Competitive equity issue won’t go away
The great battles are rarely oneand-done affairs.
Neither are great debates.
The WIAA has been in the middle of a heated one when it comes to the topic of competitive equity. Off and on for the past five years, the state's high school sports governing body has been trying to figure out something that would satisfy the small, rural schools that feel their isolated locations put them at a competitive disadvantage and be something urban/ private schools could swallow.
In case you missed it, last week the WIAA Board of Control voted, 6-5, against sending the latest rural/urban proposal to the membership for a vote at the annual meeting in April. The plan would have forced some small schools in urban and suburban areas to play up a division in boys and girls basketball, but ultimately the plan was found to have too many questions to present to the membership.
So what’s next?
The next chapter, and we know there will be a next chapter, could involve taking a second look at an idea that was the most popular with schools in the state when it came to dealing with competitive equity.
Is it time for another look at the success factor?
For those who forgot, the idea first surfaced three years ago from the WIAA competitive equity committee that was created to study the issue. The success factor was designed to award points for various levels of postseason success, from reaching a state tournament to winning a championship. When it was voted on at the 2016 annual meeting, it failed, 221198, 52.7% to 47.3%.
The idea hasn’t been heard of much since then, but at the board meeting last week it was mentioned a few times as a possible cure to this sticky issue. What that means is un-
clear because sometimes ideas are thrown around during these meetings as starting points of discussion rather than concrete plans.
That was the case last week with the success factor, which was mentioned as a possible additional layer to the rural/urban plan by one board member while another later questioned whether the membership should be allowed to choose between the rural/urban plan or success factor as a possible course of action.
Of course, more details would need to be provided before anything formal was considered, but the discussion shows that the idea, in some form, is on the mind of board members.
The controversial piece of the success factor plan is that it promotes schools to a higher and presumably tougher division based on the success of past teams. Detractors said the schools that would get bumped up by the plan were getting punished for their predecessors' success.
I’m not sold on a need for a plan to address competitive equity, but the success factor plan had its merits. At least it didn’t discriminate based on the location of a school and it wasn’t limited to basketball.
And with some tweaks, the plan could have more of an impact. So much of the discussion on competitive equity has focused on the schools that make it to the state tournament when getting past regionals is a more pertinent issue for most schools.The school that is preventing them from getting to the sectional or state tournament is the one down the road, not the one from another part of the state.
What if there were a new success factor formula that took that into account?
The board could address the issue of competitive equity again at its meeting in March when it could push for something to be added to the agenda of the annual meeting, even if it is just an advisory vote.
If not next month then you can bet the mortgage that the issue will be at the forefront later.
Issues this complicated don't die easily.