• Announcements

    • Coach Nowlin

      HEAD COACH OPENING 2018   10/28/2017

      CONFIRMED HEAD COACH CHANGES IN 2018 Lafayette Central Catholic;  Don Collier  Kankakee Valley:  Zack Prairie  Valparaiso:  Dave Coyle Steven Mueller Hired Evansville North:  Brett Szabo  Hamilton Southeastern:  Scott May  Adam Morris Hired  Peru:  Bob Prescott Romaine Saint-Louis Hired North Daviees:  Scott Helms  Evansville Central:  Andy Owens  River Forest: Austen Robison  Shelbyville:  Pat Parks Mike Clevenger Hired from Clinton Prairie Rushville:  Scott McMurray  Cathedral: Rick Strieff:  Bill Peebles Hired from Lawrence Central  South Spencer:  Tom Packer  Bishop Dwenger:  Chris Svarczkopf Maconaquah: Mark Hartman  Anderson High School:  Robert Brown  Highland:  Trent Grinder  Southern Wells:  Steve Yencer  Warsaw:  Phil Jenson Lawrence Central:  Bill Peebles  Eastern Hancock:  Jim O'hara  Tri-Central:  George Gilbert  Shane Arnold Promoted Franklin County:  Kirk Kennedy  Hobart:  Ryan Turley  Craig Osika Promoted Anderson Prep Academy Randy Albano  Clarksville:  Joby Turner New Haven  Jim Rowland S.B. Clay:  Will Porter Mt. Vernon (Fortville) Neil Kazmierczak  Central Noble  Greg Moe  Trevor Tipton Promoted  Clinton Prairie:  Mike Clevenger Ben Davis:  Mike Kirschner  Parke Heritage :  ????    Brian Moore Hired Mishawaka Marian:  Reggie Glon  Michael Davidson Promoted Hamilton Heights:  Mitch Street
Sign in to follow this  
jakone

EACS schools to get field turf

Recommended Posts

Heritage, New Haven, Leo and Woodlan  will all have field turf installed before next season starts.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Where is the funding for such an extravagance coming from?

 

EDIT:  never mind:  http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/schools/20180102/4-eacs-high-schools-to-get-synthetic-turf-fields

Quote

...

The turf project is budgeted for $3.2 million and is part of the $87.5 million building program that proceeded without a public referendum. Improvements address various issues district-wide, including secure entrances, overcrowding and drop-off and pickup areas.

Engineering Resources Inc. will provide civil engineering services for the football field project at a cost of $58,800, the board also approved.

That cost is included in the $3.2 million budget, officials said.

...

That is a lot of money to spend without public input on what such a project is to entail, especially with millions going to an extracurricular/non-classroom activity.

 

 

 

hmm:  http://www.eacs.k12.in.us/district_info/community_meetings_-_september_2015/responses_to_frequently_asked_questions/athletics

Quote

Isthe issue of artificial turf a need or a want?
The opinion of the administration isthat artificial turf is not re

....

IsLeo really getting a turf football field?
Turf fields are currently not part of thevision proposal.  

...

"not re" what?

 

Edited by Muda69
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

 

EDIT:  never mind:  http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/schools/20180102/4-eacs-high-schools-to-get-synthetic-turf-fields

That is a lot of money to spend without public input on what such a project is to entail, especially with millions going to an extracurricular/non-classroom activity.

 

 

No individual or organization in any of the 5 attendance area submitted the appropriate paperwork/petition to force the project to go to a vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Where is the funding for such an extravagance coming from?

 

EDIT:  never mind:  http://www.journalgazette.net/news/local/schools/20180102/4-eacs-high-schools-to-get-synthetic-turf-fields

That is a lot of money to spend without public input on what such a project is to entail, especially with millions going to an extracurricular/non-classroom activity.

 

 

 

hmm:  http://www.eacs.k12.in.us/district_info/community_meetings_-_september_2015/responses_to_frequently_asked_questions/athletics

"not re" what?

 

 A worthy expense if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sls said:

No individual or organization in any of the 5 attendance area submitted the appropriate paperwork/petition to force the project to go to a vote.

Interesting.  Must be to busy working to in order to pay the taxes that fund the wasteful spending of the local school corporation.

And what changed to suddenly make expensive turf fields part of the "vision proposal"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am no more aware of the details of the community meetings that were linked than you are, but the rumor of turf fields has been very common. I think that anyone who has truly followed the redesign process is not surprised by the turf announcement. (sp)

 

Edited by sls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Interesting.  Must be to busy working to in order to pay the taxes that fund the wasteful spending of the local school corporation.

And what changed to suddenly make expensive turf fields part of the "vision proposal"?

 

In what way would you consider this to be a “wasteful spending” or an “extravagance”? Just curious.

Just now, sls said:

I am no more aware of the details of the community meetings that were linked than you are, but the rumor of turf fields have been very common. I think that anyone who has truly followed the redesign process is not surprised by the turf announcement.

This. There have been talks/rumors of this for years in EACS for years now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, FormerColtsFan said:

In what way would you consider this to be a “wasteful spending” or an “extravagance”? Just curious.

 

3.2 million dollars spent by a government school corporation for an extracurricular/non-classroom activity is IMHO wasteful spending.  Also IMHO turf fields have no business at the high school level.  We are talking about children playing a game here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

3.2 million dollars spent by a government school corporation for an extracurricular/non-classroom activity is IMHO wasteful spending.  Also IMHO turf fields have no business at the high school level.  We are talking about children playing a game here.

Why have extracurricular/non-classroom activities?

For just a child’s game, a significant amount of people sure do care about it, attend the games, read Saturday morning press, spend decades dedicating themselves to it, and have discussions on an Internet message board.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FormerColtsFan said:

Why have extracurricular/non-classroom activities?

For just a child’s game, a significant amount of people sure do care about it, attend the games, read Saturday morning press, spend decades dedicating themselves to it, and have discussions on an Internet message board.

I don't mind such extracurricular activities, as long as they are self-supporting and not funded via taxpayer money.  Why is that such a hard line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I don't mind such extracurricular activities, as long as they are self-supporting and not funded via taxpayer money.  Why is that such a hard line?

Because that is the whole idea of a “public” school. It is funded by taxpayer money, and therefore extensions of the school is also, and should be, funded by taxpayer money. If residents of a school system do not like how funds are used, or the decisions that are made, etc there are multiple ways to respond to it. School board elections, petitions, etc etc. That’s how a democratic public social contract operates.

I don’t see an extracurricular activity being completely separate from the school experience, as it seems you may.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, FormerColtsFan said:

Because that is the whole idea of a “public” school. It is funded by taxpayer money, and therefore extensions of the school is also, and should be, funded by taxpayer money. If residents of a school system do not like how funds are used, or the decisions that are made, etc there are multiple ways to respond to it. School board elections, petitions, etc etc. That’s how a democratic public social contract operates.

I don’t see an extracurricular activity being completely separate from the school experience, as it seems you may.

I don't recall extracurricular activities like sports, band, etc. being in the Indiana State Constitution where it talks about public education.

And frankly the "social contract' is a myth.  Please educate yourself.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

I don't recall extracurricular activities like sports, band, etc. being in the Indiana State Constitution where it talks about public education.

And frankly the "social contract' is a myth.  Please educate yourself.

 

You can believe what you want, obviously.

I’ll pass on educating myself, but thanks for the suggestion. 

I understand where you are coming from, I just don’t think it’s wise to be entrenched in a one size fits all orthodoxy.

My thoughts are still the same. The public school uses public funds provided by the public taxpayer, and the public taxpayer can initiate processes to counteract/respond to what is done by the public school if they don’t like it. If enough of them don’t like it, something can be done.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FormerColtsFan said:

I’ll pass on educating myself, but thanks for the suggestion. 

I understand where you are coming from, I just don’t think it’s wise to be entrenched in a one size fits all orthodoxy.

Hmm, passing on educating oneself.   Telling.

And I agree with not becoming entrenched in a one size fits all orthodoxy.  That's why I am a libertarian.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what percentage is the crossover point from extravance to reasonable. When 25% of schools posses turf fields? 50%?

There was a time I’m sure some viewed air conditioning and indoor plumbing as extravagances.  Eventually convenience and function often win out.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Hmm, passing on educating oneself.   Telling.

And I agree with not becoming entrenched in a one size fits all orthodoxy.  That's why I am a libertarian.

 

Kinda my point right? Is it wise to view everything through the lens of a pro-market libertarian? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FormerColtsFan said:

 Is it wise to view everything through the lens of a pro-market libertarian? 

Yes, it opens your eyes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Quite the expenditure as we enter the contraction era.  Good thing these schools collectively have a strong competitive profile.  

Edited by DrivenT
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's awesome for them to see these improvements especially for a smaller school like Woodlan.  I know my LCC (Lima) friends will enjoy making that trip that much more with a nicer playing surface.  Hopefully that match up continues.  

The turf in general just promotes the additional use, for youth leagues, tournaments, if you share it with soccer, it just will be used all the time where it wouldn't 

This again turns to a philosophical debate on physical education, sport, and extra curricular benefits for students in public schools and how they're funded and it wears thin I know to some, but it is a good conversation.  Views usually are very opinionated strongly one way or another and that's fine but common ground is the middle whether anyone is there or not.  It's the balance.

Regarding educating oneself on our state constitution on education in section 1, it says "by all suitable means, moral, intellectual, scientific and agricultural improvement".  By all suitable means...doesn't say in a classroom box, in a flat roof school, in one with a terrazzo foyer, online only, by a teacher, professor, or doctor, it says by all suitable means, moral and intellectual improvement shall be provided.  To me that reads very simply if you believe kids are learning something on the athletic field.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The timing on this is a little odd.  The big football stadium seating and field turf boom occurred over the past 10 years and has slowed recently.  Lots of empty, overbuilt facilities now litter the states public school campuses.  

Participation is declining, which is clearly documented.

NFL viewership suffered another double digit ratings decline in 2017, a clear indicator that interest is declining at all levels. 

Many schools around the country have decided to shutter their prep football programs.  More are sure to follow.  Some in Indiana will surely shutdown.  Others have already.

So with all indicators pointing down sharply, why does EACS choose to go in the opposite direction, clearly against the prevailing winds?

Is it a decision that was heavily influenced by the recent success of some of these schools?  Or was this a long term planning and budget initiative?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by DrivenT
  • Confused 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DrivenT said:

The timing on this is a little odd.  The big football stadium seating and field turf boom occurred over the past 10 years and has slowed recently.  Lots of empty, overbuilt facilities now litter the states public school campuses.  

Participation is declining, which is clearly documented.

NFL viewership suffered another double digit ratings decline in 2017, a clear indicator that interest is declining at all levels. 

Many schools around the country have decided to shutter their prep football programs.  More are sure to follow.  Some in Indiana will surely shutdown.  Others have already.

So with all indicators pointing down sharply, why does EACS choose to go in the opposite direction, clearly against the prevailing winds?

Is it a decision that was heavily influenced by the recent success of some of these schools?  Or was this a long term planning and budget initiative?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get some new material it’s a new year. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Coach_G said:

Get some new material it’s a new year. 

The issue doesn't go away 

It only gets more pervasive.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe others from schools who have turf in already, but I do know that in the long run; over the course of say 10 years, the turf ends up being a savings. The amount of time and money involved in maintaining the grass; cutting, watering, seeding, aerating, etc. costs quite a bit more over that 10 year period than the maintenance of the turf does. I would add that getting the 4 fields done at once provides a significant savings to the district; to the point that we are basically getting a 4 for the price of 3 deal. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DrivenT said:

The timing on this is a little odd.  The big football stadium seating and field turf boom occurred over the past 10 years and has slowed recently.  Lots of empty, overbuilt facilities now litter the states public school campuses.  

Participation is declining, which is clearly documented.

NFL viewership suffered another double digit ratings decline in 2017, a clear indicator that interest is declining at all levels. 

Many schools around the country have decided to shutter their prep football programs.  More are sure to follow.  Some in Indiana will surely shutdown.  Others have already.

So with all indicators pointing down sharply, why does EACS choose to go in the opposite direction, clearly against the prevailing winds?

Is it a decision that was heavily influenced by the recent success of some of these schools?  Or was this a long term planning and budget initiative?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not aware of any indication that football participation has dwindled significantly in EACS, or NE Indiana in general. Perhaps there is, but I don’t see it.

 

It would seem that prep football is as vibrant as it’s ever been around the area.

 

I don’t see how NFL ratings have to do with prep football (which by the way I’m not sure if they are taking into account how many younger people consume content nowadays (social media, YouTube, etc)). If anything it has to do with oversaturated television programming by the NFL.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.