ADVERTISEMENT

Turf fields?

VolNation85

VaPreps All District
Nov 29, 2013
2,586
2,348
113
I know a lot (maybe most) schools in the larger divisions (4A-6A) have turf fields. Curious what 2A schools play on turf fields?
 
Graham high school plays on Bluefield college turf field, for now. I believe they planning to build thier own stadium.
Galax High School 1a had turf installed last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNation85
Graham high school plays on Bluefield college turf field, for now. I believe they planning to build thier own stadium.
Galax High School 1a had turf installed last year.

Graham plays at Mitchell Stadium, which is a municipal stadium owned by the city of Bluefield, WV.

Graham High, Bluefield High (WV), & Bluefield College(VA) all pay a hefty fee each year to rent the stadium.

Bluefield High & Graham have been playing their games there for decades. Bluefield College just started their football program back about 7-8 years ago. Before that the last time they played football was 1942.

There are preliminary plans for the town of Bluefield, VA to pay 6 million dollars to build Graham their own stadium with a turf field in the next two years.
 
Poquoson has a turf field...personally, I think football should be played on grass, but do understand why so many schools resort to turf.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNation85
Poquoson has a turf field...personally, I think football should be played on grass, but do understand why so many schools resort to turf.
I use to be a traditionalist too and say that football should be played outdoors and on grass but now, I'm definitely in favor of turf. Turf is far less costly and less maintenance long term. But that turn should be outdoors. None of that pansy indoor football that some NFL teams play.
 
I use to be a traditionalist too and say that football should be played outdoors and on grass but now, I'm definitely in favor of turf. Turf is far less costly and less maintenance long term. But that turn should be outdoors. None of that pansy indoor football that some NFL teams play.

Teams like Detroit and Minnesota sacrificed a HUGE home field advantage when they went from outdoor stadiums to domes. I dont think it is any coincidence that Minnesota hasnt returned to a Super Bowl since going indoors.

Am I in the minority when I say that most of the new NFL stadiums look like crap now? One in particular being San Frans new digs. It's so...cookie-cutter. I prefer the bowl shaped stadiums like Green Bay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNation85
I use to be a traditionalist too and say that football should be played outdoors and on grass but now, I'm definitely in favor of turf. Turf is far less costly and less maintenance long term. But that turn should be outdoors. None of that pansy indoor football that some NFL teams play.
How are the maintenance cost less? I've heard that but it seems to me that you could buy a lot of grass seed for a million $. And don't you have to replace a big part of the field every 10 years or so?
 
Ridgeview is a newer school? right? they have only been around no more than 5 years correct? If so....Who paid for the facilities to be so nice? City, town, community?
Army corp of engineers.

This should explain the backstory...http://www.thecoalfieldprogress.com...cle_5231478d-0456-5cb5-b540-8d1f385ef0a8.html

This was the open house with pictures...https://www.heraldcourier.com/news/...db734dd4-3d7e-11e5-ae0b-dbcc9b3b6812.amp.html

More pics... https://www.heraldcourier.com/ridgeview-high-school/image_2062c742-3d59-11e5-90a1-67fee8cf0cd7.html

It's absolutely stunning in person!
 
How are the maintenance cost less? I've heard that but it seems to me that you could buy a lot of grass seed for a million $. And don't you have to replace a big part of the field every 10 years or so?
The maintenance cost are less because there is no maintenance cost, literally. You literally don’t have to do anything to upkeep a turf field.
 
How are the maintenance cost less? I've heard that but it seems to me that you could buy a lot of grass seed for a million $. And don't you have to replace a big part of the field every 10 years or so?

The maintenance cost are less because there is no maintenance cost, literally. You literally don’t have to do anything to upkeep a turf field.

One of many I'm sure, and other studies may have opposite conclusions...
https://www.safehealthyplayingfields.org/cost-grass-vs-synthetic-turf/
 
Turf costs more, both to install and maintenance as it must be replaced every few years.
 
Surely with a town like Big Stone Gap that’s Hungry for football, y’all could find a donor like Richlands and Honaker did lol.
Yea, supposedly it's been offered and turned down. I guess we like grass. Lol
 
For someone who helps paint the field weekly I can say having turf would be nice. But at the same time the field looks much "cleaner" with just the football lines on it rather then those and soccer.
Painting a field is a big job, thankfully we have a good group of guys and once the initial time is done it goes much faster.
 
Getting the Turf at Galax was very much needed. With the limited space on campus it caused the field to be over used. The tea. Had to practice on the field everyday as well as playing on it. The band practiced every day on it. Then there is soccer that wore it out more than the rest. So the grass field never had a chance to recoup.
They was smart in the soccer lines as they are a light shaded grey and do not show up very bright.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MT FAN 91
Getting the Turf at Galax was very much needed. With the limited space on campus it caused the field to be over used. The tea. Had to practice on the field everyday as well as playing on it. The band practiced every day on it. Then there is soccer that wore it out more than the rest. So the grass field never had a chance to recoup.
They was smart in the soccer lines as they are a light shaded grey and do not show up very bright.
That doesn’t seem very fair to the soccer kids who are just as successful at Galax lol. Their lines are lighter which sucks for them.
 
The idea that a soccer team tears a field up is laughable. I have heard it for years, and there is NO proof to support this. However, I like Galax field now, and most of the players are used to turf. Nearly every real soccer complex is turf anyway with god only knows how many and what colored lines. (We had one lined for soccer, football, lacrosse, QUIDDITCH, and something I still haven't figured out this fall)
I like turf from a coaches stand point, but if not well maintained it can be a nightmare surface that hurts more than helps. (Coonskin Park in WV)
 
The idea that a soccer team tears a field up is laughable. I have heard it for years, and there is NO proof to support this. However, I like Galax field now, and most of the players are used to turf. Nearly every real soccer complex is turf anyway with god only knows how many and what colored lines. (We had one lined for soccer, football, lacrosse, QUIDDITCH, and something I still haven't figured out this fall)
I like turf from a coaches stand point, but if not well maintained it can be a nightmare surface that hurts more than helps. (Coonskin Park in WV)

Every grass field I've ever seen in the spring has two dirt patches right where the goal keeper stands. Some worse than others but other than college fields which are extremely well kept, every HS and below field that soccer is played on is worn in those spots. Same as a football field gets worn between the hashes. Nothing against either but people in cleats and high traffic do wear out the grass over time
 
The argument that artificial turf saves maintenance costs is laughable, especially when you consider that is has to be replaced at least every ten years, so right there the cost is $100,000 per year in depreciation even if it doesn't cost a nickel to maintain it. Also, if the school district folds the cost into a bond somewhere, and most do, that's at least $50,000 in interest and much more for years to come until the bond is paid. I don't think all the mowing, lining, seeding etc. is even a small fraction of that. Third, is it a priority over the true mission of the school to educate. If not then there are some serious opportunity costs to consider. The only thing that would convince me, if I were a decision maker would be whether or not it would increase attendance and would the pride taken in a nicer field produce a better team effort and greater community pride. Those are the intangible benefits you cannot measure easily in terms of dollars but where the payoff really is.

Having said that, it looks like Glenvar may be going that route soon as all the other schools have it already in the district.
 
The argument that artificial turf saves maintenance costs is laughable, especially when you consider that is has to be replaced at least every ten years, so right there the cost is $100,000 per year in depreciation even if it doesn't cost a nickel to maintain it. Also, if the school district folds the cost into a bond somewhere, and most do, that's at least $50,000 in interest and much more for years to come until the bond is paid. I don't think all the mowing, lining, seeding etc. is even a small fraction of that. Third, is it a priority over the true mission of the school to educate. If not then there are some serious opportunity costs to consider. The only thing that would convince me, if I were a decision maker would be whether or not it would increase attendance and would the pride taken in a nicer field produce a better team effort and greater community pride. Those are the intangible benefits you cannot measure easily in terms of dollars but where the payoff really is.

Having said that, it looks like Glenvar may be going that route soon as all the other schools have it already in the district.
I agree, I don't see how the cost for artificial turf is less over the long haul. I'd be shocked if anyone spent more than $100,000 maintaining a natural grass field over 10 years.
 
I think it is more a convenience thing. You don't have to worry about putting lines on the field every week. You don't need to worry about whether it is too wet to play on. It is ready to go. Multi-sport use. All that being said, I prefer grass fields.
 
I agree, I don't see how the cost for artificial turf is less over the long haul. I'd be shocked if anyone spent more than $100,000 maintaining a natural grass field over 10 years.
Most stadiums have grass that has to be mowed in and around the stadium area anyway and with the new, bigger mowers that can turn on a dime and have the power to mow very quickly, I don't see it costing much either when compared to turf.
 
Every grass field I've ever seen in the spring has two dirt patches right where the goal keeper stands. Some worse than others but other than college fields which are extremely well kept, every HS and below field that soccer is played on is worn in those spots. Same as a football field gets worn between the hashes. Nothing against either but people in cleats and high traffic do wear out the grass over time

I will agree that there is usually a patch in each end zone for the keepers...I overlook that small spot as the football teams I support so rarely get there. The PAT spot is the worst. On some fields it is a literal hole now.
 
The idea that a soccer team tears a field up is laughable. I have heard it for years, and there is NO proof to support this. However, I like Galax field now, and most of the players are used to turf. Nearly every real soccer complex is turf anyway with god only knows how many and what colored lines. (We had one lined for soccer, football, lacrosse, QUIDDITCH, and something I still haven't figured out this fall)
I like turf from a coaches stand point, but if not well maintained it can be a nightmare surface that hurts more than helps. (Coonskin Park in WV)
I'll agree to disagree with you there. Ask some of the rec directors and see if soccer is not as bad or worse.
 
I think it is more a convenience thing. You don't have to worry about putting lines on the field every week. You don't need to worry about whether it is too wet to play on. It is ready to go. Multi-sport use. All that being said, I prefer grass fields.
I agree it's a convenience and that is a big selling point to the people and powers that be who have to do the work to prepare the field for every event...but it's a very expensive convenience...that is why I don't shop for my groceries at a convenience store...just isn't smart generally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tide17
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT