My 2nd post pertains to some of the 2009 Proposed NCAA Legislation impacting cross country. These items, if passed, will seriously impact a few of the cross country programs within our league that sponsor only cross country.
College Coaches and Athletes please take time to review these items and speak with your Director of Athletics, senior administrator and/or Student Athlete Advisory Representatives to express your position before these items come to a vote. It is my understanding these proposals will be voted upon at the NCAA Convention (January 13-16, 2010) in Atlanta, so there is not much time to respond. The full list of proposed changes (~181 pages) to legislation for all sports will be found at this link:
https://web1.ncaa.org/LSDBi/exec/PDF/propRpt?propRptSubmit=Generate%20POPL&division=1&conventionYear=2009You will find a summary of the proposals specific to Cross Country listed below. I have concerns over nearly all of the proposals specific to XC and feel they will benefit the fully funded programs (i.e. - those with a full complement of coaching staff and scholarships) more than those that are not. The purpose of this post is to draw attention to the legislation that I have the most concern over: proposed #2009-79-A, 2009-79-B, 2009-79-C and 2009-79-D. If passed, these items will limit or eliminate athletes travel outside of the nonchampionship season for programs that sponsor ONLY XC (i.e. - do not sponsor a track & field program). In other words those programs only sponsoring XC will not be permitted to travel during the indoor or outdoor T&F seasons.
If any of these proposals are passed the legislation will go into effect next fall (August 2010). Below are the proposals where you will find
My Opinion in RED and at the end you will find conference these 4 proposals originated from.
Proposed 2009 NCAA Legislation (Specifically 2009-79-A, B, C and D)No. 2009-79-A PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- NONCHAMPIONSHIP SEGMENT --TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS -- CROSS COUNTRY, FIELD HOCKEY, SOCCER, SOFTBALL AND VOLLEYBALLMy Opinion: Proposed Legislation#2009-79-A is found on page 148 (see link above) has been proposed by the Southeastern Athletic Conference (SEC). This legislation does NOT have the support of the NCAA Championships/Sports Management Cabinet, so I do not anticipate it will pass. This legislation originated within the SEC and you have to ask: “Why would the SEC want this?”
Source: Southeastern Conference
Effective Date: August 1, 2010
Category: Amendment
Topical Area: Playing and Practice Seasons
Rationale: Economic pressures have caused athletics programs to examine expenditures in all areas. Nonchampionship segment contests contribute to the development of the team, but, in most cases, are not included in regular season records or in determining postseason championships access. As a result, restricting travel to ground transportation for such contests is a prudent action given the resource challenges facing many institutions.
Estimated Budget Impact: Anticipated savings associated travel expenses.
Impact on Student-Athlete's Time: None.
Position Statement(s)
Page 150 of 181
Date Printed: December 5, 2009
Championships/Sports Management Cabinet: The cabinet opposes the proposal. The cabinet recommends that the sponsor modify the proposal to include an exception to specify that if no other Division I institution is located within 400 miles of an institution; such an institution may travel by air to nonchampionship segment competition. If the sponsor does not agree to modify the proposal, the cabinet will sponsor an alternative proposal. The cabinet is supportive of the concept outlined in the proposal; however, some members expressed concern that geographically isolated institutions would be detrimentally impacted by the current proposal. The cabinet notes that the 400 mile radius is consistent with the current ground transportation policies related to whether an institution must drive to a championship site. The cabinet also discussed a possible second exception for the University of Hawaii; however, it suggests that the Western Athletic Conference discuss the most appropriate way to draft such an exception and suggest a modification or submit an alternative proposal or amendment through the legislative process.
Men's Soccer Committee: The committee opposes the proposal. Limiting travel to ground transportation only creates inequities for those institutions that are geographically isolated.
Women's Soccer Committee: The committee supports the proposal.
History:
Jun 23, 2009 Submit Submitted for consideration.
Aug 26, 2009 Sponsor modified the proposal to remove proposed reductions to the maximum number of permissible dates of competition in the nonchampionship segment in cross country (for institutions without indoor or outdoor track and field), field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, softball and volleyball.
Sep 08, 2009 Women's Soccer Committee, Recommends Approval
Sep 10, 2009 Men's Soccer Committee, Recommends Defeat
Sep 16, 2009 Championships/Sports Management Cabinet, Recommends Defeat
Sep 16, 2009 Championships/Sports Management Cabinet, Recommends Modification
Oct 09, 2009 Proposal renumbered as Proposal No. 2009-79-A. Alternatives are Proposal Nos. 2009-79-B, 2009-79-C and 2009-79-D.
No. 2009-79-B PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- NONCHAMPIONSHIP SEGMENT --TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS -- CROSS COUNTRY, FIELD HOCKEY, SOCCER, SOFTBALL AND VOLLEYBALL -- EXCEPTION -- 400-MILE RADIUS Intent: In cross country (for institutions without indoor or outdoor track and field), field hockey, soccer, softball and volleyball, to specify that team travel to competition in the nonchampionship segment shall be restricted to ground transportation, unless there are no other Division I institutions located within 400 miles of the institution.
My Opinion: Proposed Legislation #2009-79-B is found on page 150 (see link above) has been proposed by the NCAA Championships/Sports Management Cabinet as an alternative to #2009-79-A. I think this legislation has a slim chance of passing even though it has been proposed by the NCAA Championships/Sports Management Cabinet as an alternative to 2009-79-A, because it will burden Hawaii since schools will not be able to travel TO Hawaii outside of the nonchampionship segment. As written it would force Hawaii to always travel if they wish to compete outside of the nonchampionship segment.
Source: NCAA Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet
Effective Date: August 1, 2010
Category: Amendment
Topical Area: Playing and Practice Seasons
Rationale: Geographically isolated institutions would be detrimentally impacted by Proposal No. 2009-79-A. Further, the 400 mile radius is consistent with the current ground transportation policies related to whether an institution must drive to a championship site.
Estimated Budget Impact: Difference between ground and air transportation to competition sites.
Impact on Student-Athlete's Time: Potentially, less time spent traveling.
Position Statement(s)
History:
Oct 09, 2009 Submit Submitted for consideration.
Oct 09, 2009 Championships/Sports Management Cabinet, Sponsored as an alternative to Proposal No. 2009-79-A.
No. 2009-79-C PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- NONCHAMPIONSHIP SEGMENT --TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS -- CROSS COUNTRY, FIELD HOCKEY, SOCCER, SOFTBALL AND VOLLEYBALL -- HAWAII EXCEPTION Intent: In cross country (for institutions without indoor or outdoor track and field), field hockey, soccer, softball and volleyball, to specify that an institution located in Hawaii may travel by air for nonchampionship segment competition; further, to specify that an institution located outside Hawaii may travel by air for nonchampionship segment competition in Hawaii against a Division I institution located in Hawaii.
My Opinion: Proposed Legislation#2009-79-C is found on page 152 (see link above) has been proposed by the Western Athletic Conference (WAC) as an alternative to #2009-79-A & 2009-79-B I think this alternative legislation has a very good chance of passing since it takes away some of the burden and hardship Hawaii will face if 2009-79-A or 2009-79-B were to pass.
Source: Western Athletic Conference
Effective Date: August 1, 2010
Category: Amendment
Topical Area: Playing and Practice Seasons
Rationale: This alternative proposal provides relief to the University of Hawaii by permitting its teams to travel to the continental U.S. for nonchampionship segment competition and by permitting institutions located in the continental U.S. to travel to Hawaii for nonchampionship segment competition against the University of Hawaii. Proposal No. 2009-79-A would not permit the University of Hawaii to travel to other Division I institutions and vice versa. Proposal No. 2009-79-B would require the University of Hawaii to travel for nonchampionship segment contests against
Division I opponents except for those that meet the 400-mile exception. Those proposals would create an increased burden on the University of Hawaii student-athletes in terms of increased travel and missed class time. In addition to being a detriment to student-athlete well-being, those proposals would also place a significant financial burden on the University of Hawaii.
Estimated Budget Impact: Travel expenses for those institutions traveling to and from Hawaii.
Impact on Student-Athlete's Time: Travel time to and from Hawaii.
Position Statement(s)
History:
Oct 26, 2009 Submit Submitted for consideration as an alternative to Proposal Nos. 2009-79-A and 2009-79-B.
No. 2009-79-D PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- NO OUTSIDE COMPETITION DURING THE NONCHAMPIONSHIP SEGMENT -- CROSS COUNTRY, FIELD HOCKEY, SOCCER, WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL AND MEN'S WATER POLO Intent: In cross country, field hockey, soccer, women's volleyball and men's water polo, to eliminate outside competition during the nonchampionship segment of the playing season.
My Opinion: Proposed Legislation#2009-79-D is found on page 155 (see link above) has been proposed by the Big 10 Athletic Conference as an alternative to #2009-79-A, 2009-79-B, and 2009-79-C. I feel this one is the scariest of the 3 proposals. I also think this alternative legislation has the best chance of passing since it eliminates travel in the nonchampionship segment all together. The NCAA Championships/Sports Management Cabinet often follows the lead of the ‘larger” conferences (Big 10 in this case) and this proposal eliminates issues of missed class time, inequities caused by geographic location and saves schools money. IMO there has been no consideration given for schools sponsoring only XC (ie- no indoor/outdoor), who are already at a recruiting disadvantage and how this will negatively impact those programs in recruiting and development of the XC athlete/program. Additionally, there are no XC only schools within the Big 10 AC so they would not be impacted in this area.
Source: Big Ten Conference
Effective Date: August 1, 2010
Category: Amendment
Topical Area: Playing and Practice Seasons
Rationale: Economic pressures have caused athletics programs to examine expenditures in all areas. Restricting travel to ground transportation for nonchampionship segment competition may result in some cost savings, but it has the potential to increase missed class time. In addition, this approach usually results in the need to address geographic challenges that will not necessarily reduce travel costs (e.g., Proposal No. 2008-79-B). Eliminating outside competition during the nonchampionship segment for fall championship sports is a more effective means to achieve cost savings to sustain the viability of today's sports programs and reduce missed class time. For these sports, competition during the nonchampionship segment is more developmental in nature and is not included in regular season records or in determining postseason championships access, inasmuch as the championship segment is over.
Estimated Budget Impact: Anticipated savings associated travel and competition expenses.
Impact on Student-Athlete's Time: Reduction in missed class time.
Position Statement(s)
History:
Oct 27, 2009 Submit Submitted for consideration as an alternative to Proposal Nos. 2009-79-A and 2009-19-B.
.jpg)
