Y2CJ41 Posted April 16, 2019 Share Posted April 16, 2019 I always like to look at IHSAA minutes and such and came across this with some interesting tidbits.... http://www.ihsaa.org/Portals/0/ihsaa/documents/about ihsaa/2019 Board of Directors Agenda.pdf?timestamp=1555440462035 9. RULE 10 – INTERSTATE CONTESTS AND PRACTICES REQUIRING SPECIAL ATTENTION 10-1 Out-of-State Contest Limitations Page 41 The address of out-of-state schools participating in a Contest against a member School as well as the site of such Contests must be within Six-hundred (600)can be an unlimited number of miles round trip travel from the Indiana state line and shall be sponsored or co-sponsored by a member high School. Propose amendment made by the IHSAA Commissioner, on behalf of the Pocket Athletic Conference (Forest Park, Heritage Hills, Pike Central, South Spencer, Tell City, Gibson Southern, North Posey, Southridge and Tecumseh). Translation: No more travel restrictions. 2. RULE 1 – RULE COVERAGE 1-3 Championship Tournament Series Page 17 A championship tournament series will be provided at such time as Fifty Thirty percent (30%) of the total, full Membership Schools are participating in that sport at the same time of the year and it is recommended by the Commissioner. Proposed amendment made by Dave Worland, Principal, Cathedral High School, and Mark Preston, Principal, Lafayette Jefferson High School. Translation: With about 80 schools having girls wrestling this year at the state finals we only need about 90 for the sport to be sponsored by the IHSAA. Other Notes Potential changes to the definition of a "boundary" for private/parochial schools. Addition of a multiplier(1.65) for classification of private/parochial schools. For instance if Cathedral has 500 students, for classification purposes they would have 825. Addition of individual sports to the Limited Contact Program. This means more restrictions on Open Mats and preseason conditioning programs at schools. Proposal to basically give a free transfer to a student if they transfer before they are a sophomore. Bigyusm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
base Posted April 17, 2019 Share Posted April 17, 2019 Wow that first one is really big news - but I'm not sure it really translates to "no travel restrictions" What does the line "shall be sponsored or co-sponsored by a member high School" mean? Also, great for girls - let's hope they can surpass that minimum number and launch a true state championship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 17, 2019 Author Share Posted April 17, 2019 The "member high school" part means the host must be a member of their state association. Basically it means Carroll basketball couldn't attend an event called the Nike World Classic and solely sponsored by Nike. I believe our IHSWCA Team State gets a little bit of a pass as I do remember that potentially being an issue since it's sponsored and basically hosted by the association and not a member school. The only caveat that might add an interesting wrinkle is prep schools associated with National Preps. I believe California made a rule that limits the ability for their schools to participate against Prep type schools, but don't know the exact details of it. Doing some research on the past Board of Directors proposals and acceptance rates is very interesting. Last year they only voted against one proposal and that was from the soccer coaches. In 2017 they voted against a handful of proposals, but they were all in reference to the Limited Contact Program that was modified at a later date. Previous to that it seems it is about a 50/50 rate of proposals passing. There are some that do not pass that seem a tad off the wall that are obviously going to be rejected. I also find it interesting that it's a small school conference in southern Indiana that is making this proposal. It seems this would be proposed by bigger Indy area schools like Carmel(for swimming), Warren Central(for football), or any of the basketball powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted April 18, 2019 Share Posted April 18, 2019 So, does this mean these things are a done deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 18, 2019 Author Share Posted April 18, 2019 42 minutes ago, AJ said: So, does this mean these things are a done deal? By no means NO, the proposals here are mainly from AD's, principals, and athletic conferences which give them a little more chance of passing than from the IHSWCA. A few of the proposals on the agenda have been voted down in previous years so I doubt they will pass this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 26, 2019 Author Share Posted April 26, 2019 Here is an article that talks about some of the proposals. https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/high-school/2019/04/25/ihsaa-likely-pass-football-mercy-rule-suspend-ejected-fans-1-game/3497510002/ It doesn't sound like the travel rule will pass according to Bobby Cox. It also seems the rule about 30% of the schools sponsoring a sport was for boys volleyball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted April 26, 2019 Share Posted April 26, 2019 18 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said: Here is an article that talks about some of the proposals. https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/high-school/2019/04/25/ihsaa-likely-pass-football-mercy-rule-suspend-ejected-fans-1-game/3497510002/ It doesn't sound like the travel rule will pass according to Bobby Cox. I settle for them just taking out the part that says teams that can’t compete against anyone outside that travel zone. It keeps the IN teams travel limited which Is somewhat for good reason. But it still allows any other states teams to compete against our teams if a school is willing to travel with within our range. Any possibility of that compromise being brought up, or would a completely new proposal have to be presented for them to discuss that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 30, 2019 Author Share Posted April 30, 2019 The 30% rule was voted down, however the travel rule was tabled for later. This is better than being voted down and it could be a sign that they will tweak the rule. graham 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 30, 2019 Author Share Posted April 30, 2019 And on the wrestling side of things Proposal 1: As long as a wrestler has weighed in at their allotted weight class as determined by the weight management system, it will be considered a qualifying weigh‐in. A motion for approval was made by Tim Grove; seconded by Jim Brown; motion failed 0‐19. Proposal 2: Change the date of the two‐pound growth allowance from January 1st to December 25th. A motion for approval was made by Ed Gilliland; seconded by Stacy Adams; motion approved 19‐0. Proposal 3: To add girls wrestling as an IHSAA sport by the 2020‐21 season. A motion to table this proposal for further study was made by Ed Gilliland; seconded by John Steinhilber; motion approved 19‐0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infowrestling Posted April 30, 2019 Share Posted April 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, Y2CJ41 said: And on the wrestling side of things Proposal 1: As long as a wrestler has weighed in at their allotted weight class as determined by the weight management system, it will be considered a qualifying weigh‐in. A motion for approval was made by Tim Grove; seconded by Jim Brown; motion failed 0‐19. Proposal 2: Change the date of the two‐pound growth allowance from January 1st to December 25th. A motion for approval was made by Ed Gilliland; seconded by Stacy Adams; motion approved 19‐0. Proposal 3: To add girls wrestling as an IHSAA sport by the 2020‐21 season. A motion to table this proposal for further study was made by Ed Gilliland; seconded by John Steinhilber; motion approved 19‐0. Proposal 1 is such a common sense move. I'm glad Proposal 2 was added......that seems like a positive change. How long will the further study take, on Proposal 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2CJ41 Posted April 30, 2019 Author Share Posted April 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, infowrestling said: Proposal 1 is such a common sense move. I'm glad Proposal 2 was added......that seems like a positive change. How long will the further study take, on Proposal 3? In response to #1, I saw a tweet by the NFHS last week that mentioned some tweaks in the system. Not sure what they were, but have yet to find any documentation. I think #3 was tabled mainly due to the 30% thing that was voted on earlier in the meeting. My educated guess is they didn't want to approve it and face backlash from volleyball or lacrosse when they do the math that there are only 100 schools with girls wrestling. infowrestling 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts