University Challenges La Mirada’s Playoff Status

The football playoffs are under way, but not all the competition is taking place on the field. University High gets another crack at La Mirada at 1 p.m. today when it challenges the Suburban League’s decision to allow the Matadores to continue in the Division VIII playoffs.

Late Friday afternoon, the Southern Section was alerted to the possibility that La Mirada used an ineligible player during the regular season, and the section contacted La Mirada about 3 1/2 hours before kickoff. La Mirada then beat University, 24-0.

On Saturday, Suburban League principals met and determined that La Mirada would forfeit its 10 victories for using an ineligible player but be allowed to continue in the playoffs.

So Diana Schmelzer, University principal, requested a hearing to express her school’s concerns over the message the Suburban League is sending. She thinks La Mirada should forfeit its second-round game against Duarte.

“They have a fine team and beat us fair and square without the ineligible player,” Schmelzer said. “If they end up being champion, what is that saying to the rest of the world? That you can break the rules the whole season and go to the playoffs, and if you don’t break the rules in the playoffs, it’s OK? It’s not a good statement to the kids.

“It’s a tough situation. The timing made it tougher (to postpone the game for a ruling).”

The Southern Section on Wednesday postponed one first-round playoff game, Canyon versus Loara, until Saturday. Loara didn’t qualify for the playoffs, but took El Dorado’s place when the Golden Hawks were discovered to have used an ineligible player and forfeited six victories. The only difference is the time of discovery.

La Mirada Principal Howard Haas said Monday his school was still investigating the player’s eligibility and called it “a fine line.”

“He was living in La Mirada, and there was a semester that he was at a different school (outside La Mirada) while living in La Mirada and came back the second semester (the spring of 1994),” Haas said.

“If the whole story was known by everyone, people would go ‘Oh, that’s fine this is happening.’ Sometimes you have to make decisions which are best for students. . . . No question, we should be able to continue on.”

Haas said a precedent was set last year at Antelope Valley, where the football team dropped from 8-2 to 5-5 after forfeits, but the Golden League, upon then-Principal John Hutek’s appeal, allowed the Antelopes to play on. They won two playoff games before losing.

“The position I took was that there’s a letter of the rule and a spirit of the rule,” Hutek said. “The punishment didn’t fit the crime. It wasn’t done to alter the level of the playing field. The spirit of the rule was written to make sure the playing field remained even.

“We (ultimately) had to give up our status and our ranking. We were unable to boast the win-loss record and we were on probationary status for a period of time and held accountable for any paper clearances that might arise, which is what it was that got us in trouble in the first place. That was more reasonable.”

Said Schmelzer, University’s principal: “We (the football team) are not practicing. This is not an issue about University High School. This is about fairness and logical consequences for actions.”