Football proposals being studied

School board expects to learn more March 12

By:Ruth Luse
   Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education members — after hearing a report on the Central High School football feasibility study Monday — asked Superintendent of Schools Robert Sopko to address several of their concerns in time for discussion at their March 12 meeting.
   Among major issues the board wants to address — prior to making any decision about starting a football program — is the impact of Title 9, a federal law that says — according to board President Sally Turner — schools must provide the same opportunities for both males and females in terms of number of sports offered and amounts of money spent.
   Dr. Sopko was asked for a list of sports open to both girls and boys and the costs associated with them.
   Other issues of concern include where games would be played — on the Timberlane Middle School track area, or perhaps on the Pop Warner field at the Hopewell Township Municipal Complex.
   The board also wanted to know what the budget implications of football would be, and about existing sports, such as ice hockey and lacrosse, that are not fully funded now.
   Dr. Sopko will be conferring with Athletic Director Steve Timko, who was not able to be present Monday for the football discussion.
   Dr. Sopko said Monday, for the benefit of football proponents present, that "there is no money in this budget (the tentative one OK’d by the Hopewell Valley Regional Board of Education Monday) for football. We already cut money because of the cap problem." He suggested the audience hang around to hear they budget presentation, which followed the football discussion.
   If beginning a football program is to be considered for fall 2001 (one of three options given to the board in the report Monday), decisions about what alternative or combination of alternatives should be used and about funding the program would have to be made prior to the March 27 public hearing on the 2001-2002 school budget. The tentative budget was OK’d by the board Monday. It is expected the board will finalize the 2001-2002 budget proposal that will go on April 17 ballots on March 27.
   The report given by Raymond Geneske and Anthony Simonelli, athletic consultants, came in three sections: Student Parent Interest Survey, Community Reaction, and Cost Analysis (that being uppermost in school officials’ minds at this time).
   Cost Analysis — Alternative A calls for the introduction of football in August 2001 with the program at varsity status by fall 2003. In 2001, a nine-game freshman schedule would involve this year’s eighth and ninth grade students. The second year would be played on freshman and junior varsity levels. Varsity competition would occur in year three. Costs for this option are based on equipment expenses for 45 players. Field equipment costs were calculated for games if they are played at either of the two fields noted above. Costs were developed on a yearly basis for a period of three years.
   (Athletic field costs are left to the discretion of the board and are not covered in any of the three alternatives. They are capital costs and include: bleachers, fencing, flag pole, pressbox, water and electric service, PA system, scoreboard, restrooms, tickets booths and irrigation.)
   Alternative A is estimated at $53,494 for the first year.; $44,930 for the second; and $78,126 for the third (the varsity year). There also would be recurring costs to maintain the football program — estimated at just under $60,000 a year.
   No cheerleading and band costs are included in these figures.
   Alternative B — Under this option, program implementation would be put off until fall 2002. This would extend, from three to four years, the full development of the three-level program. It would provide another year in which to budget for field expenditures. The consultants said that "B" is Alternative A delayed for one year.
   Alternative C — In this option, the first year of varsity play would provide that all varsity games by played at the opponents’ field or the local Pop Warner field, if adequate facilities are available. This also would provide an additional year to budget for athletic field costs. This option could be combined, they said, with the first two alternatives.
   The consultants’ report also said that additional sources of revenue could come from corporations and local businesses, booster clubs, fund-raising program books, field advertisements, the establishment of an athletic foundation by the school board and commercial fund-raising sources.
   Student Parent Interest Survey — A survey was mailed to homes of students in grades five-10. There were 485 responses, a return of about 33 percent. In those responses, 211 students expressed interest in participating, 104 of them as players. Others wanted to be managers, statisticians, student trainers, cheerleaders, and the like.
   Of the 104 who wanted to play, 55 had some experience.
   Other results derived include: 237 parents favored a program, while 226 were opposed; 211 students favored a program while 279 were opposed.
   Major concerns about the football plan included cost and fear of injury. Others also expressed concern that having football might hurt other sports.
   Community Reaction — Information was gathered from faculty and student narratives and two community forums, held in December 2000 and on Jan. 17. In the narratives, 44 favored the program, while 23 were opposed. At the December forum, 30 spoke positively and seven, negatively. In January, 38 favored the plan and seven were opposed.
   Arguments for football included: the heightened degree of school and community spirit; more chances for students as players, cheerleaders, band members, etc. and scholarship opportunities. It also was said that football should not be singled out for study and that it is unfair to make football a budget item unto itself.
   Arguments against included: cost, negative impact on other sports, possible negative social consequences (such as cliques, etc.) and risk of injury.
   Some of the comments made Monday by members of the audience included:
    No mention of money earned from ticket sales was made in the report. Pop Warner makes about $750 a game. For the high school, it would be much more.
    Why is this such a big issue? This individual had called Montgomery and said there is a cost of $30,000 for equipment and $25,000 for coaches. "I think it’s the responsibility of the athletic director … and the school board to get it going."
    How many spectators would come? The estimate given was 1,000-1,500.
    What about irrigation, because there is a water problem at Timberlane.
    The bottom line is $250,000. Is that correct? "Yes," said one of the consultants, but the cost could be budgeted over several years.
    "Don’t let lack of interest knock it out of the box."
    "If you build it, they will come … we moved here because there was no football team. I don’t think we need football for a sense of community."
    All of the money used for this could be used to enrich our courses, such as books for English. "Enrich what we have," not for the minority that wants to play football.
    "I’ve played Pop Warner for two years … It’s been a great experience." There is enough interest for a team to be developed and there are girls for cheerleading.