Post by kevin on Jan 12, 2020 16:39:09 GMT -6
The LHSAA website now has proposals posted for the convention, which will be held January 29-31. There are a lot of things going on, and unfortunately the layout is somewhat confusing. In past years the Executive Committee has sometimes made minor tweaks at their meetings throughout the year. I can't recall any major changes made this way in the past few years. This year, however, there are 95 different things that the Executive Committee at their winter, spring, or fall meetings. Some seem pretty minor. Others? Not so much. I don't get why significant changes are being made, even when they affect the constitution, which is supposed to require a 2/3 vote of the member schools. There are plenty of executive committee proposals made through the usual process, but these 95 changes seem to be subject to just an up-or-down vote as one agenda item. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken about this.) You can see a list of the items here: cdn.lhsaa.org/uploads/images/Items_pass_per_LHSAA_Constitution_Article_4.4.4_(Jan._2019-2020).pdf
Unfortunately, that doesn't include the actual text of the changes. For that, you have to go through each article of the handbook separately and look for the red text with deletions and additions. That's incredibly confusing; I had looked through the handbook a few weeks ago and I thought all the stuff in red was stuff that had already been approved by the principals last year.
Some of those 95 changes that seem particularly relevant:
Constitution 4.4.4: the proposed change would seem to give the Executive Committee power to adopt any rules whatsoever, taking effect immediately, and then only being subject to approval or revocation at the next annual convention. The current rule says that committee has the power to "Make special rules to effect the spirit of fair play and good sportsmanship," which I suppose can be rather broadly interpreted. There is also a principal-initiated proposal which would change the rule to say that nothing in the Constitution (as opposed to the rest of the handbook) can be changed.
Eligibility 1.9: A new article which states:
Kids shouldn't smoke or drink. Well, sure. What's the penalty if they do? There's nothing here (or, as far as I can tell, in the penalty code section of the handbook) that specifies the penalty. Nor does this seem to be limited to athletic contests themselves. If Bobby from School A takes a photo of Billy from School B with a drink at a party, will the wrath of the LHSAA come down upon Billy?
Eligibility 1.12.4. This has been discussed on the girls' board. A lot of 9th grade students are now ineligible for varsity play if they are attending a magnet program at a school that isn't the one in their attendance zone. This proposal would keep them from even playing JV. That strikes me as unbelievably petty and vindictive. I understand that school districts are never going to be set up the exact same way. Some of the school districts have decided to have magnet programs at different schools. Some school districts are too small or too spread out for that to be feasible. If you want to penalize children because their parents are making the best choice for their children's education, you have a problem. I won't copy-and-paste the whole thing here, but check out the posts in this thread. I think that ALL 9th graders should be eligible, unless they've played sports at another high school and then transferred.
Eligibility 1.22. 7th and 8th graders would only be allowed to play at schools that are 1A and below. I can understand the motivation behind this, but this is going to affect a lot of teams in minor sports. There are a lot of schools that are 2A-5A that struggle to fill out a team in various sports, and those 7th or 8th graders can make a difference. It seems that this would also make 7th and 8th graders ineligible for JV teams. Again, many schools struggle to have a JV team in soccer or various other sports. The huge schools will be able to have an 8th grade team. The other schools? Maybe not. As I said, I get where people are coming from with this rule; many schools are 9-12, other schools have lower grades too. And the public/private split is a huge factor here. But I'd at least hope that people would be willing to let 7th/8th graders play JV.
Now onto the proposals through the regular process. The list is available here.
First up, the Executive Committee has a reunification proposal with a 1.5 multiplier for select schools (2.5 for single-sex schools).
The very next proposal includes the same multipliers, but is basically the opposite of reunification. All private schools would have to apply for membership and get the approval of 2/3rds of the Executive Committee. I don't see how this would ever get the votes to pass. All the private schools would vote against it, and they'd get enough public schools who'd realize the sponsorship money they'd be losing with a split.
There are a handful of amendments about how many classes to have. There's a proposal for 8 reunified classes with a 1.25 multiplier for select schools. There's a proposal for 6 classes (but it wouldn't end the separate playoffs).
A proposal from Lee Magnet would allow 9th graders attending a school outside their zone eligible to play varsity if their school doesn't have a sub-varsity team in a given sport.
St. Michael's has proposed making all 7th and 8th graders ineligible for any LHSAA sport. I'm really surprised to see that proposal coming from a private school--but of course, it's coming from a 9-12 private school. As I said before, I understand the rationale. And I give the author credit for actually noting that a drawback is that some schools may have to drop sports because of this. It's amusing to read through the pros and cons that are required with each proposal. Some principals put zero effort into considering the other side of the argument, which makes me worried for our educational system. So credit where credit is due. I can understand having this rule for 4A-5A, but I'd really hate to see it forced on smaller schools. And again, I don't understand why this has to apply to JV too.
There are reunification proposals in individual sports, as well as some pertaining to the organization and finances of the separate select playoffs.
For soccer there's a proposal to reintroduce the ability to play up one division, as well as proposals to expand the boys' and girls' DI playoffs to 32 teams.
If there's anything else I skipped over that you think is relevant, feel free to discuss that too. I hope we can have a good discussion so that we can all be better informed in talking to our principals and ADs about what they'll be doing at the convention.
Unfortunately, that doesn't include the actual text of the changes. For that, you have to go through each article of the handbook separately and look for the red text with deletions and additions. That's incredibly confusing; I had looked through the handbook a few weeks ago and I thought all the stuff in red was stuff that had already been approved by the principals last year.
Some of those 95 changes that seem particularly relevant:
Constitution 4.4.4: the proposed change would seem to give the Executive Committee power to adopt any rules whatsoever, taking effect immediately, and then only being subject to approval or revocation at the next annual convention. The current rule says that committee has the power to "Make special rules to effect the spirit of fair play and good sportsmanship," which I suppose can be rather broadly interpreted. There is also a principal-initiated proposal which would change the rule to say that nothing in the Constitution (as opposed to the rest of the handbook) can be changed.
Eligibility 1.9: A new article which states:
General requirements for conduct of student; conduct of other [sic]; penalties of violation – A student who represents a school in any sanctioned sport must be of good moral character as determined by the principal of the school. The student shall comply with any standards concerning discipline adopted by the school he or she attends or school district in which he or she resides and shall not engage in conduct that discredits the pupil or school. Conduct that discredits the pupil or school includes, without limitation:
1. A violation of any training or disciplinary rules of the school or school district or a team at the school.
2. The use of possession of any tobacco or alcoholic beverages or any controlled substance, unless in accordance
with a lawfully issues [sic] prescription for the controlled substance and the commission of any act that violates a law or regulation of this State or the Federal Government.
1. A violation of any training or disciplinary rules of the school or school district or a team at the school.
2. The use of possession of any tobacco or alcoholic beverages or any controlled substance, unless in accordance
with a lawfully issues [sic] prescription for the controlled substance and the commission of any act that violates a law or regulation of this State or the Federal Government.
Kids shouldn't smoke or drink. Well, sure. What's the penalty if they do? There's nothing here (or, as far as I can tell, in the penalty code section of the handbook) that specifies the penalty. Nor does this seem to be limited to athletic contests themselves. If Bobby from School A takes a photo of Billy from School B with a drink at a party, will the wrath of the LHSAA come down upon Billy?
Eligibility 1.12.4. This has been discussed on the girls' board. A lot of 9th grade students are now ineligible for varsity play if they are attending a magnet program at a school that isn't the one in their attendance zone. This proposal would keep them from even playing JV. That strikes me as unbelievably petty and vindictive. I understand that school districts are never going to be set up the exact same way. Some of the school districts have decided to have magnet programs at different schools. Some school districts are too small or too spread out for that to be feasible. If you want to penalize children because their parents are making the best choice for their children's education, you have a problem. I won't copy-and-paste the whole thing here, but check out the posts in this thread. I think that ALL 9th graders should be eligible, unless they've played sports at another high school and then transferred.
Eligibility 1.22. 7th and 8th graders would only be allowed to play at schools that are 1A and below. I can understand the motivation behind this, but this is going to affect a lot of teams in minor sports. There are a lot of schools that are 2A-5A that struggle to fill out a team in various sports, and those 7th or 8th graders can make a difference. It seems that this would also make 7th and 8th graders ineligible for JV teams. Again, many schools struggle to have a JV team in soccer or various other sports. The huge schools will be able to have an 8th grade team. The other schools? Maybe not. As I said, I get where people are coming from with this rule; many schools are 9-12, other schools have lower grades too. And the public/private split is a huge factor here. But I'd at least hope that people would be willing to let 7th/8th graders play JV.
Now onto the proposals through the regular process. The list is available here.
First up, the Executive Committee has a reunification proposal with a 1.5 multiplier for select schools (2.5 for single-sex schools).
The very next proposal includes the same multipliers, but is basically the opposite of reunification. All private schools would have to apply for membership and get the approval of 2/3rds of the Executive Committee. I don't see how this would ever get the votes to pass. All the private schools would vote against it, and they'd get enough public schools who'd realize the sponsorship money they'd be losing with a split.
There are a handful of amendments about how many classes to have. There's a proposal for 8 reunified classes with a 1.25 multiplier for select schools. There's a proposal for 6 classes (but it wouldn't end the separate playoffs).
A proposal from Lee Magnet would allow 9th graders attending a school outside their zone eligible to play varsity if their school doesn't have a sub-varsity team in a given sport.
St. Michael's has proposed making all 7th and 8th graders ineligible for any LHSAA sport. I'm really surprised to see that proposal coming from a private school--but of course, it's coming from a 9-12 private school. As I said before, I understand the rationale. And I give the author credit for actually noting that a drawback is that some schools may have to drop sports because of this. It's amusing to read through the pros and cons that are required with each proposal. Some principals put zero effort into considering the other side of the argument, which makes me worried for our educational system. So credit where credit is due. I can understand having this rule for 4A-5A, but I'd really hate to see it forced on smaller schools. And again, I don't understand why this has to apply to JV too.
There are reunification proposals in individual sports, as well as some pertaining to the organization and finances of the separate select playoffs.
For soccer there's a proposal to reintroduce the ability to play up one division, as well as proposals to expand the boys' and girls' DI playoffs to 32 teams.
If there's anything else I skipped over that you think is relevant, feel free to discuss that too. I hope we can have a good discussion so that we can all be better informed in talking to our principals and ADs about what they'll be doing at the convention.
