Serra suspension upheld

[CoachKLou]

Incredible. The bylaw stated a one year suspension, Nancy changes it to two years and its still upheld? Get ready for a legal fight.

I feel awful for the Juniors and Seniors who had no voice in this matter. Completely strips them of possibly a great high school experience which is the playoffs (assuming Serra qualifies the next two years).

Nancy wins her personal vendetta with Coach Walsh. She can now retire with her insanely large ego in tact.

 

[colhenrylives]

… and she was quoted as stating that she wanted three years.

 

[SacCoachA]

Serra can still appeal to the section Board of Managers. After that would come the legal action.

 

[FUBO]

I wonder how many frosh to be sophs will take advantage of the frosh transfer rule now. Or how many potential incoming frosh might choose not to attend at all.

 

[Rmbr26]

Unfortunately this is a sad situation simply perpetuated by soon to be ex-CCS Commissioner Nancy Lazenby Blaser. If you simply consider the facts they show a trend throughout Nancy's reign as Commissioner of CCS High School Athletics [key words here being: "High School Athletics"]. During the most recent controversy [and there have been many involving Nancy and her decision's regarding punishment], Nancy dictates that the By-Laws punishment in the Serra vs Milpitas situation is inadequate and recommends double the penalty of 2 years before advocating for 3 years [3 X's the penalty the CCS By-laws dictate can be levied]. It ended up as a $6,000 fine, 2-years ban on post-season football playoffs & a full 3 year probation for Serra's entire athletic program.

From past actions & quoted comments by Nancy I came to the conclusion some years ago that while Nancy may be smart in some respects that: Nancy Lazenby Blaser was unbelievably fortunate & lucky to land the position she had, but that over time her ego never let her make decisions fairly or diplomatically. It is because of this personality flaw that is Nancy's downfall and why she will not be remembered fondly.

During one year Nancy as commissioner disqualified more than a dozen CCS teams from post season playoffs including girls volleyball, girls tennis and cross country ending their seasons prematurely for hundreds of teen girls. When interviewed by the Mercury News Nancy was quoted: " I can't throw bylaws out the window. People think I have lot more power than I do."
Evidently as has been her history Nancy has been all to eager to "lower the hammer" on teen athletes without full comprehension of the effects on "the team" or young athletes caught in-between who had nothing to do with the situation in question.

Again it is unfortunate that I can not remember any one individual in my lifetime having such a negative effect on both athletics & the young high school athlete as one Nancy Lazenby Blaser. A very sad legacy indeed.

This post was edited on 4/7 9:08 AM by Rmbr26

 

[BKWRDKUROUT]

It is obvious that either Nancy or her network reads Norcalpreps.com - so I would imagine that somebody in her family has invested in round the clock security for her?

 

[Spartanwhoknows]

The By Laws of the CCS clearly state that there will be NO Consolation brackets for any sport other than Basketball. The CCS Board added this failed football consolation bracket to the By Laws without a vote of the full membership. They didn't even take the time to amend the original By law since they knew that this would fail miserably.

Player safety takes all precedent over any trumped up or existing By law and their lack of understanding that Serra forfeited for one reason only Player Safety, with Milpitas refusing to alter their game plan even knowing how depleted Serra was at the time. There is no way Serra will get a fair hearing with this group at the CCS. too many conflicts of interests with the overwhelming majority of votes coming from Public Schools and competitors of Serra who would love to see them lose in this battle and on the field of play. If a judge or impartial jury heard the facts the verdict would be unanimous in favor of Serra.

Those parents and students that are weighing options of where to enroll would be well advised to look at a Coach and School that value the health and welfare of their Student athletes over a BY LAW that was so poorly thought out that the CIF dismissed it immediately as a ridiculous attempt by the CCS to get more Public Schools into the Northern Regionals even if they lost in Sectional Playoffs. I as a parent would choose Serra.

The NCS has it right and maybe the CCS should learn from them. NO teams from the CCS Open or any other bracket in the No Cal Regionals for Football. 3 from the NCS with two winning State, three from the SJS with two winning State. When are the member schools in the CCS going to stand up to this ridiculous leadership?

 

[Rmbr26]

Spartanwhoknows makes numerous accurate points in his above post.

Serra stands little if any chance with a 3rd appeal before the same CCS board of managers, the majority of which represent public schools and several who were vocal in their support of Nancy's sanctions of Serra. If Serra of the WCAL is banned from post season play for 2 seasons [while on probation a 3rd year] it is highly likely it will benefit a public school league champion by eliminating one of the best programs in the WCAL/CCS the last several seasons. Simply an overwhelming case of "conflict of interest" by the managing board to expect an impartial judgment.

The difficulty with these sanctions is that the board of manager's modified/changed the by-laws to add the Open consolation bracket in football which is an unprecedented move at the high school level. This was done despite objections from key members of CCS teams prompting Nancy to issue memo's to specific schools warning them if they did not cooperate. Nancy & board then ignore the by-laws stating specific penalties and increase the sanctions based upon Nancy feeling disrespected by a specific coach & school. Did a key person of authority in a powerful position simply forget about one key aspect here, namely the high school athletes & repercussions to them? I firmly believe if this case was heard by an impartial jury and simply facts presented that Serra's sanctions would at minimum be reduced if not removed completely.

Here is an article in this morning SJ Mercury News on the latest by sportswriter Glenn Reeves.

http://www.mercurynews.com/high-school-sports/ci_27860993/ccs-upholds-serra-sanctions?source=rss

 

[HSS75]

Wonder if Milpitas had something to say about this. Milpitas...Anyone? All this is pretty much petty. Common sense is if if they lost revenue, I'm sure a parent can compensate whatever they are asking. Stupid...

 

[CityGame]

I believe Serra was fined $6k in order to compensate Milpitas for any costs incurred with the last minute forfeit. Sounds like Nancy's feelings were hurt and that is the reason for her vindictive punishment.

 

[cityfan]

If you took a poll of all CCS head varsity football coaches, I wonder how many would actually have voted for those consolation playoff games? From what I read my understandingis that it was decided by the Board members. If so, I don't think Serra has a chance petitioning to them to overturn Nancy's decision. Very unfortunate....

 

[Bubba3000]

This whole thing with Serra is unfortunate and like most I feel bad for the kids. However, when folks start talking about kids transferring out because of it sends a weird message. I'm old school and believe in going to the school you are zoned for or go to a private close to home.

This post was edited on 4/8 8:52 AM by Bubba3000

 

[colhenrylives]

It is very likely that Serra will wind up taking up this matter to court. Whether a judge will even deign to hear the case is an open question.

 

[Rmbr26]

Originally posted by CityGame:
I believe Serra was fined $6k in order to compensate Milpitas for any costs incurred with the last minute forfeit. Sounds like Nancy's feelings were hurt and that is the reason for her vindictive punishment.

There is much more to this situation than first meets the eye to anyone who's followed it in its entirety and what exactly is at stake here. The consolation bracket idea which almost everyone recognizes as a horrible idea was quickly passed within weeks of the post season playoff games, which in itself doesn't seem to be fair or rational. After the first round of consolation bracket games in particularly Serra/Palma in which few starters were suited up, Commissioner Nancy sent a scathing email to Serra & Palma with numerous accusations and referring to the coaches as "children". Following Nancy's insistence to follow through with her threats of retaliation, Serra addressed the matter very concisely in a letter to Nancy & the board on 12/12/14 stating all the facts of the situation which resulted in a stalemate.

Litigation is never a preferred course, but in such cases as this it may be the only alternative for Serra if its defense is falling on deaf ears. Cases are filed daily with far less significance as this one may have & it certainly would not portray a rosy picture of Nancy Lazenby Blaser & the CCS board. It is possible that Nancy & the board have not considered the ramifications that such litigation & negative publicity might have on the governing powers of the CCS in the future where health issues of young athletes are concerned.

 

[NorCalSportsFan]

First I heard of the CCS letter to both Serra and Palma. Interesting. I went to the game and while I would have like to see the teams play full out, thought it was a good event and the players that played played their best with some reasonable rules to limit the contact on special teams.

Hate to see litigation for this type of matter, but Serra has a case. Even though they signed a contract to play the games, forfeits happen and tough to penalize a team for forfeiting other compensating for loss of revenue. I think it is an uphill battle for CCS to prove that the case for player safety wasn't valid. Serra and Palma playing their hybrid scrimmage validates the concern. The concern was brought up to Milpitas which didn't agree with the proposed rules of engagement for the game. The players that opted to start their Winter sports instead of playing had the choice. I think the compensation is fair. I think Serra has a valid case for full reinstatement.

The fact that Serra didn't opt out in the beginning is CCS case.Is there a link to the agreement which states there is a penalty for not playing the game if a team doesn't opt out? I still think there is a case for forfeiting a game and concern for injury should be one. Yes- always a chance of injury in the sport, but fact it was a test, teams had players opting out and concerns were brought up before the game to limit injuries could be in Serra's favor. Palma will probably be a supporting witness on side of Serra since they had similar concerns and Palma was not penalized for agreement with a change in engagement rules for the game against Serra.

 

[Spartanwhoknows]

The NCS has written rules in their By Laws which state that if you forfeit a playoff game there is a one year suspension from the next years playoffs. The forfeit penalty is for any reason.

The CCS has nothing like this, since there has never been a Consolation Bracket in football ever by any section in the State and probably Country. The CCS By Laws stated that there only can be Consolation Brackets for Basketball so she hastily crafted an amendment and added Football on the premise that the CIF would recognize it and then pushed it through. That CIF approval as we know did not happen. She stated that there "could" be a one year penalty from Post Season if the games were forfeited after she heard rumblings from many coaches and schools that since then CIF would not recognize the CCS Consolation Bracket for State games that they were considering not playing. Serra reluctantly accepted the one year penalty but she added the Draconian three years to Football and one year to the whole School as a punishment for how they responded to her Highness to the previously stated potential one year possible penalty.

$$$ drove this failed idea in the first place and now vanity and pride of a retiring commissioner and reluctance by other Board members to fight her or other conflicts of interest are affecting hundreds and possibly thousands of High School kids and Coaches who don't deserve this.

It does not look like her hand picked Clone to replace her will be any better.

 

[2wcats]

There is are a whole lot of conjecture and opinions flooding this thread which is great for the discussion. But I would suggest anyone interested read the following before posting

http://www.cifccs.org/meetings/Documents%20Winter/2014-15/Serra%20Complete%20packet%20of%20documents%20to%20CCS%20BOM.pdf[/URL]

To be fair this is the CCS's background info that they used for their decision so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it is biased toward their case but it includes Serra's documents as well as Milpitas' so you can get a view from their respective positions. A few inconvenient truths jump out.

 

[NorCalSportsFan]

CCS blew it with the consolidation bracket and rather than have the test consolation bracket should have just scrapped it by initially making it contingent on CIF approving CCS playoff proposal for inclusion to consideration for the bowl. Without approval, the whole consolation game format made zero sense for CCS other than for having underclass scrimmages to evaluate next year's players.

Will be interesting if this goes to the court. A ruling in favor of Serra's risk of injury argument could open up a can of worms for future litigation. On the other hand, a team should be able to forfeit a game and a specific reason such as concern for players' well being or concern for heir safety is a valid reason. This concern whether warranted or not should not be questions. Serra lost the game as a penalty and Milpitas has the bragging rights for the win. Yes, Serra should pay for lost revenue and expenses., etc. Putting the school's sports programs on probation and two year football playoff ban is way too harsh. Yes...teams were aware of the new format, but other schools made adjustments to reduce risk and made more like scrimmages. Walsh was not the only coach to make these changes. I understand Milpitas coach and program POV, but there has to be a mechanism for forfeiting a game and concern for safety shouldn't be questioned. Let's say the game was eventually played and all this concern and communications come out after a player is injured and that opens up another can of worms.

I believe the coach and athletic director and principal should have the right to forfeit a match for any reason without questions. Coach's and schools are responsible for their players - this should have been questioned. They should be responsible for lost revenue and any expenses, etc. but that is it. The way the game was evolving anyways was not going to be a real contest. If the Milpitas coach did agree to make changes to format, it would basically be a scrimmage anyways. Also since this was a test and unchartered waters, participating or not even after playing in the first round should be up to the school and coach's.

 

[CoachKLou]

@2wcats what inconvenient truths are you referencing?

 

[2wcats]

Originally posted by CoachKLou:
@2wcats what inconvenient truths are you referencing?

CoachKLou I still feel the consolidation round was not a good idea so don't read into this I was in favor of it or think I have a grudge against Serra - I don't.

There just seems to be quite a few assumptions in these and other posts on the subject and after reading through the documents two main points jump out:

Timing issues on knowledge of the proposal. This was in the pipe since May 2014 and really shouldn't have been a surprise. Although these changes usually are implemented the following year after approval, the idea this was sprung on them at the last minute is suspect.

Maybe the biggest is the approval of it from the WCAL. The document states the WCAL rep held off his vote and brought the proposal back for a league vote where the WCAL passed it.
This post was edited on 4/10 4:33 PM by 2wcats

 

[supergreen]

I can't help but feel like the commissioner is being vindictive and petty. Rather than admit that the consolation bracket was a massive failure, with every game being modified, cancelled or ending in violence, she has chosen to lash out against the school and coach who exposed the flaws in the system and embarrassed her personally.

I am just wondering if there are any backers of the commissioner out there or anyone from Milpitas that wants to chime in. Is there anyone on this board that disagrees with Serra's decision?

 

[WCAL75]

Here are a couple of points:

1-The CIF voted down a consolation bracket.

2-Nancy wanted to still continue to have a consolation bracket anyways. You can almost hear her screaming "we will show them that I know better than the CIF". Emotion seems to to play a big part in Nancy's decision making and its not because she is a woman. I'm not going there.

3-Nancy in those letters keeps quoting bylaw after bylaw and she stated that you can NEVER violate a bylaw. Clearly Nancy herself violated her precious bylaws because they only allow for a one year suspension not a two year. That fact that she tried to make it a 3 year suspension goes to state of mind.

4-The consolation bracket being instituted in October is highly irregular as most changes are for the NEXT season and the members were conflicted by it from the beginning. The league commissioners voted the consolation bracket down in their first meeting but did vote in favor of it at a later meeting. The board of managers vote on October 28th was 29-8-8. That means that there were 16 members who were not for it.

The key here are two issues. The first one is that this whole consolation bracket was a TRIAL RUN which means its not real and counts for nothing. So how can you use bylaws that were meant for legitimate games that count on a schools record against a fantasy make believe trial run consolation game. This is a classic case of substance over form. Nancy clearly is trying to make the fantasy trial run games count as legitimate games subject to the very same bylaws that she her self violated.

Secondly when you institute a rule change(that is so radical in nature in the context of football) only weeks before the playoffs it is completley reasonable for coaches and schools to not fully understand the consequences of that consolation game on the safety of their kids until game time. The coaches are geared up and preoccupied with the REAL playoff games and that is normal. On the one hand you have CA instituting less contact in practices for player safety and on the other hand you have Nancy not fully considering those issues. Nancy does not have the experience of being a coach that has built a relationship and a bond along with a sacred trust to keep those kids safe. We already know that there were injuries to kids that played in those fantasy games.

This case can and will be overturned in a court of law. In the case of the injured players a civil action can be filed on their behalf and complaints drawn up. Lets get those depositions rolling. The best way to go about this would be to file a complaint (lawsuit) against the CCS and then file a separate complaint against Nancy personally.

 

[Rmbr26]

Well stated WCAL75 and best post on this thread so far. I do believe a neutral 3rd party would find in favor of Serra's appeal.
I'd read in a previous post at the time that there were 2 player concussions in the Valley Christian -Milpitas consolation game. If that is correct then that alone would give a coach cause for reconsidering further participation in a consolation bracket game [further compounded by missing players & some playing with minor injuries]. If Serra's statement that the team was down to 1 offensive starter & 4 defensive starters is accurate then the likelihood of injuries would have been significantly increased versus a Milpitas squad at nearly full strength.

All along I have thought that Nancy and the CCS board has not fully considered all the ramifications of these consolation bracket games being added on to the end of a team's season. I thought it was a 2nd major gaffe when they took and upheld harsh action against a team forfeiting a game for health & safety reasons.

Should this continue into litigation then sides will be reversed with the Serra as the plaintiff and Nancy and the CCS board of managers as defendants. With the CIF opposed to the idea of adding consolation games as well as 16 board managers not in favor of the concept this will present an uphill defense for Nancy/CCS. Then if pursued, any injuries incl. the 2 concussions could open a whole new can of worms.

 

[Dooer]

I have to believe that the CCS has given some thought into the possibilities of a lawsuit (unless they are even stupider then we know), and that they feel their position can be upheld. All I'm saying is, don't think winning a lawsuit is a slam dunk for Serra.

 

[DLSPop1314]

Does anyone know what's entailed in a school switching sections?

Why can't Serra just join NCS?

That would serve Nancy right

 

[observer22]

They would face even more travel issues than if DLS were to switch to the CCS - WCAL. And we know how the Spartans feel about that suggestion every year.

 

[yomama151]

pay the 6K to milpitas and drop the suspension thing. if cs gets in court, plama and serra testimonies are going to hurt them. could it be that both schools are private(Catholic) and nancy wanted to teach them a lesson?

 

[Cal 14]

Originally posted by CityGame:
I believe Serra was fined $6k in order to compensate Milpitas for any costs incurred with the last minute forfeit. Sounds like Nancy's feelings were hurt and that is the reason for her vindictive punishment.

From what I read shortly after the incident, Serra had already offered to pay for Milpitas' lost expenses anyway. The fine is probably inconsequential for Serra.

 

[Cal 14]

Originally posted by NorCalSportsFan:

First I heard of the CCS letter to both Serra and Palma. Interesting.

I don't believe the letter was sent specifically to Serra and Palma, but I think they were CC'd on it. I did see that letter and Nancy sounded like she was panicking over how the teams just didn't want to take part in the games.

Originally posted by NorCalSportsFan:

Palma will probably be a supporting witness on side of Serra since they had similar concerns and Palma was not penalized for agreement with a change in engagement rules for the game against Serra.

This ended being a case where Palma "won" by losing.