No Senior Boys Allowed in JV race - 10/23/09
Note: Updates since 10/23/09 (creation date of this document) are in colors JV is just one name, they are also referred to as: Open, Reserve, Varsity B, Non-Varsity, Novice, Exhibition - Red was on 10/27/09 Two resolutions came thru on 10/30/09 - see the bottom of this page. Update made on 12/29/09 Update made on 01/26/10 Past Section & League By-Laws (added on 12/11/09) League 1963 Section 1970 League 1974 League 1974 XC By-Laws 1993 XC By-Laws 1994 XC By-Laws 1999 League Constitution (2005) League Constitution (2008) XC By-Laws 2007 Other Sections Constitution/By-Laws(added 12/15/09) SJS has JV competition thru their Section meet. Seniors allowed to run JV (C-1-b). NS has JV competition thru their Section meet. Seniors not allowed to run JV (301.3), but are allowed to run in Section Finals Open race. SF has non-varsity competition thru their Section meet. Seniors allowed to run non-varsity (p122). Oakland does not have a website so unable to verify one way or the other. NCS does not recognize or define JV at the section level. VERRRRY slow to load (10 min). Seniors run at the League JV level. CCS does not recognize or define JV at the section level. Seniors run at the League JV level (except SCVAL). CS has JV competition thru League Meets. Seniors allowed to run JV (1.2.3). LA has JV & Novice competition at Duals. Not defined who can run JV/Novice. No results, that I can find, to verify one way or the other (Section X). SS allows Exhibition competition as long as they meet elegibility requirements, but XC is not included in the allowable sports (Section 500-D). League results have seniors in JV race. SDS allows Exhibition competition as long as they meet elegibility requirements, appears to be the same as SS & State guidelines (Section 500-D). Mention of JV but not defined (Section XI-J). League results have seniors in JV race. CIF allows Exhibition competition as long as they meet elegibility requirements, appears to be the same as SS & SDS (Section 500-D). Emails on minutes regarding Varsity, JV & F/S, both genders (added 12/14/09) BOM approves Varsity, JV & F/S, both genders (Dec 12, 2007) Commissioner acknowledges that BOM approves Varsity, JV & F/S, both genders (Dec 04, 2008) On Friday (10/23), I spent 45 minutes having a very productive conversation with SCVAL League Commissioner Tony Nunes. I want to state, Tony's job as Commissioner is to see that all coaches, in all sports within the SCVAL, adhere to the SCVAL Constitution. Tony represents the Board Of Managers (BOM) which is comprised of the 14 Principals within the SCVAL. He does his best to administer the Constitution in the way that he believes represents the BOM wishes. With that being said, I will now, in great detail, go through what Tony and I talked about and our understandings and interpretations of the SCVAL Constitution and the XC By-Laws... Notes: Unless otherwise stated, all references are for XC and no other sports. The SCVAL Constitution (2005) was written 17 years ago (per the Commissioner). The Commissioner has stated that Senior Boys cannot compete in JV Competition. He bases this decision on the statement within the Constitution (Article IV, Section 2) "Following are the official classifications in each sport. No other teams are authorized. Cross Country (Boys) Varsity/FS". The coaches contend that Article IV, Section 3.1 overrides this statement. It reads: "Junior Varsity competition shall be limited to ninth, tenth and eleventh grade students unless specified in sports by-laws." What would be the point of even having this in the Constitution if the BOM didn't want each sport to have the flexibity to define certain situations that are unique for each sport. The BOM had the foresight to include this statement so that all sports, not just XC, would be able to accommodate these unique situations. The Commissioner says the above statement ("unless specified in sports by-laws") was included in the Constitution for wrestling only. Why would something be put in the Constitution that was meant for a specific sport without stating that it was for that particular sport (i.e., wrestling)? The Constitution is a document that is intended for ALL sports. Something that is meant for a specific sport would be included in that specific sport's by-laws. Hence, another reason why the statement, "unless specified in sports by-laws", should be in the Constitution so that these specific items are addressed in the by-laws and not cluttering up the Constitution. As it is written in the 2008 version, Wrestling can no-longer hold their JV competition with seniors. It should also be noted that the statement, "unless specified in sports by-laws", is not present in the 2008 Constitution but is present in the 2005, 2004 and the ORIGINAL Constitution. When was this statement removed? In the Dec 2007 BOM minutes there was no vote to have this statement removed. There wasn't even a mention in the minutes regarding this statement. It is stated in Article I, Section 2, "Each motion to amend the by-laws shall include the date on which the law becomes effective.". It appears that the above statement was inadvertently removed from the Constitution. If it was voted on in December of 2005 or 2006, then we would like to receive the BOM minutes for both of those years. It should also be noted that Article IX, Section 3 states, "Refer to sports by-laws for any possible additions to Division finals.", which the XC by-laws clearly state there will be races for Varsity, F/S & JV for both genders as well as an Open race for those not competeing in the Vatsity or F/S divisions. The Commissioner states that other than Wrestling, no other sport allows seniors to compete as JV. If wrestling allows it then why can't XC? We also want to point out that XC has been running Seniors in the "Open" (JV) race at the League Finals since 1967 and the XC by-laws state in Article IV, Section 3, "An open race shall be run at the Division Finals. Any student who has not participated in the official Boy's Varsity and Boys' Frosh/Soph races may enter." This statement is still in the XC by-laws today. This is not new to the XC by-laws. It was there in 1999 by-laws and if we were to continue digging I imagine it could be found in by-laws from the 1970's - prior to the Constitutions' existence. We believe that the BOM back when the Constitution was written were aware of this and, hence, an additional reason why the statement, "unless specified in sports by-laws", was included in the original Constitution. The Commissioner said that if he knew that seniors were competeing in the JV race, he would've told us to stop. We have been sending League Final results to the Commissioner for at least the last 10 years. This should not be a surprise. This practice has been going on since 1967 -- both the "Open" (JV) race and the practice of running seniors in this race. What's wrong with Senior Boys running in a JV race? Senior Girls are allowed to. When the Constitution was written, the BOM did not want to take away an opportunity from a 9th/10th grader. The belief was that, as a senior, they should be competing at the Varsity level or not at all. In XC, seniors are not taking away any opportunities. XC has a F/S championship and therefore the 9th/10th graders still have their moment for glory. Since the F/S race allows unlimited entries, it is conceivable that the JV race might be made up of only 11th graders if seniors are not allowed to compete. We the coaches, athletes and parents don't understand the logic since no opportunity is being taken away from anyone. Why were we informed of this "new rule" (no seniors in the JV race) only 2 weeks prior to League Finals. As stated above, the Commissioner says he was not aware of the fact that we were running senior boys in the JV race (even though it's been happening for over 40 years) and had he known he would have told us to stop - which is what he is doing now. The athletes have stated to the coaches that this is unfair. All coaches believe that we were (and we still do believe this) that we have been following both the Constitution and the by-laws. The Commissioner has determined that this is what the BOM would want and, hence, this is what he has decided. Do the other nine (9) Leagues in CCS have a rule prohibiting seniors from running in a JV race? No. What race can these senior boys run in? No race. Their season would be over after this week's competitions. This will effect approximately 60 athletes within the SCVAL. What might happen if my school runs a senior boy in the JV race? In anticipation of this question, the Commissioner gave me the section of the Constitution that describes the ramifications for violations. What can I do? As stated above, the Commissioner is only trying to do what he believes the BOM would want him to do. If the BOM were to tell him that their wishes are something different, then I can only assume that he would do what his constituents want him to do. The BOM consists of all Principals. So call the Principal of your school. Refer the Principal to this link for more background on what has happened in the past. Principals are the ones who can make recommendations to the Commissioner. Tell the Principal what you think. Recommend a "stay of execution" for this year so the BOM can review what they really intend/want. Two weeks' notice is unacceptable and damaging. In the words of one parent, "It is totally unfair and unethical to change it now." Let's not kill the "Hopes & Dreams" of our athletes. More than just the seniors are affected by this decision. Why should senior runners who are on strong XC teams be penalized? There are some schools whose tenth fastest (or more) runner could beat another school's #1 runner, and yet they won't get to compete. For that matter, why should ANY senior, on any team, be penalized? Hank Lawson, Lynbrook XC coach 10/30/09 Coaches All seniors will be able to run at League Finals on Tue. There are two scenarios that you need to look at and decide on. Please do a REPLY ALL so that all coaches will see what your thoughts are. 1) BOM decided that senior boys will all be allowed to run in the Varsity race along with your designated Varsity runners. You must designate who your 7 Varsity runners are and all the others will be non-scoring. 2) Some parents went to court this morning and they got a ruling from the judge that states, "Senior Boys are allowed to compete at the Junior Varsity level for the SCVAL Finals on Nov 3rd," (the verbage may not be quite correct but you understand the message). A PDF file of the ruling/injunction will be sent out to the BOM (and coaches too I think) later today. So now what do we do? I suggest you talk with your AD and/or Principal and get their thoughts. I also suggest you talk to your senior boy athletes that this will affect (afterall, shouldn't they have some say in what they want, they're the ones be affected by this). That is what I plan on doing today. So do we do what the BOM is allowing us to do? Do we do what the court ruling says? Do we all have to do the same thing? Thoughts? 12/29/09 Mercury News covers the on-going issue with a story on Nov 9. From the Central Section XC By-Laws: "1.2.3 Junior Varsity Entries- Anyone who does not qualify to run for the varsity team may run the junior varsity race." http://www.cifcs.org/ConstitutionandBylaws/bylaws17.htm 1/26/10 On 1/21/10 the BOM met and were given a 5 minute presentation by a parent representative. The presentation was based on their research and the following reseach by a few SCVAL coaches. The CCS Commissioner was there and she will be conducting her own research in this matter and will report back her findings to the BOM at their April 2010 meeting. 2/05/10 At the Jan meeting the presentation was done and the following letter was the follow up.