Doesn't O'Cath share a turf field with KWC?

I don't know if KWC's field is turf or grass ...

EKY: Shelby Valley

I fixed the count.

I don't know if KWC's field is turf or grass ...

 

Turf.

So, if my geography is accurate, the current turf fields are distributed like this:

 

NKY Area: 8

Lexington Area: 4

EKY Area: 5

Louisville Area: 3

 

Kind of interesting that there aren't more in the Louisville area. Do you think it's a matter of preference, or more of a monetary issue, because of the large central school system there?

 

I think it's almost always about the money, which is also the same reason why so few rural schools have installed turf. In the case of the Jefferson County publics, they could probably only install it at a small handful of schools, and that's a can of worms probably best left unopened.

 

BTW, several of the schools on the list can no longer be considered "new turf fields." Here's an item I stumbled across on the home page of Lex. Catholic, which has one of the oldest turf fields of any state high school:

 

Turf Renovation Project

The Joseph K. Ford Stadium turf is nearing the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced. Along with the turf, many of the outdoor facilities need to be improved. We need your help! For more information, please contact (omitted).

I think it's almost always about the money, which is also the same reason why so few rural schools have installed turf. In the case of the Jefferson County publics, they could probably only install it at a small handful of schools, and that's a can of worms probably best left unopened.

 

 

I think you are right, it is almost always about money. And with the proper analysis, the best money decision will be to go artificial. Add up the costs of maintaining a game field, practice field, other sports that can use it, personnel for mowing, treating, painting, machinery, fertilizer, supplies, game day paint, etc. over a typical 10-year life cycle, then turf is the best choice. Sometimes the assumption is that the six figure price tag makes it an elitist only purchase. Absolutely couldn't be farther from the truth. The smart money buy will always be properly installed artificial. Now we can argue tradition, footing, etc. in another thread.

I heard a rumor over the summer tht Pulaski will be getting turf to go with their new stadium after this season. They have made a fine field down here and I ma looking for to more progress.

I heard a rumor over the summer tht Pulaski will be getting turf to go with their new stadium after this season. They have made a fine field down here and I ma looking for to more progress.

 

You are right. If all goes according to plan, both Pulaski Co. and Southwestern will have turf fields for 2009.

I think it's almost always about the money, which is also the same reason why so few rural schools have installed turf. In the case of the Jefferson County publics, they could probably only install it at a small handful of schools, and that's a can of worms probably best left unopened.

 

BTW, several of the schools on the list can no longer be considered "new turf fields." Here's an item I stumbled across on the home page of Lex. Catholic, which has one of the oldest turf fields of any state high school:

 

 

 

When did Catholic install their turf?

When did Catholic install their turf?

 

1999. I'm thinking it was the first HS in the state to get turf, but I could be wrong. At the very least, it's one of the very oldest. This will be its 10th year, but that might not be a good gauge of the lifespan of a turf field because it probably gets more use than any rug in the state. Remember they play soccer, baseball and softball on it as well, and there are probably JV and middle school games in most of those sports as well, not to mention who-knows-how-many practices.

I think you are right, it is almost always about money. And with the proper analysis, the best money decision will be to go artificial. Add up the costs of maintaining a game field, practice field, other sports that can use it, personnel for mowing, treating, painting, machinery, fertilizer, supplies, game day paint, etc. over a typical 10-year life cycle, then turf is the best choice. Sometimes the assumption is that the six figure price tag makes it an elitist only purchase. Absolutely couldn't be farther from the truth. The smart money buy will always be properly installed artificial. Now we can argue tradition, footing, etc. in another thread.

 

More and more schools are starting to do that math and realizing they might be better off in the long run. I know of one that has had trouble getting a decent grass surface to take hold and is starting to realize it's not worth it to keep pouring money into the ground with no results. On the other hand, there will always be districts that won't be able to write that six-figure check without crippling the rest of their budget in any given year and wouldn't be able to switch to turf unless a big private donation came in.

I heard a rumor over the summer tht Pulaski will be getting turf to go with their new stadium after this season. They have made a fine field down here and I ma looking for to more progress.

 

If they've just put in such a fine field, which I'm sure didn't come cheap, why would they want to rip it up so soon? Sounds like they're either wasting money on what they've just installed or on what they're about to install.

More and more schools are starting to do that math and realizing they might be better off in the long run. I know of one that has had trouble getting a decent grass surface to take hold and is starting to realize it's not worth it to keep pouring money into the ground with no results. On the other hand, there will always be districts that won't be able to write that six-figure check without crippling the rest of their budget in any given year and wouldn't be able to switch to turf unless a big private donation came in.

 

The other thing that is factoring into some of this is the inability to have a consistent long range weather pattern. Take this week. Usually, the dog days or August are absolutely perfect to get that grass field in final shape for home games. It thickens up, gets ready to go. Right now, with no humidity, that just isn't happening. And heaven knows the inconsistency in the weather and grass growth patterns the last five years. It comes down not (IMO only), to a decision to write the check, but a decision to quite pouring money down a hole. In the end, the money is there for long range capital projects in almost every district. They are required to have certain amounts held in reserve. It just comes down to when to pull the trigger. Keep in mind, my feelings aren't about whether or not its a good surface, or plays even, anything like that. It's just about the dollars, and being able to maintain perhaps one grass field and one artificial, versus games fields and multiple practice fields and areas.

If they've just put in such a fine field, which I'm sure didn't come cheap, why would they want to rip it up so soon? Sounds like they're either wasting money on what they've just installed or on what they're about to install.

 

I wasn't talking about the grass itself, I guess next time I will be more specific. I was talking about the entire venue, although this is best the grass has looked on PC field in quite some time. They have built a very nice place to watch football - at least for our fans anyway. We have some work yet to do on the visitors side, but overall, it is worlds better than what it was. I am sure the Admin at PC will do what needs to be done. :thumb:

Bryan Station has field turf now and Lafayette will get it next year.

How would crumb rubber fit into this?