Faults Found in Bowl Plans

Is there really an insatiable appetite for one more weekend of high school football?

Starting in 2006, this would be the time to hold three bowl games, matching the best in Southern California against their counterparts from Northern California for a mythical state championship.

A proposal could be approved in May. The state CIF, trying to build support for the two-year pilot program, is conducting an Internet survey on its website, cifstate.org, asking whether it’s a good idea for a state championship in football.

As of Thursday, 88.6% of the 1,601 respondents approve of the concept. But it’s a misleading survey because the current proposal isn’t likely to produce a true state champion.

It’s simply three bowl games broken down by enrollment -- large, medium and small schools -- and designed to raise money for the state CIF. The winners of each division will be called state champions.

And guess who’s going to select the six teams? It will be a special panel, with each of the 10 sections having at least one representative. And, if you thought the bowl championship series in college football was a mess, wait until you leave it up to a group of administrators, coaches or sportswriters to argue about the strengths and weaknesses of high school teams while using a computerized rating system to guide them.

The computer system would take into account win-loss record, common opponents, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition. It will not consider margin of victory, which is good, but that doesn’t mean the humans won’t.

In speaking with players and coaches participating in last week’s championship games, it’s clear most are in favor of adding another week to the season for the bowl series.

“It needs to be done. It would be fun,” Long Beach Poly Coach Raul Lara said.

Center Ryan Fink of Division IV champion Ventura St. Bonaventure said, “It would be good to go against the best.”

But how much excitement and interest will there be in Southern California for three bowl games? And, with Concord De La Salle no longer boasting a 151-game win streak, will anyone care about playing a Northern California team?

“Winning the [Southern Section] title is awesome and playing another game would be anticlimactic,” Los Alamitos Coach John Barnes said. “This is the 17th straight week of football. We’re tired.”

The last time a bowl game was attempted was 1992. The Reebok Bowl lasted one year. It matched the Southern Section Division I champion against the City Section champion. It drew 8,132 to Angel Stadium, and La Puente Bishop Amat defeated Sylmar, 31-10.

KCOP paid a $50,000 rights fee. Each school received $12,000. The game was a success on television, drawing an impressive 5.0 rating and was watched in more than 250,000 homes. But it was quickly dropped because of financial reasons.

Los Angeles Loyola vowed at the time not to participate in the game because it would interfere with senior finals, and the Cubs are just as adamant today that they won’t participate in 2006.

“We’re not going to play in it,” Athletic Director Chris O’Donnell said. “I don’t feel it’s a necessary game. I don’t see the benefits to the athletes and Loyola playing that extra week.”

Jeff Engilman, who coached Sylmar in the 1992 game, said his team had a difficult time focusing after devoting so much time and emotion to winning the City title.

“It’s a tremendously long season,” he said. “Our championship game against Carson was everything. Our kids didn’t know who Bishop Amat was. They knew they had another game, but it didn’t mean a whole lot to them. Once the initial hype wore off, it was like, ‘What are we doing here?’ ”

If there’s one school that can be projected as a likely participant in the Division III bowl game in 2006, it would be Westlake Village Oaks Christian, which started eight sophomores and one freshman Saturday in winning the Southern Section Division XI title.

Coach Bill Redell enthusiastically endorsed the bowl concept before the game.

“It would be great for high school football,” he said.

But after losing six starters to injuries against Oak Park, Redell suddenly had second thoughts.

“Maybe 14 games is enough,” he said.

Dr. Richard Ferkle, an orthopedic surgeon and team doctor for Oaks Christian, raised a legitimate safety issue.

“It’s very tough on a young man’s body to play too many games,” he said.

Perhaps the most compelling reason to oppose the idea is the damage an extra week of football would do to multiple-sport athletes.

There’s already tension among coaches over off-season commitments among two- and three-sport athletes, and disagreements figure to increase if a top athlete doesn’t become available for basketball or soccer until after Christmas.

In the end, if the sections really want to hold three bowl games, go for it. Just don’t expect to make a lot of money and don’t think the media is going to be fooled into believing the winners are really tops in the state.

*

Eric Sondheimer can be reached at eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.