Turf trouble
So the Board of Trustees knew in February that the approval of the new turf in Kelly/Shorts Stadium would displace the field hockey team.
This changes little and the problem remains. And there are still a few questions about the turf deal that we’d like to raise.
The dilemma CMU faces is not new. Athletics Director Herb Deromedi said he knew back in 2002 that if the university planned to go with FieldTurf for football, NCAA officials wouldn’t accept the field for field hockey.
Deromedi and the board had two years to devise a definite plan for field hockey but decided to wait until now to explore options (including the asinine suggestion of having the team on the road for 12 consecutive weeks). Does anyone else see a problem with this?
Truth be told, the only viable option for the team now is a new field hockey facility. However, last semester when Deromedi was pushing for his one-time athletics fee for incoming freshmen and transfer students, the athletics director did not make it a point to inform the public of the potential need for a new field hockey facility. Isn’t this something people should have heard about?
Then there’s the issue of the price tag for the facility — $800,000 or more. Board chairman Jim Fabiano said trustees didn’t realize the cost would be anywhere near that range. “We were all taken back by that,” he said. University President Michael Rao said he was “in a bit of a state of shock” over the field hockey problem.
One of the options trustees are considering to pay for the facility is the campus improvement fee fund that would grow to more than $4 million by June. In the meantime, members of the Student Government Association are taking input from students on what to do with the fund.
We’re not convinced, however, that using the fund for a new field hockey facility would be the best use of the money. While we believe the team should have its own place to play on CMU’s campus, we don’t feel that the fund — which all students have paid into for years — would serve the campus best by subsidizing a narrowly defined interest such as field hockey. When the board decides to spend the money, it should go toward something that would benefit the greatest number of students.
Instead of placing an additional fee on students’ backs, the athletics department officials should raise the money for the new field hockey facility themselves. If donations to the university have increased by 15 percent in the last five years, then the athletics department should have no problem making its fund-raising pitch for field hockey. A new events center should be put on hold. CMU has gone this long without it.
Before trustees iron out the best course of action to remedy the field-less field hockey team’s troubles, we would like to see more public discussion on the issue — not closed-door bargaining.
