State issues KSHSAA audit
| EMAIL | PRINT | COMMENT | SHARE
By Tim Carpenter
Created July 1, 2009 at 11:00am
Updated July 1, 2009 at 11:39pm
One-fourth of board members on the Kansas State High School Activities Association are convinced the management board is ineffectively large, while 40 percent of coaches believe the organization’s rules inhibit development of athletes.
These findings were contained in a report issued Wednesday by the state Legislative Division of Post Audit into operations of the private, nonprofit corporation regulating activities at 779 member public and private middle schools and high schools in Kansas.
Auditors found evidence of concern among coaches, administrators and board members about management practices, financial decisions and travel policies.
Gary Musselman, executive director of KSHSAA, defended the association in testimony to the House and Senate audit committee and with a seven-page response to an audit comparing operations in Kansas to Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas.
“The organization’s rules and policies are adopted through a democratic process,” he said. “The guiding principle, which remains uncompromised, is to do what is best for the greatest number of Kansas students.”
Auditors reported 25 percent of association members responding to a survey said the 78-member board had too many players to function properly. Kansas law requires only 60 members. This glut, the survey suggested, made it easier for internal factions to form and inhibited policy reform.
The audit showed 30 percent of board members polled thought the association didn’t fairly represent all sizes of schools in the state. There is concern smaller schools no longer have an equal voice, the audit says.
Two of five coaches answering a survey said the association’s limits on games played and out-of-state travel undermined opportunities for students to develop skills, auditors said.
The audit indicated KSHSAA:
— Devoted 42 percent of its budget to staff salaries, while expenditures elsewhere ranged from 22 percent in Missouri to 33 percent in Oklahoma. Texas didn’t provide information.
— Paid non-CEO executives an average of $103,461 in salary and benefits annually, while averages in comparison states were from $71,703 in Oklahoma to $99,902 in Iowa.
— Held $5.5 million in cash reserves, or the equivalent of 20 months of operating expenses. Other holdings ranged from $805,000 in Oklahoma, sufficient for three months, to $4 million in Missouri, equal to seven months.
— Earmarked 30 percent of playoff ticket revenue to host schools, but shared none of that money with non-host schools. Kansas was the only state audited that didn’t cover travel costs for non-host schools in playoff games.
— Was among two states (the other is Iowa) limiting out-of-state travel for activities it regulates. The maximum distance for “competitive events” is 500 miles from the border of Kansas. Iowa limits out-of-state travel to six border states and Kansas.
Sen. Karin Brownlee, an Olathe Republican who requested the state audit, said the association’s travel restrictions didn’t make sense.
For example, the senator said, the association permitted a Blue Valley marching band to perform in London on a “non-competitive” field trip, but prohibited a sports team from playing in a tournament outside the 500-mile limit but in the United States.
“To tell the soccer team they can’t go to the memorial tournament that honors a deceased team member, just because it’s more than 500 miles away, that’s difficult to accept,” Brownlee said.
Musselman said the association’s board voted two years ago to sustain the distance “arrived at through extensive study.”
Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat and member of the audit committee, said a new policy should open the door to broader travel. He was critical of the association’s decision to deny Highland Park High School an exemption to play in a basketball tournament.
“If you’re invited to go some place, it seems to me there might be a possibility to make an exception,” Hensley said.
Musselman said the association wasn’t legally obligated to cooperate with state auditors on the report, but agreed to collaborate to promote a sense of transparency.
Well, well, well.
Sportsfan02, I am waiting for you to start blasting all of these folks for being unhappy with KSHSAA just as you have always done to me.
It is time for new, progressive leadership and membership in this organization. The overhaul has been a long time coming. The dictatorship needs to be overthrown. It is a joke that Musselman called it a democracy.
Amazing how the writer of the article chooses to slant his story. For example. . .
"One-fourth of board members on the Kansas State High School Activities Association are convinced the management board is ineffectively large, while 40 percent of coaches believe the organization’s rules inhibit development of athletes."
Could have just as easily, been written thusly:
"Three-fourths of board members on the Kansas State High School Activities Association are convinced the management board is effective in size and representation, and 60 percent of coaches believe the organization’s rules do not inhibit development of athletes."
Given the number of activities overseen by the KSHSAA I was a little surprised that the percentage of coaches unhappy was not higher.
Some of us who have been around a while remember when the KSHSAA administrative board was a lot smaller. The expansion in size occured in the late 80's or very early 90's as the result of a court case which was filed due to the KSHSAA not being representative enough of its member schools. Go figure.
Am going to now read the audit report.
Sportsfan02, I am waiting for you to start blasting all of these folks for being unhappy with KSHSAA just as you have always done to me.
I don't need to "blast", I believe I am in the overwhelming majority as Greg Mann points out!
None of this matters due to this small but important statement right here, "Musselman said the association wasn’t legally obligated to cooperate with state auditors on the report, but agreed to collaborate to promote a sense of transparency".
The more I try to teach you Will the more I realize it's impossible!
That overwhelming majority could have been:
40% - Believe the organization’s rules inhibit development of athletes.
35% - Do not believe the organization's rules inhibit development of athletes.
25% - unsure
The article was unclear on the exact numbers.
It all seems pretty clear to me.
So you are part of the 40%?
The complete audit report and a two page executive summary can be found at
www.kasb.org.There is enough "stuff" in the audit to support your opinion--whether you are pro- or anti-KSHSAA.
Statement from the Audit Table of Contents:
"Opinions On Athletic Development Opportunities In Kansas Differ, but Kansas Produces the 2nd Highest Number of Big 12 Athletes Per Capita Among Comparison States."
who is # 1, and why can't that be us.
Tom Peterman
who is # 1, and why can't that be us.
Tom Peterman
Tom, since we are a strong high school wrestling state, we would no doubt be No. 1 per capita in producing Big 12 athletes among comparative states if the Big 12 had wrestling programs at all 12 of their participating schools instead of just five wrestling teams.

Of course too I am not sure what even goes into that statistic. Which are the comparative states? Also I expect it includes women athletes. And I am not against women athletes. Women should have athletic opportunities. I strongly support that. However as far as this statistic goes Big 12 schools like KSU could be adding Kansas athletes by giving rowing scholarships to women who have never rowed before in order to help meet Title IX requirements. If these type of athletes are also included in that statistic, in my opinion it would then be artificially bumping up Kansas in numbers as to how many Kansas athletes are going to Big 12 schools per capita among comparative states. I have heard that KSU aggressively has to recruit women on campus to become members of the rowing team. Again I am not against a legitimate women rowing team opportunity but I am against the idea of creating a women's rowing team just to meet Title IX requirements when we know that KSU would not have to recruit on campus to fill spots on a NCAA wrestling team.
My main point is though that until you know completely what goes in that number we really can't use it as support to the validity of the current policies of our state athletic high school association.
Edit: I just saw on the KSU rowing website under a frequently asked question which was "
What is a typical rowing student-athlete?"
The answer was essentially that no prior experience was necessary and in fact that 95% of the team members did not row before college. And if you look at the team roster from the previous year, you can see that the overwhelming majority are Kansas women. And that is great for them but it definitely could be padding this stated statistic that Kansas is No. 2 per capita among comparative states in producing Big 12 athletes.
If you want to know what is in the audit and how the numbers were arrived at, read it.
There is a link to the audit report in an a post above in this thread; here it is again:
www.kasb.org The full report is only 26 pages and is an interesting read.
The two page summary hits the high spots.
Rowing was NOT part of the group of athletes being compared, (nor was equestrian) -- but are you saying that the young ladies who try out for the team and make it are not worthy of being considered collegiate athletes? The reason no experience is required for rowing is simple: how may high school rowing programs are there in Kansas/midwest/USA?
The last D-I wrestling program in Kansas was dropped prior to Title IX becoming law. Title IX had nothing to do with its demise, but no doubt has a LOT to do with its not being resurrected.
That said, there are more collegiate wrestling opportunities in Kansas now than there have been for a LONG time.
Read the report.
Greg,
I will read the report, but I would like for you to read my original post again and tell me how in the world you got the idea that I was saying that young ladies trying out for the sport are not worthy of being considered college athletes? That is ridiculous. This is what I said:
I have heard that KSU aggressively has to recruit women on campus to become members of the rowing team. Again I am not against a legitimate women rowing team opportunity but I am against the idea of creating a women's rowing team just to meet Title IX requirements when we know that KSU would not have to recruit on campus to fill spots on a NCAA wrestling team.
And as for your statement that the reason no experience is required for rowing is that there are basically no high school rowing teams in Kansas or the Midwest surrounding states, I am sorry but I just don't buy that thought. I see absolutely no evidence of any significant demand from young high school age women to get involved in rowing. I have seen it for other sports but not for rowing. I have seen desire for the equestrian team from young high school women but never for rowing. If it is indeed the case that there is not a strong demand for a women's rowing team, I think it is not right that there should be such a team when we have so many involved youth and high school wrestlers without even one wrestling team at our D-1 State universities.
But it seems to be a moot point if indeed as you are saying the rowing or equestrian team numbers are not involved in the statement from the report that Kansas in 2nd per capita in comparative states in producing Big 12 athletes. I guess I will read the report and try to see how that statistic is derived. Right now it is a very difficult statistic for me to swallow because I know that football is one of the largest sports in numbers and very often I hear how Kansas is not a big state for Division I college football players. Maybe we get more Big 12 D-1 football players in Kansas compared to other states than I have been led to believe.
I do believe that for wrestling to develop to its fullest potential in this state that we need to allow coaches to coach their athletes in it year around if the coach and athlete choose to voluntarily participate year around. I also think we should allow high school coaches to be involved in the coaching and management of youth wrestling clubs. I would also like to see a Dual state tournament and a Grand State tournament.
Vince,
Having myself been involved in a legislative audit some years ago I can tell you that the numbers are never intentionally skewed one way or another. The people who do these audits are able to somehow stay above any politics or personal biases when writing the reports.
As I recall, the sports used for the sampling were football, and mens and women's ******ball.
Vince,
I did misread your comments regarding rowing and I apologize.
". . .if indeed as you are saying the rowing or equestrian team numbers are not involved in the statement from the report that Kansas in 2nd per capita in comparative states in producing Big 12 athletes."
It is not what I say, it is what the report says.
Lots of Kansans on Big 12 FB teams (largest number, of course, are at KU & KSU). Having two D-I FB programs in a state our size yields higher numbers on rosters and affects the PER CAPITA calculation used by the auditors--as does the limited number of D-I Big 12 sports used in determining the total number of athletes.
Greg:
I appreciate your apology and I probably should not have mentioned rowing like that. I really like for there to be a lot of athletic opportunities for both men and women. I used rowing because intuitively it seemed to me that rowing numbers had to be part of the study for the following statement from the audit report that you posted yesterday to be true:
Statement from the Audit Table of Contents:
"Opinions On Athletic Development Opportunities In Kansas Differ, but Kansas Produces the 2nd Highest Number of Big 12 Athletes Per Capita Among Comparison States"
It is still surprising to me that this statement would be true since the report is based solely on Big 12 football and men & women basketball teams. The comparison was on the Big 12 states of Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado and Iowa.
In total number of athletes it was KS (145), Texas (833), Oklahoma (158), Missouri (147), Nebraska (95), Colorado (77) and Iowa (67). Kansas was second both in athletes per 100,000 home state residents and in athletes per 10,000 14-17 year old home state residents. Nebraska was first in both categories. Texas although 1st in total number of athletes came in fourth in the other two categories. Everyone knows how fertile a football recruiting state that Texas is and they should have the greatest number of athletes but it is a little surprising they are only fourth in the two per capita categories.
Regardless, the fact that the study only analyzed football and basketball leaves a lot of other high school athletes out of the analysis. I would be more interested in this analysis if all sports including wrestling were considered in the study.
sportsfan02, in the audit they were using information from website Rivals.com. At the bottom of the table they state:
These data should be used with caution because it represents only three sports, only represents the number of athletes that went to Big 12 schools, and is based on unaudited information collected from the internet.
Source: Unaudited information from www.Rivals.com .
Regardless, the fact that the study only analyzed football and basketball leaves a lot of other high school athletes out of the analysis. I would be more interested in this analysis if all sports including wrestling were considered in the study.
Vince, I personally believe that if wrestling were analyzed it would even further destroy the argument that KSHSAA is causing our student/athletes to be left behind. As it is, using the sports that were included, I think we can put that argument to rest for the foreseeable future.
sportsfan02,
You are perhaps correct about that but I doubt it in a Big 12 only comparative study since there are only five Big 12 wrestling teams and none at KU or KSU. So I don't think it would help Kansas high school numbers per capita in the Big 12 sports if wrestling was included, perhaps it would if all Division I schools were included.
I really don't think it is should so much be a comparison of are we on par or slightly ahead of other surrounding states. I think the Kansas wrestling community would like for us to be offering the best possible wrestling environment for our young men and women wrestlers to accomplish all of their goals in wrestling.
I know there are some other things that people would like to see done to improve the situation for Kansas high school wrestlers, but here are the two that I would like to see the most. I believe that we need to allow our Kansas high school coaches to be able to coach their wrestlers during and after the school year in their wrestling off seasons. I also believe that Kansas high school coaches should be allowed to coach and/or manage youth wrestling clubs during the school year. I could be wrong but I do not think that Kansas high school coaches are completely free to do these things. Don't you agree these changes would have the potential to offer improved wrestling opportunities for Kansas high school wrestlers?
If a totally accurate statement was to be made based on the numbers and the scope of the audit, it would be something like this: "Opinions On athletic development opportunities In Kansas differ, but Kansas produces the 2nd highest number of Big 12 football and basketball athletes per capita among comparison states."
I find it more interesting that the audit indicates that a solid to overwhelimg majority of EVERY group surveyed was positive in their feelings towards the policies and work of the KSHSAA.
Lastly, I would urge all on this board to read the statement located at the very end of the audit and written by Gary Musselman, exec director of the KSHSAA. It is an excellent and compact summary of the work, the purpose and the governance of the KSHSAA. It also summarizes the results of a student survey the KSHSAA conducted in 2006; I think most on this board will find the results at least interesting and possibly even enlightening.
Regardless, the fact that the study only analyzed football and basketball leaves a lot of other high school athletes out of the analysis. I would be more interested in this analysis if all sports including wrestling were considered in the study.
Vince, I personally believe that if wrestling were analyzed it would even further destroy the argument that KSHSAA is causing our student/athletes to be left behind. As it is, using the sports that were included, I think we can put that argument to rest for the foreseeable future.
sportsfan02, I had a day off yesterday and I had to see if this was true. I felt it would not take me that much time to do this analysis since there are only five Big 12 teams. I felt that the KSHSAA using only football and basketball in their analysis could be self serving to a position that everything is fine and change is not needed. I decided to see how this same analysis would come out just for the sport that I am mainly interested in having changes to improve the situation for our athletes and that sport is wrestling. I applied the same numbers in population for the per 100,000 residents and the 14 to 17 year old residents to the 2008-2009 Big 12 wrestling rosters.
CONCLUSION OF RESULTS: KANSAS DOES NOT DO AS WELL IN WRESTLING PER CAPITA IN BIG 12 ATHLETES IN COMPARATIVE STATES AS IT EVIDENTLY DOES IN FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL. IN WRESTLING KANSAS COMES IN 5TH OF 7 IN BOTH CATEGORIES OF PER 100,000 STATE RESIDENTS AND PER 10,000 OF 14-17 YR OLD PER 10,000 IN COMPARISON TO 2ND IN BOTH CATEGORIES IN FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL.
Here are the numbers for the 2008-2009 Big 12
Wrestling rosters per state:
OK-23
MO-18
IA-15
NE-8
KS-7
TX-6
CO-4
Using the population numbers in the report here is how
Wrestling turns out per 100,000 state residents:
OK-.63
IA-.50
NE-.45
MO-.30
KS-.25
CO-.08
TX-.02
Using the 14-17 year old population numbers in the report here is how
Wrestling turns out per 100,000 state residents:
OK-1.13
IA-0.89
NE-0.78
MO-0.53
KS-0.44
CO-0.15
TX-0.04
So I could use my wrestling analysis of Big 12 wrestlers as support to my position that KSHSAA policies need to be changed to help our high school wrestlers improve their chances to become college wrestlers. Would I be completely fair in doing so? Probably not, since it only is analyzing the Big 12 and the fact that Kansas has no Big 12 team and Oklahoma has two and MO, NE, IA have one certainly gives each state an advantage over Kansas in this analysis. All those states fall ahead of Kansas in this wrestling analysis.
However, using the same reasoning I do not think it is correct for the KSHSAA to use only football and basketball in the Big 12 to support a position that their current policies are fine and do not need changing.One thing that I found to be disappointing in going over the rosters of the Big 12 wrestling teams is that the University of Missouri only had one Kansas wrestler on the squad in the 2008-2009 year. We border Missouri and you would think we should get more Kansas recruits on their squad.
Vince, I never said wrestling could or should be analyzed on the same criteria as those other sports. Because we have no Big 12 schools in this state it would be a little unfair to use that as the determinate factor. That is probably why the auditors chose to use the sports and conference they did, because it was the fairest and easiest way to determine a ranking. I will take our D-1 wrestling numbers vs any field given the same per 100,000 or whatever other criteria you choose to use. We will do just fine. Does that mean we shouldn't always being trying to improve? Well I think we all know the answer to that. The question is how!
Vince, I never said wrestling could or should be analyzed on the same criteria as those other sports. Because we have no Big 12 schools in this state it would be a little unfair to use that as the determinate factor. That is probably why the auditors chose to use the sports and conference they did, because it was the fairest and easiest way to determine a ranking. I will take our D-1 wrestling numbers vs any field given the same per 100,000 or whatever other criteria you choose to use. We will do just fine. Does that mean we shouldn't always being trying to improve? Well I think we all know the answer to that. The question is how!
I would agree that it is perhaps a little unfair to use Big 12 schools since we do not have any Big 12 schools with wrestling in Kansas.
But wouldn't you also say it is unfair for the KSHSAA to use only a football and basketball only Big 12 analysis in its defense to show our their policies are working?Also after doing this analysis of the Big 12 team rosters, I do not think that Kansas would come out fine in a D-1 number of wrestlers comparison against any field as you put it. If you put us in a field of just our neighboring states (Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado), I think there is a good possibility that Kansas would come in last in the percentage per 100,000 and the 14 to 17 year old criteria. The main reason is due to the fact that all these states have D-1 schools and Kansas does not. Colorado has Northern Colorado and Air Force Academy. Air Force is a national school but it still has 3 Colorado wrestlers vs. one from Kansas. Northern Colorado has a lot of Colorado wrestlers on its roster and I believe one Kansas wrestler. Even if you took the entire nation, I don't think that Kansas would do that well in Division I. The reason for it in my opinion is that colleges do tend to have more in-state wrestlers percentage wise on their rosters than out of state wrestlers and Kansas just does not have any D-1 schools period. Now I don't think this really has anything to do with the KSHSAA's policies. I think this is primarily due to the fact that we have no Division I schools in Kansas. Kansas would no doubt fair better versus other states nationwide if you did an analysis of both Division 1 and Division 2 since we have Fort Hsys State and Newman in Division II.
Finally to give my opinions on your question of how do we improve the situation? In my opinion and my opinion on this is certainly not all inclusive and I would hope others would share their thoughts:
1. We need to get D-1 teams at Kansas, Kansas State and Wichita State. Or at least one of them.
2. We need to get more kids involved in freestyle/greco at earlier ages. My son has only done this Olympic style wrestling for two years his junior and senior years. After this year's junior duals he told me that he really wished he had started the Olympic styles earlier at least by his start of middle school (the 7th grade). Wrestling these styles improve wrestling on your feet skills and some defensive skills. Wrestling in the summer the Olympic styles gives you more competition during the year and against top competition especially if you get involved in schoolboy, cadet and junior duals and/or Fargo. Also a big key for landing on a D-1 team, you have greater exposure to D-1 recruiting at these national tournaments.
3. Allow high school coaches to develop quality long term programs by allowing them to manage and coach youth teams and by allowing high school coaches to coach their wrestlers year around in season and out of season. Do not limit the high school coaches ability to do that.
4. Even though I don't like this one, a one site all class state tournament would probably help some in making it easier for recruiters.
Those are some ideas that I have heard over the years that I think would help.
Vince as I indicated, I don't care what sports were sampled, I think it all works out in the end as long as they use a fair comparison formula. The sports sampled are just an indicator of the overall health of all of our various high school sports. Even without a D-1 program in KS I will take our numbers. Of course our numbers would be even higher if we had a D-1 program.
sportsfan02,
I do disagree with you that a study where only two sports football and basketball are sampled is a big enough sample to be a good indicator of the overall health of all our various high school sports. At best this study is just an indicator of the overall health of football and basketball in our state. I also have to say that just as you pointed out that my wrestling only comparison was not really fair due to the fact that there are no Big 12 wrestling teams in Kansas, it is also not fair to just use the Big 12 conference for the football and basketball study as an indicator for our state in comparison to other states since there are two Big 12 schools in Kansas while Missouri, Colorado, Iowa and Nebraska only have one Big 12 school.
The reason of course is as I pointed out earlier, the university teams normally have a very large percentage of in-state athletes on their rosters. In compiling that Big 12 information for wrestling and in looking at the Northern Colorado roster yesterday, it was very evident to me how true this is. No doubt many of these in-state wrestlers are walk ons due to the fact that it is less expensive for the in-state students to attend an in-state university. These walk ons have an opportunity to work their way into the starting lineup. It is a great opportunity that our Kansas high school wrestlers are denied at the D-1 level. I know my first suggestion on improving our D-1 wrestling numbers seems like an obvious but impossible task. I only mentioned it because while compiling those numbers for Big 12 wrestling it was really driven home to me just how much opportunity we are losing for our Kansas high school wrestlers by not having a Division 1 team in Kansas. And it was also driven home to me just how many our very best Kansas high school wrestlers are forced to leave Kansas to compete in wrestling at the D-1 level. I think all of us need to really financially support our Kansas college teams like Fort Hays State, Newman University, Baker University, Labette CC, Neosho County CC, Colby CC, Pratt CC and any other that I may have not mentioned. Go to their websites and contact their coaches on how and where to send them a contribution. Even small financial contributions of $25 or less will add up for them. I think if we support these teams with our dollars and our attendance at the events it will show other Kansas colleges that the Kansas wrestling community will support college wrestling in our state.
sportsfan02, I do not think that the KSHSAA is doing a bad job in regulating high school sports in Kansas. However, I do think that every organization has to be constantly willing to change for improvements for the people the organization serves. It has to create an environment that encourages change and not make change difficult. I have been involved with several profit and non for profit organizations and I have seen how organizations that make change easy and are willing to do so have had great success. I have also seen the opposite where an organization and its leaders refuse to change and make change difficult. I have seen these organizations go down hill and some ultimately fail. I think Kansas high school wrestling is in pretty good shape but I also think it can improve. I think there are certain changes that would increase the chances for improvement of Kansas high school wrestling. I think some of these changes would have to be initiated thru the KSHSAA. How easy is it to effect change thru the KSHSAA and do they have a system set that makes change easy to occur?
Vince,
" . . . I do not think it is correct for the KSHSAA to use only football and basketball in the Big 12 to support a position that their current policies are fine and do not need changing."
the KSHSAA did NOT select that comparison, it was selected by the Legislative Post Audit and I do not think it was being cited as proof that the KSHSAA rules do not need to be changed. In fact, the tone of the audit was, in my opinion, very negative towards the KSHSAA even though the survey numbers were very favorable to the KSHSAA.
The number of Kansas athletes on FB & BB rosters in the Big 12 is, admittedly, a very narrow comparison based on a limited sample. However, FB and B & G BB are the only sports (a) in which EVERY Big 12 school fields a varsity team; and (b) of which Rivals.com maintains roster information. I am pretty sure every Big 12 school fields B & G Track & Field, but Rivals.com does not maintain roster info on them. Why was Rivals.com selected? Not 100% positive, but am assuming they were seen as being an impartial and accurate outside source for information on athletic participation in the Big 12.
Again, the KSHSAA did not provide that number/statistic nor was the number/statistic being used to say the KSHSAA is perfect as it is. I think the point being made by citing the number/statistic is while there is a big difference of opinion as to whether the KSHSAA hinders or helps athletic development in Kansas High Schools, it (KSHSAA) must be doing something right or in the least doing no harm, at least in this limited example.
". . . But wouldn't you also say it is unfair for the KSHSAA to use only a football and basketball only Big 12 analysis in its defense to show our their policies are working?"
". . . I do not think it is correct for the KSHSAA to use only football and basketball in the Big 12 to support a position that their current policies are fine and do not need changing."
The comparison was NOT the work of the KSHSAA; it was the Legislative Post Audit who came up with that comparison.
Greg:
I appreciate the correction on the KSHSAA being the ones to use the number as a comparison point in the audit. I understand what you are saying. At this point I would have to say I really don't understand why the auditors would have even brought this study up in their report. In my opinion it has very little if anything to do with how well Kansas high school athletes are doing compared to the other states high school athletes in the study. It seemed to me that it was presented as some evidence in the report that Kansas was doing pretty well compared to these other states and I think it is not a good conclusion.
The way the comparison came out still does not make sense to me because logically I would seriously doubt a comparison where Kansas comes out so far ahead of Texas in a study that is so heavily weighted to football participant numbers. Texas is known nationwide for being one of the top football recruiting states in the country and I don't think Kansas is nationally recognized as a top state for high school football recruits. I think this study makes an invalid comparison because Kansas basically has an in-state ratio of a little over 1,400,000 people per Big 12 school in Kansas while for Texas there are over 6,000,000 people per Big 12 school in Texas (there are 4 in Texas). For Texas to have close to the same 1,400,000 ratio there would need to be at least 16 Texas D-1 schools in the study. This is important in my opinion because I can see how heavily weighted the college teams are with in state athletes. Perhaps my reasoning is incorrect but it makes far more sense to me from what I know about Texas high school football. By the way Kansas with that 1,400,000 people per Big 12 school is the lowest number of all the states in the report.
Several ways to look at it and the LPA chose this perspective. Whether you agree/believe is beside the point; it is what it is. The numbers, based on the comparison used by the LPA don't lie. As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts on this subjecgt, having two Big 12 football schools in a state our size will give us an advantage in this comparison.
In regards to Texas, don't forget there are numberous D-1 schools in their state (just 4 B12 schools) BUT Texas also "exports" a lot of high school football talent to other B12 schools--look at the rosters at OU,O-State, etc.
Does it prove that the KSHSAA is a positive in HS FB & BB? Would be hard to argue they are; at the least one could argue no harm is being done in those sports.
Lots in the audit to agree/disagree with--on both sides of the issue.
I'm not going to beleaguer the point any more except to say that I can show you studies that say we are one of the top football states in the nation. Whenever the studies are weighted by population the state of Kansas typically does pretty well. Another important item is if you look at the states we think of as being powerhouses in high school sports you will find often they are at the bottom of the rankings for academics.
I'm not going to beleaguer the point any more except to say that I can show you studies that say we are one of the top football states in the nation. Whenever the studies are weighted by population the state of Kansas typically does pretty well. Another important item is if you look at the states we think of as being powerhouses in high school sports you will find often they are at the bottom of the rankings for academics.
sportsfan02, I have definitely gone overboard with this and I will soon end my posting on the topic. I would however really like to read these studies that show that Kansas is one of the top football states in the nation. My instinct tells me that Texas would be ahead of Kansas per capita in producing D-1 football players nationwide in all conferences but I would not mind be proven incorrect on that. So I would appreciate if you could share those studies with us.
Several ways to look at it and the LPA chose this perspective. Whether you agree/believe is beside the point; it is what it is. The numbers, based on the comparison used by the LPA don't lie. As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts on this subjecgt, having two Big 12 football schools in a state our size will give us an advantage in this comparison...Does it prove that the KSHSAA is a positive in HS FB & BB? Would be hard to argue they are; at the least one could argue no harm is being done in those sports...
Greg Mann:
The numbers in the study may not lie but they can mislead a person to an incorrect conclusion. If the basis of a study is too narrow and gives some subjects of the study advantages over other subjects of the study then the study and its conclusions are not revelant. If you believe the report gives Kansas an advantage since its has two Big 12 schools with our lower population base than how can you even draw the conclusion from the report that?
at the least one could argue no harm is being done in those sports
And I am not saying that KSHSAA policies are harming us in producing Division I athletes in football and/or basketball. I am just saying that conclusion cannot be reached from this particular study and information.I really try to question studies and financial numbers when they are presented to me. I want my children to do the same. People try to sell you things all the time and you need to critically question the material being presented to you otherwise you could end up buying the Brooklyn Bridge or an elevator pass at a school that doesn't have an elevator. I could set up a study that would compare how the 6A schools measure against the 3-2-1A schools in producing varsity high school wrestlers. The 3-2-1A schools would definitely come out better per capita because they are filling the same 14 number of spots on the team with a lot less students in their schools than the 6-A schools. This would be a meaningless study. You certainly could not jump to the conclusion that 3-2-1A schools are doing better at producing varsity wrestlers than 6-A schools based on this type of study.
The fact that the study shows there are 24,326,974 people in Texas and only four Big 12 schools for an average of 6,081,474 in state residents per Big 12 school vs. 2,802,134 in Kansas with 2 Big 12 schools for an average of only 1,401,067 in state residents per Big 12 school demonstrates to me that this study is not a fair basis of comparsion.
This study does not in any way convince me that Kansas high schools are per capita ahead of Texas high schools in producing Division I football and/or basketball players. There may be such a study but this is not it. We are just not comparing apples to apples in this study. It is way too narrow and the sample is not large enough to draw any meaningful conclusions. My common sense tells me that Kansas would probably be behind Texas per capita in producing Division I football players but I really could be incorrect about that on a per capita basis. Perhaps sportsfan02 will be able to provide us the data that shows us that Kansas is in fact ahead of Texas in producing Division I football players per capita.
Sportsfan02, I am waiting for you to start blasting all of these folks for being unhappy with KSHSAA just as you have always done to me.
I don't need to "blast", I believe I am in the overwhelming majority as Greg Mann points out!
None of this matters due to this small but important statement right here, "Musselman said the association wasn’t legally obligated to cooperate with state auditors on the report, but agreed to collaborate to promote a sense of transparency".
The more I try to teach you Will the more I realize it's impossible!
Sport0,
When I was younger I used to love watching the Gong Show so I could see the Unknown Comic. He was awesome! However, I am unfamiliar with the Unknown Teacher... Do you have a cool bag you wear on your head too? How can you possibly expect to teach anyone or be respected when you won't even tell us who you are?
I am reading the full audit but we all know that Kansas is one of the MOST restrictive states in the country and that these guys continue to blab the party line "We just do what the schools tells us to do...yada yada yada" while paying themselves high salaries for the duties and creating more job security for themselves. The entire school system is supported by taxpayers, you and me, yet Rick Bowden and Gary Musselman call this a democratic process when the taxpayers have NO vehicle to communicate their wishes. The ONLY people we vote for in this system is the schoolboard, who hires a superintendent, who hires a principal, who hires teachers and coaches. These people are then incestuously placed onto this board so that the entire system beyond who we voted for is good ole boy academe network. You can set down with the present KSHSAA handbook and readline hundreds of lines of policy and rules that are downright absurd. The rules are in place to protect those who don't want to help our student athletes excel. The system levels the playing field (and I am talking in the classroom, on the mat, in the gym, on the field) by pushing the top down instead of bringing the bottom up. No child left behind is bs! It really means don't help anyone get ahead!
Sporto, you showed your southend when you stated that Kansas produces football players on par with other states. We have the MOST watered down playoff system in the country and I want to see you list the NCAA All American football players from Kansas High Schools, not junior colleges, from this decade. It won't take you very long because there aren't many. Per capita is just a silly way to make your case and it still won't work in this instance. KSHSAA is too big, too spendy, full of red tape and HURTS the development of excellent athletes. That is the bottom line.
By the way, does everyone know that we created yet another division this year...1A is being split into two divisions for more sports than just 8 man football. More playoffs, more state champs, more crummy Josten Awards (survey the students and see how many are pleased with their KSHSAA emblem medals that have been given out for at least 35 years. The overwhelming response will be THEY SUCK), more jobs, more games, all this equals more money out of our pocket! 321A is already draining the education system of needed dollars and we just keep running up the tab... SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION now there is a great idea!
It is ironic that the KSHSAA audit was reported on the same day that $39million more in education cuts were being put into place because of budget shortfalls. Lets just whack the whole group and let the schools run themselves.
Sportsfan02 what can't you read to believe is the truth in it's entirety KANSAS lags behind Texas in producing Division 1 athletes per capita etc.
Husker Fan and Cokely are right on target!
Do you Sportsfan02 look at team rosters and the production of All-American's?
Kansas as a State could do Much, Much Better and definitely has room for improvement!
I think separate rules could be made for larger schools and smaller schools. If the summer contact rule does not work for the smaller schools let the 3-2-1A Board members vote it out just for 3-2-1 A schools.
Also I think you better be concerned when 40% of your members and the majority of your larger members are against one of your policies. I have seen the results of a situation like that and they can be very costly for an organization.
For wrestling the main change I would like to see them make is to allow coaches to coach their team's wrestlers in freestyle/greco during the school year. It seems like they could almost make an exception for it as another sport since it is different from folkstyle. Just as I think you can make some different rules for large and small class rules you can also make different rules for different sports. I really believe this rule change would help get more kids involved in freestyle/greco and that would help them improve in wrestling.
Also I think you better be concerned when 40% of your members and the majority of your larger members are against one of your policies.
You lost me Vince, what majority is against one of their policies?
For wrestling the main change I would like to see them make is to allow coaches to coach their team's wrestlers in freestyle/greco during the school year.
The problem is, if you do that for wrestling, just like the summer contact rules, then eventually you will have to do it for all of the other sports.
Sportsfan02:
Perhaps I could have stated that better but the majority I was referring to was based on this finding from the audit that Mr. Musselman addressed in the first article that you posted a couple of days ago:
Overall, about 40% of the coaches responding to our survey thought that athletes in Kansas didn’t have enough opportunities to develop their athletic skills. Coaches in high schools and larger schools (4A-6A) were more likely to think athletes don’t have enough opportunities.
I thought it was basically KSHSAA policies that are they are responding to. And I think it is pretty safe to say from this statement that the majority of the coaches in the larger schools think the some of the KSHSAA current policies contribute to athletes in Kansas not having enough opportunities to develop their athletic skills.
As far as your second point, I am saying to keep within their rules classify freestyle/greco as another sport just as track & field is different from cross country. I believe a coach can coach the same athlete in cross country in the fall and in the two mile in the spring track season. That comparison is about the same difference in my opinion.
Going further on that point though, I do not see why the KSHSAA cannot have different rules apply to different sports just like you should be able to have different rules for different size schools. I bet they already do in some instances. Different sports have different needs just as large schools will have different needs than small schools. If the summer contact rule really works for larger schools but really does not work for smaller schools, then let the larger schools vote it in for themselves and let the smaller schools vote it out for their classes.
[color:#FFFF99]There's a perception that we're a bunch of small, backwater schools," said KSHSAA executive director Gary Musselman. [/color]
The Kansas travel restrictions are written for schools that aren't competitive to benefit from other schools not being able to travel to get quality competition and having to have them on their schedules.
[color:#FFFF99]The reason for scheduling bylaws is trying to help drive and fullfill schedules within the state,” Musselman said. “If I’m in Liberal and I’m begging for games, and I’m good, then I’m really begging (because) it’s hard to be remote and good.
“I can’t get Kansas schools to come play me, but maybe if they aren’t busy scheduling out of state they might be available to play me. I guarantee you Garden City, Dodge City would be hurt more if we lifted the lid and said you can just go out of state as far as you want, as many times as you want, because they’re going to have a harder time filling schedules.”[/color]
Steel sharpens steel or lets stay instate and play someone who isn't quite as good to help them out. The travel rule appears to be an effort help everyone be the same and no one become exceptional. Our society rewards exceptional people, why would we want to all be the same?
While KSHSAA travel restrictions in the study were only about the same as one other state in the study (Iowa), the travel restrictions of KSHSAA are no more restrictive than many other states nationwide. Some states who had less travel restrictions (Ohio), for one, have imposed stiffer travel restrictions due to bad experiences with teams traveling.
Proponents of unrestricted travel say that it won't cost the taxpayer because funds will be raised privately, that might be the case for awhile, but eventually schools will start to fold those costs into their athletic budgets in order to keep up with the schools next door who have access to more private funds. Those that think our sport will be the first in line for either private or public monies to support travel are fooling themselves. Those monies will go to more 'high profile' sports in this state and we all know what those are.
This isn't about private monies being raised or used, you missed the point. The travel restrictions that Kansas has in any and all sports prevent student athletes from being exposed to better competition and the chance to be seen by college recruiters. If its okay for a school to take their activities students to a bowl game parade to have them play in the band in Florida it should be okay for athletes to go.
If you feel the need to bring fund raising into this, the organizations that go on the trips raise their own money and it is not co-mingled with other money. The band doesn't raise money and then have the track team take some of it to go to the state meet. Marysville KS used to raise money and take their band to bowl games and parades. Hiawatha KS used to take the Biology club to the Bahamas during spring break. I don't know if either do this now, but they did for years.
The travel restrictions that Kansas has in any and all sports prevent student athletes from being exposed to better competition and the chance to be seen by college recruiters.
At least in the sports involved in the study it doesn't seem that our restrictions have caused kids not to be recruited.
To be honest, I'd really like to see at least one school take advantage of the travel distance we already have. Everybody complains about it, but nobody that I'm aware of plays football in Dallas, which is within the allowable travel distance. We say we want to play the best, the best is in Texas, the best is within 500 miles, but we blame the KSHSAA for holding us back. We don't wrestle in St. Louis or Minneapolis or Denver, all allowable, but we blame the KSHSAA for holding us back.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of travel restrictions, because I'm not, and clearly there are events which would be nice to be able to attend. It just seems hypocritical to have a 1000 mile circle around Kansas that nobody takes advantage of and then complain that the KSHSAA is keeping us from finding competition.
To be honest, I'd really like to see at least one school take advantage of the travel distance we already have. Everybody complains about it, but nobody that I'm aware of plays football in Dallas, which is within the allowable travel distance. We say we want to play the best, the best is in Texas, the best is within 500 miles, but we blame the KSHSAA for holding us back. We don't wrestle in St. Louis or Minneapolis or Denver, all allowable, but we blame the KSHSAA for holding us back.
I agree!
Windy,
SJA is going to Tulsa and Denver this year. The real issue with the wrestling travel restriction is that there are ONLY three tournaments that mean anything to the college coaches, rankers, and magazines. They are:
1. Beast of the East
2. Ironman
3. Reno Tournament of Champions
If you aren't from a Big Ten state or you don't wrestle in the summer the ONLY way you are going to get any recognition is to place in one of these tournaments.
If no one is traveling much inside of the restriction then no one will travel outside of it. Why stop the few who can and want to on those rare occasions? How does it make things unfair to the those who can't or don't? We just create rules for the sake of keeping someone employed at KSHSAA. I think a COMPLETE review of the rule book would result in a large percentage of the rules being obsoleted or unnecessary.
Will,
Apparently you have failed to read my post wherein I say I am not in favor of travel restrictions. I know that SJA travels and looks for competition. I commend them and you for that. The point of my post is that the vast majority of Kansas schools do not come anywhere close to the 500 mile limit and then they/we blame the KSHSAA travel restriction for not letting us travel 600 miles. Too often these KSHSAA discussions focus on how sad it is to be us rather than what could be done within the current rules to improve competition for Kansas wrestlers.
I know that you could and would go to the Beast, and I hope someday you can. However, I would suggest that traveling to Oklahoma, St. Louis, Iowa, New Mexico or Texas would be a great start for most Kansas wrestling teams and that they find the caliber of competition that they are looking for. Instead, they complain that they can't travel 501. That's my point.
Windy,
I fully understand and agree that most are not seeking competition. BVNW has traveled the past few years from KC to Rio Rancho, NM which is 798 miles. Cuyahoga Falls, OH (home of the Ironman) is 803 miles. Legal to go to BVNW not legal to go to Cuyahoga Falls. That, to me, is frustrating. Some of the policies are don't make sense. There could be 100 cameras at a weekend tournament and the rule states that you can ONLY record your wrestler. It doesn't make sense and it is darn near unenforceable.
Does everyone on here realize that KSHSAA has created a second division of 1A? With all of the funding cuts how does it make sense to create more playoffs and awards...
There are 101 1A Schools in last year's classification document with a top three class enrollment of 5390 students. Three and a half 6A schools have that many students! Who is footing the bill for all of these buildings, principals, superintendents and other overhead? The education problems run far deeper than the KSHSAA. We are running short of funds and drastic measures are going to have to be taken soon. Do we REALLY need a KSHSAA? Why can't the AD's police themselves?
sportsfan02,
Thanks for linking the capital journal follow-up stories on the KSHSAA audit.
The props go to the Capital Journal on what I think was a fair and balanced series. That is the type of journalism (in-depth local sports) that IMO sells newspapers. I wish the Wichita Eagle would take their lead and do the same.
I find the articles interesting. I liked reading this in one of the articles:
Sen. Karin Brownlee (R-Olathe), who requested the audit of the KSHSAA, has indicated she will continue to look into the affairs of the Association. She raised questions regarding the data collected for the audit, which was presented in various charts.
“I need to do more research and put that in writing to (the Division of) Post Audit, to committee members and to Gary Musselman, because I don’t want incorrect data to be the basis for future decisions,” Brownlee said.
I really hope she is questioning the inclusion of the Big 12 study and is not accepting that study as a basis for any type of future decisions or conclusions. I am going to send both her and Mr. Musselman my reasons for why I believe that to be a misleading study.
I was also glad to read that Mr. Musselman listens to coaches. Perhaps he will listen to a parent too. I am going to send him my reasons why I think that high school wrestling coaches should be allowed to coach freestyle/greco after the wrestling season and during the school year. I really believe if a high school cross country coach can coach the same athletes later in the school year in track & field that a wrestling coach should be able also to coach the Olympic styles during the school year after the folkstyle high school season.
It is not surprising there is disagreement with the results of the audit--especially from those who requested the audit. Those who made the request did not do so because they were satisfied with the KSHSAA. The overall positive numbers found by the LPA were NOT what they (the legislators who requested the audit) were wanting/expecting to see.
I have sent my correspondence to both Senator Brownlee and Mr. Musselman. Both of them have immediately and thoughtfully responded to me in a positive manner. My correspondence may not ultimately end up with the change that I would like to see of allowing high school coaches to coach the Olympic styles after the folkstyle season and during the school year but I do feel that I was listened to and was given by Mr. Musselman the method that I would need to pursue to have the change made. I would encourage anyone to contact either Mr. Musselman or Senator Brownlee with any of your concerns on changes that you would like to see made in current KSHSAA policies. I think they need to hear from all of us on how we feel about current KSHSAA policies.
Vince with due respect, regardless of how each of us feels about KSHSAA, the only thing getting politicians involved with them can do, is make things worse.
Vince with due respect, regardless of how each of us feels about KSHSAA, the only thing getting politicians involved with them can do, is make things worse.
sportsfan02,
I respectfully disagree with your statement. Elected officials are our representatives in government and we need to let them know when we want them to work on issues for us.
I mentioned earlier in this topic that one thing I hoped for was that my son and possibly other young people who might read this topic would learn to not just accept at face value numbers that others are presenting to them. I hope they will critically look at the data and ascertain the motives of the presenter of the data.
Likewise in regard to your statement I want my son and other young people to be willing to get involved in the political process and to contact their elected representatives with issues that they are concerned about that they want their elected officials to work on.
sportsfan02,
I respectfully disagree with your statement. Elected officials are our representatives in government and we need to let them know when we want them to work on issues for us.
Vince, I dare say if you had a private business you would want as little intervention in your day to day operations by the government and politicians as possible.
I mentioned earlier in this topic that one thing I hoped for was that my son and possibly other young people who might read this topic would learn to not just accept at face value numbers that others are presenting to them. I hope they will critically look at the data and ascertain the motives of the presenter of the data.
Vince, why is it you are having such a hard time understanding that the people who presented these "numbers" had NO motives other than to find facts? The Legislative Post Audit is an INDEPENDENT agency charged with remaining unbiased towards any outside advocates.
Sportsfan02,
I have worked as an employee, manager and now executive in private business for over 30 years. My current organization is subject to rules of the government and influenced by the work of elected political representatives at the state and federal level. We are also answerable to our organization's own Board of Directors. We have an annual audit and sometimes audits from outside organizations. All of this is something that is very common in every business that I have been involved in during my work career. A successful organization is aware of and accustomed to this type of outside scrutiny of their operations and they take the opportunity to grow from it. In my opinion from what I have read in the articles that you have provided and from my own recent correspondence with Mr. Musselman, the KSHSAA under his leadership is reviewing the findings of the audit, feedback from other people to the audit and they will take the opportunity to grow from it so they can achieve even greater success in their mission.
As far as your last comment about what I said in my previous post about questioning numbers and the motives of those who present them. I was speaking in general terms and not specifically about the motives of auditors who presented the Big 12 study in the audit. The KSHSAA itself was not responsible for this study being used. The auditors in my opinion wanted to be able to present some type of data that might show what type of effect that current KSHSAA policies might be having and the auditors just were not able to come up with data that addressed the issue. The auditors would have been better off not including the Big 12 study because it was not a large enough sample of colleges, it did not measure enough sports, it was just not comparing apples to apples and it was an unaudited study not even done by the auditors themselves but by another entity.
Sometimes people will present studies, charts, numbers, and other data at you with a motive behind the presentation of the data. Most of the time they are trying to sell you something, a product or possibly an idea. I am just trying to point out to any young people who might be following this topic that as the consumer or the recipient of the information being presented that you must be very careful before you buy the product or the idea. You need to critically analyse the data and you definitely should question the motive of the presenter.
When I first saw the results of this Big 12 study it was presented by the auditors as a possible example that would show that the policies of the KSHSAA were not hindering Kansas high school athletes in participating in college sports. I critically looked at the numbers behind the report as I have described in previous posts and I did not accept the Big 12 study as a fair or valid one for making that conclusion. I am hoping my son and other young people will use the same process to question and analyse information that is being presented to them in the future.