The SFL is not going to change any time soon. In order to make change, every team most vote 100% to make the change, so I doubt Folsom would do that. I think there are 4-5 school districts that make up the SFL, some allowing open enrollment and some not. No way you are going to get 4-5 school districts to be on the same page, especially over the theme of this matter, just to satisfy all schools to be 100% open or closed enrollment. With school districts having different rules, there will be a sense of advantages vs. disadvantages across the board. It is what it is.
I do agree that all SFL schools should have an opportunity to discuss issues during the SFL board meetings. The majority of schools that share similar issues with regards to Folsom needed to be heard. I have a problem with the way the content of the meeting was initially reported. We were not there, nor was the reporter. Gathering pieces of info from each school representative at the meeting or who was not at the meeting, doesn't always give the clear picture of what was trying to be discussed as a whole. The social media reaction of "quitters" or "losers" is a bit much given what these coaches have done over the last decade. These programs have very good coaching staffs that have been successful up to state level. Collectively, the football staff's experience and knowledge of local HS football have been well respected as they should be. Some of the staffs have been together for years without personal change, which is a big reason the SFL has been so successful. Newcomers (Whitney/Grant) are experiencing this each week, but will be better for it in the long run. Every staff works just as hard and puts the same hours as Folsom.
Again, regarding OR's stance on this matter, we stated clearly that we wanted to continue playing Folsom each year, whether it's in league or not, just like we have for the past 15 years or so. To play football at OR, you have to live in the OR boundaries of El Dorado Hills (some bounderies within EDH are for Pondo/UM). This stands whether you are going in to 9th grade or transfering in 10-12 grade...you have to be a resident. All current players have EDH residence. This rule is not the same with regards to some of our opponents, with Folsom currently being the most publicized, thus the reason for the discussion at the board meeting. In addition, OR expects to beat Folsom each time we play them. We felt like we closed the gap the past two seasons, however this season not so!
I have acknowledged that I coach for OR, so I have put myself out there. I appreciate what the SFL staffs do each year. I encourage the social media jockeys to back off a bit and understand you may not know the entire facts of the story.
Very long post, let me summarize to see if I got it:
1. Folsom has to agree to go independent, so it does not really matter what the other schools want.
2. GB, Rocklin and OR coaches went semi-public by putting a proposal forward in a league meeting to have Folsom go independent. (versus having an off-line discussion with the Folsom coach)
3. Open enrollment is a school district policy that each school district sets for themselves. There is a mix of policies within the SFL.
4. The complaining coaches are being called out for their public complaining (both the proposal and the quotes in the Sac Bee). These complaining coaches should be cut slack for their complaining because they have had some wins (not against Folsom, but other schools).
5. These complaining coaches are as good as the Folsom coaches, or at least they work as hard.
6. OR wants to keep playing Folsom as a local rivalry, just not as part of the SFL.
7. Every kid who has ever played at OR has exclusively lived in EDH.
8. You coach at OR.
I will say that I deeply respect your acknowledgement that you coach for OR. I will also say that your acknowledgement does not qualify you for a moral high ground. It is not fair for you to dismiss others who do not similarly expose themselves.
I hope that you see that this is really rather silly. We could just start and stop at point #1. Everything else is moot since the Folsom principal has stated that it will not happen.
But the complaining coaches chose to go public. It was their choice to make the accusations that they did. From what I read: a) Folsom is too good, b) Folsom gets transfers, c) Folsom has kids move into Folsom to play for the school, d) Folsom has open enrollment, e) it is a safety issue, f) the league title is not available to anyone but Folsom. I think we have walked thru each of these complaints. None hold water.
I will also say that point #5 above may be part of the problem. First, hard work is a given and saying they 'work equally as hard' is irrelevant. If you just look at the consistency of results, it would stand to reason that MAYBE the Folsom coaches are better? If you cannot acknowledge this possibility, then only the players are the difference? It seems that is where these coaches landed.
So they attack the transfers, the open enrollment,etc. But since they do not control Folsom, their attendance, nor their league affiliation, my suggestion would be to start with the premise that they are NOT as good as the Folsom coaches. Focus their energy on self-improvement and by extension, the program improvement. All would be better off.
The public complaints are not a good look for these coaches, nor their programs. Sending the message to their kids that playing Folsom is a safety issue, or that the kids cannot compete is not fair to the kids and the fans. If the coaches really believed it is about more than the trophy, then they should have started this conversation in private with the Folsom coaches and admin. Or better yet, petitioned to drop down to a different league. The SFL is supposed to be the best in section.
