Silsbee running back returning to post

[L-Train11]

2 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

Adonis Thomas doesn't need artificial turf.....he could gain 1,000 if the field was gravel.

Exactly... people have been doing it for years. Although I love our turf, it's not that necessary.

[ST413]

3 hours ago, WOSgrad said:

Adonis Thomas doesn't need artificial turf.....he could gain 1,000 if the field was gravel.

Definitely,  Adonis won't have the footing problems that a slashing RB might experience.  Calvin adjusted to it last year and did quite well, I believe.

[oldschool2]

On 8/11/2017 at 7:35 PM, WOSgrad said:

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

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

  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

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

  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.

 

 

Well...first off I didn't say that every school that didn't have a turf field was "bass ackwards and didn't give a damned about its athletic program".  I probably most certainly implied that schools with nice facilities set a certain level of importance to their program.  I think that most schools in the area are of the opinion that their field is "good enough".  I know that having a turf field doesn't make you an automatic winner.  But it is a draw.  Facilities is just another reason for a family to want their child to attend a certain school.  Which could have benefits. Obviously.  

And no.  I didn't select 10 years as an example because of average longevity of a turf field.  I used it because it's just a nice, even, relevant number.  But honestly your money breakdown makes my argument look even better.  No...300K is NOT that much money for a turf field.  Yeah maybe it won't literally pay for itself but knowing the cost of maintaining a grass field makes it a lot more attractive.  Plus you're forgetting the fact that you can make revenue off of it via hosting playoff games and such.  Maybe not enough to make up the difference but every little bit helps.

As far as Silsbee's operating cost.  I have no idea.  But there does have to be a way because a lot of schools find the way to get it done.  Maybe Silsbee is top heavy.  Most schools around here are (seemingly) spending a ton of money on administration.  I don't know.  But like I said...schools are finding a way to do it yearly.  So it's not impossible.