Boys HS Soccer Predictions

[Unregistered]

SK parent here, we played Lincoln yesterday and they had the shortest field, I do not believe it was 100 yards long...how do they get away playing on a tiny field.

We did win easily but very ugly to watch, never mind play.

[Unregistered]

I agree. I don't know how they get away with that - it can't meet minimal regulation I'm sure. It's a U-12/U-14 field at best.

[Unregistered]

SK parent here, we played Lincoln yesterday and they had the shortest field, I do not believe it was 100 yards long...how do they get away playing on a tiny field.

We did win easily but very ugly to watch, never mind play.

Lincoln Parent here. The state of the soccer fields in Lincoln are truly an embarrassment. Both High school soccer teams should be playing on the football field. They let the pee wee football teams practice there. the Non-sport of girls lacrosse practices and plays there. While the soccer teams are made to play either in a mud-puddle of baseball outfield or some lousy, small field on the other side of town from the High school.

As far as the Lincoln Boys team goes, they should never have moved up to DI. They were competitive as a DII team but not overpowering. Hopefully they can get moved back to where they belong.

[Unregistered]

I agree. I don't know how they get away with that - it can't meet minimal regulation I'm sure. It's a U-12/U-14 field at best.

No room for Kick-and-chase on a small field.

[JBsoccer]

SK parent here, we played Lincoln yesterday and they had the shortest field, I do not believe it was 100 yards long...how do they get away playing on a tiny field.

We did win easily but very ugly to watch, never mind play.

Lincoln is going through some construction to our baseball field - Chet Nichols Field - this fall, which is where our LHS soccer teams usually play. Chet is a bit narrower, but certainly longer than Manville Park (the field used this year).

I'm told by our Parks and Rec dept. That Chet will be available after Columbus Day - but who knows?

The bigger picture is that there is not a single decent soccer field in town - save for the one at CCRI (which no one seems to be too interested in trying to gain the use of).

SK parent, you are right on. We need a real soccer field in Lincoln.

JB

[JBsoccer]

Lincoln is going through some construction to our baseball field - Chet Nichols Field - this fall, which is where our LHS soccer teams usually play. Chet is a bit narrower, but certainly longer than Manville Park (the field used this year).

I'm told by our Parks and Rec dept. That Chet will be available after Columbus Day - but who knows?

The bigger picture is that there is not a single decent soccer field in town - save for the one at CCRI (which no one seems to be too interested in trying to gain the use of).

SK parent, you are right on. We need a real soccer field in Lincoln.

JB

....To offer a solution, a previous poster is completely correct....we need to turf our football field (Ferguson field). This would require a minimal amount of excavation. The field already has lights.

IMO, if The school dept., parks and rec, LYSA and Lincoln Youth Football would pool resources, we could get this done cheaply and quickly. LYSA alone is sitting on a CD worth over $110k. The price of Field Turf materials and installation are much more affordable than you might think.

Somebody or some organization needs to get behind this and make it happen.

JB

[Unregistered]

JB,
Having done quite a bit of research in the area of synthetic turf recently, I would say your cost estimates are low -- not only factoring in the initial cost, but the life-cycle requirement (including replacement and disposal) and maintenance (not maintenance or water free as some claim).

In addition to lessons learned locally (LaSalle, EG, Middletown), the town of Greenwich, CT did a comprehensive multi-year study and the conclusions are mixed -- properly constructed/engineered grass fields are still a better way to go (emphasis on properly constructed/engineered/maintained), but synthetic can be an option (but have to do your homework on the best emerging practices in terms of material, etc.). I was a big advocate for synthetic, but the more I read, the more it makes sense to be on the sidelines as the science and technology improves both the understanding of the long-term effects (both to individuals and the surrounding environment) and the durability of the surfaces.

I'm surprised, given the state of higher education budget, that someone would not reach out to CCRI to rent. CCRI plays a lot on Wed/Tue and weekends so might be amenable to scheduling a few games (although I believe Flanagan doesn't have lights so maybe when you include training and the need to V/JV games on same day, it wouldn't work).

If you build it right (like Brown's soccer/lacrosse field or Bryant's football/soccer field), natural turf fields can accommodate sufficient use. The problem is many fields are older and not well designed so they have become maintenance headaches, which leads schools to limit use/cut back on funds/find short-term fixes, perpetuating the problems.

[Unregistered]

Lincoln is going through some construction to our baseball field - Chet Nichols Field - this fall, which is where our LHS soccer teams usually play. Chet is a bit narrower, but certainly longer than Manville Park (the field used this year).

I'm told by our Parks and Rec dept. That Chet will be available after Columbus Day - but who knows?

The bigger picture is that there is not a single decent soccer field in town - save for the one at CCRI (which no one seems to be too interested in trying to gain the use of).

SK parent, you are right on. We need a real soccer field in Lincoln.

JB

Chet is a poor substitute for a soccer field. Unless you like being able to bank a pass off the infield slope:) Lincoln needs a few real soccer fields.

[JBsoccer]

JB,
Having done quite a bit of research in the area of synthetic turf recently, I would say your cost estimates are low -- not only factoring in the initial cost, but the life-cycle requirement (including replacement and disposal) and maintenance (not maintenance or water free as some claim).

In addition to lessons learned locally (LaSalle, EG, Middletown), the town of Greenwich, CT did a comprehensive multi-year study and the conclusions are mixed -- properly constructed/engineered grass fields are still a better way to go (emphasis on properly constructed/engineered/maintained), but synthetic can be an option (but have to do your homework on the best emerging practices in terms of material, etc.). I was a big advocate for synthetic, but the more I read, the more it makes sense to be on the sidelines as the science and technology improves both the understanding of the long-term effects (both to individuals and the surrounding environment) and the durability of the surfaces.

I'm surprised, given the state of higher education budget, that someone would not reach out to CCRI to rent. CCRI plays a lot on Wed/Tue and weekends so might be amenable to scheduling a few games (although I believe Flanagan doesn't have lights so maybe when you include training and the need to V/JV games on same day, it wouldn't work).

If you build it right (like Brown's soccer/lacrosse field or Bryant's football/soccer field), natural turf fields can accommodate sufficient use. The problem is many fields are older and not well designed so they have become maintenance headaches, which leads schools to limit use/cut back on funds/find short-term fixes, perpetuating the problems.

Great post. Very helpful. Thanks.

You've obviously done a f air amount of homework on turf \. grass. I'd love to hear what the basis for the decisions of North Smithfield, Middletown (Gaudet MS), Cranston Stadium and EWG etc. to go with field turf over grass.

One thing I like about field turf is it allows better conditions in the rain. Our AAU baseball club has played many tournaments at Baseball Heaven in Long Island. The management there told me that their turf fields can drain up to 10 inches of rain per hour. if true, turf fields offer far fewer amounts of games rained out, don't they?

JB

[Unregistered]

... Both High school soccer teams should be playing on the football field. ...

Problem is that a high school football field is only about 2/3 as wide as a soccer field is supposed to be (160' for football vs about 70 yards for soccer). If the HS football field is already over used and getting trashed, it might be better to find another, bigger grassy area for the soccer teams.

A bigger, appropriately sized field can really change the way the game is played.

[Unregistered]

Problem is that a high school football field is only about 2/3 as wide as a soccer field is supposed to be (160' for football vs about 70 yards for soccer). If the HS football field is already over used and getting trashed, it might be better to find another, bigger grassy area for the soccer teams.

A bigger, appropriately sized field can really change the way the game is played.

I - The Field of Play


Dimensions

The field of play must be rectangular. The length of the touch line must be greater than the length of the goal line.

Length: minimum 90 m (100 yds), maximum 120 m (130 yds) Width: minimum 45 m (50 yds), maximum 90 m (100 yds)

[Unregistered]

I - The Field of Play


Dimensions

The field of play must be rectangular. The length of the touch line must be greater than the length of the goal line.

Length: minimum 90 m (100 yds), maximum 120 m (130 yds) Width: minimum 45 m (50 yds), maximum 90 m (100 yds)

What are the dimensions of every MLS and every EPL field? Each is AT LEAST 70 yards wide. If you want to watch rugby, watch rugby. I prefer to watch possession and passing on a wider field of play.

[Unregistered]

JB,
Been lazy about logging in.

Middletown was funded by Salve Regina in a partnership arrangement. The life-cycle analysis changes dramatically for a school district when the partner is picking up most of the cost. I'll have to check more on Cranston. North Kingstown just recently voted down putting one in and the cost of 850,000 was considered on the "optimistic" side. I think the CT study put it closer to $1M with an annual budgeting cost around $100,000 (maintenance plus annual contribution for eventual replacement/disposal).

Also, I don't know how much EG's field was underwritten by the Carceiri family, but it had major drainage issues (among other items) when first installed.

http://eastgreenwich.patch.com/artic...ield-sidelined

Greenwich CT discovered the drainage pattern from heavy rains was leading to elevated zinc in surrounding areas. The claim of higher incidents of cancer from rubber infill has not been proven, but synthetic turf is associated with more skin abrasions (all things equal) than grass, which some people claim is the link with higher infection cases. The syn turf companies will argue there is an initial "settling" period that requires some use in order to achieve optimal drainage.

Bottom line - I would advise any town to first do a complete end-user study looking 10-15 years out. Look at the demographic trends for school population as well as trends in the potential non-school youth/adult sport organizations that use space. In other words, get a good sense how much space you will need projecting out before assuming syn turf is the answer.

Then, match your best "demand" analysis with the "supply" side (existing/developable fields). If you have an imbalance, then do the comparisons of doing natural turf right versus syn turf -- a lot depends on the who/what/when of usage and the factors (for example, the warranties offered by syn turf companies are generally 3-5 years shorter than the planning horizon used/claimed by folks before replacement) used in the comparison.

It really requires a cooperative, thoughtful approach from different groups to do the homework to make the right decision for the community.

_COL

[Unregistered]

What are the dimensions of every MLS and every EPL field? Each is AT LEAST 70 yards wide. If you want to watch rugby, watch rugby. I prefer to watch possession and passing on a wider field of play.

I agree, but we can't decide what size field is supposed to be. Soccer rules are a little fuzzy in many cases. Seems to me that it would be better to have all the fields be the same size. But they are not.

In the case of MLS and EPL the fields are more standard but still not all the same.


Length: minimum 100 m (110 yds), maximum 110 m (120 yds) Width: minimum 64 m (70 yds), maximum 75 m (80 yds)

[Unregistered]

Only LaSalle & Central Falls remain.

And now there is just one.