These are the talking points which were provided to the Temecula Valley school board which have been kindly shared with us. Each talking point is followed by a bolded counterpoint aimed at providing common sense, transparency, and factual clarity to the discussion. In this author’s opinion, it is evident that these talking points were crafted with a clear bias toward eliminating field hockey, as demonstrated by the distortions and assumptions contained within.
Click here if you’d like to read these notes without additional commentary.
Memo from the “Friday Updates”
CHS, GOHS, and TVHS Athletic Administrators and Principals met with Field Hockey coaches and teams to convey the news that we will be phasing out Field Hockey programs in TVUSD. Please note: Both GOHS and TVHS still plan to have a varsity field hockey team for the Fall 2025 season. CHS will not.
Counterpoint: Coaches, teams, and parents were informed only after the decision was made, without any opportunity for discussion or input. This lack of transparency and collaboration has caused frustration among players and families who deeply value the program. Additionally, participation in field hockey remains strong, with GOHS expecting to field both varsity and junior varsity teams in Fall 2025. This decision disregards the dedication of these athletes and the broader community that supports them.
We have had very little parent pushback about the decision, almost all of it from 4 parents at GOHS.
Counterpoint: The absence of immediate widespread pushback does not equate to support for this decision. Many families were unaware of the change or uncertain about how to voice their concerns. Framing the issue this way misrepresents the genuine frustration and disappointment within the community, minimizing the strong commitment of parents and players to the sport.
There is very good fiscal, transportation, and instructional justification for the decision to phase out field hockey and add girls’ flag football and girls’ beach volleyball; we are growing opportunities for girls in athletics, not diminishing them.
Counterpoint: Eliminating an established and successful sport does not equate to expanding opportunities. It merely shifts them, effectively sidelining athletes who have dedicated years to their development in field hockey. Growth should mean adding opportunities, not replacing one sport with another at the expense of those already invested.
Talking Points for Engaging with Families
• The #1 issue – There is no field hockey league/conference in Riverside County/Inland Empire. Our Temecula teams must travel to Orange County to compete or have OC or San Diego teams travel to Temecula.
Counterpoint: While no local league currently exists, Temecula teams have successfully competed in Orange County for years. Many other sports also travel significant distances yet remain supported by the district. Rather than eliminating field hockey, efforts should be made to develop a local league and ensure the sport’s sustainability.
• Transportation costs are high to travel to schools like Huntington Beach and Westminster and buses must leave early in the day to transport our teams that distance.
Counterpoint: Travel costs are an inherent part of high school athletics, yet field hockey is being unfairly singled out for elimination. Other teams face similar travel burdens but continue to receive support. Parents also contribute financially through fair-share donations to offset costs, and alternative transportation solutions exist if the district’s preferred supplier is unable to accommodate needs.
• Lost instructional time is a concern when buses leave at 11 am for a 3:15 game.
Counterpoint: Many sports require early dismissals for competition, yet only field hockey is facing elimination. Student-athletes consistently demonstrate their ability to balance academics and athletics. If lost instructional time is a genuine concern, the district should provide comparative GPA data of field hockey players versus other sports and the general student population to assess whether this is a valid justification.
• The landscape of CA high school athletics is shifting and enthusiasm around girls flag football and girls beach volleyball in Riverside County is on an uptick. The Rams and Chargers are marketing and even offering grants to start up girls flag football programs all across Southern CA. There was even a commercial during the Super Bowl promoting high school girls flag football.
Counterpoint: The introduction of new sports should not come at the cost of eliminating an existing, well-established program. Field hockey has a dedicated player base that deserves continued support, rather than being forced into new sports they may not be interested in playing.
• TVUSD provided a fall sport interest survey to every current 8th-11th female student in the district and overwhelmingly, flag football was the most popular fall sport of choice for female athletes.
Counterpoint: The survey was neither fair nor impartial. The email subject line referred to it as a “girls flag football survey,” leading many recipients to ignore it—evidenced by the fact that only 330 students across the ENTIRE district responded. Many athletes already participating in fall sports had no reason to engage with the survey, making the results unrepresentative of actual interest.
• Facilities impact: Girls flag football is a CIF fall sport, and so is field hockey. With only one turf field on each HS campus, Football, Band, and Field Hockey already struggle to share that space when B/G Soccer, B/G Lacrosse, & Track/Field have year-round practice expectations. By phasing out field hockey in place of girls flag football, we “wash” the facility impact.
Counterpoint: Facility sharing has been successfully managed for years, and there is no valid reason why accommodations cannot continue. Many schools across Southern California—and the nation—successfully balance multiple sports on limited field space. Rather than eliminating field hockey, the district should collaborate with coaches and players to find equitable solutions.
• Girls Beach Volleyball is a CIF spring sport with their own facility. Teams at TV and GO have already started practicing but won’t compete formally until spring of 2026.
Counterpoint: While beach volleyball is a valuable addition, it does not replace field hockey. The two sports serve different athletes with distinct interests, and their coexistence should be encouraged rather than using one as justification to cut the other.
• Finally, girls flag football and girls beach volleyball will have many local high schools and districts with teams to compete against, keeping travel and competition close to home. Next fall, Lake Elsinore USD, Perris USD will field flag football teams.
Counterpoint: Travel is a common reality for many high school sports. Field hockey has managed this challenge for years without issue. The introduction of new local teams in other sports should not be used as a pretext to eliminate an existing, thriving program.
• CIF hosted its first-ever Girls Flag Football Championship. Here is a video if you are interested. There will be fans and excitement for GFF, and an educated guess is that field hockey athletes will switch over to GFF when they see the excitement around this new athletic opportunity.
Counterpoint: Assuming that field hockey players will automatically transition to another sport dismisses the unique skills, dedication, and passion these athletes have for their game. Excitement for one sport does not justify the elimination of another. The statement itself acknowledges that this is merely speculation (a “guess”), and a simple survey of field hockey athletes would quickly refute this claim.