Jump to content
The Gridiron Digest

Luers moves game


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, ASJCPUMA said:

Surprised J Smth has not donated the money to Luers to put in turf or given a large share to make it happen.

 

1 hour ago, Justasportsfan said:

Depends on who u ask..some say there is room for a nice field..others..not so much..Northrop n Snider were one school that split with Snider having the smaller enrollment at the time the powers at be decided to share Northrop's field

 

Rumors have it that Anthony Spencer attempted to install Turf for the knights yet wasn't granted the request

 

Both of these "supposedly" happened.  As a Lutheran, I am not gonna get the Protestant Reformation going again....So I am not speculating on what the Diocese had/has in mind for the Luers campus.  But obviously nothing came of the offers to turf the field.   

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grover said:

Correct. It was easier to run north and south. But that one play doesn’t mean all the other slipping, sliding, and fumbling didn’t happen.   
 

Look, I don’t care where we play and I’m sure the kids had fun in the mud but showing one play where we had good footing doesn’t change anything. 
 

Why is it so hard to just admit the field was a sloppy mess and the parents should enjoy it as much as the kids?

Who is saying the field wasn't sloppy? I sure haven't. I stated from the get go in the original game post that the field conditions had an affect on both teams Offense's. 

I even stated that I felt playing in the mud and rain prior to the game likely favored CG because of their base Wing T offense (knowing they do go into shotgun) than Cathedral. In all honesty Cathedral's better part of their offense has come from their passing game and their run game has been inconsistent.

What I have said is that playing the game at Arlington was due to it being Cathedral's homefield. It had nothing to do with obvious competitive reasons (as 2 other posters eluded to. I also gave support to that with all 6 home games there last year and all 4 soon to be 5 there this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Irishman said:

Can we PLEASE not rehash the whole discussion about the CG Cathedral game? 
 

And somehow I got pulled into a "rabbit-hole" discussing Snider needing a field, and then also turfing Bowser Field (lower-level/practice facility).  

Heck, ya know I am just gonna TURF my lawn now.  I am totally convinced that THIS is the wave of the future!  But I will need a sponsorship, I just don't have the revenue....  

DONATE TO THE GID!!!!   

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Irishman said:

Can we PLEASE not rehash the whole discussion about the CG Cathedral game? 
 

Out of my respect for your wishes Irish and not further hijacking a thread, I will not respond to absolutely ludicrous comments made in the response to Grover.  

Bishop Luers....sure hope you get that turf field. 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ASJCPUMA said:

So, not being from FW, is there room for a field at Snider?  
When they built the school was it too costly to put a field in then?

In reading this discussion I am just trying to understand the logistics on the situation

It's tight, but I definitely believe it's doable. Here's an example:

In the attached image, the school on the left is Snider HS, the school on the right is Lane MS. As you can see, both schools have a small field/stadium/track, which is arguably unnecessary for schools in such close proximity. Eliminate Lane's field and track (large red square) entirely. Move Snider's softball diamond (small red square) out to the baseball diamonds on Long Road. That frees up a large area between Lane and the fire department on Reed Road for a multipurpose facility that could support the track & field, football, and soccer teams of both Snider and Lane, as well as Snider's lacrosse team (and anyone else I am forgetting that would like to use the facilities). Bowser Field in it's current state would no longer be needed, so it can get the axe as well. There WILL, however, be a need for practice facilities for all the above state teams, which could be on the southern end of Snider's property (orange square). Then, if the tennis courts are moved slightly (blue square), or even just left where they are, the remaining space could be paved for additional parking lot space to solve the issue regarding parking for games. 

It is definitely asking for a lot, but I have been sitting on this idea since I was in high school, and I genuinely think it should work

Screen Shot 2021-10-19 at 4.50.18 PM.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CLKeller16 said:

It's tight, but I definitely believe it's doable. Here's an example:

In the attached image, the school on the left is Snider HS, the school on the right is Lane MS. As you can see, both schools have a small field/stadium/track, which is arguably unnecessary for schools in such close proximity. Eliminate Lane's field and track (large red square) entirely. Move Snider's softball diamond (small red square) out to the baseball diamonds on Long Road. That frees up a large area between Lane and the fire department on Reed Road for a multipurpose facility that could support the track & field, football, and soccer teams of both Snider and Lane, as well as Snider's lacrosse team (and anyone else I am forgetting that would like to use the facilities). Bowser Field in it's current state would no longer be needed, so it can get the axe as well. There WILL, however, be a need for practice facilities for all the above state teams, which could be on the southern end of Snider's property (orange square). Then, if the tennis courts are moved slightly (blue square), or even just left where they are, the remaining space could be paved for additional parking lot space to solve the issue regarding parking for games. 

It is definitely asking for a lot, but I have been sitting on this idea since I was in high school, and I genuinely think it should work

Screen Shot 2021-10-19 at 4.50.18 PM.png

Again, the LOCAL RESIDENTS will and have never allowed a Stadium complex to be in the best interest of the 'neighborhood' in that an alternative situation is currently in place for more than 50 years. 

Keep up the fight, but like Sisyphus...you are just rolling that rock up a hill....   

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, CLKeller16 said:

It's tight, but I definitely believe it's doable. Here's an example:

In the attached image, the school on the left is Snider HS, the school on the right is Lane MS. As you can see, both schools have a small field/stadium/track, which is arguably unnecessary for schools in such close proximity. Eliminate Lane's field and track (large red square) entirely. Move Snider's softball diamond (small red square) out to the baseball diamonds on Long Road. That frees up a large area between Lane and the fire department on Reed Road for a multipurpose facility that could support the track & field, football, and soccer teams of both Snider and Lane, as well as Snider's lacrosse team (and anyone else I am forgetting that would like to use the facilities). Bowser Field in it's current state would no longer be needed, so it can get the axe as well. There WILL, however, be a need for practice facilities for all the above state teams, which could be on the southern end of Snider's property (orange square). Then, if the tennis courts are moved slightly (blue square), or even just left where they are, the remaining space could be paved for additional parking lot space to solve the issue regarding parking for games. 

It is definitely asking for a lot, but I have been sitting on this idea since I was in high school, and I genuinely think it should work

Screen Shot 2021-10-19 at 4.50.18 PM.png

Good work............fight on. I know, that's USC. But still, fight on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yuccaguy said:

Again, the LOCAL RESIDENTS will and have never allowed a Stadium complex to be in the best interest of the 'neighborhood' in that an alternative situation is currently in place for more than 50 years. 

Keep up the fight, but like Sisyphus...you are just rolling that rock up a hill....   

You keep saying that, but as someone who lives off of the corner of Reed and Stellhorn, this is my neighborhood, and I am a local resident. I have lived in this neighborhood for 23 years. Anyone and everyone I have discussed this topic with, at least half of whom are local residents of the neighborhood, have agreed that we should do SOMETHING, whether it be a whole multipurpose facility like my proposed idea, or a revamping of the current Bowser Field similar to Dwenger and Shields Field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, CLKeller16 said:

You keep saying that, but as someone who lives off of the corner of Reed and Stellhorn, this is my neighborhood, and I am a local resident. I have lived in this neighborhood for 23 years. Anyone and everyone I have discussed this topic with, at least half of whom are local residents of the neighborhood, have agreed that we should do SOMETHING, whether it be a whole multipurpose facility like my proposed idea, or a revamping of the current Bowser Field similar to Dwenger and Shields Field.

His speculation of what the community wants caught me off guard as well. I think residents would love to be able to walk to the game on Friday night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, CLKeller16 said:

You keep saying that, but as someone who lives off of the corner of Reed and Stellhorn, this is my neighborhood, and I am a local resident. I have lived in this neighborhood for 23 years. Anyone and everyone I have discussed this topic with, at least half of whom are local residents of the neighborhood, have agreed that we should do SOMETHING, whether it be a whole multipurpose facility like my proposed idea, or a revamping of the current Bowser Field similar to Dwenger and Shields Field.

Talk to your "foremost" Indiana State Senate Representative: Bob "UNIBROW" Morris and see how much help you get in getting any of this off the ground.  Talk to the other residents that pay into FWCS, and see if they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to meet your 'suggestion'...  Ain't gonna happen!   

(Jim) Shields Field (a privately financed Stadium on private property) located at 2 major intersections... not necessarily in the middle of a neighborhood....is quite different than the area in which you espouse to do major reconstruction to 2 educational institutions.  The traffic would be unbelievable.  Who is paying for the overtime needed from policing in order to control traffic?  Who is paying for the infrastructure needed to repair off site roads that could be damaged due to the increased traffic?  

I have lived in SACS for 36 years.  The campus of Homestead was totally autonomous, and had multiple alternatives for expansion, regardless of the surrounding neighborhood.  Quite a different situation.   You can also put NACS (Carroll HS) in the same vain....  Only 2 FWCS HS's fall into the ability for expansion and not impacting the surrounding neighborhood...Wayne and Northrop.  

Edited by Yuccaguy
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would personally like luers to keep the grass field. Something about coming out of the lockeroom stopping at the Grotto and heading over the hill and onto the grass field is nostalgic for me and I'm sure alot of other past players. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Yuccaguy said:

Talk to your "foremost" Indiana State Senate Representative: Bob "UNIBROW" Morris and see how much help you get in getting any of this off the ground.  Talk to the other residents that pay into FWCS, and see if they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to meet your 'suggestion'...  Ain't gonna happen! 

Not really sure what all the quotes are here for. Sarcasm? Also not sure what Bob Morris's "UNIBROW" has to do with anything. Regardless, I just told you above that I have talked to other FWCS residents, at least half of which are locals to the neighborhood, the rest being Fort Wayne residents, and the vast majority have agreed with me. You, on the other hand, have been the first person that has vehemently opposed the idea. I have had others say that we simply don't have space, which I think is a completely valid argument, and others say it would be too costly, which is also a great concern. But for some reason, you seem offended that I, or others, would even entertain the idea that the 14-18 year old children of one of the better high school football programs of Indiana should have the chance to enjoy their own facilities, rather than share the extremely worn and dated facilities of their arch rivals (seriously, have you been in Northrop's locker rooms?).

 

53 minutes ago, Yuccaguy said:

(Jim) Shields Field (a privately financed Stadium on private property) located at 2 major intersections... not necessarily in the middle of a neighborhood....is quite different than the area in which you espouse to do major reconstruction to 2 educational institutions.  The traffic would be unbelievable.  Who is paying for the overtime needed from policing in order to control traffic?  Who is paying for the infrastructure needed to repair off site roads that could be damaged due to the increased traffic?  

You are correct, the people of the local neighborhoods would suffer when trying to get to or around Snider, unlike how nearly all of east Fort Wayne was affected when Shield essentially shut down the intersection of Washington Center and Clinton. While traffic would be a nightmare, it is for any and all construction projects. Saying you don't want to start a project because of traffic is like saying you don't want to drink water because your mouth is going to get wet. It's just something that happens with the given action. As for who is going to pay the costs for policing: FWCS. And who will pay for damaged roads: the city of Fort Wayne, like they always have. You knew those answers before you even asked.

 

1 hour ago, Yuccaguy said:

I have lived in SACS for 36 years.  The campus of Homestead was totally autonomous, and had multiple alternatives for expansion, regardless of the surrounding neighborhood.  Quite a different situation.   You can also put NACS (Carroll HS) in the same vain....  Only 2 FWCS HS's fall into the ability for expansion and not impacting the surrounding neighborhood...Wayne and Northrop.  

So since those schools are the only ones that can easily expand means they are the only ones deserving of expansion? Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

This argument is getting a little too heated for a thread that was supposed to be about Luers moving a game and if they should be getting turf or not. One day I will start a thread for this discussion and we can continue this debate there. I honestly should have just let it die and not said anything in the first place. That said, I'd love for Luers Field to get turf, but I think it would take away some of the charm. I have always loved natural fields and mud bowls, but as I get older, I understand how that can affect the integrity of the game as well as the outcome of games (such as last Friday night's). I am torn for my love of natural fields, and my love for the best conditions for high profile games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CLKeller16 said:

Not really sure what all the quotes are here for. Sarcasm? Also not sure what Bob Morris's "UNIBROW" has to do with anything. Regardless, I just told you above that I have talked to other FWCS residents, at least half of which are locals to the neighborhood, the rest being Fort Wayne residents, and the vast majority have agreed with me. You, on the other hand, have been the first person that has vehemently opposed the idea. I have had others say that we simply don't have space, which I think is a completely valid argument, and others say it would be too costly, which is also a great concern. But for some reason, you seem offended that I, or others, would even entertain the idea that the 14-18 year old children of one of the better high school football programs of Indiana should have the chance to enjoy their own facilities, rather than share the extremely worn and dated facilities of their arch rivals (seriously, have you been in Northrop's locker rooms?).

 

You are correct, the people of the local neighborhoods would suffer when trying to get to or around Snider, unlike how nearly all of east Fort Wayne was affected when Shield essentially shut down the intersection of Washington Center and Clinton. While traffic would be a nightmare, it is for any and all construction projects. Saying you don't want to start a project because of traffic is like saying you don't want to drink water because your mouth is going to get wet. It's just something that happens with the given action. As for who is going to pay the costs for policing: FWCS. And who will pay for damaged roads: the city of Fort Wayne, like they always have. You knew those answers before you even asked.

 

So since those schools are the only ones that can easily expand means they are the only ones deserving of expansion? Just because something is difficult doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

This argument is getting a little too heated for a thread that was supposed to be about Luers moving a game and if they should be getting turf or not. One day I will start a thread for this discussion and we can continue this debate there. I honestly should have just let it die and not said anything in the first place. That said, I'd love for Luers Field to get turf, but I think it would take away some of the charm. I have always loved natural fields and mud bowls, but as I get older, I understand how that can affect the integrity of the game as well as the outcome of games (such as last Friday night's). I am torn for my love of natural fields, and my love for the best conditions for high profile games. 

Agreed.  Time to put an end to this convo!

Perhaps this is way past just talking about Luers' situation regarding Field Turf.

It seems that any conversation...In FW, always turns to Snider and their limitations.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yucca knows of which he speaks..I live in those parts n yes they still fight against it..maybe in a decade or two..Luers getting Turf may go against tradition too much..only thing I can see why they don't have one..though shalt not possess turf..football ch.4 verse 7

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yuccaguy said:

Talk to your "foremost" Indiana State Senate Representative: Bob "UNIBROW" Morris 

You make yourself sound like a clown with comments like that. You're opinions no longer have any merit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yuccaguy said:

The traffic would be unbelievable.  

That's hilarious. If the city of Fort Wayne can endure construction at the intersection of Clinton and Washington, I'm pretty sure they can handle Vance and Reed, lol. Goodness gracious, what the heck are we even talking about here. I give up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BTF said:

That's hilarious. If the city of Fort Wayne can endure construction at the intersection of Clinton and Washington, I'm pretty sure they can handle Vance and Reed, lol. Goodness gracious, what the heck are we even talking about here. I give up. 

The topic (from this IDIOT) was about turf at Luers.  Then it devolved into Snider getting a separate Stadium and turfing their lower-level facility.  

I will continue to be oblivious to the reality of things that have been in place for 50 years, and allow you and those of your ilk to continue your PIPE DREAM of tax payer supported facilities that are not now in place, nor will ever be in the near future.  

Yes, I am a total clown!  Thank you, very much.  

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I drive by Luers a lot when I am in Ft Wayne for work.  The field looks very nice at the beginning of the season.  But then when it rains a lot and as the season goes on the field condition visibly changes.  However, the changes are not any different than other grass high school fields.  I have also wondered why one of Luers professional athletes hasn't donated the money for turf.  I also drove past Dwenger before they built the stands and noticed a turf field that wasn't used for games and wondered why it was like that.  I was told by a Dwenger parent that it had to do with a past Archbishop or administrator that had said in no certain terms would their be a stadium.  Evidently the current administration looked at the costs of renting a facility and the loss of gate revenue and decided it was time to build the stadium.  

Another school with a deep football tradition is Delta.  They have turf however no visitor locker room by the field.  The locker room is across the parking lot and around the building.  It is a 5 minute walk to the locker room.   So with a 10-15 minute halftime, coach's have to decide if they go to the locker room or not.  If players have to use the bathroom they go to the locker room or can use the regular bathroom that has a few stalls.  A few years ago the visiting team was assessed a penalty due to coming out late at halftime.  A coach was on the field watching the clock and told the locker room how much time was left but by the team ran across the parking lot and onto the field they were late.  

Public schools fund turf fields by either capital improvement projects or by private donations.  The problem with the capital improvement projects is there are dollar limits for each project.  So if the project exceeds the amount then the board has to put it on a ballot for a referendum by taxpayers.  What some schools are doing are doing the whole football stadium makeover in phases over a 2-3 year period to get around the referendum.  Some of the schools will get a bulk price on the turf and do baseball, softball, and soccer all at once.  Each of these projects would be individual projects so there would not be a need for the referendum.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Indiansreloaded said:

Another school with a deep football tradition is Delta.  They have turf however no visitor locker room by the field.  The locker room is across the parking lot and around the building.  It is a 5 minute walk to the locker room.   So with a 10-15 minute halftime, coach's have to decide if they go to the locker room or not.  If players have to use the bathroom they go to the locker room or can use the regular bathroom that has a few stalls.  A few years ago the visiting team was assessed a penalty due to coming out late at halftime.  A coach was on the field watching the clock and told the locker room how much time was left but by the team ran across the parking lot and onto the field they were late.

I was an official for that game. If they had a coach on the field communicating with the team he didn't do a very good job. We waited until the time expired and didn't see anyone coming in the distance so two of our officials started for the locker room. Near the back of the building we ran into two coaches walking toward the field. We told them they were already late for the second half and they were surprised. One of them ran back to the locker room with the official to get the team. So it was close to 20 minutes after halftime started and 5 minutes after the time on the clock expired before the team left the locker room. Mississinewa had an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty at the end of the first half so with the foul for coming out late, Delta was kicking off from the +30 to start the second half. We were surprised they didn't try an onside kick since Mississinewa would still have poor field position if they recovered it. That was one of the most miserable weather nights I've worked with temps in the 40s with strong winds and a cold rain. It was Halloween too as I recall. Mississinewa had a good team that year, but it was obvious the players were miserable with the weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Yuccaguy said:

The topic (from this IDIOT) was about turf at Luers.  Then it devolved into Snider getting a separate Stadium and turfing their lower-level facility.  

I will continue to be oblivious to the reality of things that have been in place for 50 years, and allow you and those of your ilk to continue your PIPE DREAM of tax payer supported facilities that are not now in place, nor will ever be in the near future.  

Yes, I am a total clown!  Thank you, very much.  

You can't bring up the word turf in fort Wayne without people on here throwing their two cents in about snider building a new stadium. It's a dumb argument FWCS has alot more to deal with then worrying about snider building a new stadium. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BLKnights7 said:

You can't bring up the word turf in fort Wayne without people on here throwing their two cents in about snider building a new stadium. It's a dumb argument FWCS has alot more to deal with then worrying about snider building a new stadium. 

A lot more to deal with like putting turf fields in at schools that don't bring in any revenue? Snider has a legitimate argument based on the program they built which just happens to be a money maker for FWCS. It's no secret Snider is looked down upon for the success that they've achieved. But whatever, they'll keep on winning whether have a stadium or don't . I mean, who cares if Snider's home field has a Bruin in the center of it, right? They still win. 

Anyway, this was a Luers thread to begin with. I don't know enough about the program to know if they even want turf or not. If that's what they want, I hope they get it. If not, then who cares. Their business is winning state championships regardless of the condition of their field. Kudos to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BTF said:

A lot more to deal with like putting turf fields in at schools that don't bring in any revenue? Snider has a legitimate argument based on the program they built which just happens to be a money maker for FWCS. It's no secret Snider is looked down upon for the success that they've achieved. But whatever, they'll keep on winning whether have a stadium or don't . I mean, who cares if Snider's home field has a Bruin in the center of it, right? They still win. 

Anyway, this was a Luers thread to begin with. I don't know enough about the program to know if they even want turf or not. If that's what they want, I hope they get it. If not, then who cares. Their business is winning state championships regardless of the condition of their field. Kudos to them. 

They have pre existing stadiums it would be cheaper putting down turf for them than building a whole new stadium for snider. Believe me I think it would be cool to see snider have an official home stadium near campus but is it realistic when their situation at spuller stadium is doing fine and still being a "money maker". The revenue at one stadium hosting two teams outweighs the cost of operating an added stadium. I personally don't think anyone looks down on snider for their success either. They have proven they are a "blue blood" program in the state, and I wish them success in the tournament.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...