HAS SPY BEEN DUPED
Taking issue with SPY stories noting that many college and travel ball coaches who attended fall ball tournaments are opposed to the four-week fall recruiting calendar imposed by NCAA at NFCA’s request, NFCA officials have said, variously, that SPY is being misled by these coaches – and one said bluntly that SPY has been duped!
With the NFCA convention starting November 30, it is important that NFCA officials know the deeply-held resentment against this calendar – which, combined with weather and fire, turned fall ball into what one coach called “a freaking disaster.”
Send your views to NFCA. Let them know the consequences of their decision: the expanded tournaments, the many players who were not seen, the lack of options when tournaments were cancelled, posting the window in the midst of the SAT season, the school days missed, etc. Join in the discussion of pros and cons which the NFCA Board says will occur at the convention. Write now to:
NFCA executive director: Lacey Lee Baker: llb@nfca.org
Associate director: Karen Johns: Karen@nfca.org
NFCA has declined to answer several questions posed by SPY in editorials, namely, how many D1 schools actually voted in favor of this proposal, when polled by NFCA’s head coaches committee, and how many opposed. Did an actual two-thirds majority of all D1 members vote in favor, or just a two-thirds majority of the members of the head coaches committee? SPY is not alone in questioning that alleged majority.
The Board of Directors of NFCA sent SPY a letter, which unfortunately was buried for ten days under hundreds of other emails, in which the Board says 19 conferences voted in favor, and eight were opposed. That does indeed give a two-thirds committee majority of the 27 committee members. But, the Board does not reveal the actual D1 member-by-member vote. You don’t have to resort to actuarial science to appreciate that any of several conference combinations could in fact produce a majority vote, member by member, against the proposition.
The Board wrote to SPY:
• The NFCA
Division I member coaches developed the concept of the NFCA
Division I Head Coaches Committee at the 2005 NFCA National Convention.
The Division I coaches wanted year-round discussion on the issues, not
just a one week discussion at the convention, prior to recommendations
being submitted to their governing body, the NCAA. At the convention, they
embraced the HCC idea and passed its inception unanimously.
• NFCA member travel ball coaches have been able to voice their thoughts
on HCC proposals, since proposals that receive initial HCC approval are
sent to them for comment. You chose to take part in the HCC process on the
recruiting calendar, since your comments appeared with other NFCA members’
views in April 2006. These were sent to the NFCA HCC members, as well as
posted on the NFCA web site, prior to the final vote.
• After review of the comments, the proposal passed through the HCC 19
conferences in favor, with eight conferences against. Since the HCC must
have 2/3 support to forward a recommendation, the criteria was met.
Although the HCC is still generating its “hot topic” ideas for the
upcoming Division I caucus at the convention, the recruiting calendar
probably will be discussed. Since coaches have just gone through the fall
recruiting period, a review of its pros and cons seem logical.
SPY has contended, and continues to believe that the issue, while submitted to NFCA members for comment, should have been voted on by travel ball coaches in the same poll of D1 coaches which preceded submission to NCAA. In fact, at the 2005 convention when this issue arose, SPY moved a motion which required all NFCA members to vote on its adoption. But, only D1 coaches were polled. Yet, NFCA minutes of the 2006 travel ball caucus, unfortunately attended by just six members, show that the caucus urged all NFCA members to oppose this measure. SPY, in the person of Rayburn Hesse, did respond to the HCC mailing – and declared adamant opposition.
Instead, NCAA believed that this measure had the full support of NFCA.
This issue could be easily resolved, and SPY asked Baker at the 2006 convention to disclose the actual member-by-member vote; she refused, saying it was secret. SPY believes that NFCA must operate openly, and, as a membership corporation, cannot conduct secret votes among the few which in fact affect all of its members.
SPY will submit for Convention consideration several motions. One motion will seek to secure recorded votes on all measures which the HCC submits to D1 members for approval, a necessary step given that there is no requirement that HCC bring all such legislative proposals back to the annual conference for approval in open session. One motion will seek to ban secret ballots. One motion, which will hopefully be decided by a recorded vote, will ask all members to vote, yea or nay, on asking NCAA to repeal the rule on fall ball recruiting.
If the whole of the NFCA members – meeting in open session -- support the existing four week recruiting calendar, SPY will be among the first to acknowledge the decision – and support it as “majority will”.
Take note: SPY is not at war with NFCA. A long-time supporter of NFCA, SPY believes that NFCA is a very effective service organization. Many quality services are provided, especially its web site and training materials. Indeed, the lecture/demonstration sessions at the annual convention are alone worth the price of attending. Few travel ball coaches attend, for various reasons, mostly related to employment and cost. For college coaches, this convention is embedded in their employment, with the schools paying their expenses.
By definition, NFCA is primarily a college coaches conference/institution. NFCA does quite well in its marketing effort, and the beneficiaries are primarily the colleges, who indeed are the primary focus of virtually all NFCA activities.
SPY has long seen NFCA as more effective at service than at softball politics. The calendar issue is but one of several where the interests of college coaches, or at least the vocal group who dominate NFCA deliberations, conflict with travel ball. Sadly, NFCA knew of entrenched travel ball opposition when it submitted the proposal to NCAA.
NFCA simply does not have a sharp travel ball focus. To be sure, it publishes lists of commitments and honors, and sends representatives to ASA meetings where, for example, they joined many others in supporting initiatives like moving the pitching rubber for 18A from 40 to 43 feet.
But, a large majority of teams which qualified for Gold Nationals in 2007 do not belong to NFCA, nor do a majority of the top 50 teams in 18A. Talking to those coaches, they say NFCA is primarily a college coaches institution and serves that group well. But, they also cite the fall recruiting calendar as an example of where interests diverge – and, across the country, were quite vocal in their criticism of NFCA. More, of late, they note that NFCA did not report the ASA decision to dispense with sectors and realign the regions within the pre-existing territorial structure, which has major power implications for Gold teams trying to qualify for 2008 Gold Nationals.
In the best of all possible worlds, NFCA will agree and persuade NCAA to delete this calendar provision. After all, no college coach has to attend fall ball tournaments; this restriction benefited perhaps a few schools at the expense of many – not least the young people who play softball. RFH