Jump to content

Silsbee running back returning to post

AggiesAreWe

By AggiesAreWe
in High School Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Maroon4

Maroon4

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Uncle Pig said:
49 minutes ago, Uncle Pig said:

Everyone needs turf. If anyone can give me a good reason not to have it I'd like to hear it 

Turf = more ACL injuries.... not saying the past conditions of our field have been good, but hopefully what has been done this summer will help. I am not upset at all about NOT having a turf field for football, baseball, or soccer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Uncle Pig

Uncle Pig

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Maroon4 said:

 

New turf is just like grass; no more injuries than on grass. Injuries on muddy grass fields are very common. Anyone that wouldn't rather have turf is clueless or is very blind to the benefits of it. Ask the Silsbee head coach if he'd like the field to be turfed. I can go ahead and answer that question for him 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOSgrad

WOSgrad

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, fishcat said:

It shure makes it nice. I was watching Jasper yesterday evening it was drizzling raining & didn't slow nothen down. Everyone was good & clean .

Oh, let me be clear. I'd love for EVERY school in the area to have it and I know that the coaches want it, too.  It is nice to be able to not having to worry about destroying the field in practice.

But it is up to the individual school district where such a field should lie in the list of priorities.  After all, I am sure that every area of a school district believe that "their" area should be the priority.  Coaches want turf for the field, but the fine arts department wants a new performing arts center, the band director wants a new band hall and better instruments, the computer department wants new and better computers and the teacher's association thinks that all of these priorities are crap and that the increase in salaries of teachers should be made "the" priority.

We get to focus on one priority on this board which is okay.  However, those that are on our respective boards of trustees do not have the luxury of such laser focus.  Slowly but surely, school districts are getting to the priority we long for and that will increase.  And schools like East Chambers, Lumberton, Crosby, Port Neches, Port Arthur and Beaumont, as well as Jasper, get props for making it work.  It is not like others haven't tried.  West Orange-Cove floated a bond issue at least once, and I think twice, and it was turned down by district voters.  In Nederland, they have said "no" twice to proposed bond issues that would have put turf on Bulldog Stadium.  These folks, much like the boards that set the bond issues for vote, have their own priorities.

We'll get there, just not as fast as any of us would like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldschool2

oldschool2

Posted
Posted

I can vividly remember arguing a few years ago that every school schould have turf.  I also remember catching a lot of resistance. Funny how attitudes change when area schools start slowly acquiring turf fields.  

By the way.  I really think that a vast majority of people don't realize the cost of maintaining a grass field over a 10 year period.  Water, paint, man hours to mow, etc..  Anyway.  Seems that more and more are finally catching on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ST413

ST413

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, oldschool2 said:

I can vividly remember arguing a few years ago that every school schould have turf.  I also remember catching a lot of resistance. Funny how attitudes change when area schools start slowly acquiring turf fields.  

By the way.  I really think that a vast majority of people don't realize the cost of maintaining a grass field over a 10 year period.  Water, paint, man hours to mow, etc..  Anyway.  Seems that more and more are finally catching on.

 I Don't know yearly costs for either but I do know that the initial cost for turf is way up there.  I would love to see us have turf in Silsbee but the students education is primary and if there are not enough extra funds for turf the unfortunately we must do without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOSgrad

WOSgrad

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, oldschool2 said:

I can vividly remember arguing a few years ago that every school schould have turf.  I also remember catching a lot of resistance. Funny how attitudes change when area schools start slowly acquiring turf fields.  

By the way.  I really think that a vast majority of people don't realize the cost of maintaining a grass field over a 10 year period.  Water, paint, man hours to mow, etc..  Anyway.  Seems that more and more are finally catching on.

Mmmmmmm, a couple of fallacies with this one.

First fallacy, the position of every school having turf was not what got the resistance.  It was the position that any school that didn't have artificial turf was bass ackwards and didn't give a damned about its athletic program.

You see, I seriously doubt that if you ask a school board member about the idea of their high school having turf fields, most, if not all, would not be opposed to the general idea of putting artificial turf in its stadium.  They might, however, be opposed to the cost.

Second fallacy, that once installed, these fields become assets. First, as ST413 correctly noted, is the initial outlay is the problem.  Searching online, I found a cost analysis from Field Turf, a company that installs the turf discussed here:

This is the hidden content, please
  Mind you, this comes from a company that is trying to convince you of the benefits.  Even they, in the very first sentence of their cost analysis admit that "The upfront cost is higher."  If you scroll down,you'll find out that the initial outlay is $330,000 higher ($700,000 for field turf vs. $370,000 for natural grass).  Only $300,000?  That doesn't appear to be that big of a problem, does it?  Welllllll, here's the problem, Silsbee ISD's Operating Budget for the 2016-17 school year (the year an expenditure for this season would have been authorized) already finds it operating at a deficit of $ -422,267.90. (Source:
This is the hidden content, please
  So, where is Silsbee ISD gonna get that extra 300 grand?

But they should try, right?  I mean, as the folks at Field Turf say "the cost savings over time make it a much more financially-sound decision."  But wait, even with the $150,000 maintenance cost savings over a 10 year period (only $50,000 over 10 years for field turf vs. $200,000 over 10 years for natural grass), the cost of Field Turf over the 10 year period is still deficit spending of $180,000. So this on cost, the field turf does not pay for itself.  And why is the analysis just over a 10 year period?  That is simple, that is the time period that is listed as the maximum turf life for field turf.  So that is right, ten years from now, it is quite likely that at least another $380,000 will be necessary to keep the turf field in good shape.

It is not opposition to the idea of field turf.  It is the inability to absorb the cost of such a venture that is the problem and it is a problem that neither the Silsbee ISD nor any other district that has a similar budget should be castigated for. 

Districts are starting to find ways to absorb the cost.  Hopefully more will find a way soon.  Until then, I will merely celebrate those that are able to do so and leave the name calling of those who can't to others.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silsbee92

Silsbee92

Posted
Posted

Field turf would be nice but having schools that aren't falling down around you are better.  

I'm no expert but when was the last time Lumberton built a new school? It may not been an issue but I do wonder.

Silsbee's High School is already 17 years old. Just finished the elementary school and the middle School is hanging in with some timely remodeling and upgrades.

I'll take the school first. Taxes that remain relatively unchanged and believe it or not, the grass field will be fine.

It sucks when it gets damaged but hey....

It's football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Silsbee92

Silsbee92

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ST413 said:

As much as I agree, I still feel it's a shame to have such a nice field with such a bad surface as it has been.  Poor decision originally on the location.  Too bad it couldn't have been built up by the pond.

Well I'm sure we can just pass a bond. Raise everyone's taxes. I'm sure that'll be fine.

Maybe Turf will come. It's just prob not gonna happen at this spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ST413

ST413

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Silsbee92 said:

Well I'm sure we can just pass a bond. Raise everyone's taxes. I'm sure that'll be fine.

Maybe Turf will come. It's just prob not gonna happen at this spot.

Not saying it should. I said I agree but that it is a shame.  Like I said poor decision as far as location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,202
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    CHSFalcon
    Newest Member
    CHSFalcon
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...