LH Panther Mom
10-10-2007, 05:06 PM
Story last updated at 2:16 a.m. Tuesday, October 9, 2007
UIL's realignment drawing criticism
GEORGE WATSON
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL
One thing is certain about the realignment proposal the University Interscholastic League displayed at the most recent Texas High School Coaches Association coaching school, and that is the feedback has been of high volume.
But that feedback, according to UIL athletic director Charles Breithaupt, has been "half and half" in terms of schools and districts being in favor of it or against it. And that equal split could result in the plan being struck down by the UIL's Legislative Council, which is scheduled for its 67th annual meeting Oct. 21-22 in Austin.
"We're getting negative feedback, but we're not abandoning (the plan)," Breithaupt said Monday. "We'll present it to the council on the 21st and it's up to them. I admit that anytime you have a proposal with only a 50 percent approval it's not always wise to move forward. I'm not sure how the council will line up. We'll just throw it out there and try to present the study item to the council and let the dice roll."
Normally, Breithaupt said, the UIL doesn't make public the proposals for realignment, the next of which comes up in February. But because of the interest in the next realignment and the multiple issues involved with school size, travel and budgets, the UIL put forth its current plan in front of coaches and administrators to get their feelings about it.
The proposed plan would divide schools - for football only - in all classifications into large (Division I) and small (Division II) schools to determine playoff representatives. That in itself is nothing new, but this plan would make those divisions at the beginning of the year instead of at the end of the regular season.
Frenship athletic director Brad Davis, who is on the THSCA board of directors, was able to review the plan and said there is still a lot of confusion as to how teams in the West Texas region would be classified.
"They showed us the map but they didn't have any schools on the map," Davis said. "They just had areas of the map in colors, and teams with possible 5A Division I teams were in red all over the state. There might be red in Amarillo or Lubbock but you didn't know which school it was. So nobody knows the direction they're going or who they're going with. They weren't specific about it on the model."
That, however, isn't Davis' biggest concern with the plan. He said that while, for competition's sake, the proposal levels the playing field, it is about the only positive in the entire plan. His main concern comes with travel, not so much for varsity games but with possible road trips to Wichita Falls and Abilene that sub-varsity teams would be forced to take and then try to make it to school the next day.
"I studied it a little bit and really don't like it," Davis said. "I think there are several factors involved that I don't think are good. Our position at Frenship is for our junior varsity and freshmen teams to play the same schedule as the varsity, so then you're talking about Thursday night sub-varsity teams getting in at three or four in the morning and getting up and going to school on Friday. There are things there on the sub-varsity level that are just not feasible. The negatives just outweigh the positives in the overall picture."
While travel has been one of the concerns expressed, Breithaupt said others have expressed discontent with further division of the schools. School districts in Dallas and Houston would have multiple teams in two different divisions, which could cause further problems with districts that share stadiums.
"It started out with a lot of people heavily in favor it until they looked at where they fell," Breithaupt said. "That's the way it always goes and that's the problem with realignment proposals. Ninety percent of the people look at it and some like what happens to them, and for a period they are all for it. Then they see where they fall and they are against it. The council will talk about it when it goes on the ballot."
Lubbock ISD athletic director Gary Gaines said he hasn't studied the proposal very closely but is concerned about being lumped into a super district, as has been rumored, with the Midland and Odessa schools.
"We're still not clear whether they're talking about having one district with big schools and small schools or a district with small schools and a district with big schools," Gaines said. "It's hard to do out here so that's why we'd heard it was iffy with the legislative council. I wouldn't be surprised if it failed."
More from the UIL
Breithaupt also said Monday that the UIL feels confident the new steroid testing program will be in place by the end of this month.
"We're moving ahead step by step, but we're moving in small increments so we can cover all our bases," Breithaupt said. "We have 14 bids and we're looking at getting down to picking the vendor to carry out the testing. We've got our procedures in place and we could start as quickly as a vendor is selected. We've said all along that it would be toward the end of October and that still looks realistic."
UIL legislative budget planners have set aside $6 million over the next two years to cover the cost of all the planned testing, taking the expense out of the hands of the schools. Initial plans are to test 400 schools during the 2007-08 school year, which is expected to involve more than 23,000 students.
The new mandatory testing program comes as a result of the passage of Senate Bill 8 requiring a testing program for Texas high schools. All extracurricular activity participants must sign a form at the beginning of the season allowing themselves to be tested, and anyone who refuses will be barred from that activity. A positive test, or refusing a test, carries a 30-day suspension for the first offense and requires a negative test before the student is allowed to participate again.
To comment on this story:
george.watson@lubbockonline.com 766-2166
patrick.gonzales@lubbockonline.com 766-8735
link (http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/100907/hig_100907026.shtml)
UIL's realignment drawing criticism
GEORGE WATSON
AVALANCHE-JOURNAL
One thing is certain about the realignment proposal the University Interscholastic League displayed at the most recent Texas High School Coaches Association coaching school, and that is the feedback has been of high volume.
But that feedback, according to UIL athletic director Charles Breithaupt, has been "half and half" in terms of schools and districts being in favor of it or against it. And that equal split could result in the plan being struck down by the UIL's Legislative Council, which is scheduled for its 67th annual meeting Oct. 21-22 in Austin.
"We're getting negative feedback, but we're not abandoning (the plan)," Breithaupt said Monday. "We'll present it to the council on the 21st and it's up to them. I admit that anytime you have a proposal with only a 50 percent approval it's not always wise to move forward. I'm not sure how the council will line up. We'll just throw it out there and try to present the study item to the council and let the dice roll."
Normally, Breithaupt said, the UIL doesn't make public the proposals for realignment, the next of which comes up in February. But because of the interest in the next realignment and the multiple issues involved with school size, travel and budgets, the UIL put forth its current plan in front of coaches and administrators to get their feelings about it.
The proposed plan would divide schools - for football only - in all classifications into large (Division I) and small (Division II) schools to determine playoff representatives. That in itself is nothing new, but this plan would make those divisions at the beginning of the year instead of at the end of the regular season.
Frenship athletic director Brad Davis, who is on the THSCA board of directors, was able to review the plan and said there is still a lot of confusion as to how teams in the West Texas region would be classified.
"They showed us the map but they didn't have any schools on the map," Davis said. "They just had areas of the map in colors, and teams with possible 5A Division I teams were in red all over the state. There might be red in Amarillo or Lubbock but you didn't know which school it was. So nobody knows the direction they're going or who they're going with. They weren't specific about it on the model."
That, however, isn't Davis' biggest concern with the plan. He said that while, for competition's sake, the proposal levels the playing field, it is about the only positive in the entire plan. His main concern comes with travel, not so much for varsity games but with possible road trips to Wichita Falls and Abilene that sub-varsity teams would be forced to take and then try to make it to school the next day.
"I studied it a little bit and really don't like it," Davis said. "I think there are several factors involved that I don't think are good. Our position at Frenship is for our junior varsity and freshmen teams to play the same schedule as the varsity, so then you're talking about Thursday night sub-varsity teams getting in at three or four in the morning and getting up and going to school on Friday. There are things there on the sub-varsity level that are just not feasible. The negatives just outweigh the positives in the overall picture."
While travel has been one of the concerns expressed, Breithaupt said others have expressed discontent with further division of the schools. School districts in Dallas and Houston would have multiple teams in two different divisions, which could cause further problems with districts that share stadiums.
"It started out with a lot of people heavily in favor it until they looked at where they fell," Breithaupt said. "That's the way it always goes and that's the problem with realignment proposals. Ninety percent of the people look at it and some like what happens to them, and for a period they are all for it. Then they see where they fall and they are against it. The council will talk about it when it goes on the ballot."
Lubbock ISD athletic director Gary Gaines said he hasn't studied the proposal very closely but is concerned about being lumped into a super district, as has been rumored, with the Midland and Odessa schools.
"We're still not clear whether they're talking about having one district with big schools and small schools or a district with small schools and a district with big schools," Gaines said. "It's hard to do out here so that's why we'd heard it was iffy with the legislative council. I wouldn't be surprised if it failed."
More from the UIL
Breithaupt also said Monday that the UIL feels confident the new steroid testing program will be in place by the end of this month.
"We're moving ahead step by step, but we're moving in small increments so we can cover all our bases," Breithaupt said. "We have 14 bids and we're looking at getting down to picking the vendor to carry out the testing. We've got our procedures in place and we could start as quickly as a vendor is selected. We've said all along that it would be toward the end of October and that still looks realistic."
UIL legislative budget planners have set aside $6 million over the next two years to cover the cost of all the planned testing, taking the expense out of the hands of the schools. Initial plans are to test 400 schools during the 2007-08 school year, which is expected to involve more than 23,000 students.
The new mandatory testing program comes as a result of the passage of Senate Bill 8 requiring a testing program for Texas high schools. All extracurricular activity participants must sign a form at the beginning of the season allowing themselves to be tested, and anyone who refuses will be barred from that activity. A positive test, or refusing a test, carries a 30-day suspension for the first offense and requires a negative test before the student is allowed to participate again.
To comment on this story:
george.watson@lubbockonline.com 766-2166
patrick.gonzales@lubbockonline.com 766-8735
link (http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/100907/hig_100907026.shtml)