Western Buckeye League 2021
- Thread starter jonmoxon
- Start date
jonmoxon
Well-known member
Very similar to when Shawnee had Jon Carpenter quit in July.
Insane92
Location: South Jersey
And that was a nice season but since they have not been good at all.
Maple_City_Fan
Well-known member
If the Queen had b*lls, she'd be the King.
StateChampion2012
MAC Homer
1. You wouldn't have beaten New Bremen. Not to mention who has more titles? Wapak or JFK?
2. You would've been running clocked by Springfield. Their QB was and will be next year a Mr Football candidate and a D1 QB.
3. MAY I add that these JV teams have beaten Alter more times than you guys have.
Last edited:
CougarDad52
Active member
Looks like with some controversy, that Bath is wanting/getting field turf. Here is what some of my friends on social media are posting:
"
Bath Township Residents, be advised, the school board has approved the addition of a $675,000+ artificial turf football field for Bath High School (not including the substantial cost of installation), which was not announced to the public prior to the School Board meeting January 19, when the vote occurred. It will utilize an entire 2 years of the permanent improvement tax levy (5 year levy).
In addition, the artificial football field will need replaced every 10 years, utilizing even more funds.
According to a study completed by physician-researchers from University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University and UH Sports Medicine Institute: Overall, athletes are 58 percent more likely to sustain an injury during athletic activity on artificial turf, and even more likely during football and soccer; specifically an increased rate of ACL injury in football athletes playing on artificial turf compared to natural grass.
The only reasoning we have heard for this was the ability to attract state playoff games, but it seems athlete safety and financial considerations should be more important.
Both the middle and high school buildings have extensive needs, such as:
Multiple roof leaks, heating and air conditioning systems, electrical issues (possible fire hazards), and the football stadium itself, that is in disrepair.
Replacement of the middle and high school buildings does not appear at all likely in the next 10-15 years, considering the recent report from the Ohio Schools Facilities Commission. If we utilize 2/5 of the levy just for artificial turf, the other necessary building improvements will lack funding, directly affecting educational needs, and the students will suffer.
Residents, taxpayers, businesses, and parents, please consider voicing your opinion, sharing this message, and attending the school board meeting:
February 16, at 7 pm, in the middle school library. Enter through the administration building. Please come early, fill out a blue card."
"
Bath Township Residents, be advised, the school board has approved the addition of a $675,000+ artificial turf football field for Bath High School (not including the substantial cost of installation), which was not announced to the public prior to the School Board meeting January 19, when the vote occurred. It will utilize an entire 2 years of the permanent improvement tax levy (5 year levy).
In addition, the artificial football field will need replaced every 10 years, utilizing even more funds.
According to a study completed by physician-researchers from University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University and UH Sports Medicine Institute: Overall, athletes are 58 percent more likely to sustain an injury during athletic activity on artificial turf, and even more likely during football and soccer; specifically an increased rate of ACL injury in football athletes playing on artificial turf compared to natural grass.
The only reasoning we have heard for this was the ability to attract state playoff games, but it seems athlete safety and financial considerations should be more important.
Both the middle and high school buildings have extensive needs, such as:
Multiple roof leaks, heating and air conditioning systems, electrical issues (possible fire hazards), and the football stadium itself, that is in disrepair.
Replacement of the middle and high school buildings does not appear at all likely in the next 10-15 years, considering the recent report from the Ohio Schools Facilities Commission. If we utilize 2/5 of the levy just for artificial turf, the other necessary building improvements will lack funding, directly affecting educational needs, and the students will suffer.
Residents, taxpayers, businesses, and parents, please consider voicing your opinion, sharing this message, and attending the school board meeting:
February 16, at 7 pm, in the middle school library. Enter through the administration building. Please come early, fill out a blue card."
jonmoxon
Well-known member
Didn't Bath get their grass redone a few years ago by Maumee Bay Turf?
CougarDad52
Active member
Yep, I can tell their field always looks great. I was told that the reason they were doing this was to host playoff games.
Thavoice
Well-known member
We had a good discusson in the MAC thread about turf, money, etc as many places are left like Celina was with their baseball diamond. The initial $$ was donated, but when its time to replace the City looked at the Schools, the School looked at the Bryson Trust, etc.
Few years ago it leaked out Coldwater was looking at turf (in the midst of their big upgrades at the stadium) and it was told of how much $$$ it would save year year. Sure, the initial cost savings because you fund raise, but if you dont put back all that normal $$ you were using for the grass field you will be caught with your pants down in a decade when it needs replacet.
From OSUTURFMAN in the MAC forum a couple of weeks ago regarding Turf/Grass. He works for a company who does this stuff.
"There's still a considerable amount of maintenance to make a turf field safe and playable, certainly not as much as a grass field. That said, just like a grass field the relationship between usage and required maintenance is directly proportional.
Here's a cost breakdown for a total lifetime cost for both surfaces built right and properly maintained. After initial construction, there are two replacements for turf versus one full replacement for natural over the 21 year period shown here.
If communities would realize they can have an outstanding field for far less money while still fundraising at a high level the possibilities are endless. Who wants to buy something that wears out in 10 years when the alternative is building things like indoor training facilities, improve existing fields, or catching up on deferred maintenance? Bottom line is, the kids would be in a much better position to succeed with better overall fields/facilities.
This is coming from someone who works with both surfaces all day, every day. In my opinion, this one is pretty black and white as to why one makes sense over the other. It's a case by case basis though.
Few years ago it leaked out Coldwater was looking at turf (in the midst of their big upgrades at the stadium) and it was told of how much $$$ it would save year year. Sure, the initial cost savings because you fund raise, but if you dont put back all that normal $$ you were using for the grass field you will be caught with your pants down in a decade when it needs replacet.
From OSUTURFMAN in the MAC forum a couple of weeks ago regarding Turf/Grass. He works for a company who does this stuff.
"There's still a considerable amount of maintenance to make a turf field safe and playable, certainly not as much as a grass field. That said, just like a grass field the relationship between usage and required maintenance is directly proportional.
Here's a cost breakdown for a total lifetime cost for both surfaces built right and properly maintained. After initial construction, there are two replacements for turf versus one full replacement for natural over the 21 year period shown here.
If communities would realize they can have an outstanding field for far less money while still fundraising at a high level the possibilities are endless. Who wants to buy something that wears out in 10 years when the alternative is building things like indoor training facilities, improve existing fields, or catching up on deferred maintenance? Bottom line is, the kids would be in a much better position to succeed with better overall fields/facilities.
This is coming from someone who works with both surfaces all day, every day. In my opinion, this one is pretty black and white as to why one makes sense over the other. It's a case by case basis though.
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
With Lima Sr now again hosting playoff games how many would be available for Bath to even host. Because of Lima Sr being so close to 75 the game in most cases will go there first.
ghsknightsfan
love the Knights and Grey Ghosts!
come playoff season, they are always looking for places to host on greater MAC-land. Senior usually gets larger games. if Bath is a decent venue, it would get used.
FootballFan20
Moderated User
Gonna take a lot more than turf to upgrade the dump of a facility that is Bath. I definitely shower twice after going there!
Thavoice
Well-known member
What is the best case scenario of hosting playoff games?
Week 11: Unless they are a home team...
Week 12: Unless they are a home team with the new format
Week 13: Yes.
Week 14: Yes.
Week 15: HIGHLY unlikely.
Week 16: Nope.
If LB does become a playoff team and make it to week 13/14 they likely are not hosting a night they would possibly play.
How is the narrative up there with how much $$ it would bring in?
Facility/school itself does not get much out of it.
However, school groups can make some $$ on concessions and parking. State touts program sales, but I dont think i have ever purchased a program in the playoffs outside of MAYBE the finals.
I think schools and booster groups need to be more upfront and honest about the reason in getting turf, and $$ generally is NOT one of those reasons.
Their current press box alone would be a reason to not host playoff games no matter how nice the field surface is or what it’s made of.
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
Only if MAC school is playing a school north of them if not then it is Wapak or Piqua. But if school too far north then game in Findlay. Plus SR has hosted a lot of MAC play-off games though the year.
I think it is great if they want to put in turf but saying it to host a play-off game or two a year is not good reason.
You can't attract playoff games with field turf if your locker rooms and overall facility belong in the BVC. That's like opening a subdivision in the middle of a trailer park and thinking it will attract interest in the subdivision. Lima Sr and Allen East are both much better overall host sites for playoff games due to their superior athletic complex. If Bath went through a total face lift then I would give them an edge because they have a lot of parking space and easy access off of 75. I can't think of single aspect of the Bath athletic facility that doesn't need bulldozed.
FootballFan20
Moderated User
They did a few years ago, but it’s still the worst facility in the WBL
SM ROUGHRIDER
New member
If Bath got turf, it would make it one of the better places to play in the WBL. St. Marys, Wapak, Defiance all have great facilities.
St Marys, Wapak, and Defiance stadiums really are top notch in the WBL. I like Van Wert and Celina's for their character. The rest are kinda average in my opinion. I mean Kenton's stadium is alright, so is O-G's. The Allen County schools are kind of the most forgettable. Bath for the reasons mentioned, but I'd also say Shawnee's isn't impressive considering their athletic programs top to bottom are one of the best in the league.
I always felt cramped at Elida. Like they found a random field and squeezed it in. Shawnee isn't terrible, wouldn't call it great. I haven't been to St. Marys new stadium and somehow have never made it to Celina.
In. School I HATED Van Wert's, but that old thing grew on me. The wall adds character and it's definitely that old school feel. Always loved Skip Baughman for the old school feel too.
O-G is ok for what it is. A small stadium in a small town for a small school. It serves it's purpose.
But I'm biased. I'm missing Friday nights in Fred J Brown Stadium.
In. School I HATED Van Wert's, but that old thing grew on me. The wall adds character and it's definitely that old school feel. Always loved Skip Baughman for the old school feel too.
O-G is ok for what it is. A small stadium in a small town for a small school. It serves it's purpose.
But I'm biased. I'm missing Friday nights in Fred J Brown Stadium.
BirdDog10
Well-known member
I watched Grove play Fairview at Defiance this year and man, I never realized before how small and spread out the visitors bleachers were. I can understand why they don't need a larger visitors side, I can't imagine they regularly need the extra capacity for regular season league games with the travel distance, but for playoff games it's the only letdown to the stadium, the rest of it is incredible. Double the visitors capacity and it's one of the best stadiums in Northwest Ohio
Field turf doesn't necessarily improve the quality of a schools football field. What separates the good from the bad is the whole complex. Everything from stands, locker rooms, lights, scoreboard, press box, etc. I also think the schools without a track have a much better environment for players and fans. Top facilities in the WBL are...
Wapak, Defiance, St Mary's, Celina.
Everyone else is arguably tied for the next spot with Bath and Shawnee with the overall worst places to play or watch a game.
Wapak, Defiance, St Mary's, Celina.
Everyone else is arguably tied for the next spot with Bath and Shawnee with the overall worst places to play or watch a game.
Insane92
Location: South Jersey
Agree but I will replace Celina's field with OG. Never been a fan of Celina's complex.
BirdDog10
Well-known member
Why does it seem like most of the WBL doesn't care for Elida's field? Yes, their bleachers could use updated, but I've always thought the facility as a whole is very nice and well maintained, especially since the area between the football field and fieldhouse was redone. No, they don't have turf, but every time I have seen it the grass is in fantastic shape, and I like the close atmosphere without the track and bleachers close to the field around 3/4 of it.
Totally agree, it's especially noticeable and bad for the Napoleon games on Thursdays. Always been the one drawback to the stadium.
SM ROUGHRIDER
New member
I'm excited for the season. I am hoping the Riders can rebound after an up and down season. I love the job coach Frye is doing he is no nonsense and gets the most of his players. Definitely something you don't see in today's soft society.