Concerns Go Beyond Wins, Losses in High School Sports

High school sports are no longer contested only in athletic arenas. They’re contested in courtrooms, district school board meetings and section committee hearings.

Among the recent issues:

--County high school principals voted last month to allow four Catholic schools--Mater Dei, Santa Margarita and Servite/Rosary--to play in public leagues on a two-year cycle beginning in 1992. Five school districts are appealing the decision to the California Interscholastic Federation, which has appointed a three-person panel to hear the case Friday.

--Several school districts are in a financial pinch because of state budget problems. The Huntington Beach Union School District board of trustees recently ordered $48,600 in athletic cuts as part of $2.6 million to be trimmed from next year’s school budget.

--Although administrators have discussed forming an Orange County Section for the past several years, it recently has become an issue again.

--The Southern Section has been dealing with increasing litigation, such as the case of baseball player Ryan Filbeck’s transfer from El Toro to Esperanza. The section ruled Filbeck ineligible, saying he moved for athletic reasons. But when a Superior Court judge overruled the decision, the section declined to appeal.

Eight members of The Times’ Orange County high school sports staff recently met with administrators to discuss the issues facing county schools and the section.

The panel: Bonnie Stormont, Marina High School girls’ athletic director; Monsignor Michael Harris, Santa Margarita principal; Jim Ryan, Foothill principal and Orange County releaguing chairman, and Stan Thomas, section commissioner of athletics.

Participants were given a list of questions in advance, but the conversation did not follow any predetermined format.

Some excerpts from the discussion:

THE PREP PERSPECTIVE

Q. How are high school sports in Orange County different from that of other parts of the state or country? Is there more emphasis on success in this area than in others? Is there more parental involvement?

Thomas: Athletics mean just as much to a small private school in Lancaster as to a large public high school in Orange County. Orange County is a mecca of athletics. There’s no question about it. The Southern Section has always maintained that it (athletics) is the other half of education.

In my humble opinion, the level of self-esteem a youngster achieves through athletics is second to none. It’s more important than academic success. I honestly feel that if teen-agers feel good about themselves after they leave high school, their citizenship and success in life will be far greater than if they were just bookworms with 4.0 grade-point averages. I’m not attempting to put down academics, or create a lesser degree of involvement.

Ryan: There’s an increase in the number of parents shopping for sports outlets, shopping for the right school or coach for their sons or daughters. That’s on most of their minds rather than the right education. In the public school system, they should be going to the school where they reside, but there’s evidence that too many parents are pushing that aside and trying to find the best athletic school.

Harris: I like parental involvement. It ranges from the very healthy involvement, which is going to our kids’ games and joining the booster clubs, to the Bad News Bears syndrome, which is where the parents take it far too seriously and create unnecessary stress for themselves, the kids and the coaching.

In my involvement, 85%-90% of the parents fall in that first category; they’re there to support their kids. But I would say we take sports too seriously. We’ve confused sport with life itself. When sports assumes an unnecessarily large proportion of a young person’s time, energy and life, other things suffer--school, family, social life and emotional growth. Sometimes, there’s so much emphasis on sports in Orange County that it can be unhealthy.

Stormont: I think we’re unique in that we’re an upper-middle-class area. We don’t have the problems that the poverty-stricken areas in the inner city have. Because of that, we have more press, more students getting scholarships and more parental involvement. Sometimes that’s good and sometimes that’s bad. Sometimes the parents insinuate themselves into the program in such a way that it’s detrimental to the program and the coaches.

I see sports as a valuable tool. I hope coaches are instilling self-esteem, fair play and sportsmanship. But it’s not a bright picture. Every time someone takes a stab at the Southern Section, it hurts the kids.

2, 4, 6, 8 . . . IF WE LOSE, WE LITIGATE

Q. Do you think the Southern Section or California Interscholastic Federation offices should exercise more control over high school athletics?

Thomas: The Southern Section is the principals, it’s not the CIF office. The principals tell us what to do, when to do it and how to do it. We enforce the rules, but they make the rules. That’s lost in translation. People see us as the policing body, the one that writes the rules.

It’s unfortunate that when a rule is adopted by the state or the Southern Section, and then for some reason a school feels uncomfortable with the rule, they’ll litigate it. I take strong exception to that.

We (the CIF) are a federation of sections, a family of schools, and we have our rules. To have the courts involved in our business is ludicrous. I realize that this (litigation) is the American way, and that it’s a right, but we should live by our own rules and abide by our own rules.

Q. Are we going to see more litigation? What about eligibility of athletes? Can the booster clubs challenge every Southern Section ruling in court?

Stormont: The bottom line is that we have to try to tighten our procedures for determining eligibility. The problem is that the parents are becoming far more sophisticated. They have access to attorneys.

It’s a game to some of these people. It’s amazing to try and track one of these things down. The convolutions they will go through, from phone numbers to addresses to all kinds of things. They put the schools and the programs in jeopardy by doing these things. Those people are out there. As long as they are, they’ll be able to circumvent any system we put in place.

They should not be allowed to bring litigation against the section. No matter what we do, they (parents) are out there trying. And what are we teaching our kids? It’s frightening to see what some of these people will pull. What are we telling our own flesh and blood, that I can cheat and get away with it?

Q. Are we approaching anarchy, where volunteer members of the Southern Section help write the rules and then try to overturn them in court?

Thomas: When a Superior Court judge can overturn the section commissioner, the executive committee and the state CIF in 10 minutes after the hours and hours of discussion, that bothers me.

We are a very democratic organization, and we maintain that . . . in that it relates to outcomes that are appropriate. To take that to the courts, the cost of litigation is exorbitant.

When the clock starts running for the CIF attorneys, guess who pays? It’s these people (schools). How do we pay our bill for litigation? At the close of the year, a dollar figure is arrived at for all 10 sections and dispersed across the state to the 1,200 schools. Isn’t that a tragedy? That very same dollar could be put into athletic programs, and then budget cuts wouldn’t be a concern, perhaps. When you have a district with an $80-million budget, and they’re talking about cutting $35,000 for athletics, that’s a penny and a half. Let’s stop this foolish litigation and let’s get on with our lives and put money where money can count.

Q. How much is being spent by the state and section offices for litigation?

Thomas: We spent about $150,000 statewide last year. This year it could be more. We are anticipating, because of this parochial issue in Orange County, that this could eventually reach the courts. This could impact beyond any measure, financially, that school districts will absorb, not in one faction, but in two. There are five districts that intend to challenge the issue of placing parochial schools in the public leagues. And if this goes on to the courts, those districts will pay not only for their litigation fees, but for the CIF’s, which is absurd. What a waste of money. It’s a lose-lose situation. I’m going to make it very clear--the Catholics belong in Orange County, because our council made that decision.

Q. Has there been any move by the Southern Section on educating parents and the booster clubs on the role of the section? Could that help circumvent the litigation by the boosters?

Thomas: We had seven meetings throughout the section in the last year. We invited booster club presidents, school board members, principals and coaches. The emphasis was on explaining the role and function of a booster club as it relates to a support organization within the high school. I think it was very successful because we have had no booster club litigation this year. But booster clubs are like kids, there’s constantly a turnover. Children come and go in eight semesters. It’s the same with the parents. These meetings will have to be an ongoing thing. The more communication we provided, the healthier we got this year.

Q. Why didn’t the section pursue the Ryan Filbeck case? Is the section growing weary of litigation? Or is the section looking at certain cases and saying, ‘We can’t win this.’

Thomas: The judge who heard that case disagreed with the section commissioner’s opinion, the executive committee’s opinion and the state CIF’s opinion. The issue became the father and the son had a falling out with the (El Toro) baseball program. This was brought in evidence by the principal. We felt the transfer was athletically motivated. The judge felt that because there was a change in address (with Filbeck), there should be no penalty. The father filed for divorce and moved to the best baseball program in the county, which I’m sure is only a coincidence.

We figured, ‘Why spend the money?’ and just chose not to defend it (the section’s ruling). This has happened before. The school that received this youngster has a leg up simply because other schools competing don’t have the advantage of an additional pitcher. That’s not fair.

We will never cave in (as far as litigation). Within the levels of appellate in the CIF, we will maintain the integrity of the Southern Section rules. But I can’t control the superior court judges. These judges are all-powerful.

RELEAGUING--PUBLIC VS. PRIVATE

Q. What are the concerns of public school administrators toward Catholic schools joining their athletic leagues?

Ryan: One element of concern among the Orange County public principals is not being sure if the same networking and the same integrity they have experienced with each other would be met with the same understanding and response when a problem came up with a public and parochial school.

The major concern is about competing with the same people who live in the same common area of the two schools, a parochial and a neighboring public school.

Many problems revolve around competing schools in the same attendance areas. The idea still exists with parents and students shopping for schools. They do that now, anyway. But having the schools in the same league would make it even more of a hardship on both schools. They would be competing for the same athletes.

Stormont: The perception of coaches that I deal with is the issue of undue influence. A lot of (public) coaches are suspicious that undue influence by the parochial schools is taking place.

In the last (Sunset) League meeting, our CIF representative kept referring to Servite, Servite, Servite (an all-boys school joining the league). Then, finally, it was Servite and Rosary (an all-girls school joining the league). I don’t think a lot of thought was given to the girls’ programs. It boiled down to Servite can go here, and Santa Margarita and Mater Dei can go there.

I’m not ecstatic about this, nor do I think the other girls’ athletic directors in the league are ecstatic. Rosary has an enrollment of about 550 girls and they don’t have field hockey or badminton teams, two sports we (the league schools) are still hanging on to. . . .

Q. What are the concerns of Catholic administrators about releaguing?

Harris: Some of the resistance (from public administrators) is understandable. We do have different options as a Catholic school. For example, anyone who lives in Orange County, if they could get to the parochial school on time, could be a student there. That’s a big difference (from public schools). That’s an understandable anxiety because the parochial schools will have an unfair advantage when it comes to competition. A mild defense of that argument is that when public and parochial schools play each other, it (competitiveness) is pretty evenly divided. For example, in Santa Margarita’s case, we have lost more games to public high schools than we’ve won. . . . I agree with Jim (Ryan) that we don’t want to encourage parents to shop around for a school for sports only. We place sports in a far too exaggerated mode.

I feel very positive that this is going to work. I think the lawsuits that may be pending are a waste of money for all of us. In the end, they will prove to be futile. I think the healthy approach is to get on with it and try it. If it doesn’t work, then we have all these bright, intelligent, reasonable people who can assess why it doesn’t work, and then make the changes.

Q. Although the releaguing is set for two years, some public school administrators, particularly in Orange County, say once the parochial schools are in the leagues, the doors are closed. Is there a helpless feeling among the public schools?

Ryan: There’s a feeling among many of the principals that we were trying to take a stand on what we felt was in the best interests of the schools in Orange County. And it was being decided on by a group of people who had nothing to do with the Orange County area. We felt the decision was imposed on us by people who had no interest or cared what happened to Orange County athletics.

Here we had taken a stand, and here it was being decided by the council, which was made up to represent the whole Southern Section. The feeling was that the issue was being jammed down their (county principals’) throats. It rubbed them the wrong way. But we’ve had our say, and the council made a decision. That’s the rules and regulations set up that we voted on. Even though we don’t like the decision, and we feel that others are making the decision for us, we’ve had our say.

Harris: I think all the schools are a little nervous. I think the reason there’s not more support for a four-year cycle (instead of two years) is because of the nervousness of schools that think, “What if we’re in a bad situation? We have to live with it for four years instead of two.”

Thomas: In the section and the council, no one geographic area can manipulate a vote. . . . It has been the perception of the council that Orange County is trying to be an island in itself on this (releaguing) matter. But they (Orange County schools) are part of this section, and if they decide not to be part of the section, then I wish them Godspeed.

BREAKING AWAY-- AN ORANGE COUNTY SECTION?

Q. How do the Catholic and public schools feel about an Orange County section? Is it realistic?

Harris: There are some principals who would say that you should draw a line around the county (border) and say all schools within that line are in the county section. But some would want to disenfranchise (private schools) and make it just the public schools. In the days of rising costs and travel, my reading of the situation is that for Orange County to set up its own section, it would be very expensive. I’m not sure now’s the time, with talks of budget cuts and cutting freshman and sophomore sports in some districts.

Ryan: We’ve met the enemy and it’s us (the principals and schools). The Southern Section is made up of every school, not just one guy in an office. . . . The section gives us (Orange County) a lot of attention. But it’s a matter of making the system work. This section is a large entity, but it works well for the kids.

Stormont: . . . It would take someone to get corporate sponsorship for an Orange County section. It would take the incentive from some of the people out there--the ones who are causing problems with the litigation--to come up with that sponsorship.

Orange County is the hub of the Southern Section, and there’s a perception out there that we are not being heard. It’s there in a large scale. Instead of playing the Hatfields and the McCoys, maybe we should sit down and talk about these things. Me, I’m ultraconservative. I’m not saying, ‘To hell with the Southern Section, let’s get rid of it and start our own section.’ I think the Southern Section has done some incredible things for sports.

Q. Is Orange County the hub of the Southern Section?

Thomas: I don’t agree with that statement. The section doesn’t show any favoritism toward Orange County. We look at all the issues.

THE BUDGET CRISIS

Q. School budgets have taken a beating in the past few months, and athletic programs have been among the first to feel the crunch. How can the schools, and their athletic programs, survive the cuts? What should the priorities be?

Thomas: If I were a coach or an athletic director, I would strongly encourage school districts to delete an entire sport and not just the freshman and sophomore levels, the building blocks, of those sports. I saw in the paper the other day that a district was (considering) taking out freshman-sophomore football and baseball. To me, that’s a hard pill to swallow. Those are the building blocks for your varsity team. Why not take a sport that costs relatively the same amount and eliminate the whole sport, rather than take the youngsters out and hurt the varsity programs?

Q. But aren’t sports supposed to be a learning experience for everyone in the school? If you cut girls’ volleyball and keep freshman-sophomore football, the girls can’t go out for football. What will they do?

Thomas: I disagree with that. I’m not in favor of cutting any programs. But if you’re going to be successful in a given sport, you’re successful not for one or two years, but for three or four. It’s impossible to think that School A will cut a freshman-sophomore program in a major sport and attempt to compete in three years at the same level against a school that had maintained that program during the budgetary crunch.

Q. Can the Southern Section do anything to help the budget crunch with its member schools?

Thomas: Our schools have earned in the last two years almost $3 million from our office because of involvement in (Southern Section) playoffs. When a school district has an $80-million budget and talks about cutting $38,000, are they thinking in terms of the amount of money they have earned, and the potential income that will continue to come forth? We (Southern Section) are not freeloading on anyone. Our schools are self-sustaining. Our income is derived from what we can earn.

The state provides zero dollars for the CIF and our programs. The reality of it is, we pour back into our programs hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars that sustain these programs, so they are becoming self-sufficient. When you approach $3 million in net proceeds in two years, that’s a significant amount of dollars that will keep programs going.