward because it has it doesn't have this:

when in the last season they got this:

is a little ridiculous, don't you think?

It is especially ridiculous given the cost of such an undertaking might not make the economic sense that we have been lead to believe.  The following link is from FieldTurf, a company that installs artificial turf:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

As you can see, the base preparations and materials would constitute a $700,000 initial outlay as opposed to $370,000 for base preparations and materials for a grass field.  But remember, the base and materials are already in place for a grass field at D.R. Hooks, so it would be a $700,000 outlay for a turf whose life according to this company's numbers is 8-10 years.  FieldTurf acknowledges the base preparation and materials might be cheaper if competitor installs it ($640,000 initial outlay as opposed to the $700,000 for FieldTurf), but the life of the competitor's field is only 6-8 years.

Then you come to maintenance.  FieldTurf estimates that maintenance (and as I stated earlier, you just don't put this carpet down and play... there is maintenance!) for one of it fields is $5,000 a year as opposed to $20,000 in maintenance for grass (and remember, these aren't my numbers, they're the numbers of the company that is trying to sell you on the idea of artificial turf) which would be a savings of $15,000 a year over the life of the turf which is maximum 10 years according the company.  So it the field lives to its maximum, a school district would save about $150,000 in maintenance costs.  Only to lay out another $380,000 again in 8-10 years.  According to FieldTurf, if you use one of their competitors, that field would take $10,000 a year to maintain.  So if a district were to use one of the competitors, they would enjoy a $10,000 savings on maintenance a years.  So if one of those fields lives to its maximum (8 years), the school district saves a total of $80,000 in maintenance costs over the life of the turf, only to lay out at least $320,000 in another 8 years.  Just for fairness, let's include the materials for the grass field, which FieldTurf estimates at $220,000, as savings as well, since there will need to be periodic resodding for the grass field.

Now, we have heard a whole bunch about monetary benefits that the district could gain by installing artificial turf.  Well, even oldschool acknowledged that location is a big challenge and with WO-S being one of the, if not the, most eastern school in the State of Texas that any sort of playoff rental would be rare, if at all.  Heck, Hardin, which has turf and a reasonable location given its western location in this part of the area, has been able to manage ONE playoff game since it installed turf.  So the idea of rental from playoff is just about out the window.  Then we hear about the idea of renting to youth football.  Well, specific to West Orange-Stark, let's play some Jeopardy. 

Todd: Alex, I will take football fields in Orange for $500. 

Alex: The answer....The entity that owns both of the regulation size football fields in Orange and West Orange.  Yes, Todd!

Todd: What is the West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District?

Alex: Correct, please pick again.

This little exercise, silly as it was, is to let you know that WO-S already gets whatever rentals from whatever youth football is played in Orange (if indeed any of the Youth teams actually play in Orange).  So the increase in revenue for the district would be....well...$0.

So we are now back at the district outlaying anywhere from $640,000 to $700,000 for either $350,000 in decreased cost of maintenance and materials over 10 years in the case of FieldTurf or $340,000 in decreased cost of maintenance and materials over 8 years.  All with the certainty of another payout of at least another $320,000 to $340,000 8 to 10 years from now and the possibility of increased revenue due to turf renovations being negligible, at best.  We all have mentioned what we thought Hillary or Bernie would think.  But I wonder what Donald would think.  Mr. Trump, if one of your subordinates sign off on this deal for one of your companies, what would you tell them?

Yeah me, too, Mr. Trump.

I can't come on here and say that laying artificial turf is cost prohibitive as we have seen districts in this area pull it off, but the cost question is not the no-brainer that some would like us to believe.  That is why I rankle when folks want to come on here and call this area backwards or stuck in the past simply because there is grass on their field and not artificial turf.  To do so reminds me of a small child that throws a tantrum and proclaims that their parents don't love him because he didn't get the latest, hottest toy.

I hope that most, if not all, of the school districts in Southeast Texas find the means to purchase artificial turf fields for their stadiums by the time we are in the 2020's.  But if that does not happen, I certainly won't belittle them as some folks here have been prone to do.

 

[3n2]

Interesting article 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[ST413]

It's funny that that article was posted, it posts answers to what I was wondering while scanning the previous post. I can't say I know anything at all about the costs but I was wondering how the maintenance cost of grass vs. replacement and maintenance turf panned out.

[The Icon]

5 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

I get really nervous when the words "school district" "artificial turf" and "priorities" are used in the same sentence.  The #1 priority of a school district is to provide an education to prepare a child for the world that we all live in.   Anything beyond that should receive support if there is room in the budget, either by general fund or bond, to get that.  And since this thread has turned specifically to WO-S, it is only fair to note that they have attempted to make that room.  In 2007, the district called for a bond election for which about $3.9 million would have been devoted to the overhaul of Dan R. Hooks Stadium.  An overhaul which included not only a turf field, but renovation of the seating (which anybody, home or away, can tell you is the biggest complaint about the stadium), renovation of concession areas and the bathroom facilities.  Narrowly, that bond failed.  A subsequent bond in 2011 passed which took care of some of these issues, but not for the turf or seating.  I know that Nederland has had pretty close to the same history.

I genuinely hope that in the near future either by bond or out of the general fund turf is on the field and I am sure that I not alone.  After all, I agree with oldschool that if anyone has built up the equity to earn such turf, it is the Mustangs.  At the same time, the Mustangs are the poster child for a team that can be, at the very least, relevant without playing its home games on artificial turf.  The program isn't considered an outstanding program because of this:

This is what counts in West Orange, Texas:

 

So to come on and term a program backward because it has it doesn't have this:

when in the last season they got this:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

is a little ridiculous, don't you think?

It is especially ridiculous given the cost of such an undertaking might not make the economic sense that we have been lead to believe.  The following link is from FieldTurf, a company that installs artificial turf:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

As you can see, the base preparations and materials would constitute a $700,000 initial outlay as opposed to $370,000 for base preparations and materials for a grass field.  But remember, the base and materials are already in place for a grass field at D.R. Hooks, so it would be a $700,000 outlay for a turf whose life according to this company's numbers is 8-10 years.  FieldTurf acknowledges the base preparation and materials might be cheaper if competitor installs it ($640,000 initial outlay as opposed to the $700,000 for FieldTurf), but the life of the competitor's field is only 6-8 years.

Then you come to maintenance.  FieldTurf estimates that maintenance (and as I stated earlier, you just don't put this carpet down and play... there is maintenance!) for one of it fields is $5,000 a year as opposed to $20,000 in maintenance for grass (and remember, these aren't my numbers, they're the numbers of the company that is trying to sell you on the idea of artificial turf) which would be a savings of $15,000 a year over the life of the turf which is maximum 10 years according the company.  So it the field lives to its maximum, a school district would save about $150,000 in maintenance costs.  Only to lay out another $380,000 again in 8-10 years.  According to FieldTurf, if you use one of their competitors, that field would take $10,000 a year to maintain.  So if a district were to use one of the competitors, they would enjoy a $10,000 savings on maintenance a years.  So if one of those fields lives to its maximum (8 years), the school district saves a total of $80,000 in maintenance costs over the life of the turf, only to lay out at least $320,000 in another 8 years.  Just for fairness, let's include the materials for the grass field, which FieldTurf estimates at $220,000, as savings as well, since there will need to be periodic resodding for the grass field.

Now, we have heard a whole bunch about monetary benefits that the district could gain by installing artificial turf.  Well, even oldschool acknowledged that location is a big challenge and with WO-S being one of the, if not the, most eastern school in the State of Texas that any sort of playoff rental would be rare, if at all.  Heck, Hardin, which has turf and a reasonable location given its western location in this part of the area, has been able to manage ONE playoff game since it installed turf.  So the idea of rental from playoff is just about out the window.  Then we hear about the idea of renting to youth football.  Well, specific to West Orange-Stark, let's play some Jeopardy. 

Todd: Alex, I will take football fields in Orange for $500. 

Alex: The answer....The entity that owns both of the regulation size football fields in Orange and West Orange.  Yes, Todd!

Todd: What is the West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District?

Alex: Correct, please pick again.

This little exercise, silly as it was, is to let you know that WO-S already gets whatever rentals from whatever youth football is played in Orange (if indeed any of the Youth teams actually play in Orange).  So the increase in revenue for the district would be....well...$0.

So we are now back at the district outlaying anywhere from $640,000 to $700,000 for either $350,000 in decreased cost of maintenance and materials over 10 years in the case of FieldTurf or $340,000 in decreased cost of maintenance and materials over 8 years.  All with the certainty of another payout of at least another $320,000 to $340,000 8 to 10 years from now and the possibility of increased revenue due to turf renovations being negligible, at best.  We all have mentioned what we thought Hillary or Bernie would think.  But I wonder what Donald would think.  Mr. Trump, if one of your subordinates sign off on this deal for one of your companies, what would you tell them?

Yeah me, too, Mr. Trump.

I can't come on here and say that laying artificial turf is cost prohibitive as we have seen districts in this area pull it off, but the cost question is not the no-brainer that some would like us to believe.  That is why I rankle when folks want to come on here and call this area backwards or stuck in the past simply because there is grass on their field and not artificial turf.  To do so reminds me or a small child that throws a tantrum and proclaims that their parents don't love him because he didn't get the latest, hottest toy.

I hope that most, if not all, of the school districts in Southeast Texas find the means to purchase artificial turf fields for their stadiums by the time we are in the 2020's.  But if that does not happen, I certainly won't belittle them as some folks here have been prone to do.

 

I never said turf should be a priority. I said that those schools who have had it installed have made it one.

I've also said you don't need it to win, and of course schools would rather have a state championship over turf.

 

My question is: Why not both?

[WTB]

The reason why you see a higher number of schools with turf or indoor facilities go deeper in the playoffs have more to do with the fact that athletics is important at that school and is invested in. Usually these schools pay better which gets better coaches. Better coaches get more investment from the players which leads to better results on the field. Now Indoor facilities probably have more to do with success than turf does due to the fact that you will never miss a practice due to bad weather and you wont lose your legs in August and September. Turf over time does pay for itself. There is that argument also which is legitimate. SETX is behind the times when it comes to facilities in general. Heck take a drive up to mid to north east texas and you will see a bunch of small schools with turf. Go to Texasbob.com if you dont believe me.  

[WOSgrad]

10 hours ago, The Icon said:

I never said turf should be a priority. I said that those schools who have had it installed have made it one.

I've also said you don't need it to win, and of course schools would rather have a state championship over turf.

 

My question is: Why not both?

If you can have both, great!  It has been noted some that have both. 

My point is that, no matter how you spin it, this is an expense and a pretty darned significant one.  One that the various boards of trustees have to examine and examine closely to see if their school districts can absorb such an expense.  Those that have examined the expense and have determined that they can absorb it do deserve kudos.  At the same time, those that have examined the expense and have determined that they can not at this time do not deserve our scorn and to me labeling a school district as "behind the times" (as many posts have done, as well as the guest who chooses to waste my time with reports rather than registering and posting) or "unappreciative of its athletes" or saying that a district hasn't made such an expenditure a priority qualifies as such.

[MossHill]

No cheddar in Orange, Texas. But, Football is king. I'm cool with that.

[WOSgrad]

1 hour ago, RayJr said:

No cheddar in Orange, Texas. But, Football is king. I'm cool with that.

You have no choice but to be cool with that.

[The Icon]

2 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

If you can have both, great!  It has been noted some that have both. 

My point is that, no matter how you spin it, this is an expense and a pretty darned significant one.  One that the various boards of trustees have to examine and examine closely to see if their school districts can absorb such an expense.  Those that have examined the expense and have determined that they can absorb it do deserve kudos.  At the same time, those that have examined the expense and have determined that they can not at this time do not deserve our scorn and to me labeling a school district as "behind the times" (as many posts have done, as well as the guest who chooses to waste my time with reports rather than registering and posting) or "unappreciative of its athletes" or saying that a district hasn't made such an expenditure a priority qualifies as such.

I hear you grad