The USCAA Rules Committee recommends that the Board adopt changes, clarifications, and provisions, as discussed below, to its rules for competition in the National Track & Field Championships. These suggested rule changes are based on proposals received after an open solicitation process among participating USCAA teams.

1. Rule Clarifications/Simplifications:

The Rules Committee recommends that a body of seven minor modifications be made to streamline the Rules and place information related to Nationals in the most pertinent format.

Explanation: Whereas historically all information related to Nationals, from scoring to details about its organization, was captured in the official rules, the Rules Committee concurs that two documents should exist to govern the meet: one document, the Rules & Regs, addresses the specifics of competition itself, including lane assignments, scoring, eligibility, and the like; the second document, the Nationals Implementation Guide (to be developed prior to Nationals 2002), will address all information concerning how Nationals is organized and implemented, including policies governing awards, check-in procedures, and the like.

The Rules Committee concurs that if for any reason the Nationals Implementation Guide is not developed, any text removed from the Rules for inclusion in the Guide will be reinstated.

The seven modifications recommended for passage by the Board are detailed below.

The Rules Committee recommends the Board eliminate the provision limiting the number of years alumni are eligible to compete.

Explanation:

The current participation cap was incorporated largely to encourage athletes who had left their companies to start new teams at their new places of employment. In addition, the cap was intended to help "wean" teams of these athletes, replacing them with new corporate recruits.

On both counts, however, the rule as intended is not likely to promulgate the desired effect. First, as much as we would like to believe that every athlete has the inclination, ability, and resources to start a new team, such is not the case. Most individuals simply do not have the necessary combination of aptitudes and opportunities to make this wish a reality. Even those individuals who know how to put a team together, a significant hurdle in itself, often lack the resources to do so in their new companies. If every athlete who left a team were able and inclined to start a new team, the USCAA would not be facing the diminishing participation that is currently our greatest challenge: enough athletes have taken new employment that if creating new teams were such a simple proposition, we would have seen abundant results by now.

Second, veteran alumni are generally among our most loyal and enthusiastic participants. Meeting the alumni participation requirements alone is evidence that these athletes are USCAA stalwarts, those individuals most likely to be supportive of our event and our goals. Disenfranchising these athletes, participants who have shown among the greatest dedication to the sport and to our organization, makes little sense when the USCAA needs as many advocates as it can get. These alumni are often the seasoned athletes who can share their experience, energy, and motivation with younger or newer teammates – individuals who inspire through their longevity, dedication, and enthusiasm. When many teams are struggling with recruitment and retention issues, alumni participants can help create a much-needed spark that brings a team together.

In an era when USCAA participation is not at an all-time high, it seems foolhardy to arbitrarily turn away "hard core" USCAA enthusiasts who can serve as dedicated proselytizers for our event – spokespeople we desperately need to help maintain USCAA visibility and viability. In fact, with greater coordination between individual alumni and our team recruitment committee, these alumni may provide an invaluable entrée into new companies – though they may lack the resources or aptitudes themselves for spearheading a new team, with additional support from our committee we may create more opportunities by allowing their continued participation than by setting them completely adrift from the USCAA once their cap is reached. These alumni may help us broaden our network of potential new corporate participants, and the USCAA is not in a good position to foreclose this opportunity.

The alumni rule cap may have other, unintended consequences that run counter to USCAA participation goals: women may be disproportionately affected, since women are more likely than men to leave employment to assume full-time caregiving responsibilities. Disenfranchising these women, who could otherwise benefit from abundant corporate networking opportunities within their teams, would not seem to serve our participating corporations’ objectives of retaining valuable workers, and providing them with re-entry opportunities.

In reality, few options exist for offering these dedicated athletes continued opportunities to participate, once their ceiling has been reached. Starting a new team in either a Division I or II company is a formidable, if not impossible, challenge, while merging with an existing Division II company has limited potential, based on the specific rules governing those teams. While the original intent in capping their participation is not without merit, in practice it does not serve the USCAA well at this juncture. We should thus eliminate the cap until we have abundant evidence that participation rates are increasing so meteorically that we can afford to decline the energy, enthusiasm, and dedication these alumni offer.

Pro/Con Analysis:

• In terms of purity of principle and of competition, it does not seem less proper to allow an athlete to continue to run with his own teammates than to require them to enter into temporary and contrived arrangements to run with people they do not know and with whom they have no affiliation whatsoever. Further, those whose current employment does not allow them to merge are out of luck, unless they start a new team. So based on where an alum seeks new employment, we have essentially established two classes of alumni: those who, through no fault of their own, must either start a new team or quit altogether; or those who, because they are fortunate enough to be self-employed or to work for a small employer, can attach themselves to another company, no matter how unwieldy or arbitrary the arrangement may be.

• Teams are unlikely to rely on alumni to fill their rosters at the expense of corporate employees, based on the fact that they may use only a max of five alumni to begin with and every new recruit is a prized asset. Alumni may in fact contribute to new athlete retention based on the experience and energy they tend to bring to their teams. And in some cases, use of alumni can allow some smaller teams to enter events they would otherwise have to scratch for lack of sufficient athletes – enhancing, rather than diminishing, competition and participation.

• As discussed earlier, very few athletes are ready, willing, or able to take on the monumental task of launching a new team. The numbers of athletes who have done so is dwarfed by the much larger number who have not, who would never consider it, or who simply are unable to do so. If increasing participation is our ultimate goal, denying longstanding USCAA athletes the opportunity to continue their affiliation seems an unlikely tactic to achieve the desired end.

• Division I and II companies can take equal advantage of the alumni rule provisions, allowing both to encourage maximum participation. Few alumni are in the position to start new teams, in either division, and just as few are likely to meet all the requirements for team combination under Division II competition. Individual alumni, who have demonstrated their longstanding dedication to our events, should not have to bear the cost for the USCAA’s difficulties in attracting new teams and retaining existing participants.

Eliminating the cap on alumni participation would:

• Allow longstanding USCAA athletes to continue their involvement with our event, enhancing competition and fulfilling USCAA objectives of promoting and broadening long-term participation,
• Provide avenues for more senior team members to inspire and coach newer teammates, thus strengthening their teams and demonstrating the value of continued USCAA involvement throughout life and career changes
• Encourage women to stay fit and active by providing a means for ongoing participation despite work-life issues that tend to disproportionately affect their employment
• Create opportunities for team recruitment committee members to access new corporations for focused appeals and presentations.

Current:

"Up to five ex-employees who have previously competed for a team in at least three USCAA National Track & Field Championships (or as many as the team has competed in, whichever is less), are eligible to compete for that team in a maximum of five National Track & Field Championships, or as many Nationals as the ex-employee participated in for that company or its original parent company (whichever is less). Ex-employees may not be employed by another competing USCAA team and may not run in either the Executive Relay or President’s Relay events. No more than two ex-employees can come from a single company. Ex-employees who participated in Nationals exclusively as summer interns or as contractors are not eligible to compete under the alumni provision."

Revised: "Up to five ex-employees who have previously competed for a team in at least three USCAA National Track & Field Championships (or as many as the team has competed in, whichever is less), are eligible to compete for that team, provided they are not employed by another competing USCAA team…."

The Rules Committee recommends the Board revise the rules to allow 30 minutes to make corrections to event results or file a protest.

Explanation: In practice, for the past several years team captains have been given 30 minutes to make corrections to event results, once posted, or to file a protest. Yet the rules officially allow 60 minutes, which if put into practice would result in slowing down the finalization of results and presentation of awards, further lengthening the schedule. Changing the rules to reflect actual practice will make it easier to keep the meet on schedule.

The Rules Committee has agreed to work with the NIT to make posting of results simpler, clearer, and easier – thus facilitating team captains’ work if changes to results or protests are filed.

Current: "Protest forms will not be considered if received more than sixty minutes after the results posting is announced…. Team Captains are given sixty minutes to give any corrections to the head scorer… Once the sixty-minute Protest Period has expired, updated results will again be posted and those Team Captains having submitted corrections during the initial Protest Period will be given an additional thirty minutes, at this point, to ensure that their corrections have been included in the updated results posting."

Revised: "Protest forms will not be considered if received more than 30 minutes after the results posting is announced…. Team Captains have 30 minutes to file a protest or to give any corrections to the head scorer… Team captains have an additional 30 minutes to review revised results postings before the results become final."

The Rules Committee recommends the Board adopt random draw procedures for seeding prelims.

Explanation: Seeding for prelims is currently based on results from the previous year’s competition. New teams are seeded last, in the least preferential lanes. The current rule is biased in favor of incumbent teams and event winners, is unwieldy and complicated for meet organizers, and is patently unfair to new teams.

Current: "Heat and lane assignments for preliminary events will be balanced on the basis of team placing in that event at the previous year's National Meet. For teams not represented or not entered in the previous year, seeding will be based on receipt of entry fee. Teams that did not compete in an event in the previous year's Nationals will be seeded after all competing teams have been seeded. These remaining teams will be seeded based on how the team finished in the overall Team Standings from the previous year's Nationals. Brand new teams will be seeded after all other teams, based on receipt of entry fee."

Revised: "Heat and lane assignments for preliminary events will be based on random draw."

The Rules Committee recommends the Board endorse revising the weight of the shot for women throwers, based on data gathered from USAT&F Masters competition.

Explanation: Currently, males 60+ throw an 8 lb. shot, while all women, even those over 60, must throw 4 kilo (8lbs. 4 oz.). The Rules Committee agrees that it is unfair to require women to throw a heavier implement than their male counterparts, and suggests that we adopt standards more in line with Masters competition, in which women 50+ throw a 3 kilo shot. The cost of purchasing new implements is not considerable, nor is there any advantage to intentionally making it more difficult for more senior athletes to participate; thus, there are no perceived barriers to making this change. The Rules Committee will verify these data for final review and acceptance.

The Rules Committee has convened a working subgroup to review the USCAA’s current divisional structure and to assess the need for and desirability of changing the four-division model. Long-range effects on vigor of competition, meet schedule, and awards will be addressed.

Explanation: Some divisions are quite large, while others are poorly represented; some teams can take home trophies and medals with comparative ease, while others win relatively few, despite solid performance. This effort will reassess whether the current division structure is optimal for encouraging level and competitive participation.

The Rules Committee recommends that the USCAA eliminate the collapsing of age groups for Division I road races, as it did for Division II road races last year.

Explanation: This change was made for Division II this year with no apparent ill effect on competition, and for consistency and fairness (as well as for ease of scoring) the Committee recommends the same change be implemented for Division I. Collapsing age groups is a disincentive for older runners, who often wind up competing against athletes much younger than themselves; we would like to be in the position of encouraging these athletes to continue to participate as they mature, rather than creating barriers to their desire to remain active.

The Rules Committee recommends that the Sprint Relay be modified to require at least one of the women athletes to be over 30.

Explanation: This modification would provide women athletes with greater opportunities to run on the track, to reflect that as a group USCAA women are maturing and there is a greater component of 30+ and 40+ women on today’s teams than may have been true when these events were first formulated. As USCAA women age, there are fewer designated opportunities for them to contribute on the track. For example, for Division I there are 12 relay legs for Open women, but just 3 for women 30-39, and only 7 for all women 30-60+. While at one point our teams may have been flush with open women, at this juncture we now have many more women in their 30s and 40s who should have a greater opportunity to participate in events dedicated for their age groups on the track. Since there are two legs for women in this event, it does not seem unduly onerous to designate one slot for an over 30 participant.

Sprint Relay: Six runners, with at least two women AND one runner 40 years of age or older (in addition to the minimum two women)…

Sprint Relay: Six runners, with at least two women, one over 30, AND one runner 40 years of age or older (in addition to the minimum two women)…

The Rules Committee recommends that the President’s Relay, as currently constituted, be modified and renamed to encourage wider participation and quality competition.

Explanation: The intent of this event was to invite participation from corporate members at the highest levels of management. In recent years, however, fewer and fewer teams have been able to field athletes for this event, and participation has dwindled to just 3 teams in two of the last three years. The event’s integrity has also become diluted with the advent of team combining, in which a President’s Relay – intended to be constituted of one corporation’s top hierarchy – no longer makes sense.

The Rules Committee recommends modifying the event as follows:

1. Keep existing event legs: 800m, 400m, 800m;
2. Require all participants to be from the same company.

Participants in the President's Relay must be at the officer level of their company or their direct reports, and must be primarily and significantly responsible for shaping and directing business objectives, direction, and strategy, with accountability for delivering results.

Three runners, each an officer or anyone who reports to the president, or their direct reports, and all 40 years of age or older (35 or older in Division II), running in order: 800m, 400m, 800m.

Revised:

Three runners, all from the same company, each at the level of manager of managers (or the equivalent) or above and all 30 years of age or older, running in order: 800m, 400m, 800m.