SIDELINE SCENE: Examination of proposed bill highlights more profound issue

For years, there has been a not-so-subtle tension between state lawmakers and the FHSAA, the non-profit governing body for Florida high-school sports.

The latest twist is a bill apparently gaining steam after being written and passed by the House Education Committee. Reports suggest the bill will pass the House, but support for its companion Senate bill (SB 1480) is not as clear.

A copy of the bill is at FHSAA.org, but here’s the gist:

Opponents believe the bill will create a new level of “free agency” in high school sports by allowing students whose school does not offer a certain sport to attend a different school in their district for athletic purposes only. It also applies to charter, home-schooled and virtual school students, creating the fear that a particularly skilled football player zoned for a bad team’s school would enroll in a charter or virtual school and then play for the powerhouse across town.

Other contentious provisions include allowing schools to join the association on a per-sport basis while competing under a different organization in others; allowing coaches to provide athletes’ transportation (currently an impermissible benefit); and to have parents  on the FHSAA board. 

Also of note, the bill makes it harder for the FHSAA and school districts to enforce eligibility rules and revises the organization’s appeals process.

Perhaps the part the FHSAA dislikes most is that the legislature can replace it in 2017.

Proponents suggest it does nothing to create more free agency than what already exists — Florida’s reputation for students switching schools to pursue  playing time and wins has been documented ad nauseam — and helps cut some bureaucratic inflexibility and slow appeals processes the organization has become infamous for. 

The FHSAA replacement part is trumpeted by proponents as incentive for the organization to get in line with the legislation within the two years allotted.

Here’s the thing: If you take a step back and cut through the hyperbole and political undertones, both sides have a point. On the one hand, the FHSAA could use some fixing and reform, especially with its appeals process and eligibility requirements.

The organization also hasn’t been able to adapt and maintain a fair playing field as open-enrollment mandates and school choice have increased — though FHSAA proponents would argue that  is because the legislature has been gradually tying the organization’s hands.

Here’s what I will say: For high school sports to maintain relevance — and, clearly, they’re plenty relevant if the Legislature is discussing them to this extent — the sense of community that has always accompanied them must be kept, and we must try to maintain a relatively level playing field.

We already have an arena for teenage athletes where free agency, all-star teams and otherwise impermissible benefits are commonplace — club sports. Moreover, club sports are largely where college recruiting occurs in every sport but football, which has no club presence outside rapidly growing summer passing leagues.

I don’t have a problem with club sports, outside sticker shock on what parents will pay for their kid to play in all these showcases, tournaments, etc. (at some point, just saving for college becomes cheaper than trying to buy your kid an athletic scholarship — though, admittedly, the latter will sound better at the office water cooler).

We cover high school sports much more than club sports, even when some of the travel matchups provide better competition, because of the community and civic ties — and the tradition. 

That’s what separates them from the chaos of travel sports, which, again, I don’t actually have a problem with, as long as high school sports retain their essence.

School choice isn’t a debate that needs to be addressed in this column, of all places. But, as that discussion evolves, the prep sports community must adapt and maintain what is left of its essence as opposed to becoming “club sports 2.0” with an exaggerated tier system of haves and have-nots.

To close, I’ll share an example of what I think high school sports are about.

Sydney Pollock, Racquel Fournet and Cassie Parr are all Division I recruits in softball for Windermere Prep. Yes, it’s a private school, but the point will still hold — I’m getting there. 

These three play a tremendously competitive schedule during travel season, with Pollock and Fournet also teammates for head coach Wes Pollock’s very successful Windermere Wildfire team. We wrote about them last week, mostly because I thought it was cool that they shared the field with two sixth-graders, and I asked them why even play for Windermere Prep — which hasn’t had a good season — when they already had scholarships locked through travel ball. 

Their answers were, to paraphrase, because they wanted to represent their school and its community, and to leave the program in better shape than they found it. Also, softball is fun — go figure.

Change is inevitable, and high school sports are no exception, but as we navigate that change in whatever form — in this case, perhaps legislation from politicians looking to score brownie points with voters — we must remember the true value of high school sports and interscholastic competition.

Contact Steven Ryzewski at [email protected].