Plans sent back to the drawing board
Boys hockey and football alignment proposals rejected
For the football and boys hockey committees, it’s back to the drawing board.
On Monday morning, the MIAA Tournament Management Committee voted down the football and boys’ ice hockey committees’ proposed divisional alignments set to be implemented in the fall of 2021 due to ambiguity over the committee’s methodology in forming the alignments.
A joint subcommittee will now be created between the
TMC and the two respective sport committees so that the issues can be resolved. The TMC approved the ice hockey committee’s proposal for two divisions in girls hockey and it also approved the specific alignments.
Following a presentation from the football committee, the TMC approved the committee’s request for eight divisions. Debate ensued, however, on how the committee placed teams in each of the eight divisions with multiple members of the TMC expressing confusion over what methodology was used to generate the final alignments. Wellesley athletic director John Brown was puzzled over how schools with high enrollment including the likes of Wachusett and Shrewsbury were placed in Division 2. Burlington athletic director Shaun Hart, meanwhile, noted on numerous occasions how the appeals process is supposed to be consistent across the board, and by placing teams on their own the football committee was taking steps outside of its authority.
The most common example used was Chelsea, which should be placed in Division 1 based on straight criteria, but was in Division 8 under the proposed alignment by the football committee.
“As an athletic director of a school it should be my choice whether I want to opt-up a division or look to appeal down,” Hart said. “Individual programs should decide. Teams should not be arbitrarily placed.”
The motion to approve the football divisional alignments was voted down 11-5, with one abstention. The TMC approved the football committee’s proposal for an eight-week regular season with a 16-team statewide tournament bracket across the eight divisions.
A similar issue came up as it pertained to the ice hockey committee’s proposal for boys hockey. The TMC approved the committee’s proposal for four divisions but disagreement began between the two sides when it pertained to the factors that led the committee to place teams in certain divisions. In large part, the ice hockey committee relied upon a survey they sent out to all 195 schools with a boys hockey program. That survey indicated what division the school was set to be placed in based on the normal factors applied including enrollment and whether they are a single-gender school, co-op program or a vocational school. The survey then also gave programs the opportunity to state whether they would like to opt-up or were likely to appeal down.
In all, 143 schools responded to the committee with their desired divisional placement. The biggest issues arose when it came to the 17 schools that were moved down by the ice hockey committee without having those schools go through the officially designated TMC appeals process.
“We really respect the process and the work that went into this survey,” Westboro athletic director and TMC member Johanna DiCarlo said. “In reality though, the only teams that should have been moved were the teams that asked to opt up.”
The motion to approve the boys’ hockey divisional alignments was voted down 9-6, with one abstention.
The TMC will next look to meet in the middle of July to discuss other business including other sporting alignments that are ready for review. They will then likely meet again toward the end of July to deliberate the results of the two formed joint subcommittees.