NSAA Rule Proposals

Click for Correction and Update - October 28, 2008 [See also, Baseball Mojo: Dumbing Down Baseball]

The Fall Season, in addition to providing a full menu of sports choices -- including high school football, Husker football, the MLB post-season, girl's softball, volleyball and several other sports options -- is also the time when legislation is introduced that would implement changes in the Nebraska School Activities Assocations' management of Nebraska high school sports for the following school year. Some years go by in which no legislation is proposed which affects baseball, and in other years baseball is the subject of various legislative proposals. This year falls into the latter category as two proposals have been submitted which, if adopted, would have a significant impact on spring baseball in Nebraska beginning in 2010.

Proposal to Delay First Practice Date Until Two Weeks After Conclusion of State Basketball Tournament

The first of these proposals falls into the category of "everyone complains about the weather, but no one does anything about it -- until now." Scottsbluff High School Activities Director Lee Dick has submitted identical proposals for each of the spring sports, including baseball, that would delay the start date of the first practice by two weeks. Currently, the first practice date for the 2010 season is March 1. The proposed change would move that start date to March 15. No other currently scheduled dates for the 2010 season are affected by the proposal, thus, the date of the first game remains March 18, Districts remains scheduled for May 8-10 and the State Tournaments will be played May 15-20.

"The early spring weather in Nebraska is terrible," explained Mr. Dick in a recent telephone interview with BaseballNebraska. "It's ridiculous to try to have outdoor sports played in early March and start our seasons at the same time that they do in Texas and other southern states." Mr. Dick explained that it wasn't his intention to shorten the season for spring sports by starting them later, but rather his primary goal is to get the Board of Control to look at the whole issue of starting and ending the spring sports seasons two weeks later. "What really needs to happen is for the whole spring sports schedule to be pushed back two weeks later with championships to be played a couple of weeks later than they are now. I'm just trying to get that discussion started. My proposal just implements a new practice start date. I didn't want to dictate to anyone when the championships should be played because I felt that doing so would raise a lot of objections and would cause the proposal to be defeated."

When asked whether he intended that the start date of the first game would also be pushed back two weeks (which is not part of his proposal), Mr. Dick stated that for all he cares teams could start playing the next day after the first allowed practice. "Again, the point of this proposal is just to get the discussion started so that the Board of Control will take it upon themselves to adjust the spring calendar in a way that makes sense for Nebraska weather."

Scottsbluff High School does not have a baseball program nor does any other school in NSAA District VI where Scottsbluff is located. The closest Nebraska high school baseball program to Scottsbluff is Grand Island, located five hours to the east. Mr. Dick acknowledged that he had not had any discussions with high school baseball coaches or athletic directors from schools that currently have baseball programs prior to submitting his proposal to solicit their comments on how his proposal might affect their sport.

When advised of this proposal, several coaches expressed strong reservations. "If the proposal called for moving the dates of not only the first practice, but also the first contest, districts and state back as well, I would be more inclined to support it," commented Westside assistant coach Jim Simons. "I think all of these dates must move together, not independently of each other. If the dates of the first contest, districts and state are unchanged, this would leave teams woefully unprepared to start the season." Rick Kissick, head coach of defending state champion Grand Island, expressed a similar view: "I have always favored this idea (starting the spring season later) if the State Tournament is pushed back. But the biggest hang up there is graduation dates."

Nebraska City head coach Tom Bales raised the issue of increased injury risks if the practice start date is moved up without corresponding changes in the date of the of first games. "If you change the start date and not the first contest date, what are you accomplishing by doing so? Shorter prep time before the first game and more arm injuries is about it," observed Bales. Simons echoed that concern, observing that "baseball, especially for pitchers, is a sport that needs time prior to the first game to work your way into game shape or arms will be at risk for injury."

Simons also noted the unpredictability of springtime in Nebraska which throws various kinds of weather our way without first consulting a calendar. "The weather is so unpredictable in Nebraska, it's hard to say how much of a benefit this would have. Some years the weather in February is better than in March! A couple of years ago, we spent all of early March practicing outside in upper 40's / lower 50's weather in preparation for games, and the week of the first game it snowed eight inches."

Seward coach Roy Wright observed that "there is a lot of work that can be done inside. I would say that my athletes learn more in the first two weeks of practice when we are inside. We definitely get better as a team when we go outside because we can go through it at full speed, but there is a lot to be learned while we are inside." In summarizing his position on the proposal, Wright stated, "I am 100% against it," a view that is likely to be shared by many within the baseball community if a corresponding extension of the season is not included as part of the proposal.

Proposal to Limit the Maximum Number of Game "Dates" to Seventeen

The other legislative proposal affecting baseball comes from Beatrice High School Activities Director Neal Randel who would like to "even the playing field" when it comes to the number of games each varsity baseball team plays. His proposal would set a maximum of seventeen "dates" that could be played by each team. The term "date" is undefined in the proposal although it is stated that participation in a tournament would count as one "date" and that state-sponsored tournaments, such as districts and state tournaments, would not count against the limit. The proposal also provides that a team may not play more than five tournaments in a season, including any conference tournament. [Note: it is unclear from the proposal whether state-sponsored tournaments would be included in the five-tournament maximum. Presumably not.]

"The primary reasons for the proposal are to bring baseball in line with other sports in terms of fairness in the amount of competition each team plays and to reduce the amount of class that kids miss," stated Mr. Randel in a recent phone interview. "Most sports have some kind of cap on how many games are played. Right now, for baseball it's totally up to each school how many games they play. Some coaches have a philosophy that the best way to prepare their players is to play as many games as possible. Other coaches like to play fewer games and get more practice in. Our coaches have expressed to me that the number of games currently scheduled doesn't give them enough opportunity to practice and teach fundamentals. This proposal puts some limits on how many games could be played for purposes of fairness and what's in the best educational interest of the kids."

In commenting about the proposal, several coaches observed that baseball, unlike some other sports, is a game that relies on repetition and frequency to develop consistency. "That is why Major League Baseball plays so many more games than the NBA or the NFL," commented Westside's Simons. Because of the desire to maximize the number of games played within the limitations that would be imposed by the new rule, several coaches foresaw the likelihood of more double-headers and more tournaments being played. "I think this proposal will force teams to increase the number of tournaments they play in in order to maximize their games," stated Simons. "We would probably drop several games that start after school and pick up another tournament where we would play one or two afternoon games. Not only would this proposal add to missed class time, it would diminish the number of opportunities our kids get to play."

A similar concern was expressed by coaches who foresee the "date" limitation leading to more double-headers. "Here in Seward, we only have two paid coaches. So, if the varsity is playing double-headers all the time, we wouldn't have coaches to send to the JV games," observed Coach Wright. Nebraska City's Bales echoed that concern, noting that "for smaller schools playing more double-headers would really affect JV schedules because most play JV and varsity the same day at the same place."

Coaches also mentioned that unpredictable Nebraska weather (see Proposal #1 above) prevents many scheduled games from getting played. Simons observed that if more of each team's schedule is concentrated into tournaments and double-headers, bad weather on any given day could wipe out a greater portion of the games to be played by that team. "If a tournament is rained out, it will not be rescheduled," noted Simons. "It is much too difficult to finds dates that work for all of the teams involved. By contrast, if an individual game is rained out, it is usually pretty easy for the two teams to make that game up."

Grand Island's Kissack favors the current system which allows each program to determine whether to emphasize more practice time or more game time and build its schedule accordingly. "I would be against this proposal as baseball is a game of numbers and situations, and in order to see all of the unique aspects of baseball to prepare for the post season, each team needs to evaluate what better serves their program -- practice or game situations. That is the beauty of spring baseball as some programs choose practice, and some teams try to play forty games."

Notwithstanding their opinions based on baseball considerations, coaches are also teachers and understand that time away from the classroom needs to be limited. "I lean toward favoring this proposal but could still be swayed either way," observed Coach Wright. "I like the fact that it would keep my athletes in class longer. Being outside of the Metro, we have to travel to our games. If we have a 4:30 start in Nebraska City, we miss all of 4th block -- the equivalent of two periods. If we do this ten times, we essentially lose four weeks of class."

Coach Simons likewise noted that some educational benefits could result from a limitation on the number of games played, but only if the limitations are carefully thought out to accomplish that goal. "I understand that there is some merit in standardizing the number of games for all teams," observed Simons. "However, I think that 'seventeen dates' is a very arbitrary number that needs further discussion. Implementing the wrong number could actually lead to teams missing more school because of playing in more tournaments and the real possibility possibility of a substantial loss of games played if weather becomes an issue. I believe twenty dates would be a fairer number, allowing teams to keep more individual games and not load up on tournaments."

What Happens from Here?

First of all, it should be noted that the deadline for submitting NSAA legislative proposals is November 1. Thus, it is possible that more proposals may yet be submitted. For example, Westside High School still has time to submit an alternate proposal that presents something closer to Mr. Simons' position. Or, new proposals entirely unrelated to these two could yet be introduced. We will do our best to keep our readers informed of any future developments. (Note: see Correction and Update below)

Both proposals discussed above seek to amend the NSAA Baseball Manual, which, at first blush, would put them both into a category known as a "Request to Eliminate or Amend an Approved Ruling and Interpretation." However, Mr. Dick's proposal would also amend the Athletic Bylaws, which causes it to fall into a different category known as a "Proposed Change in the Constitution and Bylaws," requiring a much different procedural route. In short, the Mr. Randel's "Seventeen Date Cap" proposal is a Board of Control rulemaking matter, and Mr. Dick's "Delayed Practice Start Date" proposal is a Representative Assembly legislative matter.

The procedure for amending an Approved Ruling and Interpretation that would be followed by Mr. Randel's proposal is set forth in Section 1.6.1.6(b)(4) of the NSAA Constitution (See Note 1 below). Unlike the other major category of legislation -- amendments to the Constitution or Bylaws, which require action by the forty-nine member NSAA Representative Assembly -- the fate of a "Request to Eliminate or Amend an Approved Ruling and Interpretation" lies in the hands of the six-member Board of Control, provided that it first clears a rather low threshold of being approved at the First District Meeting in November by a majority of the member schools within the NSAA District in which it was introduced. After a proposal clears that initial hurdle, it moves on for a vote in all six NSAA districts during the Second District Meetings held in January. (Note: see Correction and Update below)

It is important to note that the vote of the six districts on a Request to Eliminate or Amend an Approved Ruling and Interpretation is not binding on the Board of Control, but is advisory only. At its April meeting, the Board of Control can "(a) accept such request for amendment or elimination of an Approved Ruling and Interpretation, in whole or in part, (b) amend the Approved Ruling and Interpretation in another manner, or (c) determine to make no change in the Approved Ruling and Interpretation." No action beyond the Board's vote in its April meeting is required to amend an Approved Ruling and Intepretation. (Note: see Correction and Update below)

Although the outcome of voting in the January Second District Meetings is not binding on the Board of Control, the Board generally views such vote to be indicative of the will of the member schools and, accordingly, places considerable weight on the outcome, according to NSAA Executive Director James Tenopir in a phone interview in 2007. If the current proposals were overwhelming approved or defeated in the Second District Meeting voting, this would likely determine the Board of Control's decision on those issues, however, the Board certainly has the discretion to ignore such voting and do as it pleases. (Note: see Correction and Update below)

If Mr. Dick's proposal were to follow the foregoing procedural path for administrative rule amendments, his comment that he is making his proposal regarding the spring season practice start date "to get the Board of Control to look at the whole issue of starting and ending the spring sports seasons two weeks later," would make sense. Introducing a Request to Eliminate or Amend an Approved Ruling and Interpretation is one way for a member school to bring an issue to the Board of Control for consideration, provided that the sponsor can get a majority of the member schools in his district (none of whom, in this case, have baseball programs) to vote for it.

However, since Mr. Dick's proposal not only amends the Baseball Manual, but also amends Section 1.1.2 of the Athletic Bylaws (which states that the first date of baseball practice is the Monday of Week 35), it must follow a path that takes it out of the Board of Control's wide-ranging rulemaking authority and into the legislative process which is the exclusive domain of the Representative Assembly. The Board of Control has no legislative powers under the Constitution. If a "Proposed Change in the Constitution and Bylaws," such as the one proposed by Mr. Dick, advances out of the First District Meeting, it is placed on the agenda of each District's Second District Meeting. Any proposal receiving approval in three or more Districts, advances to a vote by the 49-member Representative Assembly during its annual meeting in April. Additionally, any proposal being approved by at least one District in Second District Voting can be sent on to the Representative Assembly (despite falling short of the three District approval threshold) if five members of a twelve-member Legislative Commission, vote to do so.

The short answer is that, in the case of Mr. Dick's proposal, the Board of Control does not have the authority under the NSAA Constitution to fashion the kind of wide-ranging reform of the spring sports schedule that he seeks. The fact that the spring season sports start dates are set forth in the Athletic Bylaws takes this issue out of the Board's rulemaking authority and places it in the hands of the Representative Assembly. Unless his proposal is modified in District VI's First District Meeting in November, the proposal must move through the legislative process without any further modification (no changes to the proposal may be made in Second District Meetings). It is unclear from the Constitution whether the Representative Assembly has the ability to amend proposals that are submitted to it for action (the Constitution states that the "Representative shall consider all items placed on the agenda by the Legislative Commission."). However, the Representative Assembly clearly does have the power to introduce new legislative proposals as "new business", provided that a majority of the Representatives agree to do so. As a practical matter, the only way for Mr. Dick's desire to overhaul the spring sports schedule to be realized for 2010 is for the Representative Assembly to enact its own legislative proposal to do so, introduced as "new business."

An interesting aspect of this whole process is that all 312 NSAA member schools have the right to vote in the Second District Meetings on any matter placed on the agenda of that meeting. There are currently 44 baseball programs in the state representing 55 member schools (twelve schools participate by co-operative arrangement). That means that 257 schools that do not have baseball programs will get to vote on when baseball's first practice should be held and how many baseball game "dates" should be permitted. Two districts (V and VI) have no schools with baseball programs, yet the 51 schools in those districts have the right to vote on these proposals in their respective Second District Meetings should they be approved in the First District Meetings of the districts in which they were proposed (District VI in the case of Mr. Dick and District I in the case of Mr. Randel).

Mr. Randel stated that he "would be very surprised if schools without baseball programs vote" on his proposal. However, historically, there is very strong precedent that NSAA member schools across the state routinely vote on issues that do not directly affect them. Dr. Tenopir explained in the 2007 phone interview that member schools' tendency to do so is probably motivated by "fear of a trickledown effect." That is, if a proposal that does not directly affect particular members is viewed as holding some potential to be made applicable to them in the future -- either directly or by precedential effect -- they are likely to vote for it or against it, as the case may be, rather than abstaining. That was certainly the case with a significant proposal in 2007 that proposed adoption of the current system of assigning schools to districts in Class A only on the basis of wild card points rather than enrollment. That proposal was soundly defeated by western districts (some of whom had no Class A member schools), ostensibly, for tactical political reasons. In the ensuing compromise version of the proposal that was adopted by the NSAA Board of Control, western member schools were awarded their own permanent, geographically-defined western district (in sports other than baseball) rather than being placed in districts on the basis of merit like all of the other schools in Class A. Thus, as to Mr. Randel's contention about non-baseball schools not voting on his proposal, the jury is still out on that one. If there is one lesson to be gleaned from observing the NSAA in action, it is to never discount the role of old-fashioned political horse trading when professional educators make important policy decisions affecting the lives of thousands of Nebraska high school student athletes.

Related reading:

__________________

Notes and Comments:

1. In April 2008, the NSAA membership amended its Constitution to include specific methods by which an Approved Ruling and Interpretation could be amended or deleted, granting to the Board of Control unfettered authority to make, amend or delete Approved Rulings as it sees fit. (See NSAA Constitution § 1.6.1.6(b)(2), "An Approved Ruling and Interpretation may be adopted and made effective at such date and time as deemed appropriate by the Board of Control.")

Prior to April 2008, the Board of Control relied upon a vaguely worded grant of authority then found in Section 1.6.1.6(b) to "[m]ake all rules necessary for effective control and government of interschool activities consonant with the legislation enacted by the Representative Assembly and with this Constitution." Some NSAA observers, including your author, are of the opinion that the Board of Control, had for many years prior to the 2008 amendment, improperly expanded its rulemaking powers by fiat at the expense of legislative powers that were reserved under the Constitution to the Representative Assembly. The 2008 amendment codified the Board's expanded powers and included a provision expressly ratifying all prior actions taken by the Board in the exercise of its perceived rulemaking authority. The previously murky boundary line between matters legislative in nature and rulemaking in nature has been redrawn by the 2008 amendment to concentrate into the hands of the six-member Board of Control decision-making authority over all policy matters affecting the conduct of high school activities in Nebraska except those expressly codified in the Bylaws or the Constitution. This concentration of power in the one-member, one-vote Board of Control is particularly troublesome when one considers the gross disparity in representation on the Board of Control of the students across the six districts (see chart below).

To grasp the enormity of this dispararity, observe from the chart below that Dr. Dallas Watkins, the Board of Control member for District V, represents 2,449 students in grades 9-11. Dr. Bob Reznicek, the Board of Control member for District II, represents 38,679 students in grades 9-11. Each gentleman has one vote on the Board of Control. In fact, Dr. Reznicek represents more students than all of the other six districts combined, yet has the same voting power as any other Board member. This gross disparity in representation, especially as more discretionary power has been placed into the hands of the Board of Control by the 2008 Amendment, raises serious questions as to whether the current NSAA governance scheme would survive a legal challenge under the Equal Protection Clause of United States Constitution brought by disadvantaged students in District II whose representation on the all-powerful Board of Control is one-third of what it should be and one-sixteenth of that enjoyed by students in District V.

Disproportionate Representation of Nebraska HS Students
by NSAA Board of Control

District

# NSAA
Member
Schools

# Students
(grades 9-11)
in Dist.

# Dist.
BOC
Members

% of Tot State
Student Pop
in District

# District Students
per BOC

Member

# Dist. Stud'ts

Per BOC Memb.
as % of
State Avg.

I

51

14,269

1

18.659%

14,269.00

111.955%

II

89

38,679

1

50.579%

38,679.00

303.476%

III

60

6,762

1

8.842%

6,762.00

53.055%

IV

61

10,442

1

13.655%

10,442.00

81.928%

V

24

2,449

1

3.202%

2,449.00

19.215%

VI

27

3,871

1

5.062%

3,871.00

30.372%

Total

312

76,472

6

100.000%

Avg. = 12,745.33

100.000%

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Correction and Update, October 28, 2008

Correction: We apologize for making some incorrect statements in the paragraph entitled "What Happens From Here" in the article above. Specifically, we erred in stating that Mr. Randel's proposal is one that would properly be treated as a "A Request to Amend or Eliminate an Approved Ruling and Interpretation." Upon closer examination, Mr. Randel's proposal is to add the "seventeen date" cap language not to the Baseball Manual (which would be a Request to Amend or Eliminate an Approved Ruling and Interpretation), but rather to Section 3.11.2.1 of the Athletic Bylaws. As noted in the above discussion of Mr. Dick's proposal, a proposal to amend the Bylaws or Constitution, known as a "Proposed Change in the Constitution and Bylaws," goes through a more rigorous legislative process than does "A Request to Amend an Approved Ruling and Interpretation" which is ruled on by the Board of Control.

In the case of a Proposed Change in the Constitution and Bylaws, the process for voting in the First District Meetings (November) and Second District Meetings (January) is the same as it would be for a Request to Amend or Eliminate an Approved Ruling and Interpretation. However, from that point on, a Proposed Change in the Constitution and Bylaws follows a "legislative" path rather than an "administrative rule amendment" path. That means, instead of going to the Board of Control for final action (in which the BOC members are likely, but are not obligated, to follow the voting in their districts in the January meetings), the proposal will go to the twelve-member Legislative Commission where a determination will be made as to whether it should be sent on to the 49-member Representative Assembly.

The Legislative Commission, which is comprised of two representatives from each of the six Districts screens legislative proposals in the following manner: any Proposed Change in the Constitution and Bylaws that is either (i) approved in Second District Voting by three or more of the six districts or (ii) approved in Second District Voting in at least one district and then subsequently approved by five of the twelve members of the Legislative Commission will be placed by the Legislative Commission on the Agenda of the Representative Assembly which meets annually in April. To be enacted by the Representative Assembly, a Proposed Change must be approved by 3/5th of the delegates in that body. (A majority, i.e., 25 delegates, of the RA constitutes a quorum. Therefore, depending upon the numbers of Representative Assembly Delegates present when the vote is taken, a proposal must receive somewhere between fifteen and thirty votes to pass.)

So, in conclusion, our earlier characterization of Mr. Randel's proposal as "A Request to Amend or Eliminate an Approved Ruling and Interpretation" that would go to the Board of Control for approval at it's April meeting is incorrect. Both Mr. Randel's proposal and Mr. Dick's proposal are, in fact, proposals to make changes to the NSAA Bylaws which require passage by the Representative Assembly. We apologize for the error.

Update:

After our original article was published, Mr. Dick's proposal to start the spring baseball practice two weeks later was also proposed in District IV by Hastings Athletic Director Gregg Holliday. Mr. Holliday, like Mr. Dick, also made the same proposal for all spring sports.

Likewise, Mr. Randel's proposal to set a cap of seventeen "dates" and five tournaments for baseball was subsequently introduced in District IV by Mr. Holliday, in District VI by Tom O'Boyle of Gering and in District II by Tim McNamara of Platteview High School (note: none of those three schools have baseball programs). When contacted by Baseball Nebraska, Platteview's McNamara stated that he had been requested by Mr. Randel of Beatrice to introduce the proposal in District II. Mr. McNamara also acknowledged that he did not have sufficient knowledge about either the proposal or baseball to evaluate whether it was a proposal that had merit or not. "To be very honest, it's almost unfair for me to offer an opinion about whether it is a good proposal for baseball since I really haven't studied the proposal," observed Mr. McNamara. "Mr. Randel is a friend of mine and asked me to introduce the proposal in this district. And, that is what I did. Basically, the more districts in which it is introduced, the better chance it has of getting passed. Before we vote in the district meeting, I will study the proposal, listen to the debate and will form an opinion at that time. Just because I'm introducing the proposal doesn't mean that I will vote for it," he commented.

Mr. McNamara also stated that athletic directors in Class B and other classes meet from time to time to discuss proposals that would affect them. As a result of such a meeting last spring, Mr. McNamara volunteered to be the contact person in District II for other Class B Athletic Director's who would like his assistance in submitting their proposals in District II. Presumably, AD's in other districts volunteered to be the contact person in those districts. "This system allows us to get proposals in place in all of the districts," stated Mr. McNamara, "but even before we set this up, it was very common for one AD to contact another to ask for help in getting his proposal on the agenda in other districts."

Mr. McNamara did offer one possible rationale for the proposal coming out of Beatrice: "Although it may not be clear whether playing more games or having more practices is the best way for a team to improve, it is possible that some coaches or athletic directors outside of the Metro may believe that Metro schools have an advantage by playing more games because there are some many more year round practice resources available in the Metro," suggested Mr. McNamara. "If baseball players in the Metro can practice year round, they can probably handle playing more games and having fewer practices better than teams outside of the Metro. Plus, ballplayers in smaller schools are more likely to be multi-sport athletes who don't have the time or interest in specializing in just one sport year round. Putting a cap on the number of games helps level out those factors," observed Mr. McNamara.

Due to concerns at Westside High School, a prominent baseball school, about the adoption of a seventeen-date cap, which was viewed by coaches there as "not being the right number," WHS Athletic Director Dr. Bob Reznicek, also an NSAA Board of Control member, submitted a proposal on October 20th for a twenty-date cap with a maximum of four tournaments. To this point, that proposal has not been introduced in any other districts.

During the First District Meetings, to be held on November 4 in District I and on November 12 in the other five districts, athletic directors in each district will have the opportunity to vote on the various proposals that have been introduced in those districts. If a proposal passes by a majority vote in any district, it will be placed on the agenda for the Second District Meeting to be held in each of the districts in January after which it moves on to the Legislative Commission, as described above, if it is approved in any one district.