I am writing on behalf of the freshman football program. That
program, along with others, has been cut to reduce the
extracurricular budget at Live Oak. Unfortunately, due to timing,
little or no hard and fast factual information was available to
justify this cut or to establish the cost savings that eliminating
freshman football would provide.
I am writing on behalf of the freshman football program. That program, along with others, has been cut to reduce the extracurricular budget at Live Oak. Unfortunately, due to timing, little or no hard and fast factual information was available to justify this cut or to establish the cost savings that eliminating freshman football would provide.
The fact is that cutting freshman football will not save the district money, and yet it will have detrimental financial impact on several programs. To understand this, a broader picture of the football program’s finances is necessary.
This past season had a price tag of about $60,000. The district, player fees and team fundraisers each cover about one-third of this amount. District funds pay for coaching stipends and league dues, as well as required annual re-certification of safety equipment. Players’ fees cover player-retained consumable items such as jerseys, T-shirts, shorts, sweatshirts and transportation expenses. These fees actually fall far short of the actual cost of these items, and the team conducts fundraisers and secures booster club allocations ($4,000 to $8,000 per year) to pay for the rest as well as to purchase any additional capital expenses (ie. field equipment such as bags, sleds etc.)
Offering freshman football last season did not impact the extracurricular fund or the district’s obligation in any significant way. Some $200 to $300 in additional league dues as well as $2,500 in game officials and ambulance standby expenses were offset by $2,640 in freshman gate income. No additional coaching stipends were paid to field the team. And new equipment was paid for by team fundraising and by redirecting our annual booster club allocation. The district will realize no net savings and yet the football program’s ability to raise its own funds will be damaged severely.
Despite the fact that cutting the freshman team does not represent a savings, it was nonetheless discontinued following an administrative recommendation citing three justifications other than budgetary.
There was a reasonable belief at the time that the rest of the league would follow suit and also cut freshman football; leaving us with no one to play. There was developed a varsity first policy stating that the school would, in accordance with league policy, field varsity teams before freshman teams. And finally, Title IX considerations would require that reinstated sports would always have a boys and girls sport paired together.
In regards to freshman football being cut leaguewide, I have contacted the other schools throughout the league this past week. Every school indicates that not only will they field a freshman team, they have never even considered dropping it. Live Oak stands alone as the only school in the Tri-County League to discontinue freshman football. In a school that used to have a strong competitive standing among our league mates, the last five years have seen the other schools pass us by in enrollment as they grow and we shrink. Coupled with fielding fewer teams and thus having a year’s less experience, we are losing our ability to compete on an equal footing.
League policy regarding varsity first refers to within the same sport. It would indeed be adverse to this policy to field a freshman football team before a varsity football team.
However, to use this policy as justification for refusing reinstatement of any freshman team before any varsity team is a stretch. There are several sports offered around the section that Live Oak does not offer (roller hockey, ice hockey, rugby, lacrosse, etc). Our job is to offer what we can and to do a good job with those we do offer.
When considering cuts at other times, we have not used a varsity first criteria, but have instead used a “whole sports” approach. We would cut whole single sports before weakening all sports – and those sports would be decided by number of players served and relative cost. The current menu of sport cuts was generated without any coaching staff input – recommendations originated with administration. There are sports being maintained that have a much lower participation and a much higher cost than several of those being cut. Title nine offers some interesting issues. Of course we all want as well as are required to achieve parity in our opportunities for males and females. However, there is confusion as to why the current round of cuts eliminated seven male teams and only 5 female teams. (B&G tennis, golf, diving – girl’s frosh volleyball, and basketball at Britton – Boy’s frosh football, baseball, and basketball at both Murphy and Britton).
In addition to the criteria cited during the budget cuts, there is an additional criterion that should have been considered. That being the impacts of the cut beyond the direct budget line.
For example, freshman football had nearly the highest membership rate of parents joining the booster club – parents that will be around for three years supporting the school. Football generates thousands of dollars in parking income at the games, non of which goes directly back to the football team.
Likewise, all gate income passes directly to ASB where it funds officials and entry fees for all sports. Snack bar income from varsity football games generates around $20,000 a season for school clubs, (primarily the Future Farmers of America – who do a great job by the way), but football receives no income from this venture. A healthy football program is instrumental to the financial stability of many other programs.
And having a freshman football team is foundational to having a healthy football program. We are fast becoming the school with the smallest enrollment in our athletic league. Being the small school in the league and fielding one less team does not bode well for our future as a program. That was the impetus behind starting the freshman team last year and it is the reason why we need to have the team again. Our competitiveness and eventually our ability to continue to generate thousands of dollars for many programs at Live Oak depends on it.
Glenn Webb is the Live Oak football coach. Readers interested in writing a guest column should contact editor Walt Glines at wa***@*************es.com or 779-4106.
