No money = no sports

I'm thinking the first travel cuts that will come in our area will be at the non-varsity level. I can't see school districts putting up a lot of money for the freshman baseball and softball teams to play games 100-150 miles away just because they're against teams from the same conference (the conference doesn't award season titles for freshmen, but our main local district plays the teams that are far away anyway).

Most schools anymore are filled with coaches who have what I call the "ASA mentality", that every weekend they have to play in a tournament somewhere (especially with baseball, softball and wrestling). I can see that ending, too.

We have some schools in the area that will insist on playing weekend tournaments against other area teams, and then they will play those same teams in conference play the next week. During the softball season, we had two area schools (who are in the same conference) travel 90 miles to a "softball classic", where everyone is guaranteed three or four games _ and they played each other in one of the games. That's just a waste of money and time.

Parents are going to have to realize one of two things — a.) pay for your kid to play (and before anyone starts screaming, they should realize they're already forking out money to play on ASA or AAU teams) or b.) schools aren't going to play as many games as they do now, or they're going to be playing smaller schools that are closer to home. The days of playing weekend tournaments 200 miles away and staying overnight in a hotel are probably over at the high school level, unless someone wants to put up the money.

 

If I were running the show, I'd say that any sport that couldn't support itself through ticket sales and or independent fundraising should be axed. That includes coaching staff, transportation, economic rent, and all other costs associated with the program. Any profit above costs should be pumped into the academic side of the school with a corresponding drop in tax rate for those who are taxed to fund the public school.

 

Pay to play is all the rage here in Michigan. It has its pros and cons. I coached track at a school in Michigan and the parents played $75 a sport, per child. Then the school district went bankrupt and they wouldn't provide buses for athletes to and from events. Only to the events. The parents were not happy with this. Just terrible management. A lot of other schools in the area are firing athletic directors. A guy who won Athletic Director of the year by the MHSAA a few years back just lost is job, after he got a bond issue passed and got a new track, football field, baseball field, and softball field, along with a new concession stand.

Athletics in Michigan are getting ridiculous.

 

Then any school that can't host a major event would be screwed. My old high school screwed up and purchased a 6-lane track and not an 8-lane one. So now the track team can't host regional or state meets. So I guess since they can't pay for transport costs they should be axed, along with other sports that can't pay the bills like XC, Swimming, Tennis, and girls basketball.

 

The problem with Sig's plan is that it would mean at most places the schools would only have football and, maybe, boys hoops.
You might have a wealthy parent bankroll tennis or golf, but that would be rarely.
The next thing you would run into is gender equity and lack of opportunities for girls and others. The costs from the resulting legal actions would be more than the what the program cost in the first place.

 

A year ago, a school around here threatened to cut all of its sports after voters did not approve a property tax increase (actually an override of a 2 1/2 percent limit on property taxes).
Eventually, some private donors stepped up and saved the programs, I think.
Sometimes I wonder if the threats to cut sports and other school programs are just that, threats, to scare people into paying more taxes. It's almost happened around here a few times, but it never has happened.
The argument I hear against raising taxes is that we all have to live within a budget and if there's something that we can no longer afford, we can't just go to our boss and ask for more money, we have to either find a way pay for it with the money we have or do without and that government and schools should be no different.

 

The real issue is Title IX. As long as football is financially viable, it'll be around. And as long as it's around, there will have to be enough girls' teams to offset it in the Title IX ledger. I'd say the schools where girls programs support themselves 100 percent are few and far between.

 

I'm waiting for the first school to forfeit a game because it's already blown through the fuel budget after not anticipating it would go over a certain amount per gallon. I admit, I have been predicting this since it skyrocketed from about $1.89 to $2.69 in barely any time a couple of years ago. But it will happen to someone, somewhere. Hell, this weekend going to a juco football conference and the Shrine Bowl cost me about $110 just in gas and I won't get the mileage check until the middle of next month.

Whaddya think it's costing a school to take a bus and maybe a couple of vans to a football game? $500...$600?

 

I've thought my home state (IN) and many states have too many classes.

This would be a very good argument for reducing the number of classes. IN has it right by eliminating classes altogether for individual sports -- school size really doesn't factor in to how fast a kid can run 100m or how good he can wrestle -- which can cut travel costs.

Reducing the number of classes keeps schools that are roughly similar in size playing each other in the early rounds of the tournament, and can save travel costs.

Cross-state road trips are going to be cut down, and teams will play those closer to home, regardless of enrollment, to save $$.

Lower-level teams (JV/Freshman) are either going to be cut, or are going to travel with the varsity. Volleyball teams already play 9/JV/V games in IN. We're starting to see it in basketball -- the frosh teams play at 6:00 in an auxiliary gym, the JV starts at 6:30 and the varsity starts at 8. 5-quarter limit -- a kid can play 2 quarters of the frosh game and then head over to the JV game at halftime and play 3 quarters there.

 

Or you could turn ultimate frisbee into a sanctioned sport.

Then again, it's self-officiated and equipment isn't an issue.

 

Problem with this is getting officials. For hoops you have to fill 10-12 officiating slots for a full night of 9-JV-V games. You won't find that many officials to work concurrent games, simply because of an officials shortage. Filling those 10-12 slots with 3-5 people is a more likely scenario.

Also, what's to say high school football is self-supporting? It would seem that way, because of interest and ticket sales, but do we really know what operating costs are for these programs? Do we know how many are in the black?

 

Not only that, but then you run into the issues of retaining officials.

The umpires in my Babe Ruth league got paid a couple weeks late. Some wouldn't work games until they got paid. They had parents grab a mask and go behind the plate at some games.