Posted: 01/20/2013 2:03 PM
In a Bks. Californian article it said that BC is going to press on with plans to replace the grass field with turf. Apparently football fields are sanded and compacted similar to golf greens to fill in the potholes each year. Since the field was put in in 1957, even though the grass looks good, it is becoming as hard as a brick because of the many layers of sand. The track will also be replaced “with the same springy all-weather rubber track, used at Stanford, Berkeley, Oregon and USC, making the track usable even up to the Olympic level.”
It was said that to build a stadium like Memorial now, would cost something like 60M. So the upgraded track and field could attract premier track & field events and possibly even major soccer events to BC making use of the stadium for more than just a few football games each year. Anyway the changes are kind of exciting on the heels of packing Memorial Stadium, like we did back when, for the CA State Championship.
Side Note to Gadesrule: Since he’s going to be buried on the 50 yard line when he goes, for a mere $500,000, naming rights are possible for the field or the track. Gadesrule Memorial Stadium. He may have to sell his Vet.
Posted: 01/20/2013 5:13 PM
Last edited 01/20/2013 5:16 PM by diablos06
Posted: 01/20/2013 5:38 PM
Last edited 01/20/2013 5:41 PM by bcfan1955
Posted: 01/20/2013 9:04 PM
Diablo: Good idea on spreading the ashes instead of burial…. What he (GR) doesn’t know can’t hurt him. And BCFan: You know our new AD – I think he would tell you money talks and b------t walks.
Herb Benham (the Californian writer) was his usual funny self. “Beckwith (BC’s AD) had me so fired up that I nearly wrote him a check for $1 million (the only thing stopping me being the cashability index of the check)…..It made me want to run a fly pattern and do a victory dance in the end zone. A football field will do that to you.” I can relate, as kids we’d get a little pocket sized football and have great fun running up and down that field after the games.
Posted: 01/20/2013 10:22 PM
Posted: 01/21/2013 9:30 AM
Good point Craftsman. I wonder about that too, as did the Bks. Californian writer in the article. “Put 2 million bucks in a football field when they can’t afford chalk in the classrooms? This may not be a matter of going deep but going off the deep end.”
Posted: 01/21/2013 10:00 AM
Posted: 01/21/2013 11:07 AM
Posted: 01/21/2013 11:32 AM
NCoast would know more about this than I, but I was a bit skeptical of the maintenance costs they quoted in the article - $70,000 per year for grass as opposed to $10,000 for turf. Close to $6,000 per month to maintain grass? I just don’t see it. I guess it’s like most things, when you start paying out the costs – they do add up……but $6,000 per month? Bermuda is dormant a good share of the year.
And to Diablos – Mt SAC really does have to do something with their field. By playoff time any grass in the center of the field is almost non-existent. I guess because SAC practices on it. BC’s was the same way by the end of the year when they played more HS games up there. How are things progressing with the MS proposed improvements?
Posted: 01/21/2013 12:38 PM
Posted: 01/21/2013 12:44 PM
Posted: 01/21/2013 1:53 PM
Last edited 01/21/2013 5:52 PM by diablos06
Posted: 01/21/2013 3:45 PM
Posted: 01/21/2013 5:30 PM
Posted: 01/21/2013 6:08 PM
I didn’t realize the track was in such bad shape. Can’t you just picture Gadesrule and Mountieman racing on that track at half time like they were planning? I think they were going to go for a 40 or 50 yard “dash” on the field, but a 400M around the track would have been more fun to watch.
I have a lot of bad memories at The Pound and finally 1 good one. If they get all of those repairs done, I guess you won’t be able to call it The Pound anymore.
Posted: 01/22/2013 6:22 AM
Posted: 01/22/2013 8:11 AM
Last edited 01/22/2013 8:14 AM by Murph11
Posted: 01/22/2013 8:25 AM
Posted: 01/22/2013 9:33 AM
According to an 8 year study it was determined that there were sigificantly more injuries to players and that they were MORE likely to injure their legs and ankles on artificial turf than on grass/sod.
Players were 27% more likely to sustain lower extremity injury when the game was played on an artificial surface instead of the real thing............
More specifically, there was an 88% increased risk of injury to the anterior cruciate ligament and a 32% increased risk of an eversion ankle sprain on turf. This data was compiled in an 8 year study and presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons during their meeting...........
Last edited 01/22/2013 11:08 AM by NCoast65
Posted: 01/22/2013 2:35 PM
Murph11 wrote: It depends a lot on the climate of the area, but in many areas artificial surfaces are a better bet financially.After the initial cost, you no longer have to spend money on watering, mowing, fertilizing, re-sodding, and pesticides. It sounds like only taking care of your yard, but it isn't.If I remember my own story on the subject, the benefits include.......Less acl tear injuries, substantially less muscle tearsYou can practice on the same field you play onYou can use your field during most weather conditionsYou can generate money by renting it out without worrying about damage to the field.High School teams will be able to play on itYou get a consistent fieldThe biggest negative thing for Bakersfield would be the heat. Although they have apparently made changes to how hot the turf can get in 100 plus weather, I still think it would be about 10 degrees warmer on it. So the Renegades would most likely still practice on their practice field in the early part of the season.
MSN PrivacyLegalAdvertise on MSNAbout our adsRSS
© 2014 Microsoft|