Artificial turf bill for pro sports in Ohio

 
SLS said:
If turf is so dangerous, why target only professional teams? The pros have player unions and can look out for their own interests.


www.fox19.com

Ohio bill would ban artificial turf from pro sports stadiums

Ohio state reps. are planning to introduce new legislation to ban artificial turf from pro sports stadiums.
www.fox19.com www.fox19.com
Click to expand...
Because it would be too expensive for H.S. and small colleges to tear up field turf to put grass in. Not sure why the state is concerned over this.
 
Stirred not Shaken said:
Because it would be too expensive for H.S. and small colleges to tear up field turf to put grass in. Not sure why the state is concerned over this.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Doesn't seem like something worth time or effort.

Off the top of my head, are the Bengals the only pro team in Ohio that plays on turf right now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLS
I'd be curious to these state reps opinions that dozens, possibly even hundreds of high schools and colleges have added field turf over the last 10 years. My son played D3 college football and in 4 years, I think they played games on grass only a couple of times. The ROI on field turf is incredible. Also interesting that Dr. Kremcheck would comment on the expense of field turf??? He's been around long enough to know that one of the main reasons high schools and colleges are adding it is the savings in maintenance. Field turf does not need mowed, it's painted once. Think about... SOMEBODY at your local high school painted lines on the football field probably 6-7-8 times minimim during the season? If you school has soccer, same thing. They are mowing the fields the same number of times you mow your grass all year. It pays for itself, it looks nicer.
Heck, how many injuries are caused by holes in grass fields or bumps or just poorly graded facilities?
 
14Red said:
I'd be curious to these state reps opinions that dozens, possibly even hundreds of high schools and colleges have added field turf over the last 10 years. My son played D3 college football and in 4 years, I think they played games on grass only a couple of times. The ROI on field turf is incredible. Also interesting that Dr. Kremcheck would comment on the expense of field turf??? He's been around long enough to know that one of the main reasons high schools and colleges are adding it is the savings in maintenance. Field turf does not need mowed, it's painted once. Think about... SOMEBODY at your local high school painted lines on the football field probably 6-7-8 times minimim during the season? If you school has soccer, same thing. They are mowing the fields the same number of times you mow your grass all year. It pays for itself, it looks nicer.
Heck, how many injuries are caused by holes in grass fields or bumps or just poorly graded facilities?
Click to expand...
Cost wise: I do not buy it. Never have. Never will.

The reason why the numbers 'work' in the argument of getting turf is because the initial installation, in most places, is 'free' for the school because the burden falls on donors and fundraising efforts.


If said program would raise the same amount of money from the same donors and apply it to the current expense of a grass field it would cover the costs for decades.


I am not saying turf fields arent nice, and prudent for some programs that have multiple sports that use it, but the overall cost 'savings' only works when the initial project is already funded.

Fact is, many places want it to simply 'keep up with the Jones's'
 
Thavoice said:
Cost wise: I do not buy it. Never have. Never will.

The reason why the numbers 'work' in the argument of getting turf is because the initial installation, in most places, is 'free' for the school because the burden falls on donors and fundraising efforts.


If said program would raise the same amount of money from the same donors and apply it to the current expense of a grass field it would cover the costs for decades.


I am not saying turf fields arent nice, and prudent for some programs that have multiple sports that use it, but the overall cost 'savings' only works when the initial project is already funded.

Fact is, many places want it to simply 'keep up with the Jones's'
Click to expand...
You have to have a mower, maintain that mower, and pay someone to do this. The ROI comes in that stuff. And I'm not even including painting football and soccer fields. Public owned facilities get the bare minimum maintenance attention. Grass mowed, major holes filled, that's it. Go to any city / county owned facility and take a look. Most of the nicer grass facilities have a group of volunteer dads/ fans or a coach who has nothing else to do to upkeep things.
 
14Red said:
You have to have a mower, maintain that mower, and pay someone to do this. The ROI comes in that stuff. And I'm not even including painting football and soccer fields. Public owned facilities get the bare minimum maintenance attention. Grass mowed, major holes filled, that's it. Go to any city / county owned facility and take a look. Most of the nicer grass facilities have a group of volunteer dads/ fans or a coach who has nothing else to do to upkeep things.
Click to expand...
Again. The cost savings is because the installation is free and all schools pay for is the upkeep.
If it really was a savings down the road the school would install it themselves and tout how much money it will save them.

It wont...so they don't.

Raise that money for the existong grass field amount.., put into a high yield account...and the yr to yr costs are covered for decades l.


Argue the merits.on anything else but not the savings...
 
Thavoice said:
Cost wise: I do not buy it. Never have. Never will.

The reason why the numbers 'work' in the argument of getting turf is because the initial installation, in most places, is 'free' for the school because the burden falls on donors and fundraising efforts.


If said program would raise the same amount of money from the same donors and apply it to the current expense of a grass field it would cover the costs for decades.


I am not saying turf fields arent nice, and prudent for some programs that have multiple sports that use it, but the overall cost 'savings' only works when the initial project is already funded.

Fact is, many places want it to simply 'keep up with the Jones's'
Click to expand...
Who co-sponsored this bill? Scotts?
 
Thavoice said:
Again. The cost savings is because the installation is free and all schools pay for is the upkeep.
If it really was a savings down the road the school would install it themselves and tout how much money it will save them.

It wont...so they don't.

Raise that money for the existong grass field amount.., put into a high yield account...and the yr to yr costs are covered for decades l.


Argue the merits.on anything else but not the savings...
Click to expand...
Good luck with getting people to give money for things the school is already doing? So out of curiosity, you don't see a savings of manpower and time of current staff/ coaches, anyone who is a caretaker for the fields? I mean those things just go "poof" they are gone. And the field turf fields look great. Uniform, clean. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one Voice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top