Southern Nevada Track and Cross Country

Coaches Association's

Stand on Girls Soccer and State XC Qualifying

On behalf of the Southern Nevada Track and Cross Country Coaches Association, I would like to express our concern with the possibility of moving girl’s soccer to the fall in Southern Nevada. As a group, the SNTCCA is opposed to this consideration and will list the reasons why.

First of all, by removing soccer from the winter sports schedule, basketball and bowling will remain as the only girls sports in that season. Currently, basketball rosters 12 varsity athletes and bowling has 4 varsity athletes on a squad. Are we really comfortable with having a grand total of 16 female varsity athletes during the winter season? Additionally, is this plan in compliance with Title IX?

Next, transportation has been and continues to be a nightmarish situation for CCSD. Adding another sport to the already busy fall agenda would make scheduling nearly impossible. Currently, this spring, track are not starting until after 4:00PM(and finishing as late as 9:00PM) due to lack of adequate transportation and thus, teams arriving late for meets.

Will there be enough facilities available for two more teams (varsity and JV) to practice daily? Currently, most schools have three football teams and two soccer teams trying to use the athletic fields after school, and every square foot of space on campus is being used. Later practices are an idea to combat this. However, if teams are practicing at night, is this the best plan for the student-athletes who already will have late game nights?

Furthermore, by having more late practices and games, lights will have to be used. Isn’t CCSD attempting save on costs like this?

On the topic of lights, we have been informed that lights will be installed on all soccer fields. Why would money be spent on lights for soccer, when CCSD is in a seemingly constant financial struggle where athletics in general is threatened? Rumor has it that there is some bond money available that "has" to be spent. Why soccer? Why not track and/or cross-country? We have many financial concerns in our sport.

Coaches are another issue. Many schools employ the same coaches on both the men and women’s staff. By moving soccer to the fall, many of these coaches will either be forced to quit coaching one of the teams or to spread themselves thinner by taking on double the workload. Coaching both the men and women’s team in track in cross-country is not easy, but can be done easier since practices and meets are conducted at the same time and location. Ultimately it will be the soccer athletes who suffer under this scenario.

One of the arguments for moving to soccer to the fall is to have a "true" state championship between the North and South. However, at the rate we are going there are many track and cross country coaches favoring a "5A" class. We keep adding schools and lowering the number of state qualifiers. Most, if not all, of the track and cross-country coaches would rather see an all southern or 5A state championship, than one where many deserving athletes do not get that opportunity. Thus, the "one state championship" concept in soccer would be null and void.

Finally, the biggest reason SNTCCA is opposed is our most selfish one. Many cross-country athletes are also soccer players.

Moving women’s soccer to the fall will affect every program in Southern Nevada. As it stands now, there are a lot of women’s teams struggling to field a full squad. With soccer in the fall, it is conceivable to see only two or three full teams in 4A. This would be disastrous to the sport. How many schools would be forced to cancel their programs? Would this lead to the ultimate cancellation of the sport in Southern Nevada? If so, there would definitely be Title IX implications.

Whether soccer is played in the winter or fall, nearly (if not every) school will have full varsity and JV rosters owing to the popularity of the sport. However, with soccer in the fall, cross-country numbers will diminish greatly. Isn’t one of the main purposes of interscholastic athletics in Nevada to have large numbers of participants? Not to mention that this would thin out the talent pool in the fall tremendously.

Women’s soccer has already been on the fall schedule in Northern Nevada and at the 1-3A levels, and the cross-country programs at these schools have been hit hard. There are less than 10 full women’s cross country teams in the entire state in the classes 1-3 A combined. In the North, other than a few of the "traditional powerhouses," most schools have been hit hard by soccer. How many of these schools do not have even a single runner?

The SNTCCA asks that these opinions be strongly considered when the final decision is made on this matter. Nevada is very fortunate to have some of the most passionate and dedicated track and cross-country coaches. The SNTCCA is group that promotes the sport and does what is best not only for the sport, but also the student-athletes. Over the years, members of the SNTCCA have worked together to promote their sport(s) while putting aside personal goals. How many other sports can make this claim? We can only hope there is a fall sport to promote in the future.

Yours in Athletics,

John Dixon,

President, Southern Nevada Track and Cross Country Coaches Association

On behalf of the Southern Nevada Track and Cross Country Coaches Association, I am writing to express our concern with the current team state qualification format. As a group, we feel that Southern regions are being placed in a very inequitable situation that places our student athletes at a great disadvantage.

We are grateful that the NIAA took into consideration our concerns about a six team 4A state meet. We felt that six teams were not representative in getting the quality athletes to the state level. The current plan, while better, is still flawed and gives unfair representation to the Northern Region.

It seems as though the Sunrise and Sunset regions from the South are being treated as one region, instead of being considered as two autonomous units. We qualify separately and are composed of just as many teams as the Northern Region, so for what reason are our number of qualifying teams treated as one unit? Under the current plan the state meet rotates every other year between the North and the South. When the meet is in the North that region receives four teams, while the Sunrise receives two teams and the Sunset receives two teams. For those years that state is in the south the North receives two teams and the Sunrise and Sunset receive three team entries each. If the current system is extrapolated over a six year period you can see the inequity.

Note the diagram below:

It is obvious to even the most novice cross country fan that southern athletes are being shortchanged in this situation. In only a six year time period the Northern region will qualify 17% more teams than the Sunrise or Sunset Regions. In order to remedy this inequity the state may consider a couple of options that would not require additional funding and would ensure more southern athletes a state cross country opportunity.

Plan One: Make the state meet on a three year rotation. South (Sunrise), South (Sunset), North. Then the qualifying numbers could remain the same. However, with the state meet in the South twice every three years it would even the numbers and give each region the opportunity to host the state meet.

This proposal would make the number equal and would even the playing field for our regions. It would also cut the cost of Southern travel as the two regions would travel a few number of times. It would, in reality, equalize the cost of travel for each of the regions. Over the course of three years the Washoe School District would have to pay for their region to travel to Las Vegas twice. During the same time period the Clark County School District would have to pay for both the Sunrise and Sunset Regions to travel once. Thus, each School District would incur equal state travel costs.

Plan Two: When state is in the south both the Sunrise and Sunset teams would receive four team entries. This would solve the entire problem and require no additional funding. However, this requires that every other year there would be a ten team state meet, as opposed to the current eight team State Championship meet format.

As an association our greatest concern is the quality of experience that we are giving our athletes. We feel that it is our duty to work to gain the greatest equity in representation that we can for them at our State Championship meet. Cross Country is a team sport and when the Sunrise and Sunset regions are having our team representation cut we are also hurting the viability of many programs. It is with great sincerity that we ask you to consider these proposals.

Yours in Athletics,

Jessica M. Scobell

Co-President and Secretary,

Southern Nevada Track and Cross Country Coaches Association