Field turf being replaced in Salem
- Thread starter mikesalem
- Start date
That's actually a different Mike Stevens. He used to be a local sportscaster, my favorite actually. He started a show called Friday Football Extra 30 years ago and then about 7 years ago he became the city spokesman.
IMO Mike Stevens was the gold standard for Roanoke valley sportscasters during his tenure. Valley viewers were fortunate to have him and Dennis Carter also does a very nice job from the Lynchburg side. Question as my memory is getting faulty in old age. I know Stevens was part of the original FFE crew but, was he the creator? For some reason I was thinking John Kernan got it started but , left very early in its history to take the NASCAR gig. No big deal as Mike Stevens was clearly the guy who molded the show in to the Friday night fixture it became and spawned competitive copy cats at both WSLS and WSET.
A funny story about two people with the same name to share with you guys. I've been it the trades, primarily electrical, all my life. As a consequence, I'm a frequent customer to every type of supply house known to man. When I had reason to tell the counter people my name, they would look at me quizzically. They would say, I know Wayne Cook, you are not him. After a few times, I knew what the story was and always had a good laugh. I never met the other Wayne, but I knew he was a welder at one of the big factories in Hopewell, and raced motorcycles, including at Daytona. I figured he was a typical big burly, tattooed up tough guy. About a year ago, I came out of a Wawa and this old grandfatherly looking guy was standing beside my van. He asked if I was Wayne Cook? I immediately thought he had bumped into the van with his car. But no, he said, "I'm Wayne Cook, too!" He was small, clean cut, and just as nice a person as you have ever met. We laughed about my preconceived image of him.
I can die a happy man now. I found my other me!
I can die a happy man now. I found my other me!
I bumped into the other Mike Stevens a couple of months ago, but I was in a hurry and didn't have time to talk. I wanted to start up a conversation with him to let him know how much I loved FFE growing up and how we share the same name and all. Maybe I'll bump into him again soon.
When looked at up close they noticed the material was wearing prematurely. Field Turf is generally good for 10 years. (varies depending on use and weathering) PH already had to replace theirs and it was put down a year or so after Salem's. Amherst has had theirs since '06 I think, so they will likely be considering the same thing soon. Hidden Valley/Cave Spring is in the same boat, theirs was put down in '07 I believe.
I also really liked Greg Roberts, he's on the radio and calling games on Friday nights. I don't think Stevens' created FFE, but as you said, he became the face and was the gold standard for local sportscasters.
I am wondering how much Salem had to pay for the "prorated" turf. Seems like the council snuck it in without public input originally and this story makes it sound like they really don't want the taxpayers to know the cost but try to pass it off as being replaced by the original mfg because of defects. I wish our city leaders would be a little more transparent with their decisions. Reminds me of a weekend junket the city councilman took to a west virginia luxury hotel a few years ago and tried to pass it off as a council planning meeting. I hope they never do that again.
I'm not sure but the turf was supposed to last 10 years and it only lasted 7. I hope they got about 30% knocked off, which would make the cost about $525,000 instead of $750,000
Mike the PH situation is a little unusual in terms of turf wear for the following reasons. The original installation at PH was "pro grass" as opposed to the standard field turf which in the opinion of most people was a slightly lower grade product and reflected in the cost reduction. If someone has ever been on the PH field and on the field at Salem Stadium there was a noticeable difference in the fields with the Salem field turf having significantly more bounce. Both products were a significant upgrade over the old astroturf, at least in my experience, from the old turf at Scott Stadium. The volume of play on that PH field was extremely heavy including both PH and Fleming football for a while along with boys and girls soccer and lax, a few youth league football games and use by the youth and offseason lax programs. The final component, shared with me by a maintenance person, was the field was not rolled as regularly as it should have been given the heavy volume of use. It is my understanding the new installation is field turf so it will be interesting to see how it wears over time.
On another note, IMO Roberts was decent on TV but, not so much on radio. On radio he is great at taking material and stretching it interminably to fill airtime.
I've never listened to his show just a few of his football games. My ex wife's cousin is an intern for the radio show.
I read where PH's field turf cost only $460,000, if that's how much Salem's cost and they got 30% off for premature wear then it would be $320,000. In the long run it's still cheaper than maintaining natural grass.
The prorated cost is not only because of premature wear, but when the turf was originally put in the wrong turf was delivered and put in. The turf was never supposed to be light/dark green alternating. The new turf will be all dark green. The premature wear was caused by the light green turf not having the correct UV protection.
Last edited:
If you still have to "roll" it regularly to maintain it I don't see that much difference from a cost perspective than mowing it so that part is a wash. They have to get the mowers out to mow the rest of the grass around the stadium anyway. The water costs are minimal since Salem owns the water company. They do save money on fertilizer and not having to line the field I guess but $320,000 lines alot of fields. My guess is that the main reason we have that turf is primarily to impress the NCAA folks and it looks perfect in December on TV. That is not a bad reason but I don't buy the argument the artificial turf is cost effective and then justifying it based on that alone.
I can't comment with any level of certainty, but one of the primary advantages is it is an all weather surface. The field doesn't get torn up as the season goes on. This is an intrisic advantage that has a high value when "the game must go on" at a multi-use stadium. The rolling process is a somewhat more than what it sounds like. The process actually stands the blades of grass back up and adds the rubber granules back to the proper level.
Yes, the machine is expensive. You also have the cost of the granules. And the labor to operate the machine. I understand the biggest mistake that can be made is to NOT do the restorative "rolling" process as prescribed. That shortens the turf life more than any single factor.
It has long been argued whether it is a cost savings or loss on lesser used fields like the typical single high school utilized fields. One other consideration is the very real problem of where do you get the million or so dollars that is needed for the first installation, versus the cost of maintaining a grass field that is hidden in yearly budgets?
I have read where it eventually saves in maintenance costs, but I wouldn't want to try to make that argument. I do think the primary reason they got it was to keep the Stagg Bowl, which is not a bad reason. I'm sure the tax revenue they receive from the visitors staying in hotels, eating in restaurants, etc, helped cover the cost for the turf over time.
Thank God it will be all one color, I never liked the alternating colors.
And Mike, it's an uncomfortable argument for many to wrap their arms around, but there is a certain value to image. It goes along with meeting the expectations of the Stag Bowl sponsors. When you have these factors to consider as part of the overall investment, then turf is probably the more cost effective choice.
I was looking back on the threads for the one on turf that ran a year or two ago. Unfortunately the archives didn't go back far enough. I remember that a few posters had facts about cost comparisons. On cold hard facts, I believe with reasonable weather expectations, grass cost were lower. But when you factor in intangibles and abnormal weather, turf came out on top. So, tit for tat I guess?
We have grass, of course. But, we have played around with the alternating cut direction between yard lines. I can't remember exactly, but I think the length of cut has a drastic affect on the visual effect. I know it wasn't as easy and dramatic as was hoped for. And when it goes dormant, it is just brown anyway. It would be nice if we could overseed with winter rye, but that's money better spent elsewhere.
When all is said and done a turf field is definitely more cost effective than a natural grass field. All the maintenance you have to put into grass will eventually make a natural grass field very expensive.
There's probably a very decent cost difference between keeping a natural grass field up for 5 maybe 6-7 home games a year plus intermittent use from other sports for Generic State High School where they basically do as much as is needed to keep the team from forfeiting for lack of a playable field and Salem where there's almost certainly 7-8 varsity home games plus 5 JV games plus tons of rec league games plus concerts, state final games(1A and 2A), other civic uses, oh and the D3 title game. Salem's field probably gets more foot traffic than any other high school field in the state and the quality of some of these events necessitates a tip top field, not one that's brown and full of mud.
Using turf made so much sense for Salem and I imagine it is well worth it compared to trying to keep the grass up and going.
Using turf made so much sense for Salem and I imagine it is well worth it compared to trying to keep the grass up and going.