Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 688
I
goal
Offline
goal
I
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 688
Quote:

I would suggest that the executive committee should expand to include one head coach from each sport. That rep should be elected by that sports auxilliary membership. Every member of the committee would have an equal vote. Currently there is too much power in the hands of too few people. This would water down the apparent near-sighted effects of major sports and administrators.




Each sport needs a voice. Spot on.

Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
B
brace
Offline
brace
B
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
No problem at all with reasonably equal representation for each sport. But start at the top and hire an Executive Director with no previous ties to schools/sports/coaches in the state. Or, dare I say, someone PROFESSIONAL.

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 688
I
goal
Offline
goal
I
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 688
What school was JS associated with?

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 876
Brace
Offline
Brace
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 876
Quote:

No problem at all with reasonably equal representation for each sport. But start at the top and hire an Executive Director with no previous ties to schools/sports/coaches in the state. Or, dare I say, someone PROFESSIONAL.




In other words find someone who has no experience in SC? I am not so sure that is a good idea. We have had effective commissioners in the past. Although, the idea of bringing in someone with experience at the college level in administration is interesting. I wonder how, say the former commissioner of a collegiate conference would do.


The Weather Is Here. Wish You Were Beautiful.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
B
brace
Offline
brace
B
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
Well, for one thing, he/she wouldn't kiss the collective posteriors of McKissick/Stackley/etc.
Also, the description above does not NECESSARILY preclude a South Carolina background. It just reduces/eliminates the rather obvious conflict of a former coach/colleague "ruling" on an issue.
In many instances, SCHSL employees and board members should recuse themselves from decisive votes on that basis alone.

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 876
Brace
Offline
Brace
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 876
Keep in mind that Mr. Singleton simply enforces the rules and punishments as written by the membership. Read on. I am in no way defending him.
A couple of givens are that the process that members must go through for consideration of a rule change, are unrealistic. The process simply DOES NOT WORK. That is where the paddle gets stuck in the mud.
Another given is that the executive committee, the closed group that it is, hears appeals and determines the appropriateness of the punishment. Member and sport-by-sport representation is at a minimum. This is where private agendas are met.
While I agree that we have had more effective commissioners during my 31-year career, like Ronnie Matthews and Pete Ayoub, the real solution does not lie in that office alone.


The Weather Is Here. Wish You Were Beautiful.
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
B
brace
Offline
brace
B
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
Agreed, but it's one place to start.

1) Create a "table."
2) Agree on the stakeholders who need to be around the table.
3) Require that they produce an immensely simplified and TRANSPARENT set of eligibility (and other) rules/requirements.
4) Require that they openly meet (and act) in the clear, blue light of day, redacting kids'names, as required by privacy laws.
5) Require that they enforce rules even-handedly, without regard for a school/coach/program's size, reputation and influence.

The fact that these things HAVEN'T been done consistently, if at all, tells you all you need to know about the SCHSL's current administration.
Time for them to go.

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 876
Brace
Offline
Brace
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 876
Three bills have been pre-filed in the SC Legislature. One, S128, would dissolve The SCHSL and put control of athletics at public schools under the State Dept. of Education. The other, H3131, would allow the State Superintendent to overrule the decisions of the SCHSL commissioner, the executive committee and league delegates. H3082 replaces the league and puts control under a board appointed by the State Superintendent.


The Weather Is Here. Wish You Were Beautiful.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 5
World Cup
OP Offline
World Cup
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,677
Likes: 5

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 50
C
throw in
Offline
throw in
C
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 50
Last October there was a memo from the SCHSL Commissioner that which effectively denied Homeschool teams from participating in tournaments and invitationals. For example if my JV team wanted to participate in the Irmo JV tournament we would not be allowed to. This memo applied to other sports as well. Cross country meets are mostly invitationals which would be included in this ban. To be clear the word "ban" was never used, but it effectively does this.

There was no cause for this action--there were NO problems. I've heard the reason to be basically that if a homeschool program, or any other program that is not under a state association, does something that would warrant a fine, suspension, etc. if it were under an association, there is no mechanism for providing punishment to the program.

In my 6 years coaching Covenant Central we have NEVER had a situation which would come close to the situation described. And if we did I would personally suspend the player (which I have for Red Cards). But even if we did have such a situation, wouldn't the host team for the tournament NOT invite us back?

The action taken by the Commissioner does NOT affect if Brookland-Cayce, Airport, Lugoff-Elgin, Andrews, Lake City, Dutch Fork, White Knoll, Dreher or other teams we have played in the past and usually have performed well in usually tough, but fair contests, want to play us again. But we can't go to the invitationals hosted by these programs.

This is an unwarranted action and is the type of action which needs to be overriden by either the SCHSL executive committee itself or some other body.

All any team has to do is to say "no" you may not play in our invitational. A committee in Columbia should not be the ones dictating such denial.

Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Kevin Heise, Kyle Heise 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 5.4.45 Page Time: 0.046s Queries: 34 (0.013s) Memory: 3.2039 MB (Peak: 3.5861 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 20:06:52 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS