Will the basketball schedule ever increase? WIAA representative assembly vote indicates that is closer to reality

Seven new amendments were passed that go into effective in the 2021-22 school season, the WIAA announced Monday.

But it is the one that narrowly missed – by one vote – that might be the biggest news of the day.

For years, district officials from around the state, including coaches, have submitted WIAA amendment proposals to increase the number of regular-season games a team can play from 20 games. Those efforts were resoundingly rejected, including one just last year that recommended a 24-game schedule.

Over the winter, the Southwest District, led by Onalaska High School athletic director and WIAA representative assembly member Dennis Bower (author of the proposal), sent in a revised proposal to allow one of a team’s 20 contests to count as a simultaneous four-day tournament – giving a team the option to play a maximum 23 games.

The amendment needed 21 votes from the WIAA representative assembly to reach the 60-percent “pass” threshold; it received 20 (58.8 percent).

“It’s kind of bittersweet,” Bower said. “Just by one vote. … At least we got people thinking about it.”

Yes, the encouraging aspect of the vote is the reversal in traction from last year when the WIAA representative assembly voted, 31-4, in opposition of the increase-game recommendation to 24 games.

And before that? In 2018, an amendment proposal very similar to the one Bower authored failed in the vote, 24-10. And in 2017, again a proposal focusing on how a multi-game tournament could count as one or two contests was rejected, 25-10.

“We thought we had a better chance (of the amendment passing) coming out of COVID-19 with kids not playing, and athletic directors saying, ‘Here is a chance to get kids playing,'” said Tim Kelly, the Curtis High School boys coach who is also a member of Washington Interscholastic Basketball Coaches Association (WIBCA) board of directors. “I am disappointed it did not pass … but (the vote) is encouraging.”

Amendments that the WIAA announced the representative assembly did pass:

Rule 18.11.5 (high school): Students are not eligible for a varsity sport of they transfer to a school after playing on a non-school team if one or more of the high school coaches were involved, or if they train or condition with a person affiliated with the school to which they transfer (ratified by 25-10 vote).

Rule 18.15.0/19.3.3 (ML/HS): Updates language in the WIAA handbook regarding appeals of eligibility regarding gender equity (ratified, 53-0).

Rule 18.20.1 (ML/HS): With league approval, Class 1A athletic program can utilize eighth graders (ratified, 32-21).

Rule 18.23.1 (ML/HS): For schools who give students special treatment or privileges on a “regular basis” to participate in non-school athletic activities … “regular” is now defined as no more than once a week (ratified, 41-10-1).

Rule 20.4.7 (ML/HS): Adds a minimum of one hour in coaches standards for student mental health and diversity, equity and inclusion education (ratified, 49-4).

Rule 35.1.1/35.2.0 (HS): Eliminates 20-day coaching restriction in summer football period (ratified, 21-13-1).

Rule 44.4.7 (HS): A two-day wrestling tournament with weight-class brackets larger than 16 individuals will count as just one of 16 allowed team dates (ratified, 26-9).

To read more in-depth about the passed amendments, click here.

One thought on “Will the basketball schedule ever increase? WIAA representative assembly vote indicates that is closer to reality

  • May 10, 2021 at 9:26 pm
    Permalink

    Would an expanded schedule favor schools that had the resources to have additional contests – paying officials, game crew, covering transportation costs, increasing stipends to coaches, and potentially covering tournament fees and lodging expenses? Would it require lengthening the playing season and thus place two-sport athletes in a bind approaching spring tryouts? Or perhaps it adds contests in such a way that student-athletes are competing at a frequency that doesn’t permit proper recovery? If it’s not these things, then I’m not seeing what the obstruction to the amendment could be.

    Reply

Thank you for joining the discussion on SBLive!

%d bloggers like this: