The future of grass fields

[Otto]

No he's not. And anyone who thinks it's negative is a numb nut. Just because we're not a certain level yet doesn't mean we can't have nice things. Get lost.

Get lost? LOL. Ok, tough guy. Hope you still have that attitude when you guys go 2-8 again this year. Or when Oak Hill sends you back to reality and puts another 53-0 whuppin' on your team.

[bfry]

No he's not. And anyone who thinks it's negative is a numb nut. Just because we're not a certain level yet doesn't mean we can't have nice things. Get lost.

Get lost? LOL. Ok, tough guy. Hope you still have that attitude when you guys go 2-8 again this year. Or when Oak Hill sends you back to reality and puts another 53-0 whuppin' on your team.

[bfry]

I actually use my name when I post. I'm not hard to find.

[noreply66]

Now back to the topic and nothing but the topic.

[bfry]

Now back to the topic and nothing but the topic.
[/Q

[bfry]

Now back to the topic and nothing but the topic.

Roger that. I tried.

[4thgoal]

Each and every one of those 19 NFL franchises have the ability and means (the capital) to make a consistent, multi-seasonal and even weekly commitment toward the preservation, well-keeping and integrity of their natural grass playing surface.

The average southern Ohio district, or really any public school district in general, on the other hand does not. Combine that with the fact many districts utilize their football fields for multiple various purposes, it serves to make sense that school districts at least consider the prospect of going to artificial turf.

Exactly! Without a dedicated field maintenance crew and budget for them, keeping grass fields in good condition with football, boys soccer and girls soccer playing on them is a tough proposition in this part of the country. We always get some bad weather near the middle of the season and one Friday night played in the rain will make a field nearly ruined for the remainder of the season. Our schools don't have the means to bring in new sod each time the field gets damaged.

[Mad-Dogg]

Piketons field is fine, walked on it today with others to go over maintenance and cleaning of the field. Track being put down real soon, followed by visitors bleachers. Field house construction will start soon.

[img]https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=5D98FF32[\img]

That's bad ass

[Mad-Dogg]

And they are getting an updated weight room and indoor practice facility for all sports.

Correct. New weight room, locker rooms for football, soccer and track and field. Indoor turfed practice area with retractable batting cages. Turf field along with new press box and scoreboard. Extending home stands and including handicap accessible seating. Adding visitor stands. New ticket booth, concession and restrooms. Walk way to visitor side. Retaining wall on inside of front straight of track.

For a program that will still be lucky to win 3 games a yr. Maybe

[wobycat]

I understand the opinion of getting a new coach but I’m not sure that cost money just better searches. New facilities for northwest’s out door sports are much needed.

[Orange and Brown]

And they are getting an updated weight room and indoor practice facility for all sports.

Correct. New weight room, locker rooms for football, soccer and track and field. Indoor turfed practice area with retractable batting cages. Turf field along with new press box and scoreboard. Extending home stands and including handicap accessible seating. Adding visitor stands. New ticket booth, concession and restrooms. Walk way to visitor side. Retaining wall on inside of front straight of track.

For a program that will still be lucky to win 3 games a yr. Maybe

Clearly those student Athletes don't deserve nice facilities because they won't win enough games...........

[noreply66]

And they are getting an updated weight room and indoor practice facility for all sports.

Correct. New weight room, locker rooms for football, soccer and track and field. Indoor turfed practice area with retractable batting cages. Turf field along with new press box and scoreboard. Extending home stands and including handicap accessible seating. Adding visitor stands. New ticket booth, concession and restrooms. Walk way to visitor side. Retaining wall on inside of front straight of track.

For a program that will still be lucky to win 3 games a yr. Maybe

[Kicker.]

some of the worst facilities it needs it regardless of the outcome in the field

[sapientia et veritas]

It tells me something when someone honestly believes that getting a turf field makes their team better at football. You can worship turf all you want, but it won't get you more wins or into the playoffs.

Do player injuries hamper a teams ability to win games and make the playoffs? I would assert that having starters injured is the one of the ways to lose games you shouldn't, and that is true at all levels.

Can the conditions of a playing surface increase/decrease the incidence of player injuries? I would say that the scientific and anecdotal evidence indicates that it does.

It's tremendously expensive to maintain a high quality, consistent grass playing surface. At the NFL/NCAA level, scientific studies show that incidence of injury on grass is lower than turf, so the investment is worth it. The difference in injury rate at that level lessens as the artificial surface gets more modern - ie. FieldTurf.

Is there any high school in the state capable of maintaining a consistent natural playing surface that comes close to what NFL/NCAA organizations can? In addition to budget, aren't those organizations also maintaining single sport, single season, non-practice facilities?

It's completely different in high school. High schools can't afford nearly immaculate grass fields. What they end up with is a clumpy, uneven playing surface pocked with bare spots and holes along with a temptation by "slow" schools to even team speed differential by over-watering and not mowing the grass. They get fields that are full of mud and loose grass after heavy rains, and fields that are frozen hard later in the season. They get fields that are completely shredded when the field is shared with other sports - soccer and field hockey in the fall. I would assert that all of this contributes to an increase in the risks of injuries far beyond what they'd have with a decent artificial surface.

I would assert that, for high school, turf fields definitely reduce injuries compared to poorly maintained grass fields. And that makes a difference in winning and losing.

[Otto]

It tells me something when someone honestly believes that getting a turf field makes their team better at football. You can worship turf all you want, but it won't get you more wins or into the playoffs.

Do player injuries hamper a teams ability to win games and make the playoffs? I would assert that having starters injured is the one of the ways to lose games you shouldn't, and that is true at all levels.

Can the conditions of a playing surface increase/decrease the incidence of player injuries? I would say that the scientific and anecdotal evidence indicates that it does.

It's tremendously expensive to maintain a high quality, consistent grass playing surface. At the NFL/NCAA level, scientific studies show that incidence of injury on grass is lower than turf, so the investment is worth it. The difference in injury rate at that level lessens as the artificial surface gets more modern - ie. FieldTurf.

Is there any high school in the state capable of maintaining a consistent natural playing surface that comes close to what NFL/NCAA organizations can? In addition to budget, aren't those organizations also maintaining single sport, single season, non-practice facilities?

It's completely different in high school. High schools can't afford nearly immaculate grass fields. What they end up with is a clumpy, uneven playing surface pocked with bare spots and holes along with a temptation by "slow" schools to even team speed differential by over-watering and not mowing the grass. They get fields that are full of mud and loose grass after heavy rains, and fields that are frozen hard later in the season. They get fields that are completely shredded when the field is shared with other sports - soccer and field hockey in the fall. I would assert that all of this contributes to an increase in the risks of injuries far beyond what they'd have with a decent artificial surface.

I would assert that, for high school, turf fields definitely reduce injuries compared to poorly maintained grass fields. And that makes a difference in winning and losing.

Maybe. But even then it is a minimal advantage at best in preventing injury. Players get injured on fieldturf too, football is not a game where you can eliminate injuries. Freak injuries can happen anywhere, linemen get ankles rolled up on same as grass fields. Even if they played on pillows there would still be concussions, knee and leg injuries.

What gets me is that people don't understand the value. Spend that same money on finding and hiring a proven head coach/staff, and you will get better results. But people seem too satisfied with aesthetics and new things.

What would you spend your money on? Sapientia, everyone knows you are a Hartley supporter. Let's say your school had an old field and dated facilities (they don't, but let's pretend). Would you trade your coach Burchfield for a brand new field and new facilities? I highly doubt it. Because having a quality coach who can shape your program is more important when it comes to winning. A good coach can completely turn a program around.

[Beergogglebluez]

I would love to see Fairland get a turf field. Proctorville seems to be a growing area. Hope they get upgrades in the future.

[Orange and Brown]

It tells me something when someone honestly believes that getting a turf field makes their team better at football. You can worship turf all you want, but it won't get you more wins or into the playoffs.

Do player injuries hamper a teams ability to win games and make the playoffs? I would assert that having starters injured is the one of the ways to lose games you shouldn't, and that is true at all levels.

Can the conditions of a playing surface increase/decrease the incidence of player injuries? I would say that the scientific and anecdotal evidence indicates that it does.

It's tremendously expensive to maintain a high quality, consistent grass playing surface. At the NFL/NCAA level, scientific studies show that incidence of injury on grass is lower than turf, so the investment is worth it. The difference in injury rate at that level lessens as the artificial surface gets more modern - ie. FieldTurf.

Is there any high school in the state capable of maintaining a consistent natural playing surface that comes close to what NFL/NCAA organizations can? In addition to budget, aren't those organizations also maintaining single sport, single season, non-practice facilities?

It's completely different in high school. High schools can't afford nearly immaculate grass fields. What they end up with is a clumpy, uneven playing surface pocked with bare spots and holes along with a temptation by "slow" schools to even team speed differential by over-watering and not mowing the grass. They get fields that are full of mud and loose grass after heavy rains, and fields that are frozen hard later in the season. They get fields that are completely shredded when the field is shared with other sports - soccer and field hockey in the fall. I would assert that all of this contributes to an increase in the risks of injuries far beyond what they'd have with a decent artificial surface.

I would assert that, for high school, turf fields definitely reduce injuries compared to poorly maintained grass fields. And that makes a difference in winning and losing.

Maybe. But even then it is a minimal advantage at best in preventing injury. Players get injured on fieldturf too, football is not a game where you can eliminate injuries. Freak injuries can happen anywhere, linemen get ankles rolled up on same as grass fields. Even if they played on pillows there would still be concussions, knee and leg injuries.

What gets me is that people don't understand the value. Spend that same money on finding and hiring a proven head coach/staff, and you will get better results. But people seem too satisfied with aesthetics and new things.

What would you spend your money on? Sapientia, everyone knows you are a Hartley supporter. Let's say your school had an old field and dated facilities (they don't, but let's pretend). Would you trade your coach Burchfield for a brand new field and new facilities? I highly doubt it. Because having a quality coach who can shape your program is more important when it comes to winning. A good coach can completely turn a program around.

Considering that coaches are supplemental positions your point is well..... Pointless

[sapientia et veritas]

Maybe. But even then it is a minimal advantage at best in preventing injury. Players get injured on fieldturf too, football is not a game where you can eliminate injuries.

I was talking about reducing, not eliminating.

What gets me is that people don't understand the value. Spend that same money on finding and hiring a proven head coach/staff, and you will get better results.

I agree completely. One way that the public schools are hamstrung on athletics is the fact that their boards of education tend to be pontificating politicians and expired educators. And sports isn't a priority. Most public schools will not actively recruit a successful football coach because of the optics - too much push back from communities (80% of families don't care about football), teachers, and other wonkish board members who want parity for the home economics department or whatever.

What would you spend your money on?

Both.

Sapientia, everyone knows you are a Hartley supporter. Let's say your school had an old field and dated facilities (they don't, but let's pretend).

It did in 2007 when my kid stepped in a hole in the field and ended up with a torn MCL.

Would you trade your coach Burchfield for a brand new field and new facilities?

When the search for a new coach started, it was to replace highly respected coach Dick Geyer who had coached football at Hartley for 27 years and had won a state championship. He was one of the most popular teachers in the school. Many in the community thought it wasn't necessary to make a change. We'd been through a long talent drought with only two all-state players in the 00's, so the record was justified to a lot of folks.

I highly doubt it. Because having a quality coach who can shape your program is more important when it comes to winning. A good coach can completely turn a program around.

Hartley football has been lucky enough to have three over the course of the school's history. And yes - it's more important than the field. The field is still important. Facilities indicate community support and that makes a difference to potential future students.

So yeah - I put my money on the field and facilities. We didn't do a special fundraiser to hire the coach. But I'd happily pay him a bonus. I'll ask him next Sunday at church what kind of scratch he thinks is fair, ha ha.

[Izladoom]

Northwest needed the new facilities no matter how many wins they get plus maybe it will help in getting a quality coach and kids will want to come out and play

[bfry]

Northwest needed the new facilities no matter how many wins they get plus maybe it will help in getting a quality coach and kids will want to come out and play

They have a quality coach and have averaged around 50 kids through June and July.