All,
I’ve had a lot of responses about the
information I recently sent out which concerned the efforts to repeal
the 6 Man Rule in Alabama High School Soccer. A lot of the inquiries
have been, “Exactly what is the 6 Man Rule and why does it need to be
repealed?”
The six man rule is the name that
soccer coaches, players and parents have given a rule by AHSAA
(Alabama High School Athletic Association) restricting involvement of
players during the “off season” of their sport. The real name of the
rule is the FIFTY PERCENT RULE.
Here’s the wording from the AHSAA’s
website:
http://www.ahsaa.com/eligibility/basicrules-eligibility.asp
Fifty Percent Rule
- Participation during the school
year by students from any high school team (varsity and B-team) on a
non-school team during the off-season is limited to 50 percent of the
number of players required to play the game of that sport (i.e., three
in basketball, six in soccer, five in baseball, etc.)
Note:
In each
sport, only the specified number of students participating on a
non-school team during the school year may be placed on the same high
school team roster the following season. Those students cannot be
interchanged on the school team roster.
The rule does not
apply to seniors who have completed their high school eligibility in
that sport nor to middle and junior high school students who will not
play on a high school team the following season.
Soccer people call it the 6 Man
Rule because in soccer it means that an outside team (such as an AYSA
club team) that plays during the high school off-season can only have
six players from one high school team on their team – if those players
intend to play on the high school team in the following spring high
school season. Off-season is considered the fall of each year since
High School soccer’s season runs from February through May of each
year.
In other sports it affects a different number of players. If
your club baseball or softball team plays during the fall they can
only have 5 players that intend upon playing in the spring for one
high school team. In basketball the number is three players. The
rule does not affect teams playing during the summer months which is
when most club baseball, softball, basketball, and football teams play so those
teams can have as many players as they want from one high school. In
fact many of those club teams have line-ups that are the same or
almost the same as a school’s varsity line-up.
The idea behind the rule is that high school student athletes
should be allowed to play a variety of sports and should not be forced
or coerced to concentrate year round on one sport. In the past there
have been high school coaches who “strongly suggested” that their
varsity school teams play as a unit all year round. The unspoken
precept is that those players who decide not to play on the “chosen”
club team would find less playing time when the high school season
rolls around. It’s an admirable goal to banish such coercion but the
reality of the matter is that it affects a few sports
disproportionably to the benefits it provides.
Many people affiliated with soccer also suspect that a reason for the
rule is to reduce the out of school activity options for boys, making
them available to play high school football in the fall. Also, this
could be why many of the smaller schools might favor the rule
remaining in place. It makes it
easier for them to fill the football roster if other options, such as
club soccer are reduced. The fact that it has even more pronounced
effect on reducing options for girls is not recognized as
significant in a state where scant
attention to Title IX is paid.
There are some exemptions for
the so-called individual sports (swimming, golf, track, cross country,
wrestling), which are not really considered “team sports” as such.
Other high school extra-curricular activities such as chorus and band
are not included – so the idea that concentrating on one activity
rather than being “well rounded” must be an athletic concept applying
to "team" sports only. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek.)
As I noted above – school
softball, basketball and baseball teams (and to a lesser extent football) use the
summer months to practice and play together which eliminates the
effect the rule has on those sports. The leaves just two sports for
which the rule is a real hardship - volleyball and soccer.
In both sports (soccer and
volleyball) college scholarships are given based to a large extent
upon a player’s performance in the club season rather that the high
school season. In both sports skill development is primarily done by
the clubs rather than the schools. Ask any high school soccer coach
and they will tell you that they have little time during the school
season to concentrate on ball skill development. They rely on club
teams to perform that service for their players.
But the real problem with the
6 Man Rule is the net effect of reducing the number of club teams at
U14 and older. Many players and club teams drop out after the U14 age
because the teams can't form due to the limitations. It has a
horrific effect upon club soccer teams in rural areas where there are
only a few high schools. Fewer local club teams also mean less
opportunity to develop skills by poor student athletes who cannot
afford to travel long distances to play club soccer. Fewer local club
teams have a direct effect upon the number of skilled players for the
high school teams.
Here's a personal
recent example: Of the two Decatur area club soccer teams I
co-coached last fall, the players represented eight different high
schools from a radius of about 50 miles.
Why such a large area? Do the
kids want to make 50, 60 and 70 mile round trips? Do the parents of
kids that aren't old enough to drive think so highly of our coaching
abilities that they want to drive their children long distances three
times a week, just to play for us? Obviously not (especially obvious
- if you've seen me coach).
The problem is that the local
club teams in their area either already have six players from their
high school or the local teams can't form in rural areas because all the
local soccer players attend the same high school.
That's not the worst effect the rule has. Lots of local Decatur
kids have to be cut from the local teams that practice within a stone's throw of
their own houses because they are not one of the six players from
their high school that the coach chooses to keep. This is a critical
problem for those players of poor economic backgrounds who cannot
afford to travel long distances to practice. If they don't make a
local team their club careers are basically over. They can’t play
club soccer because they can’t afford or won’t drive long distances to
play on another club team. And because they don’t play club soccer,
they never develop the skills needed to play high school soccer. The
net result is a club system of mostly white kids from upper
income families; and this in a state with a large contingent of
Hispanic families who grew up playing the game from infancy.
In summary, we have
-
a rule that only affects a couple of sports.
It should be noted that both sports (soccer and volleyball) are not the historic
sports (baseball and basketball) whose excesses contributed to the
reasons behind the rules in the first place.
-
The rule adversely affects
a school players chance to win a college scholarship.
-
The rule adversely
affects the development of skills needed to play high school soccer.
-
The rule directly results in a large number of players quitting the
sport years before their bodies and skill development allow them to
play at the high school level.
-
The rule directly results in fewer U14
and older teams in rural areas and indirectly results in fewer teams
in urban areas.
-
The rule directly results in fewer opportunities for
Hispanic and African American and lower socio-economic players to
develop the skills (in the club system) which will allow them to play
high school soccer.
-
A rule which other states do not have or have chosen to repeal.
The other states in the South have
realized the folly of enforcing such a rule and only Alabama still
tries to enforce rules which limit participation in sports “out of
season”. These are the same states whose players often receive college
scholarships from our home state colleges.
-
A rule whose guardians would argue protects high school football by
forcing players to choose playing football by inhibiting other
activities during the football season. A rule it should be noted
that, even if true, inhibits girls who do not have any desire to play
football. This could be considered a violation of Title IX
opportunities.
-
A rule which seemingly protects
small and rural areas for football
with the net effect that many of those areas do not and probably will
not ever have high school soccer teams.
In other words we have a rule which does not do what it
intended to do, and despite it’s original purpose only really affects two sports,
results in fewer Alabama athletes receiving college scholarships,
results in a lower skilled game, and also inhibits the growth of the
sports (volleyball and soccer) in our state.
Myth:
If the 6 Man Rule is
repealed the top schools will form teams that play year round as one
team. That will lead to those schools dominating the rest of the
state. And players at those schools will be forced to play on those
year round teams by subtle or not-so-subtle means of coercion.
Reality:
It should be noted that if AHSAA repeals the rule there are still many
other AHSAA rules which will protect the student athlete from abuse.
Check out the AHSAA Eligibility rules.
At the same time, you can see that currently the only sports really
affected by the 6 Man rule are fall volleyball and soccer. Teams can
already practice all summer and during their seasons and still will
not be able to play on outside teams during their school season so the
only time that they can't currently play together is the fall club
season.
For those doom and gloom purveyors
who would tie a drop of the 6 Man Rule to an imbalance in the sport, I
point out the fact that in soccer and volleyball there have been very
few state champions over the years. In all the years that there
have been soccer state championships, only three schools (Cullman,
Gadsden and Fort Payne) that are located outside the big 4
metropolises (Birmingham, Huntsville, Montgomery and Mobile) have won
state championships. That is not by accident. The
championships have been won year after year by a very small limited
number of schools, which also (not surprisingly) happen to be located
in some of the most exclusive higher income areas of our state and in
areas where there are sufficient numbers of club teams to get around
the limitations imposed by the 6 Man Rule. A repeal of the rule will
allow more fall club teams in less populated areas of the state which
will allow the high schools in those areas a much better chance of
competing with the dominant soccer powers. The net effect of
repealing the rule will be a huge rise in the skill level of all
school teams.
NOTE:
As a last minute change, the proponents of the repeal
request have asked that the repeal of the rule apply only to the 5A
and 6A school classifications. They feel that will allow the
repeal to pass without the resistance expected from the 1A-4A schools
which are concerned about the loss of athletes to school fall football
teams. Also the 1A-4A schools have shown a marked resistance to
repealing the rule because the feeling among those schools' leaders is
that student athletes should concentrate only on one sport per year so
as to not adversely affect academics.
A repeal will result in gains all
around for the high schools and the sports of soccer and volleyball. This
is the best opportunity in years to
repeal the rule so take a moment now. It is important that you go to
http://www.nasl.com/forms/6%20player%20Letter.doc and download
the letter and get signatures from your high school coaches, athletic
director and principal. Then fax a copy of the letter to Dan Washburn
at AHSAA (Fax 334-240-3389) and confirm it to JD Huey with "Committee
for Change" (cell 205-370-2336, email
jdh@abc3340.com).
Ken Gamble
