Association Can Be A Good Thing

April 24th, 2008 - CIF Southern Section Eliminates Blue Book Rule 313, better known as the Association Rule.

The Association Rule prevented high school coaches in Southern California from coaching their players in their given sport during the school year, with the exception of a regularly scheduled P.E. class. Basically, it hindered club or travel ball coaches from coaching high school sports and vice versa.

I noticed on the CIF-SS web site, that a poll they are conducting is evenly split for and against this decision. 27 votes that this is a good thing and 27 votes against. I voted for. However, the proof remains to be seen whether will be good for high school sports in Southern CA.

There are a few reasons that I am in favor of the ruling. For one, I believe it will open the doors for high school athletes to have better coaching overall. Yes, there are some very good coaches in CIF-SS schools. I coached at two different schools over an eight year period and I can tell you there are some quality teams and quality coaches there. But there are also a lot of schools who are not so fortunate and who's players don't have the best coaching they can have.

"Why?" you might ask. Largely because of money. A walk-on coach (of which many schools now have) in softball for example, will make between $1500 and $5000 for a SEASON. This may include the above mentioned P.E. class for which most schools do not pay extra for. With the Association Rule in effect, coaches could not make additional money by giving their players private lessons, something that many travel ball coaches can do. The booster club can pay the coach more, but it has to go through and be approved by the school. There are a lot of school that do not even have booster clubs for some of their sports. A coach may make some money for hosting a summer camp. Simply put, many coaches, given a choice, would rather coach a travel or club team instead of a high school team. I of course, think walk-on coaches should be paid more by the school, especially since they are still saving a lot of money as opposed to hiring a full time employee. (Of course, I'm biased too.) I am looking for coaching opportunities for this next year now that my daughter is graduating. But with gas at over $4 per gallon, I can't afford to drive 25-30 miles to a school like a did before.

One other argument that was very valid, was the since Southern Section was the only section in CIF with this rule, if put Southern Section players at a disadvantage in those sports whose playoffs went all the way to the State level. Southern Section players had to compete against players who may have had their club or travel coach as their high school coach.

Since many players are looking for athletic scholarship opportunities, the chances again may be improved by having one coach for a given sport year round. But there are concerns, some of which may be well founded. The success or failure of this change will depend almost entirely on the coaches, especially those travel or club coached who can now coach year round.

Two words that coaches will have to be extra careful to avoid with this new ruling are "undue influence." Generally this term applies to recruiting regulations. But one of the reasons for the association rule was to keep coaches from exerting pressure on players to 1)Play only on their travel or club team, and 2) to only play one sport.

I have had players play softball for me that also played other sports. Some of these players were among my best. Sometimes another sport may be a welcome cross training for the player's primary sport. Yes, sometimes a player would get injured and not be available for all or part of the season. One of my best players at Brethren sustained a sprained MCL and missed almost half of the softball season. But she was also able to play both sports at a junior college and was almost equally successful at both, although definitely, softball was her primary sport. Why would a coach want to deprive the player of that experience?

Coaches, regardless of what your coaching style or philosophy is, we need to remember that this is about the players, the student athletes. Most coaches I know are good at winning with the resources they have available to them, not manipulating the system to fit their needs. For many players, winning a CIF title is emotionally on the same level as winning a national title for a club or travel team; not equal perhaps but on the same level. The NCAA is running a significant number of commercials pointing out that most college athletes go pro in something other than sports. There are other things at stake here.

I believe the elimination of the Association Rule can be a good thing and greatly improve the level of play in Southern Section athletics. But it can only remain that way if coaches respect the high school programs and put their players first.

Coach Mike

I will be discussing the elimination of the Association Rule along with some other topics with CIF-SS Director of Communications Thom Simmons today on Kidz n Sports. The show airs at 3:00 PM CA time on the internet at www.AdrenalineRadio.com.