FHSAA Proposes Athletic Schedule Reductions

April 27, 2009

As a follow up to a previous article written for NATS, I thought it might be interesting to take a second look at where the Florida High School Athletic Association is in regard to its March 3rd proposal calling for a cap on the maximum number of games the state's high school sports programs could play in order to cut rising educational costs in the state.

Though varsity football would remain exempt from the proposed reductions, the organization's 16-member Board of Directors approach a critical crossroad in Gainesville April 26-27 when it will decide the fate of countless other programs likely effected by a shortening of their respective schedules by 20 percent (40 percent for non-varsity sports, including football) over the next two years.

Buddy Collings of the Orlando Sentinel writes that in particular danger is the "smorgasbord of December basketball and spring-break baseball tournaments that bring some of the nation's top teams" to Florida to compete against the state's high school programs. A compromise allowing teams to play one four-game tournament a year and count it as two playing dates was drawn up by coaches at the state's basketball tournament in March, but is not likely to be presented by Roger Dearing, new FHSAA executive director, as the state superintendent association and FHSAA athletic directors do not back the plan.

Superintendents argue a reduction is needed because, as expressed by Dearing in a phone interview with Collings last week, "We have to do what's best for the entire state, with economics for all the schools and all the programs in mind." Bill Montford, CEO of the Florida Association of District School Superintendents, agrees with Dearing's contention, stating, "School districts are facing unprecedented financial challenges, which have and will continue to require exceptional and sometimes unpopular decisions. This may be one of those."

Dearing also argues that the proposal -- an "across-the-board plan" as opposed to the "patchwork" responses to the state's flailing economy as presented by some 67 separate school districts -- will "be more effective in saving Florida's network of sports programs . . ."

Yet, there are others around the state -- even fellow superintendents such as Osceola County's current head, Michael Grego -- that maintain "the benefits of athletics should not be 'minimized' by reducing games played."

Grego, in particular, is vocal on the subject, including in an email to the FHSAA dated March 12th that while he "fully recognize[s] the financial difficulties we are all facing," he did not believe "reducing the number of athletic contests is the right area for cost savings."

"Just the opposite," Grego continues in the communiqué, "I'm observing communities coming together to raise funds to support travel. Parent and booster clubs are stepping up to solve local issues centered around athletics. Without a doubt, athletics remain one area of education that continues to receive tremendous support and involvement." Subsequently, he argues that the FHSAA need not limit the schedules of the state's high school sports programs, but "rather investigate ways to reduce costs such as minimize travel distances between teams within districts or regions."

Other opponents of the FHSAA proposal forward concerns that the two-year period of cutbacks may plant the seed for regular season schedules to never again see an increase in the total number of games played. Though Dearing has ensured the initial phase of the plan -- to coincide with a formal review of the length of sports seasons, state playoff formats, and reclassification issues -- would end as of 2010-2011 school year, challengers to his organization's request point out that a similar reduction in 2003-2004 (dropping schedules from 28 to 25 games for team sports) has yet to be recovered.