Older worn out turf. I know some schools rent their turf and keep that money in a fund for replacement, but does not appear Massie has the funds for new turf at this point.
McSurley out at Clinton Massie
- Thread starter Irwin20
- Start date
Irwin20
Well-known member
They need to find a rich alumni.
CMorris_99
Well-known member
Good luck
Gamma Gobbler
Well-known member
I am a bit lost here. CM will play football next year, so they will have to pay a HC to do the job. What does it matter if he coaches at another school and coaches at CM? The HC stipend is still the same...right? If the Super is adamant they want him to remain as the HC, then it should be a no brainer to retain him. This is HS football and not like he is negotiating a million dollar contract. I am not educated or informed on the innerworkings of teacher/coaching salaries and stipends but something seems rotten here.
How does not renewing McSurley as a HC make sense in the budget?
Gamma Gobbler
Well-known member
In 2009 the Bengals and the NFL "Grassroots" program funded CM $200K for stadium/field upgrades and the CM boosters kicked in $400K. Over the life of the field, 10 years, it is almost 50% less to maintain a turf vs grass. This sounds like a kick the can down the road and bad financial management on CM part.
BeaverAchiever
Active member
He has not been non-renewed as HC, only his teaching contract has been. Ironically if he was not a retire-rehire he would probably have the seniority to bump someone else out in a reduction in force, or RIF, situation, depending on licenses he holds, etc.. Unfortunately, retire-rehires are the first to go in these situations. The only issue with teaching somewhere else would be logistics of the situation. It would be very difficult on anyone to teach an hour away and then coach a two hour practice.
WJ-OSU-STEELERS
Well-known member
Do you know how much it actually cost to maintain a grass field on a yearly basis? I do not, I’m just curious as to how much one saves with turf. Coming up with $400,00-$600,000 every 10 years is a big number. Turf obviously makes sense if you are using the field for multiple sports but I doubt if CM has lacross or field hockey.
Gamma Gobbler
Well-known member
Thanks but still not understanding why he would not be renewed as the HC. I apologize for making you bang your head against a wall trying to explain this but if the man is renewed as a teacher, what is the problem renewing him as a HC?
What is the cost savings for the district by not having him as a HC?
covidsucks
Moderated User
Your telling me the turf is going on 15 years and no one had the foresight to expect to replace it? That's just stupidity.
iveseenitall
ne nothi tere te
If he doesn't coach, it will be his decision because he wants to teach and coach, not just coach. Guessing he doesn't want to lose the connection with the kids in the school that showing up for just practice and games creates. Him not coaching football is not a cost savings measure. Him not teaching is.
ghsknightsfan
love the Knights and Grey Ghosts!
it sounds like they are cutting his teaching position. most coaches wouldn’t coach if they weren’t a teacher. hard to coach when you work a 9-5 rather than a 7:30-3. also hard to coach when they don’t teach in the building/district.
Raylan_Givens
Always right, unless I'm wrong
Way too many schools try the "after school coach". You don't need too many fingers to count how often that works.
cincifbfan
Well-known member
I'm with you. I have asked dozens of districts if they can provide proof of cost savings. Not a single one has done so. Also, not a single school was able to even ballpark how much it costs to maintain a grass field. I find it impossible to believe it is 40-60k a year.
And when people bring up the cost savings of turf, they always conveniently leave out the yearly required costs to properly maintain that field turf.... which adds up quite a bit..... Which is why many schools don't ever perform any of the yearly maintenance.
BeaverAchiever
Active member
No one is saying he has been non-renewed as HC. All indications are that they want him to return as coach.
Raylan_Givens
Always right, unless I'm wrong
Probably not the right thread to discuss this, but the question isn't turf vs grass. It's turf vs GOOD grass. If a school doesn't care then it is much cheaper to maintain grass. If you want to maintain a good field and have it available for multiple sports at multiple levels, then you probably want to go with turf.
If a school is only using their field for football, then it might be able to run it on the cheap. But then you're going to need somewhere for the other sports to play. And you should probably take care of those fields too.
Bottom line, very few schools have a custodian taking care of their fields these days. It's being hired out and that doesn't come cheap.
CMorris_99
Well-known member
As an older person that follows CM closely as I have had kids and grandkids go through there, I can remember when the turf went in. CM was supposed to save the yearly cost of the maintenance of the grass. Plus they cut some maintenance positions that year and were supposed to save at least part of those salaries. I would think that saving both of those would add up to enough over 10+ years to replace it. Not sure that was done properly.
also, CM has soccer, lacrosse, youth and Jr high football all played on the turf. On top of that it is rented out pretty regularly to club soccer and other organizations as a practice or game facility.
also, CM has soccer, lacrosse, youth and Jr high football all played on the turf. On top of that it is rented out pretty regularly to club soccer and other organizations as a practice or game facility.
cincifbfan
Well-known member
I still have yet to find any school that can provide proof of paying 60 grand to maintain their grass fields, even immaculate ones. That would be over 1100 a week in field maintenance..... That's not happening, especially when 4-5 months per year, the grass is dormant. If we figure that out, the cost is over 1800 per week while the grass actively needs maintenance. There's absolutely no way schools are spending that.
I agree that turf make sense for some schools, especially those with smaller campuses and that are landlocked. If that's not you, then it doesn't make much sense.
WJ-OSU-STEELERS
Well-known member
Based on your info it appears CM has a need & justification for using turf.
Now the questions are:
* was the yearly savings from field turn compared to grass kept back and put into a fund to pay for the new field turf in 10 years?
* was the $$$ generated from renting out the field fir youth soccer, field hockey, etc put into this account as well? Granted, I assume the cost to rent the field barely covers the electric bill but still, the process should be put in place.
I hope it all works out for the WJ alumn Coach McSurley, he’s earned the right to go out the way he wishes. CM fans, once he’s gone the winning just won’t continue on. It will be very difficult to maintain the level of excellence CM football has risen too. Enjoy it while Coach McSurley is still there.
Last edited:
Raylan_Givens
Always right, unless I'm wrong
I was always a grass guy, but your 2nd point is what turned the corner for me. Seeing schools that were able to expand the offerings to their kids & community by putting in turf made it a no-brainer for me.
That said, you do have to have a "plan" beyond simply covering the installation costs. But Ohio is a great place for turf as there are at least 3-4 installation companies in the state. Know folks that have worked with 2 of them and they laid out the cost structure for the initial install + maintenance + replacement up front.
As one guy who served on his schools turf committee said "If you could buy a car, know it would last you 10 years, know what it would cost for all maintenance along the way and then know that replacing it would be 60% of what the original cost was, wouldn't it be worth your time to get your money in line to do that?"
Now, if you installed turf and didn't do your homework . . . that definitely would be more expensive than simply rolling & cutting grass and painting lines.
Gamma Gobbler
Well-known member
I have done a lot of research on this and there aren't any hard fast facts about cost savings. The turf companies will maintain a 50% cost savings but those are based on college, multi sports and hours of activity.
From what I have gathered: a grass field, multi sport maintenance for HS is around $25K per year while a turf field is around $12-15K, if the school actually had annual maintenance performed. There is no getting around the maintenance and game prep of a grass field upkeep but the turf field maintenance can and probably does get kicked down the road. Assuming CM turf field was installed in 2009 and high end maintenance cost, the district would saved around $350K. without annual maintenance, but in reality it would be about 140K "cost avoidance" over the same time period. $10K per year.
cincifbfan
Well-known member
You are assuming a savings. The only time I ever see savings mentioned with field turf over natural grass is from the turf companies themselves.
What’s it really cost to maintain an athletic field?
Whether you are maintaining a professional, university field or a local soccer field because your daughter is on the team, it is difficult to get an accurate estimate of the costs to maintain an athletic field. From my experience, we tend to dramatically underestimate the actual cost of maintaining
turf.purdue.edu
While it's from 2010, a major D1 college spent less than 10k to maintain it's field. Even if that number is tripled to make up for inflation, you still are nowhere close to the numbers people throw out for natural grass.
Artificial Turf vs Natural Grass: Which is Best For Sports/Athletic Fields
Are you looking to replace your sports field but wondering if you should replace it with? See if artificial turf or natural grass is best for your field.
www.yellowstonelandscape.com
This is only a few years old, from 2021, and it shows that natural grass was less than 2000 more to maintain per year than field turf. That again was for NCAA D1 colleges. That doesn't justify 500,000 every 10 years to replace turf.
Until a school can actually prove cost savings, I'm out. And I used to be all in on turf 10-20 years ago.
Last edited:
cincifbfan
Well-known member
I'm with you on expanding the offerings. But many of these districts have multiple fields. Also, many communities have parks that have more fields than they know what to do with.
Again, it makes sense for some schools, but for most, it would be a definite no for me. My other issues with turf are the ridiculously high increase in injuries.... both lower extremity and the extremely high rate of concussions. Lastly, would be the rubber pellets they use. They are full of awful chemicals that the kids just breathe in the fumes from hours at a time. Those pellets are also all over their skin, mouths, etc. I'm sure there's going to be commercials in 30-40 years...... "If you played sports on turf fields with rubber pellets, you may be due financial compensation."
cincifbfan
Well-known member
Back to the topic, losing a coach like McSurley would be awful for any program. I love watching Clinton Massie play, and go out of my way to catch one of their games every year or two. Hopefully they can figure something out and keep him in the building.
Gamma Gobbler
Well-known member
PFOS and PFOA. The drinking water standards are lower than what is being detected in the turfs.
cincifbfan
Well-known member
If you say so.
Gamma Gobbler
Well-known member
Yes...Back to topic. I have a hard time imaging a CM team in that smash mouth wishbone and gritty defense without him. There is a culture at CM and that to me seems to start with the MAN.
CMorris_99
Well-known member
IMO this whole situation with the facility and coach mcsurley has been the result of a mismanagement of funds and the lack of a willingness to pass a levy. One levy in 30+ years in this day and age is unheard of. Now that the straps got tightened by rising costs, every penny matters.
Casualobserver
Member
Gamma,
I am quite certain the district would love for him to continue coaching. (They have publicly said so). The problem is in compensation. The coaching stipend is a small portion of his compensation. Probably not compensatory for the effort considering the many many extra hours put in. The main form of compensation is his teaching salary. Assuming his teaching salary is average, that would be ~$62Kish per year. He has a pension (assuming ~70%) for and additional $45K per year. The coaching stipend Is probably only $6K-$7K. So his current arrangement he is ~$110K in income and doing something he loves for a district that loves him as well. Win/Win.
Take out the teaching salary and Why would he want to stay and put in all the effort for the relatively small coaching Stipend? I do not think there are many that would do that job for such little compensation without the additional and more significant teacher's pay.
I am sure the district will do what they can and McSurley is wise to not react and let it play out. I do not think anyone would expect Dan to do the head coaching job for 10% of what he is making now. It would be nice but not realistic and big kick in the balls to McSurley
With all due respect to the teacher/coach in question, he chose to retire. He is already getting compensated for the years he put in. Granted, it’s less than his teacher’s salary, but this is what he signed up for.
There is a damned good coach up this way that retired and works as a sub teacher while retaining his head coaching duties.
Gamma Gobbler
Well-known member
I get what you are saying but facilities and coach are not equal. I take man over matter.
OMG, 30+ years is unheard but when the rubber meets the road it is the people that matter most.
Dude, I support you and the HC and pray for a beneifical outcome.
CM and Casualobserver, Thank you for those explanations and I think I am tracking now. God knows I hate the all mighty dollar and the politics that prints it but a man has to do what a man has to do for the benefit of his family.
I pray that CM and Coach can come to a conclusion that benefits them both.