1. Transfer Rule - Topic One
All Member Schools.
Background: The Transfer Rule ad hoc Committee was formed to evaluate By-Law 3.10 (Transfer and Residency Standards) and to provide suggestions for improvements to the Board of Directors. Over the course of discussions, the committee strongly agreed that a transfer rule is necessary for competitive equity and fairness in interscholastic competition. The committee made two recommendations for discussion by the membership.
Item 1: Should "Athletic Reasons" penalties be sport specific? Currently, when a sending school indicates on the transfer form that the transfer has occurred due to athletic reasons, the student is rendered ineligible for 365 days for all sports. The athletic reasons for the transfer that are outlined by sending schools are typically connected to only one sport. When that is the case, should the student be ineligible for only that particular sport rather than all sports? If such a modification was supported by the membership, eligibility in sports other than the one noted by the sending school would be determined based on the transfer exception being used – similar to a transfer request which has not been contested by the sending school.
When a transfer is made for “athletic reasons” ineligibility should be: |
|
|
|
2. Transfer Rule - Topic Two
All Member Schools.
Background: The Transfer Rule ad hoc Committee was formed to evaluate By-Law 3.10 (Transfer and Residency Standards) and to provide suggestions for improvements to the Board of Directors. Over the course of discussions, the committee strongly agreed that a transfer rule is necessary for competitive equity and fairness in interscholastic competition. The committee made two recommendations for discussion by the membership.
Item 2: With the large amount of turnover that is taking place in the position of Athletic/Activities Director, should all first and second year athletic/activities directors be required to attend a mandatory training with the MSHSAA staff covering the MSHSAA website and the by-laws? It is proposed that this training would take place during the summer at member school locations throughout the state, at the Summer A.D. meeting at the MSHSAA office, and at the MIAAA Spring A.D. Conference at Tan-Tar-A. The training session would probably last around four hours.
Would you support a mandated training session for individuals who are in their first or second year as athletic or activities directors in the state of Missouri? |
|
|
|
3. School Coaches Coaching Students in Non-School Competition
Only High Schools and Combined Schools .
Background: Currently, the non-school competition rules in By-Laws 3.13, 3.14 and 3.15 apply to all students in grades seven through twelve consistently. Once a student graduates from high school, he/she is no longer under the jurisdiction of the MSHSAA by-laws – but is until that point. Instructional contact between school coaches and enrolled students is restricted in By-Law 3.14.2.e, which indicates that outside of the school sport season, a high school coach of any sport may not provide any coaching or instruction to any student who currently attends the school or will attend the school the following year. This includes seniors. A coach at a member school has asked the Board to consider offering the membership a proposal to change this by-law.
EXAMPLE OF PROPOSAL: High school volleyball takes place in the fall. Non-school (club) volleyball takes place during the winter and spring. Currently, high school volleyball coaches may not coach any student from their school in club volleyball, including seniors. They may coach students who attend other schools. This change would allow school volleyball coaches to coach seniors from their school in the winter/spring in club volleyball. Member schools are being asked to determine whether allowing seniors with no eligibility remaining to be coached by a school coach in club sports would be a positive or negative change.
Pros:
1. No competitive advantage: There is no competitive advantage to the school due to the senior having no eligibility remaining in the sport for the following year.
2. Senior Preference: Senior athletes may be more comfortable with their high school coach(es) for club sports.
3. Better Influence?: Due to school oversight and training, school sport coaches may be better role models for seniors and more interested in the total person than some club/non-school coaches.
Cons:
1. Pressure to specialize: School coaches coaching club may pressure seniors to play club rather than another school sport (multi-sport athletes).
2. School conflicts: May create conflicts between school sport coaches vying for multi-sport seniors (volleyball or basketball vs. soccer/track coaches); further oversight and direction by A.D. needed.
3. Inconsistent allowance: Sports (coaches and seniors) are affected differently due to school season (i.e. a senior girls volleyball player would be able to be coached by a school coach in club volleyball but a senior girls soccer player would not due to spring school season).
Would you favor allowing seniors with no eligibility remaining to be coached by a school coach in club sports? |
|
|
|
4. Proposed Bracket For Six (6) Team Tournaments
All Member Schools.
Background: The following six team bracket was originally discussed and supported by the Basketball Advisory Committee and has been reviewed and supported by the Athletic Directors Advisory Committee and other team sport advisory committees. The bracket is designed to accommodate a growing number of schools that are hosting tournaments which have only six participating schools. Currently tournaments with six teams have two options; they may play pool play or use a traditional eight team bracket with byes. Pool play tournaments do not allow basketball schools to complete the tournament in three days and traditional eight-team tournament brackets with byes do not guarantee each team three games in the tournament. The six team tournament bracket allows a host school to play a tournament in three days and guarantees each participating school three games in the tournament. Currently, this six-team bracket is considered to be a double elimination tournament because the loser of game one can still come back and win or play in the championship game of the tournament after a loss. Therefore, the bracket violates By-Law 3.18.1-c “No double elimination, except that a consolation bracket may be played.” A modification to the wording in By-Law 3.18.1 would be necessary to allow member schools to utilize this bracket.
Proposed wording change in By-Law 3.18.1-c: “No double elimination bracket may be played, except:
a. A consolation bracket may be played,
b. The approved six-team bracket which allows no more than one team to lose a game and still win the tournament, may be utilized. (See Diagram 3.18.1-c)”
Would you favor modifying the current restriction against double elimination tournaments to allow for a specific six-team bracket in which no more than one team has the opportunity to lose a game and still win the tournament? |
|
|
|
5. Wrestling - Allowing Earlier Match Start Times On A School Day
Only Schools participating in Wrestling.
Background: MSHSAA By-Law 3.18.6 addresses Wrestling Multi-game regulations. The by-law states that there is no limit on the number of teams that compete in a tournament as long as no team will compete on more than one school day, and competition on a school day does not begin prior to 4:00 p.m. Competition restricted to starting after 4:00 pm is in an effort to protect instructional time of the school day. The MSHSAA office has received input from member schools that many Wrestling tournaments are now two day tournaments that are held on a Friday and Saturday. These schools believe that the current restriction of 4:00 p.m. affects their ability to schedule tournaments they could participate in. The Wrestling Advisory Committee has recommended that the membership consider this by-law.
Example: There are schools in out-state areas that would elect to go to an out-of-state tournament(s) for competing against schools in their classification and because it is closer in terms of travel; however, the tournament(s) they would elect to go to start their tournament(s) prior to 4:00 p.m. on Friday. Therefore, these schools schedule in-state tournaments that begin at 4:00 p.m.; however, the travel to these locations are far greater and cause missed school time on the Friday of the tournament due to travel time, check-in for overnight lodging and weigh-ins.
Current By-Law 3.18.6.a: “There is no limit on the number of teams participating in a tournament provided no team will compete on more than one school day, and competition on a school day does not begin prior to 4:00 p.m.”
Which, if any, of the following do you favor in regard to the by-law covering Wrestling Multi-Game Regulations: |
|
|
|
6. Event Organizers - Responsibilities to Member Schools
All Member Schools.
Background: MSHSAA By-Law 3.18.7.d currently states that any multi-game events co-sponsored with non-member entities must provide financial reimbursement to each member school participating in the event. At a minimum this amount would equal the average gate each individual member school would have received if the game were played at the member school’s facility plus any mileage expense actually incurred. The event organizer must also file a financial report within 90 days following the event to the MSHSAA office, unless the event is held in conjunction with an intercollegiate contest. In this situation no financial reimbursement is paid to the member school(s) and no financial report is to be forwarded to the MSHSAA office. Currently very few events of this type are able to provide financial reimbursement to each member school as the event either does not make a profit or breaks even. Is this by-law requirement desired as a protection for member schools, or should it be removed to allow schools to determine which events they participate in based on their own criteria?
Would you support the removal of the by-law requirement that currently mandates non-member event organizers to pay participating schools their average gate receipt plus mileage when participating in a multi-game event? |
|
|
|
7. Baseball – Altering the scheduling options to allow five (5) additional games on days that school is not in session
Only High Schools and Combined Schools participating in Baseball.
Background: The Baseball Advisory Committee has recommended altering the scheduling options for high school baseball in a manner that would allow a maximum of five extra games on days when school is not in session. On five different occasions, on days when school is not in session a school could play two games, one of which could exceed the current baseball contest limitations. This would allow more games to be played and not have an effect on the amount of school time missed or travel expenses. Many schools travel longer distances on days when school is not in session and would like to play two games on the longer trips. Each school would continue to select one of three scheduling options for regular season baseball games (20 games, 18 games, or 14 games). There would continue to be no restrictions on the scheduling of those games (school day versus non-school day). However, this proposal, if supported by the membership and ultimately approved on the Annual Ballot, would allow for a school to schedule up to five additional games (“bonus games”), beyond the current game options, if those games are 1) coupled with a regular season game and 2) scheduled on days that school is not in session.
Proposal:
Option 1: 20 games (+5 bonus*) and 1 tournament
Option 2: 18 games (+ 5 bonus*) and 2 tournaments
Option 3: 14 games (+ 5 bonus*) and 3 tournaments
*A maximum of five bonus games could be coupled with regular season games on days that school is not in session.
Notes:
1. All games played (exclusive of tournaments but including bonus games) would continue to count as games for the calculation of individual player season inning limitations.
2. All actual innings pitched in regular games, bonus games, and tournament games would continue to count toward pitching limitations.
3. All actual innings played in regular games and bonus games would continue to count toward individual player inning limitations for the season, based on scheduling option selected (maximum of 25 games, 23 games, or 19 games).
4. One opponent in session, the other on Spring Break: If School A is not in session on the date of the contest, one game would count toward the regular season game limit and one game would count as a bonus game. If School B is in session, the double header would count as two games toward the regular season game limit.
Would you favor altering the scheduling options for high school baseball in a manner that would allow a maximum of five extra games on days when school is not in session? |
|
|
|
8. Altering the scheduling options to allow additional games on days that school is not in session
All Member Schools.
Background: If your school does not participate in the sport of baseball, a question concerning baseball scheduling options was not visible to you. But, we are seeking feedback from all schools in regard to the concept that baseball schools are considering because this concept may be applicable and/or desirable to other sports. Each sport advisory committee would be asked to determine if this concept is favorable.
In summary, the baseball schools are considering an alteration to the scheduling options for the sport in a manner that would allow extra games on days when school is not in session. This option would allow more games to be played and not have an effect on the amount of school time missed or travel expenses. Many schools travel longer distances on days when school is not in session and would like to play more games on the longer trips. This is not possible for all sports. In the baseball model, such games would be called "bonus games" and a certain number of bonus games would be possible. Such options would require a by-law change.
Would you favor MSHSAA looking into additional scheduling options in sports other than baseball which would allow additional contests on days when school is not in session? |
|
|
|
9. Volleyball Officials Requirements
All Member Schools.
Background: MSHSAA By-Law 6.1.2.b: The number of officials required by the applicable NFHS sport rule code shall be used for all high school (9-12) interscholastic contests within the boundaries of Missouri and/or hosted by a member school. The officials requirements were updated by the membership on the 2011 Annual Ballot to make sure schools were using certified officials and the appropriate number of officials. The required number of volleyball officials according the NFHS sport rule code is two. A number of schools are playing 9th grade and Junior Varsity matches at the same time with one official on each contest and then using those two officials to officiate the varsity contest. The current rule does not allow for the use of only one volleyball official for interscholastic play because two officials are required by NFHS rules.
Would you support a modification to By-Law 6.1.2.b which would allow an exception for volleyball to use fewer officials than required by the NFHS Volleyball Rule code for only sub-varsity contests? |
|
|
|
10. Sports Medicine Advisory Committee Recommendation on Practices
All Member Schools.
Background: Most MSHSAA sports require fourteen conditioning practices prior to competition. However, fall baseball, golf, tennis, fall softball and spirit require only ten conditioning practices prior to competition. This difference has been researched by the MSHSAA staff and the Sports Medicine Advisory Committee. The committee presented findings at the most recent meeting and the findings support the fourteen day requirement. The ten practice requirement was found to be inadequate for the proper preparation of athletes for safe competition, especially in the fall season when heat is a factor. Therefore, an item will be presented on the Annual Ballot to alter the first allowable contest date for the fall sports to allow for fourteen conditioning practices for all fall sports. (Note: Spirit does not have a first allowable practice date or a first allowable contest date; therefore, an item will be placed on the Annual Ballot to modify their conditioning requirement from ten to fourteen.
What scheduling option do you prefer as the way to allow the sports of fall softball, fall baseball, tennis and golf to complete fourteen days of conditioning practice rather than ten prior to the first allowable contest? |
|
|
Count |
Question Option |
|
58 |
|
|
191 |
|
|
225 |
|
|
11. Access to students enrolled in a school district or school system and Undue Influence
All Member Schools.
Background: Extensive discussions have been held, primarily in the St. Louis area, concerning junior football programs and the relationship that such programs may have with the high schools. The St. Louis Board District is the only area in the state of Missouri where the vast majority of middle schools and junior highs are not members of MSHSAA and do not sponsor any interscholastic athletic programs. As a result, community groups, booster clubs, and interested football fans and parents organize junior football programs, many times in the image of a high school program – using the name, mascot, football system of the high school at which many, if not all, of the students will attend. These programs, which include eighth graders, are non-school programs and as such, high school coaches are restricted from instructional contact with these students. St. Louis schools are asking if there is a way for their coaches to have more contact with these students and programs if the students are enrolled at a middle school or junior high school within their district. As a first step in addressing the issues caused by these junior programs, the membership is being asked to consider the undue influence language.
By-Law 2.6.1 Undue Influence: "To maintain a proper relationship between the academic purposes of schools and their interscholastic activities programs, all members of the Missouri State High School Activities Association must refrain from recruitment, inducement or other forms of persuasion and undue influence which would encourage a student to enroll in a school primarily for interscholastic activities purposes."
By-Law 2.6.3.g. "The contacting of a student(s) in another school by any person or group connected, directly or indirectly, with a member school (including but not limited to alumni associations, booster groups or similar organizations), and attempting to persuade or induce that student(s), primarily for interscholastic activities purposes, to attend the inducer‘s school."
Proposed New #1 under 2.6.3-g: "Exception: Persuasion or encouragement of a student to attend a particular high school is not undue influence if that student lives within the residence boundaries (3.10.1.d) of that high school and is enrolled and attending the lower school (elementary or middle/junior) managed and funded by that high school’s district or system and which feeds directly to that high school."
Would you support adding an exception to the language describing undue influence to allow high school coaches to encourage students who live within their high school’s boundaries and already attend a feeder school to come to that high school for interscholastic activity purposes? |
|
|
|