Some Small Schools Seek to Widen the Gap

There is currently a proposed amendment before the OSAA Delegate Assembly to reduce the length of seasons, and as a result, the number of contests, that schools in the 3A, 2A, and 1A classes could participate in. The amendment received a first reading at the October meeting of the delegate assembly, and will come up for discussion and a decision at the April meeting.

The proposal, sponsored mostly by representatives from smaller programs in eastern Oregon and northwest Oregon, would reduce the football season to 8 games, and would set the number of basketball, baseball, and softball seasons three less than the current limitation used by schools in all classes. Wrestling, track, and cross country would be allowed two fewer meets, and volleyball would get four fewer matches, and two fewer dates. Similar reductions would be applied to other activities.

See page 5 of the document at http://osaa.org/governance/delegate/20081020summary.pdf for full text of the proposal.

The rationale is that due to the smaller leagues that resulted after reclassification, it is no longer necessary to determine league winners. The supporting arguments are that by allowing fewer contests, expenses will be reduced, and less instructional time will be lost.

It is worth noting that in many cases, these arguments are flawed. For example, in 1A football, in two districts, non-conference contests would be eliminated. And the date pared from the football season would be the one that falls before classes commence.

The impact on basketball, and baseball and softball, would be to reduce the number of games that could be participated in during the winter and spring breaks, respectively. Presumably, most students aren’t in class at those times anyway. The reductions for volleyball would take the form of fewer weekend tournaments. Are students really in class on Saturdays at many schools?

These flaws in the rationale given can only cause one to wonder if there is really another reason, one less politically appealing than citing missed class time, even though that won’t necessarily be the case.

If reduced expenses were truly a main objective, why would those activities that generate revenue be targeted for cuts? Most of the expense of fielding football and basketball teams are tied up in coaches’ contracts, uniforms and equipment, and facilities. Don’t expect pay to be reduced for already underpaid high school coaches, and don’t think for a minute that it will cost less to maintain the football stadium and the gym just because they are used a time or two less.

And if you think Nike or Russell will charge less for uniforms that will get used maybe one time less, perhaps you should think that thru again.

What will result is a reduction in gate receipts, and also concessions, which in many cases fund the non-revenue sports.

What will also result are fewer opportunities for students to learn lessons beyond the boundaries of their locale. And to learn time management.

And where did the idea come from that the main reason for conducting any given season is to determine the league champion? Aren’t there other benefits to be gained from activity participation?

It should also be noted that nowhere in the existing or proposed OSAA rules is there anything that requires any member to participate in the maximum number of contests allowed. If any school district feels that their students are not well served by participating in activities, they can provide fewer opportunities, or not even participate in some activities at all. And they can do that without preventing other schools in other communities from providing their students increased and more varied opportunities, should they desire to.

One of the things that has developed since longer seasons came into existence, and then redistricting reduced the size of some leagues, is an increase in the number of interesting intersectional and interstate contests. Trips that provide cultural exchange and learning opportunities. And increased interest and participation.

Remember the discovery by a Supreme Court judge that there was a cultural and diversity awareness issue between members of the PIL and the Midwestern league a couple of seasons ago after issues at the basketball tournament? Anyone think learning about the different ways different communities view things might actually increase awareness? Could there be some that would rather not actually deal with these differences?

There are some of us who remember when seasons were shorter, and scheduling flexibility was nearly non-existent. It made the job of the Athletic Director easier, as no actual scheduling and logistical work had to be done. It also tended to reinforce the gaps between the “haves” and the “have nots”.

The recent tournament season brings to light another consideration; one that requires some flexibility of scheduling. This year’s unusual, but certainly not unprecedented, extreme weather wreaked havoc with schedules. Even with the longer season, some teams will not fill the existing allotment of games.

Compress the schedule further, and limit the ability to schedule creatively, and the effect will not only be reduced developmental of court skills. It will reduce the experience that contributes to several useful life skills, those of dealing with adversity, learning time management, and effectively responding to the unexpected. That will be handy long after ball handling skills begin to fade.

The outcome won’t affect the various media; there will still be more games than we can ever hope to cover. It’s the kids whose’ interests that adults are charged with overseeing that will lose out.

It took years of work to bring the system closer to the modern era. Now, there is a move to turn back progress. Because in many cases, participation will NOT decrease. It will shift further to “club” volleyball, AAU and the like in basketball, and “summer ball” for softball and baseball for some. While these activities are not to be opposed, it is a fact that they are sometimes not as well regulated or managed as school (and OSAA) sanctioned programs. And the opportunities are certainly less uniform for kids from some communities than others, some of which have less infrastructure than others outside their schools to support such programs.

And that will worsen the already bothersome competitive imbalance, not improve it.

The strangest thing about this proposal is that it comes from the same portion of the community that also ask why opportunities for advancement, scholarship or not, are fewer and harder to come by for student athletes from the smaller schools.

Being in the business of covering both high school and college activities provides the opportunity to see a wide range of student athletes from a variety of programs. And the opportunity to make valid comparisons based on actual observations.

The typical student athlete from smaller programs is already often faced with a steeper developmental curve, due in part to the reduced level and amount of competition and experience they encounter. If anything, many of these kids would benefit from increased experience and exposure, compared to students from larger programs. To further reduce their opportunities will only widen the gap that already makes it more difficult for them.

Further, one of the most discussed topics is already how difficult it is for many smaller public districts to compete with private institutions, which already often have a clientele that provide more opportunities and development. By further curbing the options for students from these smaller publics, it will only exacerbate what many so strongly complain about already.

So before voting to support this proposal, one would hope that representatives to the delegate assembly would consider if it is really in the best interest of kids (they are the ones that activities are for) to decrease their opportunities. And perhaps constituents should consider whether they believe a healthy, competitive system provides those they are most interested in their best chance to succeed, or if increasing the already troublesome competitive imbalance will better serve everyone’s interests. And then advise their principal and athletic director of their views on the matter.

Because complaining about the results of this proposal after it is adopted will not be as useful as weighing in on the matter before a decision is made.

CC

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it