School district cuts programs $1.2M, then wants $460K for football field

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=567548

Nice to see that everybody has their priorities in order up in Wisconsin.

 

The district doesn't want the money, the football boosters do. Plus its a win-win for the district... the district gets upgraded facilities without spending a dime because the boosters raised all the money.

 

It's nice to see everybody loves only football. Why is it the Podunk High Boosters claim to love all things Podunk and omit the word "foot ball" from between "all" and "things." If the boosters cared at all about the kids, they'd look for monies enough for turf and to salvage other programs. A turf field allows for more usage in the community, but if the high school cuts athletic programs -- say soccer and field hockey -- that's less usage for the school's new toys. Hardly a boost to the overall community.
Football is the money maker. Cutbacks elsewhere, however, should (yeah, right) be something boosters (often brainless buffoons) are concerned with.

 

Diego...not arguing with your post, but please, please, PLEASE do not use the term monies. It's money, plain and simple. Not monies.

 

On the one hand, the district would save money in maintenance, etc., of the field over the long haul and it could do it without the initial outlay of the cost of an artificial turf field, making the savings more immediate.

On the other hand, if people are going to be raising money to benefit the school, shouldn't they try to raise money to support academic endeavors which may give every student a chance to earn a college scholarship instead of giving the football players a pretty new field?

Arguments can be made for either side.

Oh, and the title of this thread is misleading ... it's not the school district that wants the $460K for the new field, it's the boosters.

 

People can do what they want with their money; however, this is just another example of fucked up priorities.

 

If the booster club is doing the asking then the school doesn't have much say about what they do with the money. I am still waiting to see my first request for a donation for the "academic booster club". I wish it wasn't like that, but it is the way the high school athletic world seems to turn. Football above all else.

 

The school may not be able to tell the booster club how to spend the money, but they have a right to say they don't want the booster club spending it on the football field, which is under the district's authority, not the booster club. It would be awfully nice if someone from the board conveyed to the booster club that while they appreciate their support, why not do something for ALL students.

 

I've had several schools I cover get fully involved in asking for money for artificial turf. Only one got it off the ground, and they did it by employing some funny math which residents are pissed about.

I've asked these groups what they plan to do when the turf needs replaced in say 5 to 10 years and they have no idea. They honestly think the playing surface will last 15 to 20 years.

 

Alley, it is possible that the booster club owns the field (or leases it). I read something recently, unfortunately I can't remember where right now, that said in some places school districts are divesting themselves of facilities. The school districts pass them on to booster clubs and then use some sort of rental agreement to have the facility on game nights.

I get where you're coming from, but if that's the case, the school really does have no say.

And JR, it probably won't even happen then.

 

Sorry, I don't get these arguments.

If you want, go ahead and raise that $460K for the district. You'll still have to cut $740K this year, and next year you'll have to cut the remaining $460K.